India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Sanku]

"Sanku">>
Well I thought it was common knowledge for most folks on this thread like most of the stuff we are rehashing, this was discussed many times before.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/ec ... /index.htm


BUt in the same link, lotsa lotsa beebuls have applied for extenjun Saar?

Neela-ji, is the use of pinglish reflection of the fact that some of your statements are of the same level? If not use English.

Dear SIR the statement of retiring in 20 years (62 extensions given + 20 not given) -- INCLUDES THE EXTENSION.

Without extension they would be dead NOW.

Awwww!!! Why the whine now under ROTFL!? Mate , reliability engineering and QA is a field in itself. What do you have to refute safety claims? Nyet right?
No scientific backing=>No opinion. Simples!

That is true, the the reactor date extension has been very had hoc and arbitrary manner. A number of people question why reliability engineering and QA were set aside during extension.

You can easily check the web for the major issues that are around the sudden life extension and lack of supporting evidence for the same.

Oh and BTW just as reactor decommissioning is difficult to predict, new NPPs planned for 2020-2030 are too early to predict, it does not mean they wont come up.
Think Sanku .

You are clutching at straws. You want to believe they will come up when at best 4 are in some what of a planning/early activity stage.

You can believe in anything for all I care, however I am constrained to point out that in real world, 82 reactors are set for retirement as of now and only 4 reactors are at very preliminary stages.

That is reality --> some people also sold 123 as 200 NPPs till 2050 type of argument. But when rubber meets the road.

No,but that the question is not whether US will rely heavily on nuclear, that question was answered in 1970s.

Leave it that then ! You come across as a total weirdo taking off on tangents and arguing on points no one is even discussing.

Look being churlish when your fantasy is ruptured by reality is not going to help. Come to light, bad mouthing me when I show that the current state of NPP construction is not helpful.

You brought up the US NPP discussion, not I.

The question is that whether the nuclear industry has any hope in US or not -- with 4 ground breaking and 82 reactors up for decommissioning.
The answer is quite difficult to get away from.
?

Yep, apparently the answer quite difficult for you. You ask a question and you answer it yourself despite conflicting reports. Dissonance is setting in. Your admission that extensions are being applied for is proof and you resort to "TEPCO style tactics" arguments.

Personal attacks only show your frustrations, why are you taking this so personally. Since you brought up US NPPs in a India thread, we discussed it. What can I do if the data shows what you did not expect.

Calm down Sanku. Relax.
Lots of things have been said here on this forum and this ain#t new or shocking.

Look dear, I suspect you are quite upset, but I am pretty calm.

If US NPP industry dies, mere baap ka kuch nahi jaata hai (what goes of my father onlee) -- I can discuss it quite dispassionately.

Can you?

[Sanku]

KL Sir,

Neela getting into personal attack mode when data does not back up is a bad idea. Just saying.

Cheers.

[vishvak]

To have nuclear energy in India, Indian way is needed if we dont want to end up like US and Japan.

A 100% agreement. No self-respecting country should be developing their energy sector "somebody else's way". Again, the delay in NPP surge in Bharat is due to institutional incompetence and policy inertia, and not due to economic or environmental shortcomings of the technology or lack of technology options. But then, that is just a microcosm of the factors delaying resurgence of Bharatvarsh as a whole.

KL

So how come no one in USA was any less secular then NaMo for decades after tens of nuclear plants operating, while NaMo is till not as secular as politicians in USA or Japan even after a nuclear power plant is coming up. Who suppressed protests when nuclear power plants were being constructed in USA, during operation and even now and still got away without being called not too secular at all?

What will it take to make NaMo, or any other CM in India, as secular as politicians in international first world countries even after setting up a nuclear plant?

[Theo_Fidel]

And oh, a very very very important point I forgot to add. When you centralize generation into a grid, you gain enormously. How so ? If you put small distributed plants locally, you will have to size the plant for MAX power demand locally. So , either you have to ration the available power or limit the no folks you supply power to.

Tend to agree that a grid is enormously important. Some one once called the electric grid the most complicated and most delicate machine ever built by man.

The logic behind distributed power is for those who are off the grid. About 50% of India is still off the grid. And it costs too much for the last mile of connection.

The only reason we are still talking about Uranium reserves is because Nuclear power is such a marginal niche energy source. Less than 2% of global energy use per the EIA. Even the world consumes roughly 40,000 tons per annum mined with another 15,000-20,000 tons equivalent coming from the Megatons program. For Nuclear to be relavant in the coal+pollution debate it must have a realistic plan to step in for at least 50% our energy needs. But even a 10 fold increase only gets us to 20%. And even at this level we will consume 650,000-800,000 tons of Uranium annually. This is the entire world economically viable reserves, all gone in 1 year. For 20% of our power. This is why things like sea extraction become such 'obvious' proven sources. There are now some who talk of peak Uranium. The high grade ore discoveries have all been made now. Newer discoveries are of poorer and poorer grades. The west has a vested interest in concealing this truth just like the GCC conceals the true oil depletion levels.

The truth is we don't know what Nuclear costs in the Indian context. It has never been openly bid, it has never been independently regulated, the DAE has access to free 0% interest equity from the GOI and still has struggled to make headway so far. It is not certain it is viable here, esp. in the new nuclear technology context using enriched Uranium. DAE has older un-enriched technology which also comes with lower burn-up and more waste. One thing we do know is that we don't have domestic Uranium, despite Tummalapalle. We also don't have the enrichment needed. The first time some costs are coming out is when Westinghouse and Areva are telling NPCIL what these things really cost in a private sector testing/warranty/maintenance/liability context.

Only a few large countries have been fool hardy enough to try the capital expenditure involved for nuclear power and most have been quite disappointed at the effort to payoff ratio. The moment someone has tried to lean on Nuclear for a substantial portion of their power some realities have presented themselves. The USA, Russia & Japan had horrific accidents that have caused their entire existing fleet to be put at jeopardy. Beyond that the thing has gotten expensive at an exponential rate with no indication of costs slowing down.

I still see no one will take on the question of how exactly Nuclear is going to free us from coal. Everyone is concerned about coal pollution no one has realistic answer.

I still stand on what I have said at the beginning. After doing the numbers only 2 options realistically can deal with the scale needed. Nuclear breeder technology or Renewable's Solar+Wind. All others are pretenders including present U-235 cycle. The sooner we deal with reality the better rather than believing some magical silver bullet exists.

[alexis]

India is facing a lot of difficulties in extracting coal; mainly due to land/environmental/social issues. Also as per some mining consultants, Coal India can extract more coal from its reserves only if disproportionate (though still profitable) capital and operational expenditure is incurred which sarkaari babus are loathe to do (fear of being accused of corruption). Renewable energy will and should be the main focus for India; however nuclear power cannot be disregarded. renewable energy cannot be more than 10-15% of power without strengthening our grid comprehensively. This requires massive capex (though being undertaken by PGCIL, nowhere near the required levels) and better forecast of wind/solar radiation The environmental/social costs (as demonstrated in this forum and social unrest against land acquisition for coal mines) of coal are higher than nuclear. Many private players are unable to make the coal mines allotted to them operational due to a plethora of factors. Hence ramping up of coal capacity is nowhere near anticipated in the five year plan.

Nuclear fuel disposal is an issue which needs to be tackled; however actual accidents in nuclear power plants are very rare.

Since India's needs are so huge, no single source can meet the same. We need to add as much capacity as possible using whatever fuel is available. Till nuclear breeder technology matures, we will have to depend on LWRs.

[Theo_Fidel]

Since India's needs are so huge, no single source can meet the same. We need to add as much capacity as possible using whatever fuel is available. Till nuclear breeder technology matures, we will have to depend on LWRs.

Ah! But you are assuming breeder technology is not mature. After 80 years of research and $ Trillion spent. There are clear physical limits to practical breeders. All who have tried have failed. And every thing has been tried, including most components of our own Thorium breeding 3-Stage. The USA was sure it would transition to Breeders till a serious of fires and crippled reactors and very disappointing real world breeding performance essentially terminated their program. The media will tell you it is because of the bomb, don't believe them, the program was dead and proliferation was just the last straw. The French weRE sure they could crack it till a series of Sodium leaks and enforced down time made them make the incredible discovery that breeder reactors consume more electricity than they contribute. The Super Phenix for instance still consumes 30-100 MW of electricity an incredible 15 years later as operators wait for radiation levels to lower in the liquid Sodium. They might wait for 20 more years before that part can be decommissioned. The Sodium must be kept melted at all times even during the frequent down periods. The Monju reactor in Japan discovered why this is important the hard way when a fire a few months after startup caused the lines to solidify and took another 15 years! to restart. At which point it promptly had another accident when a ladder, of all things, fell into the reactor, all this time it has been consuming power and not generating any. I can make a confidant bet that the Bhavini PFBR in Kalpakkam too will make the same incredible discovery soon that it consumes more electricity than it produces or the performance is just not worth it.

As we come reluctantly back to coal the key problem is we have not invested in coal technology anything like we have invested in Nuclear. Certainly we don't want to pay the farmers/citizens we kick of the land to get at the coal underneath. We don't want to pay fully for rehabbing the land and returning it to citizens in a reasonable time period.

Vina is right to say that the present situation with coal transport by rail and pollution is unacceptable. The idea was to do ship transport but things like the stopping of Sethu project have limited our coastal shipping options. The reason we ship coal is because our transmission grid is not strong enough to ship power long distances. With new HVDC lines one can ship 10,000 MW of power across 2000 km with 3%-6% in line losses. We did not have this technology earlier.

[V_Raman]

my prediction -- india will be the first country to deploy solar in a decentralized fashion on a massive scale -- similar to mobile phones -- not much centralized upfront infra required. if we can manufacture the panels locally, in a decentralized manner, and affordably. typically indian.

we just dont seem to like/want/cant execute on big centralized long-term projects that require lot of movement of people.

most of the centralized power generation will go to drive industries.

[KLP Dubey]

Bring knowledge to the table saab and then speak. People are willing to listen.

I have in fact brought knowledge to the table and summarized it appropriately. I am sure people are listening, even if you are not.

Theo_Fidel wrote: You bring no data and yet you claim my simple numbers are debunked. How so, where is your scientific temperament. Why don't you run the numbers yourself.

The "numbers have been run". You can take this assertion with salt if you like.

Theo_Fidel wrote:Let me tell you the DAE very much knows these numbers and has acknowledged them quietly. They just can't say it publicly or they will be out of job tomorrow.

If you know that much about the DAE's "quiet acknowledgments" then you shouldn't be advertising it on the internet.

Theo_Fidel wrote:No one said Nuclear is not worthwhile.The risks vs rewards are not good right now. And studies show it is getting worse with time not better.

You should tell that to all these guys (including fossil fuel "giants"), who according to your reasoning should be all complete idiots. Note there is no BS "analysis" from "experts" in these links, only information.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... /123716/on

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 576841.ece

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -b-l-bagra

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 938849.ece

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) has now initiated talks with Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) as part of its debt raising programme to finance its ambitious Rs 3,00,000-crore investment plan for the 12th Plan Period....

NPCIL, which has a turnover of Rs 8,000 crore, is currently sitting on cash surplus of Rs 15,000 crore, which will be leveraged to raise finances for its expansion.

And now, a little "analysis":

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/56a84578 ... z1yZi6iK1T

Rex Tillerson, who has led the world’s biggest publicly quoted company since 2006, said nuclear power’s importance was so great that policymakers would not allow any decline. As a supplier of fossil fuels, Exxon would stand to benefit if governments chose to reduce nuclear power’s contribution to future energy supplies....

“There is a big educational process that’s going to have to be undertaken by the industry and policymakers if policymakers seriously believe nuclear energy has to be part of their future energy policy, and I personally believe it has to be. It’s too important in terms of all the benefits it brings.”

Clever - and appropriately conservative - choice of words.

Theo_Fidel wrote:After Fukushima the cost of insurance in the West has made it likely no new reactor will ever be financed and built privately. Period. This is what killed American Nuclear power not some imagined foolishness, hard nosed economic calculation.

From the same FT article above:

But Mr Tillerson said in an interview that the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan would impose nothing more than a “delay in the timeline of nuclear’s role”.

Fukushima is nothing but a blip - an unfortunate one nonetheless. Get real. You talk as though the incident will become some kind of permanent scar on the nuclear power industry. All complete BS and media-manufactured nonsense. Japan is already restarting its reactors. Energy companies are sitting on huge piles of money that can be used to build NPPS when it is time to jump in. Loan-based financing will not come in a fell swoop, but it will surely come.

Here is what the people who "make the rules" say:

http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/wha ... ar-energy/

We have on this thread a hilarious situation, wherein the resurgence of nuclear power in India, China, and even the US is taking place before your very eyes and you continue to deny it.

Theo_Fidel wrote:Tell me again how Nuclear can take on coal then you tilt at that windmill. I say Nuclear power needs to get off life support before it speaks disparagingly of the industry that really keeps the fires of the nation lit.

There is absolutely no reliable scientific or economic rationale currently that prevents nuclear energy from becoming the main clean energy supplier for the 21st century and beyond. Even the "stagnant" US nuclear power sector produces almost as much electricity today as the *entire Indian power sector*.

What will you say if somebody told you that uranium from seawater will be technologically competitive with mining in a decade, if not sooner ? Even forgetting the next-generation reactors and fuel cycles that will come online ?

What will you say if somebody told you that the best technologies for doing this are not currently owned by the "nuclear sector" at all ?

What will you say if somebody told you that in the not-too-distant future, nuclear power plants may very well have nameplates that read "[Your Favorite Oil&Gas Explorer/Refiner/]" or "[Your Favorite Coal&Gas Power Utility]" ?

My guess: you will say they are an idiot and produce some outdated and near-worthless public source information to refute it.

Alternate approach: Keep quiet. Connect the dots. Watch and learn. And stop the anti-nuclear rants.

In summary: Coal ---> Gas ----> Nuclear. That is very likely the energy future for the 21st century and beyond. The powers-that-be are planning on it.

Namaskar,

KL

[vic]

On a different track, it seems we will be setting up 8 more PHWRs apart from 4 ongoing ones. So that makes 12x750 MW indigenous reactors. So why don't we further accelerate by more PHWRs rather than costly LWRs??? Are LWRs better in some respect than PHWRs? Why the world has concentrated on LWRs in preference to PHWRs?

Also in order to put pressure on France, USA, Japan- why don't we invite south Korea to put in their bids?

[Theo_Fidel]

Bhai saab,

Did you even bother reading that Rx Tillerson article. Here is what he says.

Nuclear power’s share of the global energy mix will be unchanged in 30 years’ time in spite of the disaster in Japan, according to the chief executive of ExxonMobil.

He added: “Ultimately, my expectation is the component of nuclear energy that will be in the future mix 25 years from now, or 30 years from now, is probably not changed.”

He thinks Nuclear will 'probably' maintain its present 2%-5% share. Note that he is not entirely sure. He thinks strong policy maker action, read as free money, is necessary even for this. Note that Exxon itself is not going to invest a dime in this.

The question we are discussing is replacing coal remember. Though I scaled it back to 20% of the energy mix. How is that calculation coming along or are you going to resort to the 'experts are always right' strategy?

And yes LIC, ONGC and OIL are apparently now the experts on future nuclear viability. Has it occurred to you that they are on board because the banks, who know a thing or two, won't touch these projects with a barge pole. Not just that, MMS has directed these companies to mortgage their futures to feed the Nuclear beast. When ONGC is unable to produce oil and drill for gas is this the best use of their resources? It is MMS's driving insanity that is placing these Maharatna's in jeopardy. And this is a sign that nuclear power is viable. Well done, well done....

As far as the promises, some of us remember when the nuclear establishment promised us 50,000 MW by year 2000. We know how that turned out.

While you are at it read the Citibank analysis of the economics of Nuclear power.

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf

To make it easy for hard headed folks the title says, "New Nuclear - The economics says No." Is that easy enough for you.

[KLP Dubey]

He thinks Nuclear will 'probably' maintain its present 2%-5% share. Note that he is not entirely sure. He thinks strong policy maker action, read as free money, is necessary even for this.

Did you read what I posted ? I also said "Clever - and appropriately conservative - choice of words".

Note that Exxon itself is not going to invest a dime in this.

Let me make a last attempt, then I'm done. Your approach is to try and construct projections merely from reading public source data and news reports. This has become a cottage industry that has created way too many "internet experts". In your case, you also throw in all sorts of wild statements and confident assertions like the above.

At some point I hope you realize that such an approach is leading to too many contradictions in your conclusions. The reason for that is simple: you don't have the key information needed to arrive at the right conclusions. Please understand. I stepped in to give you a little information/illustrations/hints that might help.

The question we are discussing is replacing coal remember. Though I scaled it back to 20% of the energy mix. How is that calculation coming along or are you going to resort to the 'experts are always right' strategy?

I already gave you the answer. BTW your entire harangue about there not being enough nuclear fuel to go around in comparision to koila, has entirely collapsed, hasn't it ? As a matter of fact, nuclear fuel supplies are virtually limitless and can be economically extracted from the ocean.

Nuclear power is also an ideal partner for water desalination (especially with reverse osmosis membranes). The economics of running desalination plants with nuclear power (as opposed to fossil power) are compelling and the societal benefits (symbiotic generation of clean nuclear power and clean water) are huge. Seawater uranium extraction - already becoming competitive on its own - will get a further boost if one directly uses the concentrated brine rejected by desalination plants.

And yes LIC, ONGC and OIL are apparently now the experts on future nuclear viability.

When *you* are an expert, and so are banks, why can't...ummmm.... ENERGY AND FUELS companies be experts too ? Do you have any idea at all who some of the major stakeholders in the US nuclear industry are ? You made a big deal about the AP1000 reactors being installed in Georgia. Did you check who owns the Vogtle plant ?

Has it occurred to you that they are on board because the banks, who know a thing or two, won't touch these projects with a barge pole.

None of these companies are jumping on board just to bolster NPCIL or because somebody else told them to sign up. They are scenting good business. This whole story you are cooking up about NPCIL forming joint ventures (or possibly bond financing in the future) because "banks are not wanting to touch NPP projects" is a sham. You talk as if Indian banks are instead delighted to finance coal power plants. Anyone reading this thread can do a Google search to see how that is going. No need to post any links.

Not just that, MMS has directed these companies to mortgage their futures to feed the Nuclear beast. When ONGC is unable to produce oil and drill for gas is this the best use of their resources? It is MMS's driving insanity that is placing these Maharatna's in jeopardy. And this is a sign that nuclear power is viable. Well done, well done....

Your replies are now reduced to wild speculations that have no basis at all. Your theory about Manmohan Singh telling PSUs to invest specifically in nuclear power is just ridiculous. According to you the whole thing is just one giant conspiracy of some kind. The PM encouraging capital investment by PSUs in infrastructure is one thing, but there is absolutely no bias or special treatment being directed towards nuclear power outside of its own merits. Now you are flailing around and dragging in wild claims that PSUs are being "driven to ruin in the bargain". I don't know how you come up with these stories!

While you are at it read the Citibank analysis of the economics of Nuclear power.

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf

To make it easy for hard headed folks the title says, "New Nuclear - The economics says No." Is that easy enough for you.

To make it even easier for hard-headed folks, this analysis is for nuclear plants in the UK. We are talking about India, and tangentially China and the US. As we speak, India and China are installing new reactors and planning many more. Since you didn't read the report beyond the headline, you fail to realize that it is a basically a pitch for government guarantees to lower the bank's risk and (get this) "prevent European plants from falling well behind China and India".

Predictably, the "report" ends by saying that the government needs to provide additional support/guarantees to enable bank financing. Duh. As if the Europeans are not doing that for "clean coal" already! If I remember correctly they have locked in subsidies for clean coal till 2025 or something like that, and still banks consider new clean coal plants unviable.

There is no merit in the arguments you are making. All empty noise and no substance. Just regurgitating data from various internet sources and thinking you understand nuclear power vis-a-vis coal is naive, to say the least.

Best Wishes,

Kishen Lal

[Sanku]

On a different track, it seems we will be setting up 8 more PHWRs apart from 4 ongoing ones. So that makes 12x750 MW indigenous reactors. So why don't we further accelerate by more PHWRs rather than costly LWRs??? Are LWRs better in some respect than PHWRs? Why the world has concentrated on LWRs in preference to PHWRs?

Well this was discussed before too. PHWRs are better than LWRs for a number of reasons (safety, no need for enrichment, performance, cost etc) and this was choice that Indian nuclear establishment consciously took after examining alternatives in 50s under HJ Bhabha.

However the US establishment went with LWRs since they were first to get on to them, so partial historical reasons. Something like India moving to advance GSM based telephony but US lagging behind (in 90s)

Potentially the US establishment (and Japanese and German NPP industry are merely derivative if not the exact same people) may have undertaken a thorough reassessment of the program, but what happened was that in 70s the NPP industry essentially ground to a halt. Since 70s, no new reactors have been commissioned and only now after 40+ years are some movement seen, even then it is minuscule with best case of 4 reactors at 2 locations and those two are at very nascent stage right now.

In such a scenario, it makes no economic sense to revisit the entire established legacy system to create anything new. The money spent in R&D of alternate types of nuclear energy system has not seen to be worthwhile in US and if US can not do it, pretty much no one in the west can.

Since Indians forged a lonely and different path, we came to alternate answers.

=======================================================================

Why then is India going for expensive LWRs? Thats just Man mohan Singh-ji the ati-pujya PM of India who is honest and can no do wrong and must be spoken of in awed whispers because he is our PM, decided that it would be a good thing. All of a sudden.

The same man who wailed in the parliament that nuclear tests are bad because we are peaceful and what will others think and what will happen to the economy and so on and other such Pyajama shivering after Pok-II tests in Rajya Sabha.

So net net -- apart from a large outflow of Forex to US and France etc -- for dubious gains in India, and of course starving our domestic program of the same funds, and stopping the monetary allocation for mining etc -- nothing will be gained.

This is a triple whammy for Indian domestic nuclear sector
1) Starve of funds
2) Suddenly hoist technology which they had deliberately eschewed in the past.
3) Shut down THE prime research reactor -- which had just been refurbished at great cost a few years back and in general split the establishment in two, reducing the potency of strategic sector.

Of course we end up with expensive millstones around our neck attached to chains in US and elsewhere which will be yanked if we ever want to do nuclear testing etc.

There could be no better way of supporting the Indian nuclear program.

This is like Enron ^ Dhabol for Indian Nuclear Industry and of course just like Dabhol, all for the good of the country.

Lets just hope that god is kind and the suppliers meet the fate of Enron before they can start really sc**** India.

[Sanku]

Dubey-ji; I some where read in your post that you were quoting vogtel plant as a reference.

So here goes.
http://news.yahoo.com/groups-nearly-1-b ... 10565.html

Nearly $1 Billion Vogtle Nuclear Reactor Cost Overrun Echoes Earlier Warning About "Boondoggle" Project

Even though the Vogtle reactor project got its federal license just three months ago, the controversial nuclear reactors are already in trouble. The latest problem: A cost overrun of nearly $1 billion in 2011 dollars, according to groups that warned in February that the Vogtle expansion effort is a boondoggle that could hurt ratepayers and (depending on the status of a pending Solyndra-style federal loan guarantee) U.S. taxpayers.

Read it all, an excellent insight into pricing mechanisms and real world economics of NPPs.

Me thinks Vogtel will never happen, costs will kill it -- any way for time being, it can be added to projections.

More here

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/secret ... 2012-05-23

[AbhiJ]

India can Wait for NSG Membership: NSG

[vishvak]

Dubey-ji; I some where read in your post that you were quoting vogtel plant as a reference.

So here goes.
http://news.yahoo.com/groups-nearly-1-b ... 10565.html

Nearly $1 Billion Vogtle Nuclear Reactor Cost Overrun Echoes Earlier Warning About "Boondoggle" Project

Even though the Vogtle reactor project got its federal license just three months ago, the controversial nuclear reactors are already in trouble. The latest problem: A cost overrun of nearly $1 billion in 2011 dollars, according to groups that warned in February that the Vogtle expansion effort is a boondoggle that could hurt ratepayers and (depending on the status of a pending Solyndra-style federal loan guarantee) U.S. taxpayers.

Read it all, an excellent insight into pricing mechanisms and real world economics of NPPs.

Me thinks Vogtel will never happen, costs will kill it -- any way for time being, it can be added to projections.

More here

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/secret ... 2012-05-23

IIRC, there were some secular NGOs from USA who were funding protests in India. link. There are no details forthcoming though on these NGOs, otherwise all ever-debating third world SDREs would know about these secular NGOs, that have no fortitude to visit controversial nuclear plants within USA (bliss to note-their own country!!) but are quick to come way over here across oceans and fund protests in India!!

These are strange secular behaviors from most civilized, hardly to be understood by third world tree hoppers.

Also, are the countries that are selling us 'western international' components and technologies really themselves 100 percent secular in all respects for everyone? Otherwise this puts a question mark on intent of the few/more not-too-perfectly secular individuals in the same countries. Can any Indians even get visas to reach the sites where controversial nuclear reactors are located and protest, or fund others with similar intent, if reasonable, till all doubts whatsoever can be cleared out, including details, strategic aspects and effects on neighbors etc before moving any inch further if at all? Otherwise it is difficult to claim 100 percent secular tendencies, intent and demonstrability of such and such set of people and individuals therein.

[KLP Dubey]

Dubey-ji; I some where read in your post that you were quoting vogtel plant as a reference.

I did not "quote it as a reference", I was only replying to the detailed reference made by the poster Theo Fidel to the plant.

So here goes.
http://news.yahoo.com/groups-nearly-1-b ... 10565.html

Nearly $1 Billion Vogtle Nuclear Reactor Cost Overrun Echoes Earlier Warning About "Boondoggle" Project

When the anti-nuclear proponents have little to show except posting recycled Yahoo.com news regarding US nuclear power plants, you know there is not much steam left in their arguments.

You conveniently omitted the first word of the title: "Groups: Nearly $1 billion...". The usual suspects peddling this news - a bunch of tree-huggers and activists:

On February 15, 2012, nine groups -- Friends of the Earth, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Georgia Women's Action for New Directions, NC WARN, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Nuclear Watch South -- held a news conference to warn that Southern Company is deliberately keeping ratepayers and U.S. taxpayers in the dark by covering up the details of 12 sizeable construction "change order" requests that are expected to add major delays and cost overruns to the controversial reactor project.

Have you checked into what all these groups think about coal ? If one is to listen to these jokers, the only remaining option would be to just go for blackouts.

Let's take just one of these $hitheads: "Southern Alliance for Clean Energy". Here's their annual report:

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/2 ... eport.html

Under "Opposing Risky Energy":

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/R ... -Coal.html

When new coal facilities are proposed in our region, SACE uses a variety of tactics to prevent construction from moving forward. We develop campaigns and engage local constituents, decision makers and our members byeducating them about the financial, public health, and environmental impacts of coal. SACE also organizes citizens to become involved in official comment periods around state agency permitting processes and pursues legal challenges against proposed coal facilities where appropriate. Through our work we have strategically partnered with allies to defeat seven proposed new coal facilities in the Southeast, including one of the two proposed units at Duke’s Cliffside plant in North Carolina and a 750 MW coal plant in Florida that was proposed by Seminole Electric.

These guys are just the US version of the various rabble-rousers that conduct anti-national protests in India over infrastructure projects. There used to be a whole bunch of similar news being cranked out by this kind of crowd regarding the Kudankulam plant. Seems like all the shouting has now been replaced by a defeaning silence.

Me thinks Vogtel will never happen, costs will kill it -- any way for time being, it can be added to projections.

Since you have a great concern for the economics and progress of American NPPs, you can follow the direct construction updates here:

http://www.southerncompany.com/nucleare ... hotos.aspx

Meanwhile, Kudankulam goes online very soon. Several other nuclear power plants will begin construction in India. You can continue your rants. Reminds me of that Iraqi information minister dude during the gulf war.

Best Wishes,

KL

[Sanku]

When the anti-nuclear proponents have little to show except posting recycled Yahoo.com news regarding US nuclear power plants, you know there is not much steam left in their arguments.
KL

Dear me Dubey-ji -- If only you had shown one reference of how the reactor was not over budget, instead of littering your post with foul mouthed expletives it would be nice.

Let me know when you are ready for some meaningful debate rather than a bout of name calling when the facts dont measure up.


Cheers, toot, toot.

[Amber G.]

(Ex chairman of chairman NPCIL) SK Jain to lead WANO Tokyo Centre

SK Jain has been elected as chairman of the governing board of the Tokyo centre of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).

SK Jain takes his seat as chairman of the WANO Tokyo Centre governing board (Image: NPCIL)
Jain was unanimously approved for the post in a vote at a meeting in Tokyo on 20 June. He retired as chairman and managing director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on 31 May, having held that position since January 2004. Jain is the first Indian to hold the position.
WANO is a non-profit member association that brings together every company in the world that operates nuclear power facilities and has the sole mission of helping its members to achieve the highest levels of operational safety and reliability. It is based in London with regional centres in Moscow, Atlanta, Tokyo and Paris. A governing board sets policies which are implemented across the regional centres. Day-to-day work in these centres is overseen by WANO executives and the programs are managed by permanent and seconded employees drawn from members around the world.
As a regional governing board chairman, Jain will also represent the WANO Tokyo Centre in the main WANO governing board.
Members of WANO's Tokyo Centre include nuclear power plant operators in Japan, China, India, Korea, Pakistan and Taiwan.

[Neela]

infrastructure project over budget?
Shocker!!

[Sanku]

infrastructure project over budget?
Shocker!!

[amit]

When Sanku ji talks about reactor builds being over budget one presumes he's worried about the waste of public money.

Admirable sentiments no doubt. But what to do infrastructure projects, particularly in the power sector are like that onlee - money guzzlers. Particularly if they happen to be sexy things like solar power which is close to Sanku ji's heart (at least it was the last I checked, these things have a tendency to shift around).

Spain’s Top Five Renewable Energy Waste Examples

Spain’s attempt to outdo even Germany’s lavish support for the renewable energy industry ran up against some hard and fast economic rules. Here are five points to put Spain’s renewable waste in perspective:

1. In 2007, a Spanish law granted 444 euros ($556) per megawatt-hour for home rooftop solar panels feeding the power grid, compared with an average 39 euros paid to competing coal- or gas-fired power plants.

2. By 2009, the consumer bill for clean-energy aid had risen to 6 billion euros a year, ahead of the 5.6 billion euros in Germany, whose economy is almost four times bigger, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators.

3. Solar energy was the biggest drag on the system, accounting for almost half of the annual 6 billion euros of liabilities and producing just above 2 percent of the power.

4. Spain’s peak electricity demand (44 gigawatts) is less than half of capacity (99 gigawatts).

5. Spain’s power-system debt swelled to 23 billion euros as successive governments set electricity prices for consumers that didn’t cover the revenue that utilities booked.{Very similar to our State Electricity Boards}

Point is whichever way you cut it or dice it, there's no escaping from nuclear power in the total energy mix. Solar, wind and other renewables are still not ready - both in terms of cost as well as technology - to play a major role in grid power.

Nuclear still remains the only viable alternative (other than hydel) to coal and gas when in comes to reliable baseload, particularly for India. The kind of subsidies we've seen for solar in Spain and Germany and now in China are simply not available in India. It's criminal that a combination of govt inefficiency and agent provacateurs of the the type we've seen in KKNP and Jaitapur have hobbled the Indian nuclear industry.

PS: Horror of horrors the Japanese have started to fire up their nuclear power plants? Real shocker. Now let's see what Germany does...

[KLP Dubey]

Not to speak of land footprint: the efficiency of PV technology is constrained fundamentally by the Shockley-Queisser limit (34% efficiency). Exceeding this limit is currently only in the domain of highly exotic, hard-to-scale-up, methods.

Funny how "villagers" are up in arms about selling a few hundred acres of land for a NPP, let's see what they will say when thousands of acres are demanded for solar power plants. An NPP can support an entire industrial ecosystem in its vicinity without using much land resources.

KL

[Amber G.]

Deleted noise

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile for those who are "looking for reasonable assessments of real work on NPPs in US. (not slideware)" ... some rational facts.. (Yes, they can be gotten by less than 4 mouse clicks, yet contains more gyan than all the ramblings of jinn thermodynamics types..)

US has
- 104 commercial reactors licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, producing more than 800 TWh of electricity in a typical year (About 20% of the nation's total electric energy)

- The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.

- The total out put from NPP, actually increased from 1970's (or 80's ) by about 30% .(Many do not know this fact) .(This is mainly because, in-spite of no nuclear plants, the capacity of exiting plants increased on average from something like mid 60% to something like 90+% over these years)

- News reports that x NPP is over-budget, or has y deficiency does not translate into US is giving up nuclear energy.

When all is said and done, 800+ TWh of electricity in a typical year is nothing to sneeze at...

And yet, I see claims here ad-absurdum .. like (kid you not, below are exact quotes)

...This is what killed American Nuclear power

Death of American Nuclear power is a bit premature..

[alexis]

Ah! But you are assuming breeder technology is not mature
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Theo,

I am still optimistic about breeder technology. Even if it does not pan out, there is sufficient reserves for Indian rectors to function normally for the intended life.

[Amber G.]

Not to speak of land footprint: the efficiency of PV technology is constrained fundamentally by the Shockley-Queisser limit (34% efficiency). Exceeding this limit is currently only in the domain of highly exotic, hard-to-scale-up, methods.

Funny how "villagers" are up in arms about selling a few hundred acres of land for a NPP, let's see what they will say when thousands of acres are demanded for solar power plants. An NPP can support an entire industrial ecosystem in its vicinity without using much land resources.

KL

Dubeyji - You are right about need of larger land resources for solar (vs nuclear) in current technologies .. but ..

In my humble opinion (and this is supported by many excerpts - one good reference is Muller's book "Physics and Technology for future presidents - essential physics every world leader should know)..when technologies mature the difference may not be as much as you think. (To be fair, solar technologies are still quite evolving)

In any case, you may like to look at one of my earlier post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... W#p1088662
Regards.

[Sanku]

Ah! But you are assuming breeder technology is not mature
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Theo,

I am still optimistic about breeder technology. Even if it does not pan out, there is sufficient reserves for Indian rectors to function normally for the intended life.

I personally do think that we must persist with perfecting the 3 cycle program. Theo's points on the technical difficulties seen are quite valid, but I think that that is a path that is critical and must be pursued. At the same time I also hope that it would continue with the focus continuing on overall nation building and how the program fits in the same as in the past rather than "lets do what it takes to make a fast buck -- private profit public risk" type of approach.a US-Nuclear Power sector type of manner so to say.

[Sanku]

Dear me Dubey-ji -- If only you had shown one reference of how the reactor was not over budget, instead of littering your post with foul mouthed expletives it would be nice.
.

Amber G, I have tried, but it appears that many are out of their depth on matters more than high school physics. Nevertheless I will keep consistently posting accurate data points and specific reports which will help BRF stay ahead of the curve (such as figuring out that Fuk-D had melted down within a day, even when the TEPCO and the nuclear establishment in Japan had tried to suppress and withhold information for a week or so)

Meanwhile, Vogtle reactor is still a 1 billion $ over budget (at the very outset) -- and no amount of trying to shout others down by calling them names is going to change that.

What to do.

[Theo_Fidel]

Solar definitely has the scale India needs but it comes with its own problems. It is intermittent. And it is hard to package it in a form our grid can accept.

WRT the land area, so far our PV plants have come up on waste land way out there. The real advantage has been that people can live right next to the power plants. In fact if a particular farmer opposes that field can be left intact and the field simply goes around it. So far there has been no preferred shape or access requirement, other than transmission. There is a picture on the web of 3 mango trees that were left in the middle of the Sivaganga Solar field. This has been a huge advantage. While efficiency is indeed unlikely to exceed 34% as pointed out, this too is dramatically higher than say Photosynthesis which is 1/2% efficient at best of times. The technology is also incredibly simple, couple of dozen local jugad electrician types can run a 1000 MW power plant. Typically farmers are hired for panel cleaning, security and maintenance issues. A couple of enterprising types are now growing vegetables under the panels, though this is frowned upon.

Still there are massive storage issues to be worked on. As we lean more on solar we are definitely going to have to do the research and figure out how to integrate into our grid. This business of trying to wait for someone else to do it and then copy/buy/etc has to stop. At the very least we need to invest in renewable what we invest in Nuclear.
---------------------------------
KLP,

I knew that Uranium from ocean statement will show up sooner or later. Simple question have you run the numbers to see what it would take in terms of engineering to extract 250 tons from the ocean in one year? Hint - look at the surface area and magnitude of water flows necessary. I'm not even going to challenge you on the technology, though that is another huge question mark.

Do you really think a corporation like LIC just up and decided to commit their entire Rs 15,000 crore reserve funds as collateral with zero input from GOI. Or that Aluminium Corporation decided to become 49% shareholder, you know zero control, while ponying up it profits for the next 15 years.
If it is so logical and profitable whyfor has not a single private corporation stepped in with cash so far. Hainji. This is classic MMS style. Risk nation's money to achieve benefits for your goals. Guess people are still gullible enough to buy MMS...

WRT banks, I know several folks high up who have told me Indian banks will not touch these projects without GOI guarantee and assured returns. And yes they prefer coal for one reason, they can foreclose/acquire the asset and sell to another company. Now how do you go about foreclosing on a Nuclear power plant. Any answers?
------------------------------

Since you are so certain that no one here is, you know an expert, why bother. You yourself are no expert and certainly have little to contribute other than to say lets listen to experts. When I point out, listening to experts is what has gotten us into the mess we are in, you simply abdicate your responsibility to be informed.

[member_23007]

Speaking of references.. here is just one of the references to show how influential, famous your posts have become. Note that the reference comes from comments made by well known experts in a prestigious blog written by a BRF member/(ex)admin.

Hi Amber G

I am not much of a contributor here but follow a few threads with interest. The link you've posted above is interesting. Clearly OT for this thread but that blog manifestly holds BRF in contempt (BARF?) - why would you think that their opinion should merit any interest AND space on this forum?

[Sanku]

The writing is on the wall.

http://www.economist.com/node/21547803

Last August, when the head of America’s largest nuclear utility said that this was not the time to build new nuclear plants, the main reason he gave was not political opposition or the threat of cost overruns, but the low price of natural gas. “Shale [gas]”, said John Rowe, head of Exelon, “is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development.” The Energy Information Administration, a statistics agency, forecasts that shale-gas production will nearly triple by 2035, keeping its production cost at a stable and economical $5 or so per thousand cubic feet until the end of 2023. Nuclear power, after all, needs to compete against other energy sources. That being so, Mr Rowe put the odds of a real nuclear renaissance at 5:4 against.

Go ahead, call him names also.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

[Sanku]

Do you really think a corporation like LIC just up and decided to commit their entire Rs 15,000 crore reserve funds as collateral with zero input from GOI. Or that Aluminium Corporation decided to become 49% shareholder, you know zero control, while ponying up it profits for the next 15 years.
If it is so logical and profitable whyfor has not a single private corporation stepped in with cash so far. Hainji. This is classic MMS style. Risk nation's money to achieve benefits for your goals. Guess people are still gullible enough to buy MMS...

LIC and Al Corp deciding large outlays by themselves without GoI decision making?

Yes and Indian Oil companies decide the price of petroleum products based on mkt conditions.

Do people really think that everyone else is a idiot who will buy this sort of statement.

[KLP Dubey]

In my humble opinion (and this is supported by many excerpts - one good reference is Muller's book "Physics and Technology for future presidents - essential physics every world leader should know)..when technologies mature the difference may not be as much as you think. (To be fair, solar technologies are still quite evolving)

Yes, of course. As you might agree, the numbers I gave (hundreds of acres for nuclear versus thousands for solar) were pretty optimistically biased towards solar (1:10 footprint ratio). Right now, it is more like 1:200 if I am not mistaken. It is a pretty "uphill" battle for the PV guys right now.

Apart from the small footprint, cleanliness, and sheer "heft" that nuclear power provides, it "fits in without much ado", notwithstanding irrational protests from (plainly speaking) anti-national interests. Solar would be "disruptive" technology, both in positive and negative sense.

I personally know and interact with several "forefront" PV researchers who are much more brainy than I am (I am an average Indian guy from cow-belt with moderate education and average intelligence). I truly hope these guys succeed, because they are my friends and colleagues. My views are as objective as possible, I will admit there are "conflicts of interest" that - if anything - could bias my views towards clean coal, gas, and nuclear.

KL

[Amber G.]

Hi Amber G

I am not much of a contributor here but follow a few threads with interest. The link you've posted above is interesting. Clearly OT for this thread but that blog manifestly holds BRF in contempt (BARF?) - why would you think that their opinion should merit any interest AND space on this forum?

Hi Ashishji

The blog is from a reputable member of brf who was an admin (he has written for SRR etc)..and many posters are (many are frequent posters on brf) actually very good. Like any other forum, there is diversity of opinion, and opinions their are of the posters and not necessarily of the forum.. (It makes NO sense to claim, that "blog" holds BRF in contempt by the opinion expressed by a few)

Many posters there like brf, some don't and I think it is perfectly valid to see what other Indians, scientists and intellectuals think.

[Amber G.]

Dubeyji - Thanks for the post.

[Suraj]

Amber G: No links from that blog or references to the discussions there, thank you. We admire their zeal to pursue a parallel discussion of the happenings here for so long, but if they want to influence the discussion here, they are welcome to do so by coming back here to post themselves, not via references, links or agents. If you have something to respond, please use the forum feedback thread, not this one.

[Theo_Fidel]

Yes! It is still possible that breeder technology might still pan out. Analysis technology gets better every year. Certainly it makes sense to devote a small amount of resources to keep pecking away at the 3-Stage as well. As a engineer things tend to be work/don't work for me. May work in future don't cut it.

And I would point out that is not what we get. We get promised unlimited energy and get asked for unlimited money as well.

And yes there is sufficient U-235 reserves for existing reactors and for say 2%-5% of our future electricity production. It will be problematic if we try to depend on Nuclear for more. The questions arose when people start pushing the laughable notion of trying to replace coal with Nuclear and such nonsense.

Dear Theo,

I am still optimistic about breeder technology. Even if it does not pan out, there is sufficient reserves for Indian rectors to function normally for the intended life.

[KLP Dubey]

And yes there is sufficient U-235 reserves for existing reactors and for say 2%-5% of our future electricity production. It will be problematic if we try to depend on Nuclear for more. The questions arose when people start pushing the laughable notion of trying to replace coal with Nuclear and such nonsense.

There are several industrialized countries (USA, France, Japan, Korea, etc) which are producing much more than 5% of their power from nuclear even with current fuel supplies. In the case of the US, nuclear power today produces about as much electricity as the entire Indian power sector, and that too with a "stagnant" inventory of older reactors . India and China have been laggards in nuclear power for various reasons, hence leading to the global 2-5% average. That will change. Even with uranium produced by mining, supplies are abundant for the foreseeable future and new ore discoveries are being made.

Now regarding laughable nonsense, that results when people who get their information from just browsing the internet and consulting Wikipedia sources - which themselves regurgitate obsolete (sometimes by decades) scientific understanding - start claiming that something is impossible or not. It's really unfortunate. I hope readers and BRF members do not take such assertions seriously.

Even pre-schoolers can look up the internet and find that the concentration of U in seawater is only 3 parts per billion. Primary-schoolers can easily calculate that there are about 3-4 billion tons of U in the sea and to produce 3 tons of U one needs at least 1 billion tons of seawater (which, BTW, is very small in comparison to the ~10^18 tons of total seawater). What is really laughable is when somebody "arms themselves" with these obvious numbers and goes to town with assertions of "this will never work". That is truly an a$$-backwards attitude towards science, disguised ironically as a "scientific attitude".

What I can do is to provide some information on where this whole myth of "U extraction from seawater being uneconomical" comes from, and why modern science and technology is not constrained by those barriers. By doing so, I state that I am only citing publicly known information and ideas.

The conventional wisdom in the field of extraction (of metals and other valuable substances) is captured in the "Sherwood plot", which is basically a correlation between the cost of producing a pure metal versus its initial mass fraction in the feed stream (e.g., ore, seawater etc). There are similar plots for chemicals. Here is an example, taken from:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2129&page=70



In case of U production from mining, the initial mass fraction of U is about 10^-3, and the corresponding predicted price of U is in the range of ~$10-100/kg (which is indeed not a bad prediction considering the y-axis scales through 11 orders of magnitude). By the same token, extraction of U from seawater (at ppb concentrations, or 10^-9 mass fractions) is predicted to have a $10 million/kg of U cost !! These numbers used to be quoted by folks in conferences even as recently as 15-20 years ago (our fellow poster Theo Fidel is still doing that today in a slightly different form)....

....Till it was realized that the Sherwood plot doesn't account for the advanced separation methods/technologies recently available to selectively extract trace elements. These are very different than those used to extract base metals (e.g., copper) or even noble metals like gold and platinum. The conventional rule has generally been "concentrate the feed first, then selectively separate out what you want" (which explains the existence of the Sherwood plot - much of the cost is in the initial "concentration" step), but new technology turns that traditional logic around by finding ways to "selectively separate AND concentrate at the same time".

Some first steps in this direction (for U extraction) are already well-known. For example, Japanese researchers managed to create a polymeric fiber sorbent with about 6000 m2/kg of surface area containing amidoxime groups which have a high selectivity for uranium over all the other stuff that is in the sea (the reason is a unique complexation of the uranyl ion with the oxime). Even with this rather primitive setup they showed the cost was certainly less than $1000/kg, and not $10 million/kg.

We know today that 6000 m2/kg surface area is nothing. One can now create efficient, compact, sorption technologies that use >1 million m2/kg of surface area to capture trace metals continuously. The selectivity towards U then becomes the key. Low-cost sensors now capture and detect uranium with extreme (almost absolute) selectivity from the parts per trillion (ppt) dilution range. This is now "established" technology, here is a published example:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2056.full.pdf+html

This is just the "tip of the iceberg". As mentioned earlier, there is also a key synergy between uranium extraction and water desalination. "Cheap nuclear fuel from seawater" is not a dream any more and is closer to reality than can be imagined from Wikipedia knowledge. The more interesting question is how this technology will be managed and controlled by the powers-that-be.

Best Wishes,

Kishen Lal

[amit]

Here's what Congressman Lynn Westmoreland has to say about nuclear power in the US:

Nuclear power is the safest, most cost-effective, most environmentally friendly electricity source. It is the energy of the future. Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 2.19 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel.

In the United States, nuclear power provides almost 20 percent of the electricity we consume through the 104 reactors in 31 states... The Department of Energy forecasts the U.S. will need 22 percent more electricity by 2035. The only way to efficiently meet that demand is by ensuring nuclear energy plays a vital role in our energy strategy.

In Georgia, nuclear power constitutes almost 25 percent of electricity generated and 90 percent of Georgia's emission-free power. That number is expected to grow once the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle are completed and come online. Upon completion, the plants will provide enough electricity to serve 1.6 million homes annually. (CITE PDF) Georgia Power expects Unit 3 to begin operating in 2016 and Unit 4 in 2017.

Point is Vogtle may or may not be facing cost over-runs (the may not is on account of the fact that the environmental groups fighting a legal case against the setting up of the plant are the ones who have raised the bogey of cost over-runs). However, the fact remains that nuclear power is gonig to be a very important part of the US of A's energy mix going forward.

Many opponents of this emissions-free energy source claim safety is their biggest concern. However, the safety record of nuclear power is good when compared with many other energy technologies. In fact, nuclear power has caused far fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than other major forms of power generation. When you combine the total number of nuclear reactors ever used and the number of years they have functioned, you come up with approximately 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power. And in that time, there have been only three major accidents. The only one to occur in the United States, Three Mile Island, was contained without harm to anyone. The most harmful of these accidents, Chernobyl, could never happen here in the United States.

The Congressman is not saying anything that we've not already discussed on this thread. But it bears repeating nonetheless.

It seems the reports of the death of nuclear industry in the US of A are highly premature.

The lesson for India here is nuclear needs to be in the energy mix and the aim should be for a 20-25 per cent at the bare minumum contribution to the total energy mix.

[amit]

Kishen ji,

I'm coming back to this thread after a while. My personal thanks to you for a series of extremely informative posts. Reading them, I've learned a lot of new and interesting things. Please do keep on posting despite the high S/N ratio that you will find here.

- Amit