India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Theo_Fidel]

So what if you need to go to Zero. I said ON/OFF not 60% for 2 days, etc. And what is its efficiency at a variable rate. The point is with the enormous debt to service who is going to run this thing at less than 100% 24/7. I bet the operator starts losing money at anything less than 80%.

BARC says DHRUVA is 100 MW max. And even its capacity factor has rarely exceeded 50%. The basic point is our military reactors are not there to provide electricity. Their operation does not take the need for power into consideration. They'd flood it with sea water in an instant. Something the TEPCO guys were long reluctant to do.

I understand the convenience factor of Nuclear. The West has instead found it to be an addiction and a source of constant head aches, both financial and environmental. Nuclear can never supply even a small fraction of our power output/needs.

I also understand that renewable s have many many problems, but its not like we have a choice. We have to learn to deal with its poor quality and start right now.

Here is one long term scenario. Note the tiny sliver that is nuclear power. Nothing more than a distraction.

[Tanaji]

Developing home grown technology takes patience and time, which the "money diggers" whose term doesn't extend beyond 5 to 10 years can ill afford.
Beyond that investing a huge chunk that depends on begging two bit nations to supply fuel for the behemoths is a clear compromise on energy independence. Providing more avenues for foreign lobby to apply pressure in steering the direction of India's policies. No nation that has alternate sources would willingly expose such chinks to outsiders.
But there is money to be made and tons of it and the window of next couple of elections is the best time.
Where is plan B?

Interesting, but the reason we are in this situation is because DAE, despite promises never scaled up and delivered a "proven" (whatever definition that is) of a > 500 MW PHWR. Had they done that we would not have to import these reactors. Incidentally, you are portraying this as a arms purchase: similar to the arms import lobby influencing the MoD to make multi billion $ purchase inspite of working products from DRDO. Well, there aren't any working > 500 MW reactors that are indigenous, and the DAE itself in this case has signed up for the import.

Theo:

Nice graph. What exactly causes solar power that is currently a "sliver" in 2010 to go to 40-50% in 2100?

[Theo_Fidel]

^^^^
Our need for power. Or else the graph will down trend by that same amount. We are out of options.

[vina]

So what if you need to go to Zero. I said ON/OFF not 60% for 2 days, etc. And what is its efficiency at a variable rate. The point is with the enormous debt to service who is going to run this thing at less than 100% 24/7.

That bolded part is True of any plant , whether it is nuke, coal,gas, hydro, wind,wave, geothermal or whatever. You make most money when you run at 100% 24/7 ! And not just for power plants, also true if you want to make cars, buses, undies, anything under the sun. It is actually called Break-Even analysis in YumBeeYea giri!

I bet the operator starts losing money at anything less than 80%.

Ah. Now YumbeeYea Giri will tell you that the break even point is FC/ unit contribution and that will spit out the answer. You just have to look up comparables for fixed cost. Now while Nooks have higher fixed cost (compared to coal, gas), it also has far lower variable costs in comparison and so, the jury is out on it. It is not rocket science, if you ask Unkal Googal the numbers and plug in, you can get the break even for a Nook PP quite accurately. My guess is that given the split in costs, it will be rather similar to a convential PP. The difference is, that the Nook have larger gestations compared to conventional ones. That reflects the lack of size and economies of scale in Nooks. So if you standardize on Nooks and do a Chi-Panda like "setting up one power plant a WEEK" kind of Ka-Ching Ka-Ching stamping out in assembly line thing, you can bring the capital costs and also the gestations down me thinks.

[chaanakya]

From the flow of argument, it seems that now Carbon emission and clean energy argument finally got trashed. So probably it would be right to talk about base load. Theo has already indicated why Base load concept for Nuclear is basically a crap argument. Will post more later on it unless some clean nuclear argument is still left around.

Nuclear as a fashion and as military option is fine but to serve as power option ( by adding 20000 MW by 2050 ) is fooling the country.

We might see some 100 N Scam as we see 2 G scam.

[Christopher Sidor]

Is it just me or does anyone find it ironic that the same set of people who criticized the nuclear deal and said it should not be signed since it was CRE, are now doing their level best to do the very same CRE by opposing nuclear plants?

If civilian nuclear plants are dangerous, then it automatically follows that the military ones are as well... which is CRE.

Criticism of the the nuclear deal was based on many factors. But to equate the 123 agreement and nuclear energy is not the same thing. People have been supportive of nuclear energy without being enthusiastic about the 123 agreement, which was basically flawed from day one.

With due respect to renewable energy, nuclear remains the only promising energy source, with which we can overcome our addiction to petroleum products.

[vina]

From the flow of argument, it seems that now Carbon emission and clean energy argument finally got trashed.

How so. Please post actual figures of carbon emission and greenhouse emissions of a fossil fueled plant (include emissions in transporting etc) and also the carbon emissions and greenhouse emissions of a nuke and we can talk with some sense.

Theo has already indicated why Base load concept for Nuclear is basically a crap argument. Will post more later on it unless some clean nuclear argument is still left around

Do post so. But before that do read up my YumBeeYea giri on basic cost-price-volume break even analysis I posted on. And no, dont post "I think" , do the ACTUAL math (it is not difficult, just basic arithmetic) and we can discuss with some genuine facts.

Remember, without FACTS you DONT have a point. "I think the break even is at 80% " without FACTS and logic to back it up will get torn up and tossed out of the window (remember, I do that YumBeeYea giri EVERY day and I look at that kind of thing very closely indeed and if any kid comes to me with those kind of numbers at work without facts and solid reasoning, G*d save him/her)

Nuclear as a fashion and as military option is fine but to serve as power option ( by adding 20000 MW by 2050 ) is fooling the country.

Having NO power or investing in a dodgy power source such as "solar" or "wind" with much higher capital costs or worse, burning 1.5Billion tons of coal (much of it imported) and having to establish the supply chains (ports, rails and other infra) to feed those gargantuan plants (ref China's supply chain when they are burning that kind of fuel .. approx 1b tons of coal, nearly all domestic) and the attendent pollution is condemning vast swathes of the Indian population to poverty and wretchedness.

In fact , Nuclear is the only alternative there is today that can serve the bulk base load requirement. Nothing else can. I remember a talk long long ago at the Madrassa a visiting German prof gave about Photo Voltaic cells and the increase in conversion efficiency (it was around 6% or so those days, maybe bit better now) and question came up from the audience.

For a city of the size of Delhi, to service it with solar power, what should be the area of the collector? Answer - The area of the size of the state of Rajasthan! Err. forget about Dilli power supply at night. That is how unrealistic it is.

We might see some 100 N Scam as we see 2 G scam.

The current scam in this is the ongoing one at Jaitapur with scare stories of a Japan style 38meter Tsunami at Fukushima (pray where did that 38 meter come from again.. you were the one tom tomming it and I asked you to show an instance EVER where there was a 38m Tsunami at Fukushima) and somehow that the Nook would kill em all, when the fact is if there was a 38M tsunami at Jaitapur, they would all get killed in the Tsunami , while a well designed reactor would be standing and perfectly safe.

Thanks to that artificial scare mongering and rank idiocy, on guy was gunned down yesterday, couple of buses burnt, other arson and curfew clamped down.

How does that sound for scamming ?

[somnath]

^^^Unfortunately, people wont even look at references (yes, peer reviewed and all of that ) that go contrary to what the ideological position is..

On the sudden "of nukes are not capable of 0%/100% switches" - here is one such study - third time I am referencing this...
http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp/wp ... uttall.pdf

BTW, "load following" is rarely about a 0/100 switch - there are defined peaking and rescaling levels - unique to each market/country...

On emmission of course, there have been enough (and a lot more) posted here as well as in the other thread..

Criticism of the the nuclear deal was based on many factors. But to equate the 123 agreement and nuclear energy is not the same thing. People have been supportive of nuclear energy without being enthusiastic about the 123 agreement, which was basically flawed from day one.

Sorry, there would not have been any nuke deal without a 123 with the US...It was the US which spent bulk of the political capital required to push through the "clean exemption" from NSG.....Hence without the 123 with the US, there wouldnt be similar "123"s with Russia, France, Kazakh, Kenya, Uganda - the works..

[chaanakya]

with 20000 or even 40000 mw by 2050 what % are we talking about in Nuclear without which our country ( not some yumbeeai in foreign country tomtoming requirements in India) can not survive. Of course yumbeea might not but then I guess that is another story.

[vina]

with 20000 or even 40000 mw by 2050 what % are we talking about in Nuclear without which our country ( not some yumbeeai in foreign country tomtoming requirements in India) can not survive. Of course yumbeea might not but then I guess that is another story.

See , it is like this. With the 123, you can import the U or Poo or both for power. The idea is NOT the 20KMW or 40K MW. With reprocessing and getting the 3rd stage running, it is a ONE TIME import of fuel. After that, India will not have to import fuel EVER and if you can get hydrogen/alt to oil economy goes, your fuel oil import bill drops to ZERO in perpetuity. How does that sound.

Can you say that if you import the equivalent of 20K MW or 40 K MW in oil or gas or coal, you get off that oil/coal/gas addiction and will not have the EVER import fuel for power generation

[Sanku]

If 3 cycle program is indeed up and running, the domestic uranium reserves are MORE than enough to kick start it.

In fact that is what the 3 cycle programs intended input was.

Of course given the 10% budgetary cut in nominal terms (and ~20% in real terms) by Shir most Honrable Man Mohan ji, thats unlikely to happen as long as this govt exists. DAE will have no money for research or mining Uranium in India, but Commerce ministry will release 1000000000000000 billion trillion $ for imports if needed.

[chaanakya]

it is a ONE TIME import of fuel. After that, India will not have to import fuel EVER

Where did you get this idea? From Govt policy document??
And if we get to 3-cycle programme do we don't get to depend on plant import?
Well that looks like unlikely and unconfirmed.

Even with current estimates no one in right mind is talking about replacing coal and oil and remove import dependency FOR GOOD.

[chaanakya]

If 3 cycle program is indeed up and running, the domestic uranium reserves are MORE than enough to kick start it.

In fact that is what the 3 cycle programs intended input was.

Of course given the 10% budgetary cut in nominal terms (and ~20% in real terms) by Shir most Honrable Man Mohan ji, thats unlikely to happen as long as this govt exists. DAE will have no money for research or mining Uranium in India, but Commerce ministry will release 1000000000000000 billion trillion $ for imports if needed.

This was my reading of 3-cycle programme. It removes import dependency as we have enough thorium and uranium to run this independently.

SO I guess this argument would not hold water. All sales talk onlee and CH4.

[somnath]

Some more "funny-isms"..

1. There is "enough" uranium in the country...Really, and the PLFs of domestic NPPs pre-nuke deal were kept low just for fun..Or maybe in some insidious way they wanted to show that our NPPs can run profitably at low PLFs!

2. "3 cycle is up and running"...Of course, we have 2 FBRs and 3 AHWRs operating @ 90% PLFs...No worries at all!

3. "Budget cuts"..(ignoring the a fundamental comprehension issue - whther imports or domestic, all monies need to be provided for in the budget, so a cut in budget impacts imports as much as it impacts domestic - but lets park that aside)...Of course the budget document itself is all maya only, so the 16% increase it shows is all maya..WE have cuts...
http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2011-12/eb/stat02.pdf

With this level of understanding, what can one say...

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^Unfortunately, people wont even look at references (yes, peer reviewed and all of that ) that go contrary to what the ideological position is..

Forget ideology, we now have theorems. Read them and weep:

1. Base load is proven to be "crap".
2. There is plenty of fuel in the country.
3. Indigenous technology is developed and there is no need to import.
4. "Aal is well" with the 3-phase program.
5. Solar will magically climb to 50% of our needs.

Thankfully DAE is in charge and not BRF.

[chaanakya]

Well GP is , as usual ,at his twisting best.

[chaanakya]

With requirement of 2,93,000 MW requirement by 2020 what type of base load argument is given in favour of nuke when it will still be 20,000 i.e. less than 10% of total capacity. SO what I said is the argument that some put forth about NPP as base load etc is crap. And not that Base Load is Crap as GP puts it. One ca understand that he has comprehension issues as Somnath every now and then tell about every other brfite here.

When one talks about enough uranium in the context of 3 cycle, it means we have enough for that to kick start and later we don't really need it. Only Thorium is needed which we have thousands of tonnes.
And who talked about there is plenty of fuel in the country... You mean we don't need to import plant and uranium to run gora plants here.... Talk of twisting words and putting it in others mouth.

And who said "all is well" with any nuclear programme. You are, on the contrary, say all is well with all nuclear programmes esp. GE Mk 1 LWR variety.

Where it is written that Solar would provide 50% and who said that? Show the exact post and exact words as Amit would ask of others... Well lot of Gobar gas here being spewed.

And even if we double the carbon emission it would still be far far less and in global warming ( another crap ) it would contribute very little, much less than what all developed countries put together do.

[GuruPrabhu]

Chanakya,

I see another Q=mcT coming on. I provided my summary of some viewpoints. No need to worry about it. Carry on with your own posts. Pardon me if I prefer to read DAE's analysis rather than yours -- I am just that twisting kind of guy.

[chaanakya]

Actually you see nothing . As your contribution and summary of your so called views are there for all to see. Your twisting and trolling behaviour has not added any value except to some sniping and sniding meter.

[vina]

Maybe Chaanakya and Sanku should write these following lines a 100000000 times as a sort of high school 'imposition'.

1) Around 10,000 MW is ALL the domestic uranium in India can support
2) If we have to do a 3 stage with the very limited domestic uranium we have it will take a very long time indeed before we get to the 3rd stage
3) Imported Uranium or better still Pu can help us reach there earlier.
4) We need around 25 years or so to have the breeder program running to start breeding the Thorium. The imported reactors can provide power and fuel in the interim.
5) If we continue investing and play our cards right, the fuel for the imported reactors is all that we will have to import EVER
6) If not Nukes, there is NOTHING else (everything else is just Gobar Gas) that can meet the power requirements long term (40 to 50 years out).
7) If having Nuke as 10% of total capacity is crap, having 3% (wind) is highly crap, solar at less than 0.5% as mega crap and tidal at less than 0.01% as ultra crap! So the only thing that smells of roses and is NOT crap is coal!

[vina]

Only Thorium is needed which we have thousands of tonnes

Kerfuffle onree. A very small one. The Thorium cannot be used as is (just like U238 cant be used as is) . It has to be "bred" by being bombarded by neutrons in a nook reactor.. and oh..you cant waste neutrons in bombarding alone, you need to use some to generate energy as well as sustaining the chain reaction . Hence you need a breeder reactor, preferably fast breeder and for which to run you need Uranium or Plutonium , which we don't have in enough quantity.

The Thorium lying in the beaches is just as useful/useless as the rest of the beach sand as it is lying.

[vic]

Re Vina


I think that India can jump start its 3rd Phase of nuke power stations also by using enriched U instead of Pu. Is it feasible?

[Theo_Fidel]

Vina,

You are right no one knows where the break even is. I suspect we will know only once the project is complete and after all the time/cost escalations are done. But I'm not the one selling nuclear as an option. And break even is something even designers deal with not just MBA types. I said where I suspect the line is based on my experience not any MBA analysis. There are a couple of plants in the US Northwest that were never completed because amongst other things their ROI turned negative based on utility rates.

And I can ask you the same about your claim that it would take the whole of Rajasthan ~ 400,000 sqkm to power Delhi with solar. What kind of MBA analysis is this.

Also Nuke is 2% at present while wind is 3%. 10% is hypothetical in which case wind is 20% hypothetical. Solar has barely begun. In 20 years the scenario will be very different.

I still don't understand this fetish for base load. You look at any daily variability chart, say for the state of Ontario yesterday.

http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutput ... 110419.xml

You will notice that all power sources Coal, Gas and Hydro cycled on and off hour by hour. Some coal plants ran for just 4 hours or less. Wind varied through its schedule from a high of 800 MW to a low of 100 MW. The one that could not vary is Nuclear. In fact if you look at the charts carefully there occasionally are stretches where generation exceeds demand. Everything is shut down but Nuclear including that cheapest of sources Hydel. These are fairly recent nuclear plants finished in 1990 or so. There is a strong movement in Ontario to shut them down as the states surrounding Ontario have plenty of cheap Hydel juice to sell but can't because of the 'Base Load'. In fact even from that chart it appears nuclear could disappear and the other plants could effortlessly fill the gap.

Utilities simply designate Base, Intermediate and Peaking plants on the profile. Base load plants are very expensive upfront and hence must run all the time to pay off. As long as the power is cheap and steady any plant can be designated a base load plant. In California the SEGS plants with gas backup (no thermal storage) have been run essentially as base load for long stretches.

If you look at the wind/gas charts you will notice that they inversely track each other through the day. Gas and wind together can function very well as base load. In fact this is something the Gas industry sells heavily as a marketing point.

Nuclear is base load because it can not even afford to vary. One way or the other we have to keep these plants running at 90% plus. Having a hard time understanding how this is an advantage. Just another industry talking point.

As far as the 3-stage Thorium, even the second stage is not fully proven. This Sodium reactor in Kalpakkam scares me. The only other Sodium breeder reactor running in Russia has had a long string of accidents and fires simply due to the Sodium coolant. It is doubtful if we can ever get the third stage to work efficiently. To be honest some of us have been hearing about Thorium power for 40+ years. So forgive me for being a bit jaded.

[GuruPrabhu]

Your twisting and trolling behaviour has not added any value except to some sniping and sniding meter.

Ah, thank you for the second adjective. I would have been devastated if I was simply "twisting". The "trolling" addition, which was proposed by your eminent colleague and now seconded by you, is an honor I will treasure. Tathastu!

Meanwhile, I am fully aware of my readership here. Adding value to your high intellectual standards was never an achievable goal. Please carry on with your value addition [Q=mcT+value ?].

[somnath]

Theo-ji, gas is the "best" "load following" source..And has less carbon footprint than thermal..Its marketed that way, and is substantially right..The only problem? Gas is a finite resource with scarce availablity and costs that are substantially linked to global oil prices...And it also has competing uses, esp in countries like India - like fertiliser...So its not a silver bullet...

Wind has reliability issues, solar has scalability issues...

there is no one silver bullet - precisely why all options need to be retained..

[Purush]

just for perspective: health problems from the BP oil spill..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usoilpollut ... ntbphealth

(Posting in full)
Mystery illnesses plague Louisiana oil spill crews

RACELAND, Louisiana (AFP) – Jamie Simon worked on a barge in the oily waters for six months following the BP spill last year, cooking for the cleanup workers, washing their clothes and tidying up after them.

One year later, the 32-year-old said she still suffers from a range of debilitating health problems, including racing heartbeat, vomiting, dizziness, ear infections, swollen throat, poor sight in one eye and memory loss.

She blames toxic elements in the crude oil and the dispersants sprayed to dissolve it after the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico about 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the coast of Louisiana on April 20, 2010.

"I was exposed to those chemicals, which I questioned, and they told me it was just as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid and there was nothing for me to worry about," she said of the BP bosses at the job site.

The local doctor, Mike Robichaux, said he has seen as many as 60 patients like Simon in recent weeks, as this small southern town of 10,000 bordered by swamp land and sugar cane fields grapples with a mysterious sickness that some believe is all BP's fault.

Andy LaBoeuf, 51, said he was paid $1,500 per day to use his boat to go out on the water and lay boom to contain some of the 4.9 million barrels of oil that spewed from the bottom of the ocean after the BP well ruptured.

But four months of that job left him ill and unable to work, and he said he recently had to refinance his home loan because he could not pay his taxes.

"I have just been sick for a long time. I just got sick and I couldn't get better," LaBoeuf said, describing memory problems and a sore throat that has nagged him for a year.

Robichaux, an ear, nose and throat specialist whose office an hour's drive southwest of New Orleans is nestled on a roadside marked with handwritten signs advertising turtle meat for sale, says he is treating many of the local patients in their homes.

"Their work ethic is so strong, they are so stoic, they don't want people to know when they're sick," he said.

"Ninety percent of them are getting worse... Nobody has a clue as to what it is."

According to a roster compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a total of 52,000 workers were responding to the Gulf oil spill as of August 2010.

The state of Louisiana has reported 415 cases of health problems linked to the spill, with symptoms including sore throats, irritated eyes, respiratory tract infections, headaches and nausea.

But Bernard Goldstein, an environmental toxicologist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the US government's method of collecting health data on the workers is flawed.

For instance, a major study of response workers by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences was not funded until six months after the spill, a critical delay that affects both the biology and the recall ability of the workers.

"It is too late if you go six months later," he told AFP.

Benzene, a known carcinogen present in crude oil, disappears from a person's blood within four months, Goldstein said.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are pollutants that can cause genetic mutations and cancer. They are of particular interest in studying long-term health, but without a baseline for comparison it is difficult to know where they came from -- the oil spill or somewhere else in the environment.

"They last in the body for a longer period of time but they also get confounded by, if you will, obscured by, other sources of PAHs," like eating barbecued meat or smoking cigarettes, said Goldstein.

Further blurring the situation, Louisiana already ranks very low in the overall health of its residents compared to the rest of the United States -- between 44th and 49th out of the 50 states according to government data.

Some similar symptoms, including eye irritation, breathing problems, nausea and psychological stress, have been seen among responders to the Prestige oil tanker spill off Spain in 2002 and the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 off Alaska.

Local chemist Wilma Subra has been helping test people's blood for volatile solvents, and said levels of benzene among cleanup workers, divers, fishermen and crabbers are as high as 36 times that of the general population.

"As the event progresses we are seeing more and more people who are desperately ill," she said.

"Clearly it is showing that this is ongoing exposure," Subra said, noting that pathways include contact with the skin, eating contaminated seafood or breathing polluted air.

"We have been asking the federal agencies to please provide medical care from physicians who are trained in toxic exposure."

She said she has received no response.

Asked for comment, BP said in an email that "protection of response workers was a top priority" and that it had conducted "extensive monitoring of response workers" in coordination with several government agencies.

"Illness and injury reports were tracked and documented during the response, and the medical data indicate they did not differ appreciably from what would be expected among a workforce of this size under normal circumstances," it added.

Any compensation for sick workers would fall under state law, and "BP does not make these determinations, which must be supported by acceptable medical evidence."

For Simon, her way of life has been completely altered. She said she takes pain relievers every day just to function.

A couple of weeks ago, she read in a local newspaper that other ex-cleanup workers were feeling sick too, and her grandmother urged her to see a doctor.

"I never put the two together. I am just realizing that this is possibly related," she said.

[GuruPrabhu]

there is no one silver bullet - precisely why all options need to be retained..

Exactly. I am a big fan of solar, but I am also aware of realities. In general, India's energy plans need to be medium long term, i.e., a 2050 time frame. This will be the time period where coal, oil and gas will have seriously prohibitive price structures. There will not be any similar price pressures on the fuel for the 3rd phase of nuclear.

Analyses that view present day percentage shares of power sources and merrily forecast them till infinity are silly to say the least. There have been institutional studies that take realistic cost bases into account. Coal suffers heavily in these projections. Thorium doesn't.

It is perhaps too much to expect folks here to keep such economics 101 in mind when posting their convictions about power futures.

No doubt they have spent decades studying these models. Is it unfair of us to request that such illuminating analyses be presented in requisite detail?

[vina]

Re Vina


I think that India can jump start its 3rd Phase of nuke power stations also by using enriched U instead of Pu. Is it feasible?

I am just a lowly YinJinEar who can do YumBeeYea giri. You should ask the Fyzzicists (GP, Bade Mian and AmberG) about it. As a layman,and going to fundamentals, if all you want is a neutron source, Poo or U doesn't matter really, so it should be feasible I think.

[GuruPrabhu]

The energy expenditure per neutron of enriching U is very high. Even though an FBR will provide a breeding ratio of 1.8 or more (depending on fuel type) one must think in bania terms. If one enriched neutron in an FBR provides a 0.8 neutron bonus, then the neutron profit must be compared to the cost of the original neutron production. Enrichment wipes out any potential advantage.

[vina]

Vina,

You are right no one knows where the break even is. I suspect we will know only once the project is complete and after all the time/cost escalations are done. But I'm not the one selling nuclear as an option. And break even is something even designers deal with not just MBA types.

The YumBeeYeas have to fund it and they will go into excruciating detail about break evens, sensitivity around break evens, different scenarios about input costs, price of power yada yada . The designers deal with it "clinically" for YumBeeYeas, it is their Musharrafs that are in the Line of Phyrr. It is life and death for them.

There are a couple of plants in the US Northwest that were never completed because amongst other things their ROI turned negative based on utility rates.

There was one built by the erstwhile LILCO (long island lighting co) that the US EPA didn't allow them to operate after it was completed and all ready, and was hence scrapped and Long Island had the highest utility rates in all of US for a long time because they had to recover that dead investment (I lived there!) . LILCO got bought by ConEd later and the CEO and his chums baled out in a nice Golden Parachute.

And I can ask you the same about your claim that it would take the whole of Rajasthan ~ 400,000 sqkm to power Delhi with solar. What kind of MBA analysis is this.

It wasn't my analysis. It was the German Prof's analysis on what a 1sqm PV cell would generate on a good sunny day! So for some 6000 MW or something for Dilli, this is what he came up with and he put that up as a sort of reality check!

Also Nuke is 2% at present while wind is 3%. 10% is hypothetical in which case wind is 20% hypothetical. Solar has barely begun. In 20 years the scenario will be very different.

The reason why wind took off really was the tax breaks (150% investment benefit via depreciation etc) and not fundamental economics or anything. You factor that in, Wind actually is LOT more capital intensive than Nuke and cannot sustain any decent base load. Solar is still born , other than for niche applications. Tidal is a dark horse, but even more capital intensive than wind.

You will notice that all power sources Coal, Gas and Hydro cycled on and off hour by hour. Some coal plants ran for just 4 hours or less. Wind varied through its schedule from a high of 800 MW to a low of 100 MW. The one that could not vary is Nuclear. In fact if you look at the charts carefully there occasionally are stretches where generation exceeds demand. Everything is shut down but Nuclear including that cheapest of sources Hydel. These are fairly recent nuclear plants finished in 1990 or so. There is a strong movement in Ontario to shut them down as the states surrounding Ontario have plenty of cheap Hydel juice to sell but can't because of the 'Base Load'

.

What works in Canada doesn't in India! Canada has surplus cheap hydro power (part of the reason why Canada is an aluminium super power) . In India's scenario hydel is perfect as a peaking power source, can be started instantly, and shut down. To use it as a base load was fine in 1960s when power was 5 paise a unit in BLR and you got unlimited power. Not anymore. There is no alternative to thermal power in india . The thermal source whether fossil or nuke is the question. Long term, Nuke wins hands down.

In fact even from that chart it appears nuclear could disappear and the other plants could effortlessly fill the gap.

That is the kind of projection which prevented Karnataka from investing in Thermal power in a big way in the 70s (because their charts would have said, Hydel, cheapest, best, we have surplus, we are fine, why bother) and come early 80s , Karnataka had severe power shortages that continue to this day and then you had belated rearguards of setting up thermal power units at Raichur and now the agreement with Chattisgarh for pit head units!

In California the SEGS plants with gas backup (no thermal storage) have been run essentially as base load for long stretches.

Err. Then why bother with solar energy at all, if you need a gas "backup" (where the back up works more than 60% of the time.during night and during make up for variablity ?) . Classic definition of a variable load!

Nuclear is base load because it can not even afford to vary. One way or the other we have to keep these plants running at 90% plus. Having a hard time understanding how this is an advantage. Just another industry talking point.

Base load is by definition something that is present throughout. You have to generate that all the time. You can generate that using coal, gas or hydel (qualified..yes in Canada maybe) . All other energy sources cannot guarantee you that availability. Nuke is a perfect susbsitute for gas and coal for that.

As far as the 3-stage Thorium, even the second stage is not fully proven. This Sodium reactor in Kalpakkam scares me. The only other Sodium breeder reactor running in Russia has had a long string of accidents and fires simply due to the Sodium coolant.

Well, the Super Pheonix in France worked perfectly well . In fact, if you look at it, the Sodium reactors have lower pressures (no phase change) , the pool type ones can maybe guarantee against Loss of Coolant, have high power,are compact etc. So it does have it's advantages.

It is doubtful if we can ever get the third stage to work efficiently. To be honest some of us have been hearing about Thorium power for 40+ years. So forgive me for being a bit jaded.

If you stuck with the "all indigenous" three phase as put by Babha using indigenous uranium, well, yeah it is a 100 year plan. But if you can go to the breeding thorium directly by importing fuel and the power reactors and recycling, I think you can possibly do it in 50 years. That is precisely why the 123 is vitally important. That is a very far sighted thing that MMS did. He knew the issues involved (he was in the Planning Commission and rep to the DAE and all that.. , he knows these things very well indeed I would think and he took the long term view and did the absolutely right thing, contrast that with the "Nationalists" are doing at Jaitapur and now you know why I have such contempt for them). Bottomline. 40 years from now, there is no substitute for Nukes. If you want to play the Nuke game, either you start importing 40 years from now AFTER going the Chinese path of build crap, burn crap and not giving a crap , and giving your balls in the hands of the commidity exporters Aus, indon, SA, Middle East, or you engineer your way out into a clean secure future.

[somnath]

^^^For all those advocating hydel, even advoctaing hydel as a base load source for India, errrr...Hydel? Wasnt it a dam that burst in Fukushima? Arent most of India's existing dams on active seismic zones? No one's replied the quetion posed many times over - hw many 1000000s of billions of liability insurance should hydel take?

[arnab]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56a84578-6b82 ... z1K8GNA4ob

Nuclear power’s share of the global energy mix will be unchanged in 30 years’ time in spite of the disaster in Japan, according to the chief executive of ExxonMobil.

Rex Tillerson, who has led the world’s biggest publicly quoted company since 2006, said nuclear power’s importance was so great that policymakers would not allow any decline. As a supplier of fossil fuels, Exxon would stand to benefit if governments chose to reduce nuclear power’s contribution to future energy supplies.

But Mr Tillerson said in an interview that the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan would impose nothing more than a “delay in the timeline of nuclear’s role”.

He added: “Ultimately, my expectation is the component of nuclear energy that will be in the future mix 25 years from now, or 30 years from now, is probably not changed.”

However, governments would have to persuade their populations of the safety of nuclear power, he said. Technological advances had allowed “intrinsically safe reactors”, but he added: “There is a big educational process that’s going to have to be undertaken by the industry and policymakers if policymakers seriously believe nuclear energy has to be part of their future energy policy, and I personally believe it has to be. It’s too important in terms of all the benefits it brings.”

[Pratyush]

Guys,

Am trying to follow this thread for the past few months regularly, but am having trouble understanding some of the posts made on this thread. Chief amongst them is the base load argument for NPP of either 0 or 100% and nothing in between.

Now, it is my understanding that the Nuke reactor has a control rod, which is used to moderate the rate of Nuke fission, it can either increase the fission rate of reduce it. If that is true, then it stands to reason that a nuke reactor can moderate and control its power output. So a 1000 MW reactor can also be operated at an out put of 100 MW or at any other level that the demand justifies.

The argument of the plant being economical to operate or not for NPPs will IMHO will apply to every other type power plant as well. So why single out a NPP in this regard.

The other thing is concern over solar power and scalability. The way I look at it is that, if a roof top with a surface area of 1000 Sq feet has a solar power panels on it, it may not be able to meet all the power needs of that house. But if it is able to meet say 30 to 50 % of the needs then at the plant level you look at a reduced demand of 30 to 50 % from that house hold. Now replicate that with all the house holds of an urban or rural center. You will see a reduction in demand by that extent from the grid. With a corresponding reduction in a need for the installed capacity and the fuel being burned at the plant level.

Thanks.

[somnath]

Now, it is my understanding that the Nuke reactor has a control rod, which is used to moderate the rate of Nuke fission, it can either increase the fission rate of reduce it. If that is true, then it stands to reason that a nuke reactor can moderate and control its power output. So a 1000 MW reactor can also be operated at an out put of 100 MW or at any other level that the demand justifies

Well, yes, but not really...There is a cost of "load following", and traditionally that cost has been highest for a nuke plant compared to sources like hydel or solar..The new gen III reactors are promising a change to that, with "load following" becoming more flexible..

The way I look at it is that, if a roof top with a surface area of 1000 Sq feet has a solar power panels on it, it may not be able to meet all the power needs of that house

Too expensive...Distributed solar panels on all rooftops have been spoken of and tred, at great subsidies, but its mighty expensive, both from an upfront costs perspective and from a running cost....

[Sanku]

Now, it is my understanding that the Nuke reactor has a control rod, which is used to moderate the rate of Nuke fission, it can either increase the fission rate of reduce it. If that is true, then it stands to reason that a nuke reactor can moderate and control its power output. So a 1000 MW reactor can also be operated at an out put of 100 MW or at any other level that the demand justifies. .

I am not sure if you are looking for me to answer it, but let me share my understanding anyway.

1) Control rods are not a fine grain control mechanism -- their level of control is somewhat variable
2) Design efficiency point -- Just like a 3 liter automobile engine can in theory also be throttled to run a a scooter engine level, a scooter engine running at the level designed will far more efficient. -- the Nuke NPP runs well at a particular output --any lower and it starts becoming far less efficient than designed for impacting the economics even further.
3) The economics of a NPP are badly skewed towards the start up, that is most cost is in making the plant -- thus the NPP must be most efficient if it hopes to recover the initial investment even partially (partially anyway it runs on Govt subsidies) -- a drop in running efficiency has thus a far greater impact on NPP compared to a gas plant say, which when running below max thresh hold also does use less gas and thus much lower running cost.

A NPP running below potential has SAME running cost (almost) and much lesser output.

Hope that helped.

========

PS> Agree with you on solar point.

[Sanku]

If you stuck with the "all indigenous" three phase as put by Babha using indigenous uranium, well, yeah it is a 100 year plan. But if you can go to the breeding thorium directly by importing fuel and the power reactors and recycling, I think you can possibly do it in 50 years

That statement is more a article of faith than reality. There are many issues

1) If domestic uranium mining was not slowed down the uranium could be available sooner.
2) If the Breeders stay in strategic space then Pu from imported U can not be used.
3) Opening the 3 cycle to world at this nebulous stage is a invitation for vultures to rip apart a unprotected little child, left out there without water.

So Vina-ji, take your own suggestion and write 100000000 times on you laptop.

"I will try and develop a open mind so my stalled education can go forward, I will not show patent biases and counter meaningful points with poor attempts at comedy"

Thank you.

[arnab]

Too expensive...Distributed solar panels on all rooftops have been spoken of and tred, at great subsidies, but its mighty expensive, both from an upfront costs perspective and from a running cost....

Exactly in my neck of the woods, the government provides around 60% of the cost of panels + installation as a subsidy (through renewble energy certificates), but more than that. They provide running cost subsidy. The government pays me around 3 times the amount for every unit of electricity I generate though solar panels than my utility charges me for using coal based power. That is the kind of subsidy that has to paid to make solar panels viable here!!

Not to mention, if you factor in the energy used to make the solar panels - I wonder how carbon neutral they actually are

[Sanku]

Not to mention, if you factor in the energy used to make the solar panels - I wonder how carbon neutral they actually are

That even truer for nuclear unfortunately. Carbon continues to be a basic reality.

[arnab]

That statement is more a article of faith than reality. There are many issues

1) If domestic uranium mining was not slowed down the uranium could be available sooner.
2) If the Breeders stay in strategic space then Pu from imported U can not be used.
3) Opening the 3 cycle to world at this nebulous stage is a invitation for vultures to rip apart a unprotected little child, left out there without water.

Saar,

for point (1), hope you can provide some links to show how mining was slowed down. But more importantly Vina was talking about the 'total reserves of uranium available' for exploitation. So mining faster does not increase the quantity available for exploitation.

(2) Why should all FBR need to stay in the strategic space? Considering Stage 2 and 3 are contingent upon getting enough 'maal' to be viable in the first place?

(3) where is this 'opening up' story coming from?

[arnab]

That even truer for nuclear unfortunately. Carbon continues to be a basic reality.

True but a 20 year life span for PVs vs at least a 60 year life span for nukes makes a difference. As well as the number of of PV cells required to produce the the same level of electricity as a reactor.