ldev wrote:Energy costs and blah blah blah....
Birather; you have actually playing bait and switch; the energy cost was only one dimension of the debate on energy availablity from IMPORTED nukes. There were other aspects; (cost of construction; dependence; should therms be made etc) which you have cleanly skipped.
In any case we dont have to go by your back of envelop calculations about nuclear energy costs etc since there are better sources to use (note I dont say whether I agree or disagree on cost aspect; YET)
Nuclear Generation Cost in India
I also post the frontline article again; since all its clauses and calculations seem to be in order and none have challanged the same yet
Going critical
The third link I was looking for was the archvied discussion in BRF where the alternatives were being discussed when Hyde was passed and it was clear that it had poision pills. The agreement was that no 123 with Hyde should be accepted. That debate ended with Arun_S assertion
We shall burn that coal
I would also like to bring your attentions to some old discussion on BRF; read around the post to prior ones too.
Fuel rates
Idev wrote:Arun_S wrote:
220MWe PHWR used in Pu breeding mode & 85% power generation capacity and adequate fuel loader capacity will generate 181Kg/Yr WgPu, however if there is not enough fuel loader capacity and if it is operated in conventional high burn mode the spent fuel will have only 98 Kg RgPu (Reactor grade Pu).
Corresponding figured for 540MWe PHWR are 447Kg WgPu/yr and 227Kg RgPu/yr.
Of course we do not know FBR output rate. They are conservatively starting with charactering with Mox fuel, followed by Carbide fuel and eventually metallic fuel.
Thanks Arun_S. Your figures seem to indicate that effectively it means that if nothing catastrophic happens globally in the next 5-8 years, the rate of availability of driver fuel domestically will be adequate to support a normal commissioning program of AHWRs. Ofcourse it will not be adequate to add 100,000MW of generating capacity per year, but it will supplement quite nicely the coal/thermal capacities being added on.
More links around the same: (look for discussions around Arun_S's name )
Eventually AHWR can be self sustaining.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and I can go on and on.
However the conclusions are
1) The way to go for affordable; long term safe energy is the indegenous thorium cycle and that alone. Imported LWR are no substititue. Reprocessing is a important cost and unless available has issues for production.
2) The main hurdle in thorium cycle has been funding and political will; the worst during 90s (under Dr Singh) please refer to [1] above.
3) The thorium cycle will not be particularly hurt if the 123 deal if it does not materialize .
4) Even if the 123 deal materializes the imported materials will add about 4-5 % with great cost (considering) in both captial (compared to desi maal) as well as oppertunity costs.
In summary the energy argument is as AK said before; not central take away from 123 but an externality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS you can see from the archives; the above are a rehash of old discussion by me (with my limited abilites) and
some of the conclusions even have your signature.
Hence all your nastiness is just a personal venom at me for having pointed out that the deal is not worth it. Probably you worship Dr Singh or something and this entire charade is from a political angle rather than a technical one.
Have a nice night in US birathers.... we Indians have a long way to go before we get what we need. Thank you for the concern.