India Nuclear News And Discussion

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Mar 2011 21:49

One thing is still not explained. The US nuclear industry paid a heavy price for Three Mile Island. Why is it that they haven't switched to PHWR tech by now? Just inertia? Certainly there are no proliferation concerns about building a HWR in the US.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 21:58

vera_k wrote:One thing is still not explained. The US nuclear industry paid a heavy price for Three Mile Island. Why is it that they haven't switched to PHWR tech by now? Just inertia? Certainly there are no proliferation concerns about building a HWR in the US.

The short answer is that the US has for all practical purposes given up on LWRs domestically.

Last one was built in 1996, but thats misleading, for all practical purposes last 30 years have seen no new additions.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... power.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_po ... ted_States

Several US nuclear power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, due to successful campaigns by anti-nuclear activist groups.[25] These include Rancho Seco in 1989 in California and Trojan in 1992 in Oregon. Humboldt Bay in California closed in 1976, 13 years after geologists discovered it was built on a fault (the Little Salmon Fault). Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant never operated commercially as an authorized Emergency Evacuation Plan could not be agreed on due the political climate after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. The last permanent closure of a US nuclear power plant was in 1997.[1]

This cool aid for rest of less than great world, US does not take risks it wants to make money by selling to others.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 22:56

More irrelevant issues by irrelevant people about Nuclear energy.

http://www.sify.com/news/kaiga-nuclear- ... chafa.html

Kaiga nuclear plant gives Goa constant nightmares: MP

He further said a study conducted by environmental engineer Shivaji Rao submitted to the Goa government had estimated that evacuation of 2-5 km area around the reactor must be completed within six hours; within 12 hours for an area 5-25 km away, within 24 hours for an area 25-75 km away and within 48 hours for distances beyond 75 km of an accident.

'As far as Goa is concerned, areas up to Quepem and Chauri fall within 77 km of Kaiga; while Panaji, Ponda and Bicholim are within 115 km of the nuclear plant,' Naik said.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 15 Mar 2011 22:59

Fukushima reactors are BWR-3 (460MW) design for No 1, BWR-4 (784MW) for No 2-5 and BWR-5 (1,100MW) for No 6. First construction began in 1967 and no 6 in 1973.

A 3d cutaway of BWR reactor

A block image

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 15 Mar 2011 23:17

It should be POINTED OUT that the radiation level from the exposed nuclear fuel rods within the containment vessel WILL DROP BY A FACTOR OF 10 WITHIN 1 WEEK as long as cooling can be maintained for that period of time. This will happen naturally.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Mar 2011 23:34

Jaswant for review of no-first-use Nuke policy

...
Noting that the security concerns are multi-dimensional and policies of 20th century will not work, he pressed for a revision of the nuclear policy “with a sense of urgency”, particularly of the no-first-use doctrine formulated by the NDA government.

”...(Nuclear) policy of NDA is greatly in need of revision ...Please hold broader consultations,” he suggested to the UPA government, adding “Time will not wait for us.”

The government should also take into confidence the Opposition while revising India’s nuclear policy, he said.
...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Mar 2011 23:35

This one should go in the deterrence thread.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 00:02

We must...... listen.... to the INDUSTRY experts........ must..... must......

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/1 ... AL20110315

Chernobyl clean-up expert slams Japan, IAEA

The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry.

"But industry doesn't like it," he said in an interview in Vienna where the former director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency now teaches and advises on nuclear safety. Austria's environment ministry has used him as an adviser.

Andreev said a fire which released radiation on Tuesday involving spent fuel rods stored close to reactors at Fukushima looked like an example of putting profit before safety:

"The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev said.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 00:25

And since we were discussing, liabilities, insurances and costs

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-1 ... risis.html

“This latest incident and the previous Chuetsu-Oki earthquake indicate that the business risk of operating nuclear power plants in Japan is higher than previously contemplated,” Moody’s analysts including Kenji Okamoto said in a note, putting the company on a review for a possible downgrade.

Really now? Ooops....

And oh their liability?

Under law, the utility is required to carry liability insurance of about 120 billion yen ($1.5 billion), Tokyo-based Credit Suisse analyst Yuji Nishiyama said in a telephone interview. If costs spiral above this, Tokyo Electric is likely to receive government assistance, he said. The company also faces public outrage and will need to compensate local communities for the damage caused, he said.

But of course for us SDRE 300 Mill is more than enough hey ho?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Mar 2011 02:05

Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned

...
But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant — and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants — is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.

¶ G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
...
...
In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended in a memo that the sort of “pressure-suppression” system used in G.E.’s Mark 1 plants presented unacceptable safety risks and that it should be discontinued. Among his concerns were that the smaller containment design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
...
...
A written response came later that same year from Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the N.R.C. He called the idea of a ban on such systems “attractive” because alternative containment systems have the “notable advantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary blowdown.”

¶ But he added that the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

¶ In an e-mail on Tuesday, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said those words seemed ironic now, given the potential global ripples on the nuclear industry from the Japanese accident.
...
...
Questions about the G.E. reactor design escalated in the mid-1980s, when Harold Denton, an official with the N.R.C., asserted that Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the commission concluded that “Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely.”
...
...
Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.
...
...
Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.
...
What role the specifics of the G.E. design is playing in the rapid deterioration of control at the Fukushima plant is likely to be a matter of debate, and it is possible that any reactor design could succumb to the one-two punch of an earthquake and tsunami like those that unfolded last week in Japan.

Although G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator, the company’s share price was down more than 2 percent at midday Tuesday as the situation at the Fukushima plant deteriorated.
..
...
In that sense, Mr. Lochbaum said, G.E.’s the boiling water reactors should be no better or worse in weathering accidents than any other design.

Should the ability to cool the reactor completely fail, however, Mr. Lochbaum said, “I’d certainly rather have a bigger, thicker containment structure.”

As per the Indian liability law, would the supplier (say GE) be liable if the company had suppressed information regarding design vulnerabilities( read the bolded portion above)?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 03:46

Sanku wrote:And since we were discussing, liabilities, insurances and costs

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-1 ... risis.html

“This latest incident and the previous Chuetsu-Oki earthquake indicate that the business risk of operating nuclear power plants in Japan is higher than previously contemplated,” Moody’s analysts including Kenji Okamoto said in a note, putting the company on a review for a possible downgrade.
Really now? Ooops....

And oh their liability?

Under law, the utility is required to carry liability insurance of about 120 billion yen ($1.5 billion), Tokyo-based Credit Suisse analyst Yuji Nishiyama said in a telephone interview. If costs spiral above this, Tokyo Electric is likely to receive government assistance, he said. The company also faces public outrage and will need to compensate local communities for the damage caused, he said.
But of course for us SDRE 300 Mill is more than enough hey ho?

Sigh. The 'utility' in question is an 'operator' . The 300 mil is the propoed liability for the 'supplier'. Why obfuscate issues? You have already accused TELP of being shoddy 'operators' - so how will a 'supplier liability' function in the case of Japan?

p.s and incidentally do you know what 'clean coal' is? or is it another new buzz word you have picked up by googling (or wikipedia)?

The hardest part is reducing CO2 emissions. There is research into methods for isolating the CO2 and sequestering it. A popular idea is carbon capture, which involves injecting the CO2 under rock formations that would keep it trapped indefinitely in the earth. MIT estimates this technology won’t be possible on a commercial scale until 2030. It would also be costly and the consequences of sequestering the gas underground alarms some environmentalists.

http://inhabitat.com/is-it-green-clean-coal/

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 04:22

Sanku wrote:More irrelevant issues by irrelevant people about Nuclear energy.

http://www.sify.com/news/kaiga-nuclear- ... chafa.html

Kaiga nuclear plant gives Goa constant nightmares: MP

He further said a study conducted by environmental engineer Shivaji Rao submitted to the Goa government had estimated that evacuation of 2-5 km area around the reactor must be completed within six hours; within 12 hours for an area 5-25 km away, within 24 hours for an area 25-75 km away and within 48 hours for distances beyond 75 km of an accident.

'As far as Goa is concerned, areas up to Quepem and Chauri fall within 77 km of Kaiga; while Panaji, Ponda and Bicholim are within 115 km of the nuclear plant,' Naik said.

Sorry - but how is an MP having nightmares relevant? or that some evcuation may be required if a reactor leaked. I'm sure evacuation will also be required if Bhakra Nangal dam collapsed.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Mar 2011 06:13

arnab wrote:
p.s and incidentally do you know what 'clean coal' is? or is it another new buzz word you have picked up by googling (or wikipedia)?

For perspective even if one just compares radio-activity disposed, typical coal power plants give about 100 to 1000 times more radioactivity (disposes in the air along with other nasty stuff) per kwh produced than a typical nuclear plant. (Coal has enough thorium and other stuff)

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Mar 2011 06:27

For perspective even if one just compares radio-activity disposed, typical coal power plants give about 100 to 1000 times more radioactivity (disposes in the air along with other nasty stuff) per kwh produced than a typical nuclear plant. (Coal has enough thorium and other stuff)

In addition, coal ash (indian coal is upto 25 to 30 % ash) has pretty high concentrations of uranium and transuranics and even if that goes into fly ash cement and stuff like that where it gets diluted, fine, if it goes into concentrated holding ponds, that is a pain and when the huge ponds get broken for some reason (like happened many times), that can get pretty crazy .

Point is like the "Banana equivalent" you quoted, the coal/carbon/fossil fuel based stuff has basically a free ride economically and the costs of pollution and clean up are not factored into their price! They are allowed to burn and pollute the atmosphere and the society at large (including poor islanders in the Pacific and Indian oceans that will get submerged) pay for that.

That said, a nuclear accident is pretty nasty and the 1st/2nd gen plants are really not fail safe designs with multiple redundancies built in. Sort of like "developed" country kind of minset which assumes that power is always on, that everything works perfectly in terms of support systems, stuff is predictable.

What you need is a Yindoo kind of design mentality where you know most things fail, only laws of nature are absolute, everything unpredictable, dont assume anything. Do that and you can have a idiot proof and safe under any circumstances nuke plant.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Mar 2011 06:30

In fact, there is an agitation going on in Karnataka against the new Udupi thermal plant, due to the fly ash and other pollutants that are making life difficult for people in that region.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 07:41

People have disproportionate reactions to single, black swan events rather than predictable adverse conditions on a sustained basis - the nuke power v/s coal debate is amazingly silly (on grounds of "fatalities", or "pollution" - the right discussion is on costs)...

There is this other notion doing the rounds that Indian PHWRs are somehow "superior" in design to LWRs in safety...Based on what? If Indian nuke power tech was so superior (by the way the qualification of "superior" doesnt say its superior on what count - cost, failure redundancy, scalability,or all of it) why is it that no one in the nuke establishment came out substantively against the philosophy of having access to imported NPP tech...Its important to bear in mind that import of nuke power plants predates the nuke deal (Kudunkulum) - so conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theories! And all this, when there isnt even enough data on the Fukushima affair - how did it happen, what were the failures, were there design failures - the important stuff..

putnanja wrote:As per the Indian liability law, would the supplier (say GE) be liable if the company had suppressed information regarding design vulnerabilities( read the bolded portion above)?

It is a possibility that someone went and sued GE in the Indian case...But the key point in that article to be noted is

In that sense, Mr. Lochbaum said, G.E.’s the boiling water reactors should be no better or worse in weathering accidents than any other design

All designs can be made incrementally better - its fallacious to argue that a particular design has attained nirvana on safety and thats it....This accident will surely cause more examinations and redesigns...

arnab wrote:Sigh. The 'utility' in question is an 'operator' . The 300 mil is the propoed liability for the 'supplier'. Why obfuscate issues? You have already accused TELP of being shoddy 'operators' - so how will a 'supplier liability' function in the case of Japan?

Arnab-ji, the 300 million number (its SDRs, not USD - it will be about 470 million USD!) is India's liability cap on the govt, which is over and above the liability of the operator (NPCIL) which is capped @ 500 crores...Supplier liability technically, is unlimited...In Japan's case, the liability for nuke accidents devolves completely on the operator (subject to caps), but force majeure or black swan events are not covered within that ambit (same for India)...

the key difference is that in Japan, the operators are pvt enities, hence they have a cap on liability for which they need to take out an insurance...For India, the operator is always going to be GOI, the concept of GOI taking out an insurance is moot, as it will anyway have to foot the entire bill of any accident..The caps set by law to that extent are a bit academic - if soemthing like this hit Tarapr tomorrow, the govt of the day can hardly take refuge under the 300 mio SDR law...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 07:50

ramdas wrote:Somnathji,

It looks like all objections to the LWRs finally arise out of one reason : there is a nagging suspicion that the price paid by GOI for nuke commerce with the outside world has been a steep on the strategic front. While the deal does not explicitly prevent us from taking steps needed to bolster our deterrent, there is a suspicion that GOI has gone slow on this front (probably to please the west).

These suspicions gain credibility when reports of TSP having more nukes than GOI are becoming common. If such a situation holds, it is nothing short of treason by the powers that be in GOI. More so, if the gap, as Jaswant Singh suggests,is 50-60 on our side vs 100-110 and growing on theirs.

Ramdas-ji, even before the deal, it ws quite clear that India was not ramping up weapons capcities in any great manner...That includes the time under NDA - Strobe Talbot notes that in passing in his book (on Talbot-Jaswant talks)...Further, everyone in the nuke establishment, including so-caled rebels like K Santhanam, time and again insist that the deterrence is sufficient and credible...I dont know where Jaswant Singh got the "50-60" number from - maybe he was just quoting a report, though he should be knowing the numbers well enough!

To quote Jaswant Singh himself, we have already refused to quantify a "minimum deterrent" - as he said, its not a fixity, not even an enunciation of a fixity - eloquently put!

The way I see it is that the number of "weapons" made is a function of fissile material production and stockpile, because there can be no verifiable way anyone outside the very "inner circles" can really know how many "weapons" got produced...Going by all the estimates of fissile materials (including reactor grade Pu) - we discussed at some length some time back - India seems to have a very large stocpile indeed...Frankly, beyond that, everything else is a question of rhetoric to suit a particular agenda - so NPAs putting out alarmist reports on Pak to goad the US into "controlling" it and so on...

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 07:56

somnath wrote: Arnab-ji, the 300 million number (its SDRs, not USD - it will be about 470 million USD!) is India's liability cap on the govt, which is over and above the liability of the operator (NPCIL) which is capped @ 500 crores...Supplier liability technically, is unlimited...In Japan's case, the liability for nuke accidents devolves completely on the operator (subject to caps), but force majeure or black swan events are not covered within that ambit (same for India)...

the key difference is that in Japan, the operators are pvt enities, hence they have a cap on liability for which they need to take out an insurance...For India, the operator is always going to be GOI, the concept of GOI taking out an insurance is moot, as it will anyway have to foot the entire bill of any accident..The caps set by law to that extent are a bit academic - if soemthing like this hit Tarapr tomorrow, the govt of the day can hardly take refuge under the 300 mio SDR law...

Sorry but wasn't the whole brouhaha over the liability bill about increasing supplier's liability from Rs 5 billion to Rs 15 billion or some such thing? You are right about the operator's liability and the fact that effectively GOI is the insurer of last resort. GOI is already holding the bag for all the reactors we have bought from Chernobyl central

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 08:12

Amber G. wrote: For perspective even if one just compares radio-activity disposed, typical coal power plants give about 100 to 1000 times more radioactivity (disposes in the air along with other nasty stuff) per kwh produced than a typical nuclear plant. (Coal has enough thorium and other stuff)

Amber,

This is a very interesting point you make. Could you elaborate a bit more or point to some links. I'd like to know about this for my personal knowledge.

TIA

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 08:15

arnab wrote:Sorry but wasn't the whole brouhaha over the liability bill about increasing supplier's liability from Rs 5 billion to Rs 15 billion or some such thing?

You are right, the brouhaha was over two things:

1. Amount cap on suppliers
2. Time cap

On amount, the Act increased it to 10k crore

from the proposed 1.5k crores!!! 1500 crores was in line with international practices, 10,000 just took us to a different plane...More worryingly (for suppliers), the liability on the supplier is for 80 years - which pretty much precludes any insurance being taken out even if the supplier was brave (or solvent enough)

And yes, the govt as the monopoly operator anyway holds the can - pvt, public, satan, soviet - the works

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Mar 2011 08:18

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/16/stories ... 301400.htm
Nice to read this.. However it is always nicer to review.

Kalapakkam hopefully has similar MSL installations?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Mar 2011 08:20

Amit: ^^^ Gerard had posted some nice link(s) some time ago..

In any case here is an old Scientific American article .
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

..Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 08:20

amit wrote:Amber,

This is a very interesting point you make. Could you elaborate a bit more or point to some links. I'd like to know about this for my personal knowledge.

TIA

I am not Amber, but its been a long running and storied research area - often quoted by the "nuclear wallahs"...Was all over when the brouhaha over the nuke deal was happening..
Here is a balanced view on the issue..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lear-waste

Key take-away..

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again

Saw Amber-ji has already referenced this!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 08:23

And some more!

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article

Google search would give many more rsults I am sure...

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 08:25

ramdas wrote:These suspicions gain credibility when reports of TSP having more nukes than GOI are becoming common. If such a situation holds, it is nothing short of treason by the powers that be in GOI. More so, if the gap, as Jaswant Singh suggests,is 50-60 on our side vs 100-110 and growing on theirs.

If deterrence was just a numbers game (in terms of the number of bombs) then the US should have been deterred to the extent of browning their pants during the cold war vis a vis the Soviet Union. However, think why that didn't happen. Deterrence is a function of a number of other factors and just simply saying that the Pakis have twice the number bombs we supposedly have serves no purpose other than create a brouhaha.

A rapid buildup of the deterrent arsenal must be a primary national goal. This should supercede all civilian goals of the nuclear program till we achieve some semblance of nuclear parity with PRC and a massive nuclear superiority over TSP.

Assuming that the powers that be in GoI are satisfied with the quality of bombs we have in our deterrent, can you explain how this nuclear deal stems our ability to assemble the required number of bombs that we need to "achieve some semblance of nuclear parity" with China and "massive nuclear superiority over TSP"?

We have sufficient number of reactors outside the safeguards regime producing the "maal" we need to make the bombs and most reports say that India has an "adequate to more than adequate" amount of Pu to make the number of bombs it requires.

Which is why even Santhanam ji, who questioned the thermo nuke, has gone on record to say our minimum deterrence is adequate to deal with the Pakis.

Your "suspicion" I think stems from the great debate we had about whether our thermo nukes work or not. Well that was never fully resolved at least on BRF. So I'm afraid such "suspicion" will remain just that.

Meanwhile as India's economy grows faster I would wonder if the nuclear deal can be a roadblock to us testing sometime in the future if it is so required. Very soon the suppliers of nuke tech will need us more than we need them. Take a look at China, everyone knows that they gave the bomb to the Pakis and more importantly from the US POV to the North Koreans. But they did jacksh!t about that. Why?

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 08:26

Amber G. wrote:Amit: ^^^ Gerard had posted some nice link(s) some time ago..

In any case here is an old Scientific American article .
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
..Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

Thanks a lot Amber!

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 08:28

somnath wrote:
amit wrote:Amber,

This is a very interesting point you make. Could you elaborate a bit more or point to some links. I'd like to know about this for my personal knowledge.

TIA
I am not Amber, but its been a long running and storied research area - often quoted by the "nuclear wallahs"...Was all over when the brouhaha over the nuke deal was happening..
Here is a balanced view on the issue..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lear-waste

Key take-away..
The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again
Saw Amber-ji has already referenced this!

Somnath, thanks! When we have mature discussion this thread can be treasure trove of information and insights.

Problem starts when CH4 is discharged.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Mar 2011 09:00

somnath wrote: Plus, and you might want to note Abhishek-ji, all liabilities (operator included) in nuke arena is capped in amount terms...In The Indian Act for example, the operator liability is capped at 500 crores, and above that govt liability is capped at 300 million SDRs..

Some details about the Indian law here..
http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name= ... category=1

Net net, "acts of God" are seldom covered under contracts, and also in normal third party insurance of the type we are talking about here...Such disasters need to be necessarily tackled by the society at large...

A point about nuclear v/s everything else debate...There will be a lot of it in the near future...But the point is this - this is the third big nuke accident in reported history....Human casualties (and we dont know whether there have been any till now on account of radiation in Fukushima) as a % of MW produced for nuclear power will still perhaps be lower than that of coal...I dont know, havent seen any data, but clearly the pollution impact and impact on huan health of coal has been widely storied...So knee-jerk analyses serves no purpose...And public sector good private sector bad (or domestic good imported bad) serves even less - God forbid, if a tsunami struck Tarapur, the impact will not be any less just becasue the reactor is indigeneous (ah well, almost indigeneous!).....

I am completely cognizant of these laws. My point is that these laws are unfair and should be changed.

Any entity (public/private/desi/videshi) cannot argue that they will keep the profits and pass the losses to the society. We should not suspend the laws of capitalism selectively.

It is very interesting to hear that "Such disasters need to be necessarily tackled by the society at large". And I don't mean that in a good way. These corporations don't talk about sharing their profits with "the society at large." This ugly asymmetry is not troubling your conscience.

I am very happy to know that the nuclear sector is very safe. I wonder why we are shying away from putting a price on these risks. Moreover, if it is very safe then the surcharge for potential liability per unit electricity should be low. We cannot (logically) say that "it is very safe" and "full liability is too high, we cannot pay it".

There is no knee-jerk analysis at all. I was just arguing that we should compare the costs of coal and nuclear energy. I don't think I reached any conclusion.

Since you "have not seen the data", I think you should probably wait before reaching any conclusion. I don't understand how you reached the conclusion about human casualties.

It is easy to classify the flaws of a particular sector in terms of "these are acts of God". But these acts of God do not affect other sectors, right? Then why should govt subsidize this sector? I guess we could subsidize less radioactive sources of energy.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 09:22

abhishek_sharma wrote:Then why should govt subsidize this sector? I guess we could subsidize less radioactive sources of energy.

This point is interesting.

Could you elaborate on two things:

1) How exactly is the GoI subsidizing this (nuclear) sector in quantifiable as well as qualitative terms as opposed to not subsidizing any other sector again in both quantifiable as well as qualitative terms?

2) If we can establish that the GoI is indeed subsidizing this sector, who or which parts thereof these sectors are being subsidized? Meaning the operator, desi equipment suppliers, videshi suppliers, the ancillary industry etc?

Thanks.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Mar 2011 09:25

If the government decides to pay for clean up (and compensation) after an accident, then it is subsidizing the nuclear industry. The agent receiving the subsidy (operator/equipment supplier) varies from case to case.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 09:33

abhishek_sharma wrote:If the government decides to pay for clean up (and compensation) after an accident, then it is subsidizing the nuclear industry. The agent receiving the subsidy (operator/equipment supplier) varies from case to case.

Then I suppose in principle you are against the govt paying for any clean up caused by an industrial accident caused by a force majeure event like the one in Japan? That is you wouldn't want the Indian govt to step in if, god forbid, a similar accident every happened in India?

Do note that it has not yet been established that the problem at Fukushima was the result of negligence or equipment failure. As of now, it still appears to be the result of an unprecedented natural disaster.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Mar 2011 09:37

amit wrote: Then I suppose in principle you are against the govt paying for any clean up caused by an industrial accident caused by a force majeure accident like the one in Japan? That is you wouldn't want the Indian govt to step in if, god forbid, a similar accident every happened in India?

In principle, every sector should pay for the consequences of its actions. The coal industry should pay for climate change related problems (and I accept they are probably not doing so). And the nuclear industry should pay in the case of a nuclear accident (from any cause). Govt can step in initially, but all costs should be reimbursed. (These costs can be passed to the customer, so that we can know the true costs of different sources of energy.)

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Mar 2011 09:38

abhishek_sharma wrote:We cannot (logically) say that "it is very safe" and "full liability is too high, we cannot pay it".

Abhishek-ji, is there any pricing of the "full liability" arising out of an earthqauke impact on a dam, or an enemy bombing raid blowing up a gas-based power plant, or a suicide terror attack on the Jamnagar refinery? Questions on pricing in "full costs" are fair, but Black Swan events cant be a touchstone....

abhishek_sharma wrote:Since you "have not seen the data", I think you should probably wait before reaching any conclusion. I don't understand how you reached the conclusion about human casualties

I ahvent seen any studiy on human fatalities - but as I mentioend, the environmental impact of coal is widely storied...And as some studies (referenced above) show, the radioactive impact of coal thermal power might be higher than that of nuclear power plants..

abhishek_sharma wrote:If the government decides to pay for clean up (and compensation) after an accident, then it is subsidizing the nuclear industry. The agent receiving the subsidy (operator/equipment supplier) varies from case to case.

The govt does the job of clean-up every time there is flooding in Bihar, widely blamed on the Kosi dam...Should we price that in the power generated out of it?

The question isnt about public/private/Indian/foreigner, but of basic tenets of law and its applicability...

Last bit about "responsibiulity"...If there is a rise in global warming (caused to a large extent by coal emmissions) that in turn generates unpredctable climate conditions which in turn produces fiercer tsunamis - who is to blame? The nuke operator/designer who didnt cater for a once-in-a-1000-year Tsunami? Or the govt for allowing high emmission levels? Or the world at large?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 09:40

arnab wrote: Sorry - but how is an MP having nightmares relevant? or that some evcuation may be required if a reactor leaked. I'm sure evacuation will also be required if Bhakra Nangal dam collapsed.

Some times I am amazed at my own prescience.

Yes all bull wonlee.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Mar 2011 09:40

somnath:

As mentioned above, all sectors should be fully accountable for what they do. Same standards should be applied to all sectors of energy.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 09:41

abhishek_sharma wrote:
I am completely cognizant of these laws. My point is that these laws are unfair and should be changed.

Any entity (public/private/desi/videshi) cannot argue that they will keep the profits and pass the losses to the society. We should not suspend the laws of capitalism selectively.

It is very interesting to hear that "Such disasters need to be necessarily tackled by the society at large". And I don't mean that in a good way. These corporations don't talk about sharing their profits with "the society at large." This ugly asymmetry is not troubling your conscience.

I am very happy to know that the nuclear sector is very safe. I wonder why we are shying away from putting a price on these risks. Moreover, if it is very safe then the surcharge for potential liability per unit electricity should be low. We cannot (logically) say that "it is very safe" and "full liability is too high, we cannot pay it".

There is no knee-jerk analysis at all. I was just arguing that we should compare the costs of coal and nuclear energy. I don't think I reached any conclusion.

Since you "have not seen the data", I think you should probably wait before reaching any conclusion. I don't understand how you reached the conclusion about human casualties.

It is easy to classify the flaws of a particular sector in terms of "these are acts of God". But these acts of God do not affect other sectors, right? Then why should govt subsidize this sector? I guess we could subsidize less radioactive sources of energy.

As I understand it, such laws are needed to keep the insurance companies in business. Insurance companies provide a service to society by taking away the risks to individuals of their most prized assets (home, contents, car etc). They identify an 'acturially fair' premium and individuals are happy to pay $100 per month to insure their $500,000 home. The alternative would be of course, that the individual keeps a reserve of $500,000 on his own and uses that to rebuild his home incase an earthquake destroys his home (however low the probability is). Not a very efficient use of money is it?

What do insurance company do? They essentially take bets and buy reinsurance from wholesalers, so that they themselves are not completely exposed by having to give out huge payouts as insurance claims. This is essentially the cost of insurance companies and is passed on to the consumers through their premiums.

Note that insurance companies insure a whole range of assets and activities and structure their premiums accordingly. However for certain factors there can be no insurance (for e.g war or force majeure) or they would have to cap the amount of payouts to be made (e.g nuclear liability, New Zealand earthquake disaster fund). This is because it is impossible to get insurance on an unknown level of liability. Else they would have to set the premium so high that it would not make sense for the company to get into that business.

Is this fair? No. Does this make economic sense? Yes. Because I (and millions of individuals) as a home owner can subtantially reduce my own risks pretty cheaply because the insurance companies are in business. The alternative for me is to have the entire cost of rebuilding my home and contents as a reserve.

The problem with huge notional liabilities can be seen in the US medical industry. This requires doctors there to buy a large amount of work cover insurance resulting in increased premiums which are then passed on to the consumers by way of higher fees leading to a totally ineqitable (though highly capitalistic) health market.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 09:43

abhishek_sharma wrote:In principle, every sector should pay for the consequences of its actions. The coal industry should pay for climate change related problems (and I accept they are probably not doing so). And the nuclear industry should pay in the case of a nuclear accident (from any cause). Govt can step in initially, but all costs should be reimbursed.

Great principles boss. But in that case I think we'd have to go back to what GuruPrabhu said, cowdung patties for our energy needs.

(These costs can be passed to the customer, so that we can know the true costs of different sources of energy.)

Can you tell me how you'll factor in cost of a an yet occur nuclear accident that may or may not happen some time in the future. The severity of a nuclear accident could be from anywhere near this interesting compilation of nuclear incidents in India to a Cherynobl type of mega disaster.

You first raised the point of quantifying everything. Yet you still seem to not have an idea of how one can do that.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Mar 2011 09:45

The bog has started discharging!

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 09:46

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote: Sorry - but how is an MP having nightmares relevant? or that some evcuation may be required if a reactor leaked. I'm sure evacuation will also be required if Bhakra Nangal dam collapsed.
Some times I am amazed at my own prescience.

Yes all bull wonlee.

Sir since you are so much in love with yourself - why not stand in front of a mirror and repeat what you write about yourself on BRF to yourself?

This will help us all instead of steadily weakening the signal to noise ratio on the forum with pointless fearmongering. You are not canvassing for votes here you know

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 09:53

arnab wrote: Sir since you are so much in love with yourself - why not stand in front of a mirror and repeat what you write about yourself on BRF to yourself? This will help us all instead of steadily weakening the signal to noise ratio on the forum with pointless fearmongering. You are not canvassing for votes here you know

Ah but my speaking here causes so much irritation to known charlatans and purveyors of blatant falsehood that they jump in and expose themselves very thoroughly, without much effort.

So you see there is good in repeating a basic truth over and over again.

vina wrote:What you need is a Yindoo kind of design mentality where you know most things fail, only laws of nature are absolute, everything unpredictable, dont assume anything. Do that and you can have a idiot proof and safe under any circumstances nuke plant.

Absolutely, very very well said.

The only problem is that there are a lot of Indians around who are actually batting for the dark side while pretending to be well wishers.