amit wrote:chaanakya wrote:Amit , nice set of reports speaking in generalities..
Boss, you post a bland table from WiKi and then chide me for posting reports which speak of generalities?
I know very well that by 2020,
nuclear's share of the total power mix in India will still be small. But having said that nuclear and coal will comprise a lion's share of the high base load generation capacity.
It seems that you've totally missed the central point of what I've been trying to say on this thread and in the Fukushima one. But I guess that would be understandable given the high volume traffic in both threads.
To cut the chase my point is that an energy deficit country like India which needs to build up generation capacity at a fast rate while also keeping an eye on the environment (the one over India and not over the Artic Circle) nuclear cannot be discounted from the mix.
Sure more mega coal-fired power plants will be built over the nex 10-20 years. But that should be side by side with Gen III 1,000 MW nuclear power plants and indegenous PHWRs and their follow-ons. If you think money is a problem for building plants then I'm afraid you've go it wrong.
And this leads to the other point I've been crying hoarse about. If we agree that nuclear needs to be in the mix, then what's the purpose of all these doom and gloom articles trawled from the internet - stuff like 983,000 people died because of Chernobyl etc - being posted here.
If one is out and out against nuclear like Theo, then that's a very valid POV. But to say no we are not against nuclear and then coming out with arguments of how dangerous nuclear is a waste of time.
One of the article I posted has an estimate. It say's 300,000 people die each year in India due to pollution emanating from coal-fired plants. Now I can't vouch for how authentic that figure is but I can cenrtainly say the actually figure will be several orders of magintude greater than the number of people that are likely to die due to the Fukushima accident.
Hence to me it's a nobraineer to say that India's nuclear power ambitions should stay on track while at the same time all efforts need to be made to learn from Fukushima and build even more safer plants.
IMHO everything else is just hot air, like the postulate that the nuclear deal was to impose CRE. If that were the case then it has been a spectacular failure on the part of the NPAs.
The rest of it just technical details. While I won't be able to discuss the physics of it with you as it ain't my subject, I'm more than willing to discuss the economics of power generation if you so want.
Well , do you dispute the figures posted by WIKI? I think that ranking is correct. If you have some other ranking for India do tell us.
And there goes the point about carbon emission.
What is the share of Nuclear in energy mix being planned. Currently it is 2.75%.
Coal is say abt 93,000 MW i.e. 54% of total energy Mix.
The total power generation capacity is abt 1,73,626 MW.
Say what is the requirement by 2020. How much of it would be coal and Nuclear? Can you give some idea?
Coal addition would be abt 43000MW in 11th plan
Planning Commission talks abt 78000 MW additional capacity for 11th Plan. So we have abt 45000 MW for other energy sources. Now what do you expect Nuclear to be in this. How is that going to help in carbon mitigation.
If we are going to need 2,93,000 MW by 2020( as per Planning Commission document) and if we get 10% from Nuclear still we would not be helping in Carbon emission unless one wants all 1,20,000MW from Nuclear alone?
Now coming to Doubling carbon emission from
India ------1,612,362.00==== 5.50% to say 3,224,724.00 i.e. 11% we would still be at the same rank.
So no point in teaching by West. And do remember , to increase to that massive carbon emission pattern we would need to really scale up thermal and all other forms of carbon emitting techs to much higher level from the present one since mostly it would come from Industries.
Now if it is clear that carbon emission is a red herring for selling nuke tech we can talk abt other points one by one.
So worried abt gloom and doom articles . Well its mostly from Fukushima and from Japanese media and how they are reporting it. If you think that is inappropriate that is your problem boss.
I think we should know the details .
The question of whether we need or not to go nuclear is altogether a different point from radiation dangers which is just one aspect , though very serious one, of it.
Again quoting from Planning commission
This is the current situation in nutshell ( 11th plan)
Power
13.8% peaking deficit; 9.6% energy shortage;
40% transmission and distribution losses;
absence of competition
Target
Add 78577 MW; access to all rural households
There are studies to show that you can save 25% out of this loss. This is besides the fact that our PLF is hardly touching 50-60 % even in thermal. ( in Japan plants were running at >40% efficiency and >100% PLF. So think how much is being lost besides T&D or AT&C.)
I am not sure why do you bring in CRE and NPA here which is not the point I have discussed. I guess habit.
Regarding deaths from coal plants, I find it little strange that you don't demand same strict causality of attribution as is demanded in case of radiation related morbidity and mortality.
I also find it strange that NPP has to trash Coal or even alternatives to prove its worth. Is it not capable of standing on its own. That being so, data presented above shows no respite from Coal at least for the time being.
I will touch upon base load and peak load separately once your emission issues are over. I think that is the second important point , third being the cost effectiveness and energy density.
too bad.