India Nuclear News And Discussion

[negi]

^ Somnath you would know this better, but as far as economics are concerned it's not just about the 'efficiency' alone operating costs, user training and initial investment (local content and labor) too need to be considered ; finally our inhouse reactors might have an export potential (hey btw after the deal now can we sell our reactors ?).

nevermind got the answer.

[somnath]

user training and initial investment (local content and labor) too need to be considered ; finally our inhouse reactors might have an export potential (hey btw after the deal now can we sell our reactors

On selling our "smaller" reactors, I had posted an article from Bloomberg on the new craze for smaller reactors around the world..Yes, with the nuke deal we can export now - question is, how price-competitive is our 220MW design?

To be sure, I dont think there has ever been a real cost audit of India's nuke power programme..how much does the power plant really cost...NPCIL is an operator, and it is a profitable entity..But has the costs of reactor design passed on to it by DAE? Not sure, actually dont think so - GP mentions how MMS in his earlier avatars was hugely critical of the performance of the nuke establishment...

the way I see it is this - NPCIL is going ahead with implementing (at least the AREVA design) as a part of its own commercial portfolio...On the other hand, both FBR and AHWR are being implemented by separate "non-commercial", or "quasi-commercial" entities..Says something about the "proven-ness" of the relative designs, doesnt it?

[negi]

Are FBR and AHWR under IAEA safeguards ?

[GuruPrabhu]

The bull is taking a long weekend off, so I can post.

Yes, with the nuke deal we can export now - question is, how price-competitive is our 220MW design?

It is very very cost competitive. Usually, cost scales with size. However, the cost per MW of the 220W babies is better than cost per MW of EPR biggies. This is known -- no question about it.

the way I see it is this - NPCIL is going ahead with implementing (at least the AREVA design) as a part of its own commercial portfolio...On the other hand, both FBR and AHWR are being implemented by separate "non-commercial", or "quasi-commercial" entities..Says something about the "proven-ness" of the relative designs, doesnt it?

The problem is one of "capacity" not "cost". It is so much easier to invite Areva to make a 1,600 MW plant than to task NPCIL with 7 plants of 220 MW each to reach that same level of production. Or, 3 plants of 500 MW each. This is also very well known.

[GuruPrabhu]

Are FBR and AHWR under IAEA safeguards ?

No. Furthermore, IAEA does not have the protocol established to monitor such reactors.

[somnath]

However, the cost per MW of the 220W babies is better than cost per MW of EPR biggies. This is known -- no question about it.

Guruprabhu-ji, welcome back! You are an "insider" - can you point us "outsiders" to some publicly available info on this? If true, why arent we big time in the "small nukes" game?

The problem is one of "capacity" not "cost". It is so much easier to invite Areva to make a 1,600 MW plant than to task NPCIL with 7 plants of 220 MW each to reach that same level of production. Or, 3 plants of 500 MW each. This is also very well known

You miss the point I was making..The AREVA design is being operated by NPCIL itself..So all costs/liabilities of EPR will be borne by NPCIL, which is a commercial entity..On the other hand, AHWR and FBR are being implemented and operated outside NPCIL, by non-commercial entities...For people who argue "FBR/AHWR proven, LWR all foreign unproven trash" - this should indicate the level of "proven-ness" of the designs...

No. Furthermore, IAEA does not have the protocol established to monitor such reactors

Even if they did, we are unlikely to put them under safeguards

[vina]

{1000 MWe in a standard/conventional PHWR may be difficult, unless some form of enrichment is used in the fuel. For me, sticking to Nat U is best. Big - here meaning, large MWe output capacity - is not always beautiful, nor the only most economical solution}. . .

I do think that all out efforts must be made to improve the overall thermo-dynamic efficiency. Per my reading, the 750MW designs going up is nothing but the same standardized 500MW (the thermal out put of both are the same), but with improved cycle efficiency, they are able to get out more than 50% energy that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere.

In fact , think of it this way, with a 750M PHWR , just 4 PHWR reactors would suffice for 3000 MW plant, which otherwise would have required 6 X 500MW units, massively cutting down cost and also cooling requirement at full power!

Maybe one thing they could consider is to have a mixed nuclear & fossil fuel system. The problem with current gen reactors is that they cannot produce superheated steam and the best they can do is produce wet steam. You could put in a coal fired superheater in the secondary system and easily scale this into a superheated or even supercritical facility with overall thermal efficiencies reaching above 51% to around 60% or so, as that would allow you to put in more efficient turbines.

The heavy lifting of turning the water from the condensers and inlet feed can be done by nuclear and the super heating/supercritical part can be done by fossil using current available tech and machinery and overall the hybrid system can be ultra efficient.

Going that route via all nuclear will have to wait for higher reactor exit temps and GenIV kind of reactors that are are atleast 30/40 years out. But as an intermediate step and rather than generate all the 3000MW by burning coal (with high efficiency given current tech and spewing massive pollution or) all nuclear (with low efficiency and large plants and large amounts of waste), a hybrid plant could be a decent compromise (far less air and fly ash than all coal, and smaller plant and fewer waste than if all nuclear).

[GuruPrabhu]

You miss the point I was making..

Not really. Capacity factor is a real impediment. Let us say that tomorrow I present a bull that sings in Raag Gandharv. Does that mean that the day after I can take on a batch of 100 bulls in my Gandharv for Bulls 101 class?

[somnath]

Guruprabhu-ji,

Thats fine..Question is this..NPCIL has enough confidence in operating the EPR as a commercial enterprise..ut obviosly not enough to operate the FBR/AHWR as one...Thats all...Unless I am missing something..

though it would be interesting if we have some case studies on relative costs...

[GuruPrabhu]

Guruprabhu-ji,

Thats fine..Question is this..NPCIL has enough confidence in operating the EPR as a commercial enterprise..ut obviosly not enough to operate the FBR/AHWR as one...Thats all...Unless I am missing something..

though it would be interesting if we have some case studies on relative costs...

Bottomline, all expertise is with BARC and IGCAR. NPCIL and Bhavani are instruments. The reason NPCIL is confident about EPR is because NPCIL personnel will get trained in France. Delhi Univ already has a course in MTech in Nuclear Engineering in which students are traveling to Grenoble to get trained. This is organized stuff. AHWR is a pipe dream at the moment.

[somnath]

NPCIL and Bhavani are instruments

That is true..But NPCIL is a commercial entity, BHAVINI is not (well not really, NPCIL only has an equity stake, that too as a pass through - govt to NPCIL - NPCIL to BHAVINI )..If they were confident about the commercial feasibility of FBR, there was no need to NOT operate it under NPCIL and create a separate vehicle (BHAVINI)...

Anyway, I had posted this sometime back, about smaller nuke power reactors...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-2 ... ctors.html

India's 220MW designs should also be in there?

[Sanku]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Top-scien ... 79944.aspx

Top scientist calls for halt to N-power

P Balaram, director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and member of the scientific advisory council to the PM, has joined a growing group of scientists and activists seeking a review of India's nuclear strategy.

"In the light of what has happened in Japan, I believe completely transparent safety audits are required for all nuclear projects. The nuclear regulator must also be completely independent of the department of atomic energy (DAE),” Balaram told HT over the phone.

Manmohan Singh and the nuclear establishment have emphatically ruled out a moratorium -

I hope to god that there are enough Indians like the Diro of IISc left to counter this mad "pay heftily to commit suicide" plan.

[Sanatanan]

I do think that all out efforts must be made to improve the overall thermo-dynamic efficiency. Per my reading, the 750MW designs going up is nothing but the same standardized 500MW (the thermal out put of both are the same), but with improved cycle efficiency, they are able to get out more than 50% energy that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere.

vina-ji,

First, I begin with a confession that I do not have the requisite reference links on the issue which I have indicated below:

Are you sure about the bolded part in the above quote?

I believe that while the 540 MWe and 700 MWe core designs (mechanical design of core components, fuel etc) are the same, there is an important difference between the two in heat removal philosophy adopted to extract the fission heat produced in the fuel. The main difference is that in the 700 MWe design, boiling hear transfer between fuel sheath and Heavy Water coolant is permitted to a limited extent (like in AECL's Advanced CANDU Reactor), while in the 540 MWe core, the coolant has adequate "over-pressure" to inhibit any boiling during normal operation even at full power. With boiling heat transfer, more heat from the fuel can be extracted and thus I suspect that the core thermal heat in 700 MWe design is greater than in the 540 MWe case. The output steam (light water) pressure and temperature at the turbine inlet may not be significantly different in both cases and I would think the overall thermodynamic steam cycle efficiency might be more or less same. Of course I am subject to correction here.

PS: Introduction of boiling heat transfer in the core in 700 MWe PHWR reactor design would likely necessitate downstream changes in reactor control philosophy too.

[somnath]

OT here, but Guruphabhu-ji, what is "raag gandharv"? Talking of bulls though, maybe you had Kumar andharv in your mind

[JE Menon]

Guys, I have a sense (I don't really know) that this is veering towards the personal commentary and oblique flamebaiting. If that is the case (as I said, I don't know), is it necessary? It may be gratifying but only temporarily and invariably results in acrimony. Do desist.

[somnath]

Guys, I have a sense (I don't really know) that this is veering towards the personal commentary and oblique flamebaiting. If that is the case (as I said, I don't know), is it necessary? It may be gratifying but only temporarily and invariably results in acrimony. Do desist.

Was this directed to this

OT here, but Guruphabhu-ji, what is "raag gandharv"? Talking of bulls though, maybe you had Kumar andharv in your mind

Sorry, but no flamebaiting - I am (rather used to be) a big fan of Pt Kumar Gandharva - and at least when I saw him he was heftily built BTW, AFAIK there is no raag gandharv, but I may be mistaken..

[vina]

First, I begin with a confession that I do not have the requisite reference links on the issue which I have indicated below:

I dont have the links either. I read up some stuff when I first heard of the PHWR 540MW and PHWR 700MW designs here at BR. I don't remember where I got those and didn't bother to store them and I really don't want to google and find them again.

Are you sure about the bolded part in the above quote?

No I am not sure. I was just writing from the memory of what I glanced through in a few minutes.

I believe that while the 540 MWe and 700 MWe core designs (mechanical design of core components, fuel etc) are the same, there is an important difference between the two in heat removal philosophy adopted to extract the fission heat produced in the fuel.

Yes, this much I remember, the design is essentially the same. Mechanically, physically etc etc.

The main difference is that in the 700 MWe design, boiling hear transfer between fuel sheath and Heavy Water coolant is permitted to a limited extent (like in AECL's Advanced CANDU Reactor), while in the 540 MWe core, the coolant has adequate "over-pressure" to inhibit any boiling during normal operation even at full power.

Yes. I recall that as well. I didn't bother reading up the AECL CANDU . However, I do remember that they were allowing something like 3% boiling in the outlet header (i don't recall much more than that in that article ,especially on the how part of it.) . I am not really sure that the fundamental heat transfer mechanism between the fuel rods and the coolant would have changed at all. You may be right though, that they allowed a limited amount of boiling at the fuel sheath coolant boundary allowing for more efficient heat transfer.

With boiling heat transfer, more heat from the fuel can be extracted and thus I suspect that the core thermal heat in 700 MWe design is greater than in the 540 MWe case

Well, but then the heat transfer losses would be somewhat less, though I do agree that it won't be in the range of 160MWe. I think you are right here.

The output steam (light water) pressure and temperature at the turbine inlet may not be significantly different in both cases and I would think the overall thermodynamic steam cycle efficiency might be more or less same. Of course I am subject to correction here.

Yes. Quite plausible.

PS: Introduction of boiling heat transfer in the core in 700 MWe PHWR reactor design would likely necessitate downstream changes in reactor control philosophy too.

That is the reason why I am inclined to look for other reasons for that capacity increase from the 540MW . Two designs, no different in size, construction and other stuff, but lot of complex control design changes required , doesn't make much sense. You would put all efforts to design just one and nail it. Dunno, maybe 500MW on the elec generating part is all that they had when they set out to design this and then maybe 700MW became available and they could get there with minimal changes to the 500MW design.

[JE Menon]

Somnath,

No I did not mean that specifically (but included in my comment). I was referring to the exchange from talk of "bull" downwards...

Thanks for the clarification.

[somnath]

It is very very cost competitive. Usually, cost scales with size. However, the cost per MW of the 220W babies is better than cost per MW of EPR biggies. This is known -- no question about it.

GuruPrabhu-ji, did some "googling" on costs..Sometimes, Google is a help

Two references -
one from MR Srinivasan (on Indian reactors)...http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/05/stories ... 881201.htm
On EPR...http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Both area bit dated, 2007 and 2009 respectively in terms of timelines - so any inflation aspect should technically cancel out each other...

On cost of Indian PHWRs..

The more recent PHWR units of Indian technology completed in the late 1990s and early years of this decade at Kaiga, Rajasthan 3 & 4 and Tarapur 3 & 4 have tariffs in the range of 270-285 paise per kwh.

On EPR..

At the end of 2008 EdF updated the overnight cost estimate for Flamanville 3 EPR (the first French EPR, but with some supply contracts locked in before escalation) to EUR 4 billion in 2008 Euros (EUR 2434/kW), and electricity cost 5.4 cents/kWh (compared with 6.8 c/kWh for CCGT and 7.0 c/kWh for coal, "with lowest assumptions" for CO2 cost). These costs were confirmed in mid 2009, when EdF had spent nearly EUR 2 billion.

5.4 cents/Kwh would translate to ~3 rupees/kwh..

So you are technically right on the costs..Although a reactor built in India will have a different upfront capital cost compared to one in Europe - construction costs in India would be a fraction of Europe's..Also, it is debatable how much of the dev costs in our PHWRs are passed on to NPCIL (and onto the final consumer), while for AREVA they would pass on the full costs...

[Sanatanan]

New method to recover low-grade uranium from Tummalapalle ore

[Sanku]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/327607/Less ... shima.html

Lessons from Fukushima
April 01, 2011 4:04:52 PM

Sandhya Jain

In India, as influential lobbyists claim there is no going back on nuclear energy, the Government must reveal the per unit cost of nuclear power; the price of uranium; the subsidy; the private players; the real money they will invest in projects as opposed to cheap loans from public sector banks; the expertise they offer; their profits; and, the actual risks incurred by them. Above all, given our experience in the 2G scam, we must know if retired nuclear scientists who lobbied for the India-US nuclear deal are serving as ‘consultants’ to private firms keen to enter the nuclear energy field.

......

Sadly for the Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh dyarchy, Fukushima overlaps the WikiLeaks disclosures over the cash-for-votes scandal of July 2008. These indicate the role of big money in the India-US nuclear deal and, above all, the high stakes involved for some hidden national and international players in the subsequent nuclear contracts.

The need for transparency is being acutely felt.

[Sanku]

Ramana; Saar did you get through to this gent?

Anupam Chander is a professor of law at UC Davis.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 8225.story

Who's to blame for Fukushima?

In a legal sense it is too early to know, but General Electric, the designer of the stricken plant, might not entirely escape liability for the nuclear disaster.

. The explanation: Japanese law reportedly limits liability to the operator, not the designer, of a nuclear power plant.
...
A year ago, we heard similar arguments about the limited exposure of BP in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
The Justice Department called Transocean's effort to limit its liability "simply unconscionable."


Modern disasters are, in an important sense, man-made. Because of this fact, the need to assign legal liability will arise.

Woo!! Supplier long term liability, public vs private spending. Man made disasters.

This looks like it has rolled of BRFites keyboard, yet set in US sense in US mileu with their laws etc.

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

To all:
PS> I told you so.

[brihaspati]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/327607/Less ... shima.html

Lessons from Fukushima
April 01, 2011 4:04:52 PM

Sandhya Jain

In India, as influential lobbyists claim there is no going back on nuclear energy, the Government must reveal the per unit cost of nuclear power; the price of uranium; the subsidy; the private players; the real money they will invest in projects as opposed to cheap loans from public sector banks; the expertise they offer; their profits; and, the actual risks incurred by them. Above all, given our experience in the 2G scam, we must know if retired nuclear scientists who lobbied for the India-US nuclear deal are serving as ‘consultants’ to private firms keen to enter the nuclear energy field.

......

Sadly for the Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh dyarchy, Fukushima overlaps the WikiLeaks disclosures over the cash-for-votes scandal of July 2008. These indicate the role of big money in the India-US nuclear deal and, above all, the high stakes involved for some hidden national and international players in the subsequent nuclear contracts.

The need for transparency is being acutely felt.

It strikes me that one angle we have not considered perhaps in this - as well as the recent hoopla about supposed military cover for feudal regimes of GCC, that maybe , just maybe when we talk of "boost to the Indian economy" - what it means perhaps is also a boost to the "party economy"? running a big party that has to guarantee Lok Sabha seats needs a lot of money, isnt it? Quattrochhi and related affairs are not that ancient history.

[GuruPrabhu]

So you are technically right on the costs..

..Also, it is debatable how much of the dev costs in our PHWRs are passed on to NPCIL (and onto the final consumer), while for AREVA they would pass on the full costs...

Yes, NPCIL does not have to recover R&D costs. BARC labor is "free" to the consumer. I had mentioned this upfront in one of my posts. But, given that we are here, the costs are what they are.

Sometimes I wonder why India does not have the culture of converting developments to massive production, so one could get 22 GW from 220MWx100. This comment may start a debate on this topic, but I am just stating facts and the thinking that is prevalent in the higher circles. Of course 100 reactors is a waste of land, but the years spent on this debate and opportunity lost is a bigger waste.

Regarding "gandharv", nice catch. I was thinking "gandhari". Suntaa hai guru gyaani (you should catch the reference as a Kumar G. fan).

Menon-Saar, No more bull (sh*t) talk from me.

[somnath]

Regarding "gandharv", nice catch. I was thinking "gandhari". Suntaa hai guru gyaani (you should catch the reference as a Kumar G. fan)

Kabir doha Aparently Kumar G's grandson is digitising his library...Gandhari is a rare (rather non-popular) raag though - bahaar basan ritu ayee...but waaay OT here..

100 220MW plants - sir we struggle to acquire land for 1, constructing 100

BTW, since when did people like Sandhya Jain become nuke "experts"? I mean, as a general purpose columnist, or a citizen, she has every right to criticise..But if she is publishing a critique, she should at least get facts right?

What is the constant allusion to "private sector profits", funded by cheap "public sector bank lending"? They should at least familiarise themselves with the nuclear industry structure in India before commenting, that would make their rants a bit more credible!

[GuruPrabhu]

Kabir doha Aparently Kumar G's grandson is digitising his library...

well, technically it is a bhajan. yes, it is OT, but listening to this will make you forget about nuke power, fukushima ityadi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vlsdv_z0s

BTW, since when did people like Sandhya Jain become nuke "experts"? I mean, as a general purpose columnist, or a citizen, she has every right to criticise..But if she is publishing a critique, she should at least get facts right?

It is easy to ride a bandwagon and she is no different. With the public opinion already whipped up into hysteria, why should she not cash in? I doubt that she knows what Bq/liter means, but that doesn't stop her from quoting numbers like a pro. My lesson from this episode is that science is incapable of changing the primordial fear of the invisible/unknown embedded in the human psyche.

My comment about vedic times was grossly misunderstood and even regarded as wahji-bull-cattle worthy. One has to think long-term. Humanity has to face the facts regarding its constant demand for more energy, especially in a growing nation like India where citizens are fast learning the energy-dependent lifestyle of the west. Fossil fuels *will* run out. Besides hydro, the only other known renewable source for base load is nuclear (renewable as in "3-cycle"). Simply stating that "nuke power is only 3% of India's needs today so who needs it" is a disservice to our children. One has to be honest and project the problem 50 years hence. There are numerous studies available on this, so debating it on BRF is rather pointless.

[JwalaMukhi]

Fossil fuels *will* run out. Besides hydro, the only other known renewable source for base load is nuclear (renewable as in "3-cycle"). Simply stating that "nuke power is only 3% of India's needs today so who needs it" is a disservice to our children. One has to be honest and project the problem 50 years hence.

Guruprabhu, quick question. As there is fossil fuels run out (peak oil) scenario, is there some study similar say "peak nuclear fuel" available?

Other than that, there are some pressing questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the nuclear industry.
1) Long term storage/handling of spent fuels - where and at what cost?
2) Potential responsibility and payouts associated with disasters - cost is going to be humungous.
3) Foreign dependence for nuclear fuel.
4) Life time costs and how it impacts the energy costs.
The answers to these questions will determine why and how much to invest in nuclear route compared to renewable route. The potential for renewable energy in India is much more than nuclear route. The viability needs to be established.

Here is one green report that projects for year 2030 the energy needs. Any other similar studies? Not challenging, but asking to learn.
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/librar ... %5D-1_.pdf

[GuruPrabhu]

Guruprabhu, quick question. As there is fossil fuels run out (peak oil) scenario, is there some study similar say "peak nuclear fuel" available?

To the first order, Thorium does not peak because unspent fuel can be recycled and regenerated.

Other than that, there are some pressing questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the nuclear industry.

to whose satisfaction? It is impossible to convince everyone. See my post above. Science has lost to hysteria. Our children will live with that and thank our generation for this gift.

[Sanku]

Guruprabhu, quick question. As there is fossil fuels run out (peak oil) scenario, is there some study similar say "peak nuclear fuel" available?

If I may, the answer is yes and its 50-70 years (based on known deposits) for LWR type tech. This information was posted with study links and discussed when 123 deal was being discussed.

[Sanku]

to whose satisfaction? It is impossible to convince everyone. See my post above. Science has lost to hysteria. Our children will live with that and thank our generation for this gift.

Science has not lost to hysteria, science has lost to psuedo-science, practiced by immoral people with no conscience who have used the science tag to fool the laity, but thankfully, unlike the church, there are enough sci-tech outsiders who do not buy into incestuous relationship of self-intrests.

The above statement is not to be taken personally by anyone of course, that is made in general current real world situation where the watchdogs and the watched are the same.

[JwalaMukhi]

To the first order, Thorium does not peak because unspent fuel can be recycled and regenerated.

Thank you that was a good answer and a non great answer. Good answer when one is pitching for thorium based nuclear route. But a great answer when pitching for Uranium route, because there is not even an acknowledgment that such "peak nuclear fuel" studies exist. Although it makes one wonder why there is such secrecy and reluctance to put facts on the table.

to whose satisfaction? It is impossible to convince everyone.

Generally in a well honed democracy, the proponents are expected to make a solid case to the public(tax payers) to whom the proponents go with their caps to solicit funds for such endeavours. However, apparently the GOI also seems to think in terms of the sentiments that you have expressed and taken a route to simply bribe and buy votes which matter.

That's the route that banana republics take which do not have confidence in general public's capability to comprehend what is going on.
Still, why is nuclear lobby not able to present its case well to public who pick up the tab thrown by any eventuality due to such endeavours.

[GuruPrabhu]

Science has not lost to hysteria, science has lost to psuedo-science, practiced by immoral people with no conscience who have used the science tag to fool the laity, but thankfully, unlike the church, there are enough sci-tech outsiders who do not buy into incestuous relationship of self-intrests.

yes, Sanku Saar, whatever you say, Saar. You alone stand in judgment, Saar. You have spoken and thus shall it be. Thathastu!

... it makes one wonder why there is such secrecy and reluctance to put facts on the table.

...

Still, why is nuclear lobby not able to present its case well to public who pick up the tab thrown by any eventuality due to such endeavours.

Yes, Jwalamukhi Saar, it is all secret and corrupt and indefensible, Saar.

[I have no HOPE or interest in arguing in the court of Sanku-ji and Jwalamukhi-ji. I can think of a billion more interesting things to do, starting with watching the grass grow at Wankhede.]

[JwalaMukhi]

^ Sorry Guruprabhu saar, if you felt it that way. Really not interested in arguments just for the sake of it. Only interested in trying to understand the difficulty faced by nuclear lobby.

[somnath]

Its interesting how many people have converted themselves into wannabe (or born again!) greenpeace activists...

In that context, even more interesting what some of the card-carrying "greens" are saying...George Monbiot, perhaps the most passionate and articulate of the lot..How Fukushima converted him from a neutral to a convert!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -fukushima

JwalaMukhi-ji, the issue of peak petroleum is pertinent, the issue of "peak uranium" is linked to that..The way technology has advanced, the "peak petroleum" dates have progressively gotten pushed back..But most people seem to think that it cannot be oushed back by much...The issue of peak uranium on the other hand, has not been given as much technical attention at all..Why? Because it isnt even pertinent as of now...Nuclear power constitutes such a small part of the global energy mix that the issue of "peak uranium" doesnt bother policy makers...Hence, efforts on new mines, new mining tech etc are tardy -India too is a good example of that...Even if you consider a peak petroleum period of 50 years for Uranium, chances are that by then the fuel cycle will be "closed" - and it becomes a self sustaining activity...No such luck with hydrocarbon - one of the most delightful chemical cocktails found in the earth will all get burnt up and finished, some day in the foreseeable future...

Therefore, it is important that the nuclear option is kept open, and public hysteria is tackled through a simpler communication of the science...

[vera_k]

Therefore, it is important that the nuclear option is kept open, and public hysteria is tackled through a simpler communication of the science...

It has to go beyond communication at this time. The fact that most nuclear plants are designed to always be within a few hours of meltdown following a power loss event may have been okay in earlier days, but changes are needed if plants are supposed to last 60 to 80 years.

There's also the spent fuel storage that is a peculiar problem for Western countries, but will likely not be a concern for India since the fuel will be reprocessed.

[JwalaMukhi]

Because it isnt even pertinent as of now...Nuclear power constitutes such a small part of the global energy mix that the issue of "peak uranium" doesnt bother policy makers...Hence, efforts on new mines, new mining tech etc are tardy -India too is a good example of that...Even if you consider a peak petroleum period of 50 years for Uranium, chances are that by then the fuel cycle will be "closed" - and it becomes a self sustaining activity...No such luck with hydrocarbon - one of the most delightful chemical cocktails found in the earth will all get burnt up and finished, some day in the foreseeable future...

Therefore, it is important that the nuclear option is kept open, and public hysteria is tackled through a simpler communication of the science...

Somnathji, more than going green, it is very pertinent to actually take a serious hard look at what is being sold. Since it is almost insignificant in the overall global energy mix, the hysteria about this route is unbelievable. Question is: is lemon being sold?
To bolster nuclear route, it is compared with hydrocarbon and other fossil based solutions. Definitely, it will come out smelling roses. The greens actually do a comparative study of non conventional renewables against all other existing options out there. Even in terms of life time costs and other parameters.
Obviously, as you recognize that nuclear route is a small part of the energy mix, but the amount of time and investment in terms of debate it receives exceeds its share. Take for instance, the renewable energy thread hardly has more than 6 pages and contrast that with nuclear route.
The question is has the focus shifted unnecessarily towards nuclear route, because nuclear lobby has been most vocal to falsely claim that missing that bus is end of progress and path towards backwardness.

Proportionate attention and balanced outlook are what is needed, otherwise this is starting to look like farce whether one is green peace nik or not.

Therefore, it is important that the nuclear option is kept open, and public hysteria is tackled through a simpler communication of the science...

Nuclear option needs to be kept open, if not for anything but for improvisation and attendant activities that help in security situation, aka, no compromises needed in new clear bums.

[somnath]

^^^Jwalamukhi-ji,

the reason why nuclear gets disproportionate attention is a) fewer people understand it and b) it has an insidious/exciting "weapons" dimension...

Apart from that, you would agree that none of the so-called "green" sources have been truly found out to be fully kosher, espeically when it comes to scaling them up...Whether its wind, or solar, or bio - they have had their issues, huge ones at that..And none of them have been found to be suitable for sustained scalable base load operations...I can reference a tons of stuff on this - but I am sure you are already familiar..

not sure if you have read - I couldnt find a reference on the net...But my old teacher Prof Ramprasad Sengupta did an analysis of the costs of nuke power in India during his time in the planning commission - Economics of Nuclear power in India...

Oh I found a reference of another summarising study that takes the data from Prof Sengupta's paper here..
http://www.igcar.ernet.in/nuclear/alagh.htm

And mind you, this study was done when Indian nuke PLFs used to be abysmal, due to various factors, incl shortage of fuel....From a pure costs perspective, it does stack up, albeit (for India) with the caveat that all dev cists are absorbed by the govt (BARC/DAE/IGCAR etc)...But as the imported LWRs are made operational, unless they are copetitive from a base power generation perspective, NPCIL wont even touch them!

Nuclear, on the other hand, presents the opportunity of a scaled up, sustainable model...Which is precisely why so many "greens" are nuke supporters as well - George monbiot is the latest convert..And if he converts, the naysayers should sit up and take notice..

[JwalaMukhi]

Somanathji,

none of the so-called "green" sources have been truly found out to be fully kosher, espeically when it comes to scaling them up...Whether its wind, or solar, or bio

That's a different dimension of debate. That would depend on whether one would want mega centralized sources, to large number of distributed small sources taking on smaller loads.

And mind you, this study was done when Indian nuke PLFs used to be abysmal, due to various factors, incl shortage of fuel....From a pure costs perspective, it does stack up, albeit (for India) with the caveat that all dev cists are absorbed by the govt (BARC/DAE/IGCAR etc)...

Depending on what the government subsidizes, that commodity can be made really attractive and competitive.
However for the sake of perspective, from one of the developed countries in the world that most want to emulate. No less from energy secretary.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... pans-woes/

Speaking at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Mr. Chu also said that while alternative energy sources — biofuels, wind and solar power — can now compete with oil, nuclear power and natural gas only because of government subsidies, he believes that will change in a decade or two.

Mr. Chu said there is a “misconception” that those alternatives will be forever reliant on taxpayer subsidies. Instead, he predicted there will be a race between nations across the globe to develop renewable energy sources that can compete in the marketplace with oil, coal and other traditional fuels.

Interesting with all the attendant technical developments made no new plants are being allowed to be built in US, to take advantage of all the techno progress, but only interested in retrofitting minimal improvements to the existing ones by extending their life span.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this week called for such international standards and Mr. Chu said such a discussion would be beneficial, particularly in helping less-developed countries avoid a disaster as they seek to add nuclear power to their energy portfolio.

But basically, wants to sell the lemon to turd world countries who can cash in all the techno developments.

And mind you, this study was done when Indian nuke PLFs used to be abysmal, due to various factors, incl shortage of fuel....From a pure costs perspective, it does stack up, albeit (for India) with the caveat that all dev cists are absorbed by the govt (BARC/DAE/IGCAR etc)...But as the imported LWRs are made operational, unless they are copetitive from a base power generation perspective, NPCIL wont even touch them!

This needs to recomputed after watching who will pick up the tab for all the loss due to Fukushima accident. Will the nuclear lobby hand wave and let the general public pay the price, while still claiming to be competitive, is the question?

[somnath]

^^^Jwalamukhi-ji,

Can alternates like solar, bio etc compete on pure commercial basis in some years? Maybe - but we are at least a couple of decades away from knowing (unlike nuke power, which is a "reasonably" competitive base load source today)...Are they scalable as base load sources? We dont know, in fact we might not know in a long time...Social-moral issues with biofuel would be tough to argue against in a world with ever increasing food demand...Neither solar nor wind are anywhere close to even been talked of as a scalable base load source...

And the whole concept of "decentralised" power sources is a bit of an urban legend - might work in a idyllic world filled with villages and small towns...Reality is that the world is urbanising at a faster rate than ever before...India is urbaninsing like hell...Threfore, sources of power will have to be large and scalable...Is providing 10,000 MW of power to Delhi a question of centralised generation or decentralised? I dont think the question itself is relevant anymore then...

Fukushima has just happened..Expect a bunch of CYA statements all over..But lets see how policy makers really reaact..Will Germany shut down its plants (it recently agreed to extend their lifespans)...Will France?

About the Fukushima liability, lets see what happens...Too early to comment, but as of now we have really not had any identified cases of major "losses" reported yet, isnt it? The biggest loss as of now is that of the plant itself! But it would be interesting, especially in light of the highway robbery GOTUS did with BP on the oil spill issue...

[JwalaMukhi]

All loss to livelihoods and good lawyers are getting into action to sue the Tepco for $133 billion.