Theo_Fidel wrote: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.