India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Theo_Fidel]

Amit saab,

I think you meant low S/N.
---------------------------------------

Baap re Baap...

Where fore to begin. KLPji. The first question you have to answer is why Japan not researching this anymore. Last published result was 2003. Since then zilch. Why?

I'll tell you why. Someone sat down to calculate the EROEI on the entire process. The problem is not the doing, the problem is in the engineering involved. In my experience I'm often presented with such scientific wonders that don't work in the real world. Since you have gone the extra mile to research the Japanese Adsorption process lets take it apart a little shall we.



http://iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/docu ... _Japan.pdf
Tamada, et al.

Per the paper above a field roughly 15 km x 70 km = 10,50 km3 is necessary to get 1200 tons per year. Per page 13 I will assume this entire lot needs to be hauled out and returned to soak 12 times in a year. For a 1 kg of uranium they used 350 tons of fabric and about 400 kg of support frame and structure but only 50kg to 100 kg of frame needs to be hauled in each time. Now in fisheries (Per FAO) roughly 1 kg of diesel fuel is used to haul in 6 kgs of fish, so to haul in 400 kgs of gear and take to shore, 400/6 ~ 65 kg of diesel fuel. But we must keep in mind fish is typically not hauled back and reinstalled in the ocean. So a 50% markup moves it to ~ 100 kg of diesel. Do this 12 times and you have ~ 1200 kgs of diesel consumed per kg of Uranium retrieved. Now 250 tons of U generates ~ 6 Million (100x.7x365x24) MW's of power. So 1 kg generates 6,000,000/250,000 = 24 MW's of electricity. 1 kg of Diesel contains ~ 12 kw. So 1200 kgs of diesel contains 1200x12 ~ 15 MW's of diesel power.

So you expend 15 MW of diesel to get 24 MW worth of U. This is not including the reactor, chemical process, material production, the membrane itself, etc. What this tells me immediately is that the EREOI is very iffy. Typical worthwhile EREOI is typically in the 1/10 range atleast. Solar PV is now in the 1/10 range and Wind is heading north of 1/20.

Now it is possible that with scale and efficiency these things can be improved but the fact that we so quickly hit our energy budget, tell one this is a wild goose chase.
-----------------------------------------------

KLP saab, you seem to belabor under the impression that I'm insulting government technocrat. Nothing could be further from the truth. On this board I have repeatedly leapt to defend them, despite some folks wanting to do unspeakable things to technocrats. The main problem as I see it is the body of work technocrats and I reluctantly include myself, have left behind.

In a land swimming in coal nuclear power was/is sold to us a the magic solution. All the technocrats have pontificated thusly for 60+ years. What do we have to show for it. 150,000 MWhr of coal and 4,000 MWhr of Nuclear. Also you do understand that GOI projects 450,000 MWhr of capacity by 2035, almost all of it coal/gas. With roughly 25,000 MWhr capacity of nuclear by then. Ergo 5%. Due to this technocrat obsession with Nuclear, minimal efforts have been made to improve the lot of coal production, acquisition of land and restoring old mines. At every turn coal mining has be ignored, denigrated, pooh poohed as unimportant while it continues to carry the entire desh on its back. I have a ton more respect for CIAL than I do for the DAE. With little respect, zero foreign chai biscut sessions and fat foreign pay chex they serve the nation in the depths of hell.

Technocrats have failed us, catastrophically. I'm sure they don't see it that way and I don't second guess the decision they made without hind sight. But we do have hind sight. We must ignore the old codgers, many now living comfortably abroad or on fat pensions.

[arnab]

In a land swimming in coal nuclear power was/is sold to us a the magic solution. All the technocrats have pontificated thusly for 60+ years. What do we have to show for it. 150,000 MWhr of coal and 4,000 MWhr of Nuclear. Also you do understand that GOI projects 450,000 MWhr of capacity by 2035, almost all of it coal/gas. With roughly 25,000 MWhr capacity of nuclear by then. Ergo 5%. Due to this technocrat obsession with Nuclear, minimal efforts have been made to improve the lot of coal production, acquisition of land and restoring old mines. At every turn coal mining has be ignored, denigrated, pooh poohed as unimportant while it continues to carry the entire desh on its back. I have a ton more respect for CIAL than I do for the DAE. With little respect, zero foreign chai biscut sessions and fat foreign pay chex they serve the nation in the depths of hell.

Technocrats have failed us, catastrophically. I'm sure they don't see it that way and I don't second guess the decision they made without hind sight. But we do have hind sight. We must ignore the old codgers, many now living comfortably abroad or on fat pensions.

Theo Saar - I'm a bit perplexed now. I'm not sure what is it that you are defending. Coal was first used as a fuel around 1000 BCE (perhaps your forefather would have argued at the time that in a 'land swimming with forests and therefore wood - why would one need to burrow down into the depths of hell and get the black polluting source of energy which is as likely to kill the people digging for it as it is the ones who are using it?' ). However I digress - civil nuke energy started in the 1950s. So coal has had about a 3000 year head start and you are complaining that nukes (technocrats like Bhabha) have not delivered!

Currently the chorus against nuclear energy seems to stem from - OH MY GOD THERE WAS A MELTDOWN AT TEPCO AND I PREDICTED IT!! er..so? what that means is that the fuel rods melted and settled at the bottom of the reactor tank costing no additional lives. Coal on the other hand must be respected because it is generating so much electricity even though it causes over 70,000 deaths per year. Hirakud dam kills more people in a year by not performing its flood management role adequately (we ofcourse justify these from an 'opportunity cost' perspective by claiming that - look how much electricity these utilities are producing. Correctly so IMO - weigh benefits against costs). Why can't the same principles be applied to nuke energy? What are the benefits of the 'marginal effects' of not having to burn the coal equivalent to produce 20,000 MW energy that will be taken up by the nuclear sector? (of course the even more assnine objection is that nuclear power plants have cost overruns! Hell so will coal if the industry were asked to internalise all the negative externalities associated with pollution!)

You are creating a strawman everytime you claim that nuke was supposed to replace coal - well yes give it 3000 years - it will. The steps have to start right away. And it does not help to emulate the Church's behaviour towards Galileo, in this context.

Btw, CIAL executives don't need foriegn paychecks - I think the coal mafia compensates them adequately.

[alexis]

deleted as the quoted post is deleted

[alexis]

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.

Dear Sanku,

gas is cheap in US but not in India. It costs about 15-16 USD/mmbtu to import LNG under current contracts. At this price, the variable cost of producing electricity itself is Rs.7-8. Along with fixed cost cost of ~1 rupee, it is unviable in Indian context. That is why nuclear plant makes more sense in India than US. I am not saying nuclear is more viable than coal, but it make sense wrt gas plants.

Another aspect is energy security; we can store nuclear fuel while gas cannot be stored. In times of war our gas based plants are likely to be without fuel.

[alexis]

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,

personal attacks by any blogger of any forumite should not be quoted here as a practice of good netiquette. thanks for deleting your offending post.

[vina]

I personally do think that we must persist with perfecting the 3 cycle program

Ah Maharaj Ji. Pliss to enlighten. But why should it be 3 stage ? Why, What and What Phor ? Why this Jinn Magik Number Theen ? Why not ek, who not do, why theen ?

As far as I can understand, Thorium is fertile, but not fissile, so, it has to be irradiated. The 3 stage was put forth by the folks in the mid 50s/60s or so, when they wanted to stretch the limited supply of domestic uranium a loooooooong way .

But now the 123 has liberated us from the constraints of limited Uranium, or rather (to put it more accurately as one very erudite and obviously very knowledgeable in Physics person posted here as "It is all about the limited supply of neutrons") , the limited number of neutrons, by allowing us to import fuel.. All the U235 you want and maybe , all the PU in the spent fuel lying around from reactors in operation for 5 decades (US, Japan, France, So Ko, Russia) etc.

So why this Jin Magik Number Three even now? Why not just do TWO now ? Import the fuel, start hitting thorium with neutrons and generating fuel, and also generating power in the bargain ?

Clearly the fast breeder stage in the "three stage " thing might not be needed at all, if you are open to importing fuel/reactors on a large scale and generate power and reprocess the spent fuel ?

[Sanku]

Dear Sanku,

gas is cheap in US but not in India. It costs about 15-16 USD/mmbtu to import LNG under current contracts. At this price, the variable cost of producing electricity itself is Rs.7-8. Along with fixed cost cost of ~1 rupee, it is unviable in Indian context. That is why nuclear plant makes more sense in India than US. I am not saying nuclear is more viable than coal, but it make sense wrt gas plants.

Another aspect is energy security; we can store nuclear fuel while gas cannot be stored. In terms of a war our gas based plants are likely to be without fuel.

Alexis, the thread had got diverted into the economics of NPP, now since most economic data from Indian production of electricity is hard to come by (since the sector is in govt hands and performance numbers are somewhat hidden due to cross subsidization etc) the discussion had veered around to US where the numbers are more open.

It was limited point in that context -- that US finds extremely difficult to economically justify the NPP sector (a number of people focus on different areas, some fuel cost, some infra costs, some decommissioning costs) -- but moral of the story is that US, where the numbers are available -- the current setup is economically nonviable.

[Sanku]

I personally do think that we must persist with perfecting the 3 cycle program

Ah Maharaj Ji. Pliss to enlighten. But why should it be 3 stage ? Why, What and What Phor ? Why this Jinn Magik Number Theen ? Why not ek, who not do, why theen ?

If you consider that 3-cylce programs has 3 has jinn number vina then I think you should start with googling for basics of three cycle program. Let me know if you have more questions.

But now the 123 has liberated us from the constraints of limited Uranium,

Because it is simply untrue. It was never true, it was rhetorical sales pitch then and was known to not really be true before and nothing has changed now.

[Sanku]

As a engineer things tend to be work/don't work for me. May work in future don't cut it.

OT --> I disagree, from a Engineering perspective. Looking at future engineering solutions is indeed one of the most interesting parts of the discipline. At least for me.

[vina]

OT --> I disagree, from a Engineering perspective. Looking at future engineering solutions is indeed one of the most interesting parts of the discipline. At least for me.

Someone, quick, tell me that it was a joke. Doing something on the lines of "Engineering History" (sort of like Art History) or "Engineering Crystal Ball Gazing" (like YumBeeYeas), is not the same as as DOING Engineering!

[Sanku]

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

Sigh,,,, no problem; once more

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/exe ... ummary.cfm

Best case projection of electricity growth considering recovery 0.8% per year (in real life probably declining considering that there is no recovery)

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

Those are best case numbers. In reality probably both will drop sharply.

[vina]

Because it is simply untrue. It was never true, it was rhetorical sales pitch then and was known to not really be true before and nothing has changed now.

But Maharaj, when you import fuel, you do import neutrons!And when those are used to liberate more neutrons from splitting fuel in a chain reaction, you create more ain't it.

So how is it "simply untrue" and "never true" a "rhetorical sales pitch" ?

[arnab]

Sigh,,,, no problem; once more

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/exe ... ummary.cfm

Best case projection of electricity growth considering recovery 0.8% per year (in real life probably declining considering that there is no recovery)

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

Those are best case numbers. In reality probably both will drop sharply.

Sigh! you really have to brush up on those maths skills. What you are showing us is that the 'relative share' of nuclear energy is projected to decline. That happens because natural gas is projected to grow faster. However the nuclear energy still 'grows'. From your link:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

Electricity generation from nuclear power plants grows by 11 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case, from 807 billion kilowatthours in 2010 to 894 billion kilowatthours in 2035, accounting for about 18 percent of total generation in 2035 (compared with 20 percent in 2010).

That is why the gentleman in the Economist is betting 5:4 against nuclear power instead of 5:0 against nuclear power.

In the same chart the 'best case' for coal share is a decline from 49 per cent in 2010 to 39 per cent by 2035 (10 percentage points drop). So looks like you are predicting the demise of coal as well as nuke in the US.

[Theo_Fidel]

Arnab,

What else do you call labeling coal as the 'medieval fuel' & the sh%t that comes out of the ground in TN. What kind of demented thinking says such stuff. If you think I'm doing a cop out I don't know what to say. My position has always been that GOI needs to bite the bullet and build pumped storage+renewable around the country to deal with our energy shortage. This Nuclear diversion is just fooling around.

WRT coal no one will still explain how exactly nuclear power can replace coal. Anyone?

BTW USA coal can not compete #1 reason due to pollution requirements. Every coal plant in the midwest is working on coal plant scrubbers that cost as much as the original plant itself! Gas can seem a lot cheaper.
------------------------------------------------------------

Sanku san,

That may suffice for research but when I sit down to prepare contract documents and engineering schematics every component is fully documented with performance listed in every worst case scenario. Most often said component has been destructively tested not just modeled in computer. I don't put my seal and liability on the line otherwise. This is some thing I have a lot of trouble explaining to research/theoretical types. For an engineer there can be no grey areas.

[Sanku]

Because it is simply untrue. It was never true, it was rhetorical sales pitch then and was known to not really be true before and nothing has changed now.

But Maharaj, when you import fuel, you do import neutrons!And when those are used to liberate more neutrons from splitting fuel in a chain reaction, you create more ain't it.

So how is it "simply untrue" and "never true" a "rhetorical sales pitch" ?

Yes you import Neutrons, but they are not used in 3-cycle program, therefore they are not creating any new fissile material. You can not reprocess the spent fuel, you basically can not do anything with it than feed the neurton inefficent LWRs which create radioactive waste with which you can do nothing.

More over, getting a handful of Uranium to run some LWRs at great cost hardly meets the rather grand sounding statement of

But now the 123 has liberated us from the constraints of limited Uranium,

in anycase.

All 123 gives us is a handful of Uranium, in exchange for having to buy expensive millstones. Sorry, not jumping at joy with it.

[Neela]

Alexis, the thread had got diverted into the economics of NPP, now since most economic data from Indian production of electricity is hard to come by (since the sector is in govt hands and performance numbers are somewhat hidden due to cross subsidization etc) the discussion had veered around to US where the numbers are more open.

It was limited point in that context -- that US finds extremely difficult to economically justify the NPP sector (a number of people focus on different areas, some fuel cost, some infra costs, some decommissioning costs) -- but moral of the story is that US, where the numbers are available -- the current setup is economically nonviable.

There -> ossified ideas makes you repeat the same thing over and over again without any common sense, let alone scientific or economic backing. When challenged with pictures of new US reactors , they are classified as replacement of existing ones. Yet the contention of economic un-viability still holds a few posts later on. Yes yes , in the capitalistic capital on earth, an economically un-viable idea is pursued because the nuclear scientists are promising soma and sura. And the economists are supprting them in the nefarious plot. And the GOTUS babus are indulging them. Everyone single one of them is a cheat. This is the biggest conspiracy mankind has ever known.

My checklist from earlier post:

#Throw doomsday scenarios - check.
Accuse scientists of not understanding the science - check
Throw doubt on costs - check
Throw more doubts on full cost - check
Throw even more doubts on people who understand finance and nuclear industry - check
Self-pity and "aam-junta" exploitation by GoI/TN government - check
"No one except DAE wants KKNPP" - check
Driving wedges [ "TN is even power surplus so KKNPP is only for non-TNs" ] - Check

3 from a possible 5 for Sanku this time - you pass the "rabblerouser" test - congratulations.

[Sanku]

Sigh,,,, no problem; once more

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/exe ... ummary.cfm

Best case projection of electricity growth considering recovery 0.8% per year (in real life probably declining considering that there is no recovery)

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

Those are best case numbers. In reality probably both will drop sharply.

Sigh! you really have to brush up on those maths skills. What you are showing us is that the 'relative share' of nuclear energy is projected to decline. That happens because natural gas is projected to grow faster. However the nuclear energy still 'grows'. From your link:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

Electricity generation from nuclear power plants grows by 11 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case, from 807 billion kilowatthours in 2010 to 894 billion kilowatthours in 2035, accounting for about 18 percent of total generation in 2035 (compared with 20 percent in 2010).

First of all I did no math, all I did was quote numbers directly from the eia site and make the claim that since this is their best case projection, I expect the real numbers to drop.

Neither of the numbers (electricity demand to grow up 0.8% per year, and nuclear in fuel mix to drop to 18%) are shown incorrect. You have merely restated their projections in different numbers. Same projections different statement of numbers.

So I really think that you should brush up on the basic definition of maths here, with due respects.

That is why the gentleman in the Economist is betting 5:4 against nuclear power instead of 5:0 against nuclear power.

That gentleman in Economist runs a NPP utility. If he is so grim, I will happily go out on a limb and say that he is merely being conservative.

In the same chart the 'best case' for coal share is a decline from 49 per cent in 2010 to 39 per cent by 2035 (10 percentage points drop). So looks like you are predicting the demise of coal as well as nuke in the US.

I am do expect a drop in coal in US as well. Yes, that is correct.

Gas + renewable are the focus. Clearly.

[Sanku]

3 from a possible 5 for Sanku this time - you pass the "rabblerouser" test - congratulations.

And you Sir pass the "since I have no arguments I will call names and pray that pass musters" test.

Unfortunately no points from me for that sort of behavior.

[arnab]

[

First of all I did no math, all I did was quote numbers directly from the eia site and make the claim that since this is their best case projection, I expect the real numbers to drop.

Neither of the numbers (electricity demand to grow up 0.8% per year, and nuclear in fuel mix to drop to 18%) are shown incorrect. You have merely restated their projections in different numbers. Same projections different statement of numbers.

Er.. but you provided that 'data' to rebut Amit's claim that it was 'premature' to show that the US nuke sector is declining (death of the nuclear energy sector). So unless declining means 'growing at 11 per cent' I'm not sure what the point of that response was.

Ah you expect a 'drop' in coal (actually that is merely what the chart says as you clearly have not done the maths). That does not translate into the 'demise' of the coal industry in the US - since it will still have the largest share of electricity production (around 310 GW - so still the 800 lb gorilla albeit shrinking). OTOH the decline in the share of nukes is barely 2 percentage points (while in terms of generation capacity it is growing, while coal is declining) and yet you are 'predicting' (or quoting the charts) the demise of the nuke industry and a 'drop' in the coal industry.


So about gas (since gas is the way to go) - presumably you favour the TAPI or IPI lines? (of course it is a given that the hunt for all domestic sources will go on). (Shale gas if and when it comes about currently has 20 years of proven reserves).

[amit]

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

Sigh,,,, no problem; once more

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/exe ... ummary.cfm

Best case projection of electricity growth considering recovery 0.8% per year (in real life probably declining considering that there is no recovery)

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

Those are best case numbers. In reality probably both will drop sharply.

Sanku,

I see that you persist with your old habit of not reading or perhaps not understand the links that you rush to provide via Googal Chacha.

But anyway, what to do you are like that onlee.

Some stats from your own link:

In 2010, U.S. nuclear plants generated 807 billion kilowatthours from 104 commercial nuclear generating units.

Only you can dare to call an industry which produces 807 billion kilowatthour of electricity a year as dead or dying.

Another bit of trivia from you link:

The United States has the most nuclear capacity and generation among the 31 countries in the world that have commercial nuclear power.

What this means in that the US produces more nuclear power than even France despite the latter's heavy reliance on nuclear power. If you call the US nuclear industry dead, then France's nuclear industry must be already 6 feet under the ground na?

Finally, it's obvious you don't understand what the 18 per cent (from 20 per cent) number means. Let me explain to you like so many other stuff over the years. The projections are for 2035 when the US's total electricity generation is projected to be 5.04 trillion kilowatthour from 2010's 3.9 tirllion KwH. (Yes all of that information is in your link, you just got to dig for it).

And yes while in 2010 US produced 807 billion KwH of nuclear power these projections show that in 2035 it would produce 893 billion KwH of nuclear power. For a dead industry that seems quite a lot na? [Edit: corrected the typo and changed trillion to billion in the last two figures].

Consider another implication of that piece of stats. Many of the current US generation plants are at mid life or nearing the end of their lives. For the US to maintain its gargantuan nuclear generation and even increase it by almost one trillion kilowatthour it would require the construction of new plants don't you think? US does not have access to any jinn tech so they will have to do it the hard way.

The other important point that you should note is that according to these projections even in 2035 in the US scenario nuclear's contribution would be more than that of renewables which grows from 10 per cent share in 2010 to 16 per cent in 2035.

The US is lucky that it has an abundance of natural gas which is why the projections show that this form of energy would provide 27 per cent of the mix. India does not have that luxury and so nuclear would have to take up the slack.

Next time take the time to digest the links you post before rushing in.

Just a friendly piece of advice.

PS you just provided more information to support the contention: Reports about the demise of the US nuclear industry are highly over rated.

[amit]

That is why the gentleman in the Economist is betting 5:4 against nuclear power instead of 5:0 against nuclear power.

Err Arnab, I don't think Sanku maharaj understood the implication of a 5:4 odds that the was quoted in the Economist article.

[Sanku]

Er.. but you provided that 'data' to rebut Amit's claim that it was 'premature' to show that the US nuke sector is declining (death of the nuclear energy sector). So unless declining means 'growing at 11 per cent' I'm not sure what the point of that response was.

Arnab you are slightly confused here if I may say so please. The first confusion is between the terms data and projections -- actually this confusion is endemic, the people are using projections as data points where are data points are known events and projections are extrapolation based on the same.

Projections are not data, projections are based on data.

And current data shows that the projections of nuclear industry staying at par -- are hopelessly optimistic -- what Amit did was to use projections to make a claim, which I showed were optimistic by pointing out the inherent assumptions, the assumptions themselves being true only in a very optimistic picture.

One can not use projections to declare "it has happened" -- world of difference between "this may happen" and "this has happened"

This is the second confusion, what I am objecting to is a trend to use the projections as if things have already happened -- one needs to question projections.

And getting projections right is really what defines the thinking process, otherwise everyone can have a projection (To give an example -- some people were projecting that Fuk-D was a minor issue for example just because TEPCO said so -- others who can see deeper had other projections)

The solid foundations of data, credible assumptions and logic is what dictates the correctness of projection -- OTOH projections made for winning lucrative money making contracts, or projections where the party making a projection has a commercial or otherwise conflict of interest with the result of projections are automatically suspect.

[Sanku]

Sanku,

I see that you persist with your old habit of not reading or perhaps not understand the links that you rush to provide via Googal Chacha.

Back to your real standards eh Amit.

[amit]

And current data shows that the projections of nuclear industry staying at par -- are hopelessly optimistic -- what Amit did was to use projections to make a claim, which I showed were optimistic by pointing out the inherent assumptions, the assumptions themselves being true only in a very optimistic picture.

So that 18 per cent share in 2035 is a "data point" and everything else is projections?



Actually the 18 per cent in 2035 means .087 billion KWH more of power generation!

[amit]

Sanku,

I see that you persist with your old habit of not reading or perhaps not understand the links that you rush to provide via Googal Chacha.

Back to your real standards eh Amit.

Well if you get back to posting stuff which contradicts what you are trying to say, what do you expect? A polite Ahem, Ahem?

Get real!

[Sanku]

Just a friendly piece of advice.

Amit, I dont think you have really understood what I said. You have made multiple assertions

1) Which I did not make
2) have not really taken into account what I said.

I would advice you to

1) Read what I said line by line, and use that to frame a reply so that you
2) do not paraphrase, but stick to exact statements being discussed.

For example you have taken to mean "decline of US NPP industry == US nuclear industry will die tomorrow" and are trying to say it wont die tomorrow.

There are numerous such basic mistakes in your post which makes it a futile exercise to reply to:

If you stick to what is actually being talked about, perhaps a reply can be attempted.

[Sanku]

And current data shows that the projections of nuclear industry staying at par -- are hopelessly optimistic -- what Amit did was to use projections to make a claim, which I showed were optimistic by pointing out the inherent assumptions, the assumptions themselves being true only in a very optimistic picture.

So that 18 per cent share in 2035 is a "data point" and everything else is projections?



Actually the 18 per cent in 2035 means .087 billion KWH more of power generation!

Hmm, did I say that those were data points? Once again, try and understand what is being said by others rather than trying to ascribe to others what you think they have said.

Big difference.

[Sanku]

And Arnab and Amit, can you too please make a argument without resorting to personal attacks. It is very tiresome to read through 90% of gratuitous comments on posters and less than 5% topical content in the post.

Thanks in advance.

[amit]

For example you have taken to mean "decline of US NPP industry == US nuclear industry will die tomorrow" and are trying to say it wont die tomorrow.

This assertion is false. In 2035 the US nuclear industry will produce 893 billion KwH more electricity than the 806 billion KwH it produced in 2010. You either did not understand the numbers of chose not to understand.

Another point that you fail to understand. 18 per cent out of 504 trillion KwH is a larger number than 20 per cent out of 3.9 trillion KwH. Get your basic math right. before making a stupid assertion like:

There are numerous such basic mistakes in your post which makes it a futile exercise to reply to:

...perhaps a reply can be attempted.

Oh please, please keep on replying. You may not realise it but you fulfil an important function on this thread.

[amit]

Hmm, did I say that those were data points? Once again, try and understand what is being said by others rather than trying to ascribe to others what you think they have said.

Big difference.

You see Sanku, you are needed here.

When you say this:

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

It becomes a data point. And then everything else that flows from that magically become projections?

[Sanku]

Sanku san,

That may suffice for research but when I sit down to prepare contract documents and engineering schematics every component is fully documented with performance listed in every worst case scenario. Most often said component has been destructively tested not just modeled in computer. I don't put my seal and liability on the line otherwise. This is some thing I have a lot of trouble explaining to research/theoretical types. For an engineer there can be no grey areas.

Theo-ji, I fully agree with you that the above is the case (or should be) in implementation engineering, that is finally shipping a working product for real world. (Esp in high stakes scenario) -- however before we can get to that level of signoff -- even in Engineering (not theory) there need to be multiple exploratory designs, prototypes and the like.

We can not fully characterize performance without the Engineering R&D.

[Sanku]

Hmm, did I say that those were data points? Once again, try and understand what is being said by others rather than trying to ascribe to others what you think they have said.

Big difference.

You see Sanku, you are needed here.

When you say this:

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

It becomes a data point. And then everything else that flows from that magically become projections?

Amit you do realize that this is merely your personal take -- kindly do not attribute words to me which are not mine.

What I said before and will say again is that best case EIA projections show a decline of % of Nuclear in fuel mix. That is all.

Personally with 62+20 NPPs having a 20 year life left (post extension) -- and no NPPs being built (well one NPP struggling to take off after being dogged with unsatisfactory performance and other in plan stage) -- it stands to good reason that 2035 figures for Nuclear will be lower.

Therefore the claim of "all iz well for US" because it is "projected to be so" is a little tricky.

Projection != it has happened.

[amit]

^^^^^^^

What can one say to this kind of convoluted logic, save to say that there's a limit to entertainment.

OK Sanku Maharaj, I'll take it as passed and sealed whatever you are trying to say, once you've figured out what you want to say.

My last post for now.

Good to have you back.

Cheers!

[KLP Dubey]

Where fore to begin. KLPji. The first question you have to answer is why Japan not researching this anymore. Last published result was 2003. Since then zilch. Why?

They lost the game. So did the Germans - their bet was on titanium oxide-based materials. It wasn't the right material or the right process.

Did I not try to tell you last time that new technologies for trace metal extraction don't look anything like what these "pioneers" envisaged ? And you reply by posting photos of somebody dragging a heap of fiber along the coastline (going back to that old experiment).

This is typical troll tactics - your fanatical interest is in maintaining that "nuclear is a waste of time" argument, otherwise you lose your credibility.

Predicting the "death" of the US nuclear power sector based upon half-a$$ed news reports and lower-than-undergrad-level analysis is ridiculous to say the least. Nobody takes it seriously. Nice hobby though....

I'll tell you why. Someone sat down to calculate the EROEI on the entire process. The problem is not the doing, the problem is in the engineering involved. In my experience I'm often presented with such scientific wonders that don't work in the real world. Since you have gone the extra mile to research the Japanese Adsorption process lets take it apart a little shall we.

Per the paper above a field roughly 15 km x 70 km = 10,50 km3 is necessary to get 1200 tons per year. Per page 13 I will assume this entire lot needs to be hauled out and returned to soak 12 times in a year.

You expend 15 MW of diesel to get 24 MW worth of U. This is not including the reactor, chemical process, material production, the membrane itself, etc. What this tells me immediately is that the EREOI is very iffy.

You assume incorrectly. Still running after Tamada (poor guy!) and spouting half-knowledge based on lack of information. The point about the "field of 1050 km2" is trivial. People were figuring out this kind of stuff back in the 1940s/50s. The world-record sorbent in the open literature has an accessible surface area of approximately 10,000 m2/gram. One does not even need materials close to this world record. With the right material and the right type of inexpensive engineered module, you have a system with easily >1 million m2 of accessible surface area/kg of module weight (i.e., 1 km2 area/kg or 1000 km2/ton of module weight). The typical module weighs less than a ton and is the size of a golf cart or so. It can operate with low-grade waste heat from almost any industrial source (including a NPP) in the vicinity. Such systems have already entered service for a number of other applications in the "real world". The economics and process engineering of these systems is well established. They work very well if the right materials are put into them. That has been the real challenge.

I don't understand why this well-intentioned information and help pi$$es you off so much, unless you have some kind of fanatical interest in running down nuclear power. It is the only viable large-scale, "clean" energy source for a long time to come.

Now it is possible that with scale and efficiency these things can be improved.

Duh. After all the long stories and screaming and kicking, you come to this realization. That is what other people realized years ago. A statement like "with scale and efficiency things can be improved" is such a lame and non-informative statement, a tautology.

KLP saab, you seem to belabor under the impression that I'm insulting government technocrat. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not "belaboring" under anything. You're the one belaboring with undergraduate-level knowledge and internet sources that contain nothing but old/misleading information and "losers' tales". The other poster (Sanku) is a pathological troll - he is positively scary. You're at least trying to learn about this, which is commendable. But when I try to give you reliable information, you get all riled up and combative. I'm sorry I can't give you more information than what has been written already.

My advice remains the same: take the hints and stop the goofiness/propaganda/misinformation campaign about nuclear power not being viable.

I don't really care if you are insulting government technocrats or not (I have no idea where that came from).

Best Wishes,

KL

[Sanku]

OK Sanku Maharaj, I'll take it as passed and sealed whatever you are trying to say, once you've figured out what you want to say.

Err Amit, you have to do the figuring out. Most people seem to quite clearly understand whats being said. I quite certainly am quite clear as to what I am saying.

Cheers.

[Sanku]

My advice remains the same:

Dubey-ji since a number of people are feeling doling out advice, my 2 paise. It would be nice if your posts consisted of facts to show how Theo was wrong rather than trying to do so by calling him names.

You are not doing any favors to your case by substituting personal attacks for credible information.

A humble suggestion only. Thank you and best regards to you too.

[vina]

You can not reprocess the spent fuel, you basically can not do anything with it than feed the neurton inefficent LWRs which create radioactive waste with which you can do nothing.

Wrong, Maharaj Ji. Oops.. rather, "Aap ko, thanik gyaan aur praapt karne ka kripay karen' . You can, you have full rights to it, you can use the reprocessed fuel in whichever way you want (under safeguards of course, cant divert it to military use) for civilian use and yes, that includes thorium breeders and reactors.

So,I ask again. Why three ? Theen kyon ?

[amit]

You can not reprocess the spent fuel, you basically can not do anything with it than feed the neurton inefficent LWRs which create radioactive waste with which you can do nothing.

Wrong, Maharaj Ji. Oops.. rather, "Aap ko, thanik gyaan aur praapt karne ka kripay karen' . You can, you have full rights to it, you can use the reprocessed fuel in whichever way you want (under safeguards of course, cant divert it to military use) for civilian use and yes, that includes thorium breeders and reactors.

So,I ask again. Why three ? Theen kyon ?

Vina,

Another small point which Maharaj ji misses is the fact that imported yellow cake increases the total amount yellow maal in India's possession, that is local maal+foreign maal. Srikumar Banerjee has said as much and it has been posted here. Net, net is the fact Indian Nooklear industry has more maal in its hand. This gives rise to various interesting possibilities that were not possible before, like speed up the thorium nirvana, like you suggested.

[Sanku]

You can not reprocess the spent fuel, you basically can not do anything with it than feed the neurton inefficent LWRs which create radioactive waste with which you can do nothing.

Wrong, Maharaj Ji. Oops.. rather, "Aap ko, thanik gyaan aur praapt karne ka kripay karen' . You can, you have full rights to it, you can use the reprocessed fuel in whichever way you want (under safeguards of course, cant divert it to military use) for civilian use and yes, that includes thorium breeders and reactors.

So,I ask again. Why three ? Theen kyon ?

The thorium reactors and breeders are not in civilian use, so that entire point is moot anyway, and they neither should be or will be, because those do not need imported Uranium in any case. Once those are up and running as hoped, the claim "we need to import neutrons" falls apart -- a very tenous claim in anycase.

The so called neutron shortage issue is only when the breeders are not up.

So in trying to send imported neutrons to Breeders you are first creating a problem which in reality does not exist at all.

So yeah -- lets dispense with imported neutrons for breeders because
1) Currently breeders are mil and cant use imported neutrons
2) Once they are so mainstream that they can be opened up -- they will not need imported neutrons.

Finally opening breeders to IAEA is just more of "hey IAEA come and snoop on our best secrets" -- its bad enough that we have badly undercut the strategic program -- why do we need more of the same?

So clearly there is no merit whatsoever in your statement -- frankly its just wrong on basic facts.

------------------------------------------------------------

On reprocessing -- although ostensibly we have reprocessing rights -- our current establishment is not set up towards reprocessing of spent fuel from LWR, since that has not been a thrust area of the domestic program.

Now to get reprocessing facilities up and running in any meaningful sense (for LWR used fuel) we need reprocessing tech from outside -- which they are not giving.

So again -- while the claim may look good on paper -- the minute you start examining it, it falls apart.

The entire edifice of 123 is based on such statements.

"Oh you can do what ever you want -- except that you wont break Hyde act."

"Oh neutrons for all civvy uses including breeders -- except that breeders are not in civvy domain"

So if you want to believe such flimsy truths, entirely your prerogative -- just kindly do not tom tom these as commandements that we must all blindly believe in.

[Sanku]

Another small point which Maharaj ji misses is the fact that imported yellow cake increases the total amount yellow maal in India's possession, that is local maal+foreign maal. Srikumar Banerjee has said as much and it has been posted here. Net, net is the fact Indian Nooklear industry has more maal in its hand. This gives rise to various interesting possibilities that were not possible before, like speed up the thorium nirvana, like you suggested.

Again untrue

1) Srikumar ji did not say what you claim -- you are paraphrasing his statement and in paraphrasing ascribing things that he has not said.

2) As I mentioned before -- I know the US lobby want the throrium breeders opened up for snooping as well -- but today they are not and hopefully the establishment will be able to preserve some thing from 123 disaster.

3) Considering that breeders are not open -- and this is common knowledge -- or should be -- it is completely pointless and untrue to claim interesting possibilities.

4) The extra yellow cake therefore, is of limited utility, and perhaps net net -- more trouble than it helps. (lying around as nuclear waste, without any meaningful post use scenario -- unlike Indian material)