India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Sanku]

There is an article Rebuilding seismology in the latest issue of Nature magazine.

From that article:

Two months on from the earthquake and tsunami that hit their country on 11 March, five Japanese seismologists reflect on what they have learned from it so far.

Cant see article, needs registration. Can you please provide quick summary of the five points please? Pretty please.

[arnab]

But PWHRs are better choice due to use of natural uranium and other factors. They have all been listed. Note, even at Fuk-D, the meltdown has happened in all the three reactors (full confirmed for 1, partial confirmed for 1 more) though they are of different design generations.

Since all the external factors listed by you can impact both HWRs and LWRs, the only difference appears to be 'natural' vs enriched' uranium? I though this was more of a cost factor and the old non-proliferation factor of disallowing HEU reactors to be exported. Since all PHWR reactors produce plutonium - why would the use of natural uranium make it any more safe?

p.s incidentally isn't enriched uranium used on the Arihant?

[abhishek_sharma]

Rebuilding seismology

Nature 473, 146–148 (12 May 2011) doi:10.1038/473146a

Takeshi Sagiya: Nagoya University, Japan

If historical records had been more complete, and if discrepancies between data had been picked up, we might have been alert to the danger of a magnitude-9 earthquake hitting Tohoku, even though such an event was not foreseen by the Japanese government.

In 2002, the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion of the Japanese government released a long-term evaluation of the likelihood of subduction-zone earthquakes in the Tohoku region. It estimated an 80–90% probability that the area would have a large earthquake of magnitude 7.7–8.2 in the next 30 years. But the probability of a magnitude-9 earthquake affecting a 400–500-kilometre area was not specifically mentioned. As a member of the working group involved in the evaluation, it is with great regret that I reflect on the causes of this failure.

The long-term evaluation was based on the statistical analysis of the complete historical earthquake record for the past 400 years. However, the Tohoku earthquake clearly shows that 400 years is too short a time period to evaluate seismic activity. In fact, during the past five years, geologists of the Geological Survey of Japan have reported that a great tsunami inundated the coast of the Sendai area in AD 869. It was probably of comparable size to the tsunami that hit after the March earthquake. Unfortunately, those findings came too late to be considered in the evaluation of, and countermeasures against, tsunamis.

One important lesson from this experience is that if we take an empirical approach to evaluating or forecasting natural disasters, all the available information should be taken into account — even though some records have large uncertainties — and all the possibilities should be considered, regardless of their likelihood.

Another weakness of the long-term evaluation was clear discrepancies between the different observational data that went into it. In the past decade, Global Positioning System (GPS) investigations have indicated that the plate boundary along the Japan trench is almost fully locked in place and is not sliding [1, 2]. But it has been recognized for long time that, in the Japan trench, the ratio of cumulative fault slip of large earthquakes to plate motion (the seismic coupling coefficient) is only about 30%. There has been no explanation of how the remaining 70% of plate motion is accommodated.

Japanese seismologists had noticed this discrepancy, but we had not seriously considered its potentially disastrous implication. In 2001, Ichiro Kawasaki of Kyoto University suggested that a significant portion of the plate motion is accommodated as 'afterslip' — further slippage after an earthquake has taken place — and other aseismic faulting behaviour in the northern part of the Japan Trench [3]. But the discrepancy was not resolved for the southern part, the main source region of the magnitude-9 earthquake.

Thus the second lesson of the great Tohoku earthquake is that we should not overlook inconsistent data, but instead strive to integrate observational information with different temporal and spatial scales.

Earth science is multidisciplinary. The Japanese seismology community now needs to review all the seismic, geodetic, geomorphological and geological data to find information missing from the current evaluation, and to resolve any inconsistencies.

Hiroo Kanamori: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California

The 2011 Tohoku earthquake caught most seismologists by surprise because no earthquake of a magnitude greater than 8.5 was known to have occurred in this region. Extensive analyses of seismic, GPS and tsunami data conducted since the earthquake make it clear that unusually large strain and stress release occurred in a relatively narrow zone within 150 kilometres of the Japan trench (see 'Pressure zone'). The amount of strain release is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what we have seen in other mega-thrust earthquakes. The strain must have accumulated in this zone for nearly 1,000 years, with the plate convergence rate of about 9 centimetres per year. Finally, the stress exceeded the local strength of rock and failed, causing the magnitude-9 earthquake.



Despite the extensive GPS network in Japan, this localized large strain build-up had not been detected because the area is 200 kilometres offshore. An important lesson we have learned is that such a large strain can accumulate in the shallow plate boundary (see 'Pressure zone') — it had been considered able to accommodate only 10–20% of the strain released during the 2011 event.

Thus, for monitoring a strain build-up large enough to eventually cause a magnitude-9 event, it is important to accelerate the effort to develop ocean-floor GPS technology, and to promote research to detect unusual seismogenic structures responsible for such large strain build-up (for example, rough plate interfaces).

Even if we understand how such a big earthquake can happen, because of the nature of the process involved we cannot make definitive statements about when it will happen, or how large it could be. It will be a very rare event but, once it happens, it will have grave consequences. So we must try our best to be prepared for the unexpected. Building a robust infrastructure is most important. However, there is a limit to what we can do with the available technology, so we need to seriously consider the acceptable trade-off between benefit and risk.

Yuji Yagi: University of Tsukuba, Japan

The process by which the Pacific plate is subducting beneath the Japanese archipelago is not smooth. Strain can accumulate where parts of the plate are unable to slip because they are stuck to the overlying continental plate. Major inter-plate earthquakes release the resulting accumulated strain, allowing slip to resume. The 2011 Tohoku earthquake released a huge slip deficit, which was revealed at least in 2004 (ref. 1), or even as far back as 2000 (ref. 4) by the GPS network, and anticipated from a discrepancy between geological and geodetic rates of crustal deformation by Yasutaka Ikeda of the University of Tokyo in 1996 (ref. 5).

The distribution of areas where the plates are stuck (known as asperities) is usually inferred from the analysis of seismic event data. And, on the basis of this 'characteristic earthquake model', the regions likely to experience future earthquakes are estimated by responsible commissions in Japan such as the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion. Most seismologists in Japan assume reasonably that areas beyond the asperities are free from earthquakes for long periods of time because the strain there is released by aseismic slip. We need to confirm this assumption.

Great earthquakes occur not only as a result of the combined effect of simultaneous strain release at several assumed asperities. The accumulation of strain suggested by crustal deformation or GPS observation has not been adequately considered in the government's seismic-hazard estimations in Japan because of the low resolution of the data. This oversight reduces the total amount of assumed slip deficit. This is why most seismologists did not recognize the risk of a huge Tohoku earthquake.

We are not able to obtain accurate information about the patterns of great earthquake occurrences in time and space because of the long period of the seismic cycle. Therefore, we cannot assess the probability of future great earthquakes on the basis of catalogues of recent seismicity alone. Great earthquakes are exceptional events reflecting very long-term deformation processes in a subduction zone. To develop a comprehensive understanding of them we must also consider geodetic, geological and geomorphological information about crustal deformation.

In general, for predicting long-term seismicity, methods must be developed to extract information about elastic and anelastic strain from observational data. Pressingly, ocean-floor observation must be enhanced to allow high-resolution estimates of slip deficit distributions along the plate boundaries.

Masumi Yamada: Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University

The Japan Meteorological Agency has one of the most advanced systems in the world for providing real-time warnings of tsunamis and earthquake shaking. The earthquake early warning system, which provides information about strong shaking within seconds of a quake, has been in place since 2007 and has provided more than 10 warnings of strong earthquakes — by cellular phone, television, radio and local-community speaker system. But it could be better.

The system detected the earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku and, about 8 seconds after the first primary wave arrived at the closest seismic station, issued a warning to the public in the region close to the epicentre. Twenty seven bullet trains were stopped without derailments in this region. Three minutes later, warnings for very large tsunamis were issued to Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The damaging waves arrived 15–20 minutes later at the closest shores.

However, the overall performance of the system was not satisfactory, mainly because of the complex character and relatively small amplitude of the beginning of the rupture. The system underestimated ground motion and tsunami heights, so the large population in the greater Tokyo region, where many areas experienced strong and damaging shaking, received no warning (see 'False comfort'). That said, updates did improve as more information became available.



Early warnings for strong shaking were broadcast more than 70 times for aftershocks. The system worked well for these smaller events, but there were some errors in determining event locations because of the complication of simultaneously occurring earthquakes.

The unexpected character of the seismic data at the start of the earthquake fooled the early warning system's algorithms. But the system has the potential to work well for the next great earthquake — such as the widely expected Nankai earthquake in the Kansai region — if technical improvements are made to recognize great earthquakes quickly. The earthquake early warning system in Japan should become a truly effective mitigation tool in a society that has already accepted and learned to expect such information.

Jim Mori: Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University

The Tohoku earthquake came as a frightening and disheartening surprise to Japanese seismologists, who thought they could roughly predict the locations and sizes of plate-boundary earthquakes along the subduction zones of Japan. Some 400 years of historic records have proved to cover too short a time period to be a reliable guide to the occurrence of the largest earthquakes, even for this very seismically active region. With hindsight, we must now re-examine the Japanese geological data for events of a similar magnitude.

Usually in seismology, the rates at which future earthquakes are expected to occur have been largely derived from the statistics of repeating events on faults.

However, the 2011 earthquake shows that rarer and much larger earthquakes can also occur in the same fault zone as smaller events. So past statistics are not always sufficient. One way to improve our understanding is with efforts to measure the local accumulation of stress near faults and to estimate the absolute stress and strain levels at which earthquakes happen.

For example, stress can be measured directly within boreholes; frictional strength can be inferred from temperature measurements after large earthquakes; and directions of regional stress fields can be determined from patterns of ground displacements recorded by GPS arrays.

Using such techniques, we may be able to determine how close a fault is to failure, and thus estimate the earthquake risk more directly. The size of an impending event will still be difficult to determine, but maximum sizes might be estimated from the stress measurements. The regional deformation of eastern Japan is now being studied to try to discern what stress and strain the area underwent before the 2011 quake.

The evaluation of strong shaking from great earthquakes is a related issue of great importance — for building safety standards around the world — but a long record of accurate ground motions from past earthquakes is lacking. As measurements have improved over the past few decades, our expectations of the severity of the motions have steadily increased. It is unlikely that we have seen the worst. Greater shaking, especially at long periods of several seconds, is a possibility that must be considered in hazard planning. Such information is needed for the safe design of tall buildings in our modern cities.

References

1. Nishimura, T. et al. Geophys. J. Int. 157, 901–916 (2004).

2. Hashimoto, C., Noda, A., Sagiya, T. & Matsu'ura, M. Nature Geosci. 2, 141–144 (2009)

3. Kawasaki, I., Asai, Y. & Tamura, Y. Tectonophysics 330, 267–283 (2001).

4. Nishimura, T. Spatiotemporal Change of Interplate Coupling in Northeastern Japan Inferred from GPS Data [in Japanese]. PhD thesis, Tohoku Univ. (2000); available at http://go.nature.com/7ikqir

5. Ikeda, Y. Active Fault Res. 15, 93–99 (1996).

[amit]

I see so prices are the only indicator or running out? If prices don't rise uranium wont run out? Un believable rules of casualty now.

That is the problem of having a minuscule understanding and a massive ego (whose piskological reasons are well understood). A total lack of basic logic coupled with foul mouth to compensate for it.

Sad.

Ignorance coupled with bravado is an entertaining combination.

World nuclear association

Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.4 Mt) in the cost category slightly above present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

Regarding coal, Somnath has tried to educate some folks about the concept of Peak Coal however...

Link

There isn't nearly as much coal left as most people think. "Clean coal" will run down limited reserves even faster. If humanity doesn't begin massive, sustained investment in renewable power sources immediately, civilization could be at risk before the end of the century. And that's without considering the impacts of climate change.

Industry insiders admit that CCS technology will not be developed, and costs reduced enough to prompt widespread adoption, until 2035 at best.

Some further reading on coal.

[chaanakya]

Hence we should not mix up issues, of A design vs A class of designs.

Note, even at Fuk-D, the meltdown has happened in all the three reactors (full confirmed for 1, partial confirmed for 1 more) though they are of different design generations.

Just to confirm what you say, lest it be challenged as untruth.

It appears there was a problemwith the gauge in the No.1 reactor that showed the level of cooling water at about half the level of the fuel rods. The gauge was fixed on Thursday and then revealed that the rods were completely exposed and melted down.

TEPCO says the gauges at the No.2 and 3 reactors might not be showing the actual water levels, and that the worst case is that the rods have melted down.

[Sanku]

But PWHRs are better choice due to use of natural uranium and other factors. They have all been listed. Note, even at Fuk-D, the meltdown has happened in all the three reactors (full confirmed for 1, partial confirmed for 1 more) though they are of different design generations.

Since all the external factors listed by you can impact both HWRs and LWRs, the only difference appears to be 'natural' vs enriched' uranium?

And other factors, why don't you search for Ramana and Santanan on this thread and read their posts over last two months. They are not many posts, and all are valuable.

That should answer your questions.

[amit]

This what National Geographic has to say about coal supplies:

No matter how bad coal might be for the planet, the conventional wisdom is that there is so much of it underground that the world’s leading fuel for electricity will continue to dominate the energy scene unless global action is taken on climate change.

But what if conventional wisdom is wrong?

A new study seeks to shake up the assumption that use of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is bound to continue its inexorable rise. In fact, the authors predict that world coal production may reach its peak as early as next year, and then begin a permanent decline.

Please note the article was published last year. Now I hope some folks will be able to under the context of what Somnath worte:

Price of coal has gone up 3x in the last three years,

Of course one needs to put in a disclaimer: National Geographic could be in bed with Western commercial interests...

[arnab]

And other factors, why don't you search for Ramana and Santanan on this thread and read their posts over last two months. They are not many posts, and all are valuable.

since you specifically mentioned natural uranium as a reason for enhanced safety of Indian PHWRs could you explain why? I will look for the 'other factors' mentioned by Ramanna et al

[amit]

Another from NatGeo

[arnab]

Just to confirm what you say, lest it be challenged as untruth.

It appears there was a problemwith the gauge in the No.1 reactor that showed the level of cooling water at about half the level of the fuel rods. The gauge was fixed on Thursday and then revealed that the rods were completely exposed and melted down.

TEPCO says the gauges at the No.2 and 3 reactors might not be showing the actual water levels, and that the worst case is that the rods have melted down.

So Channakya ji as an energy policy maker - what do you make of the safety of nuke energy? Assuming the 'worst case scenario' of a full scale meltdown happens in Fuk? Considering the 'best case' scenario of normal coal operations seems to be killing more folks annually. Is it ethical to try and reduce our dependence on coal over time?

[Sanku]

Ignorance coupled with bravado is an entertaining combination.

Yes true and add mal-intentions to the mix it is dangerous. Coupled with intellectual dishonesty and deliberate twisting of data.

Here is some unbiased truths (unlike TEPCO statements on nuclear safety)

So a nuclear support web page below says

World nuclear association

Current usage
and used only in conventional reactors,
are enough to last for about 80 years.

So current usage will last for BEST CASE 80 years.

Compares to coal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves

World coal reserves

The 930 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves estimated by the Energy Information Administration are equal to about 4,116 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent).[citation needed] The amount of coal burned during 2007 was estimated at 7.075 billion short tons, or 133.179 quadrillion BTU's.[71] This is an average of 18.8 million BTU per short ton. In terms of heat content, this is about 57,000,000 barrels (9,100,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day. By comparison in 2007, natural gas provided 51,000,000 barrels (8,100,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day, while oil provided 85,800,000 barrels per day.

BP, in its 2007 report, estimated at 2006 end that there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 147 years reserves-to-production ratio. This figure only includes reserves classified as "proven"; exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as "proven". However, some nations haven't updated their information and assume reserves remain at the same levels even with withdrawals. Collective projections generally predict that global peak coal production may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case scenario, depending on future coal production rates.[72]

Coupled with 150 years WORST CASE for coal considering growth of production too.

Jai ho.

[Sanku]

Considering the 'best case' scenario of normal coal operations seems to be killing more folks annually.

The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal. Kindly avoid making such statements.

[Sanku]

And other factors, why don't you search for Ramana and Santanan on this thread and read their posts over last two months. They are not many posts, and all are valuable.

since you specifically mentioned natural uranium as a reason for enhanced safety of Indian PHWRs could you explain why? I will look for the 'other factors' mentioned by Ramanna et al

Its all there; read. You have to do the minimum amount of honest work to educate yourself.

[somnath]

Now I hope some folks will be able to under the context of what Somnath worte

Context was simple - price is determined by 2 variables only, supply and demand (econ 100)...Demand for commodities is almost a cetris paribus condition now (thanks to India and China), prices therefore are determined by one variable, projected supply! So if "peak uranium" was so much around the corner, prices should have gone up, no? I thought it would be simple enough to fathom...But for people with opinions as "airlines are a mass transit option", well....

Anyway, just came across this interesting nugget of info, w.r.t A Gopalkrishnan's opposition to imported LWRs..

The Russian VVER deal was signed in 1996, by the Deve Gowda govt..
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ect/51386/

Dr Gopalkrishnan headed AERB from 1993 to 1996...Did he oppose LWRs then? In fact before Fukushima, Dr Gopalkrishnan has been a crusader of the cause of indepedent regulator ( a laudable objective, now in the process of setting up), and generally dissing DAE for incompetence...Its surprising therefore that he has now started supporting "indigeneous", read DAE effort, and imports are suposedly bad!
He is an honourable man, and no motives are being imputed to him...But the inconsistency in stance is glaring...

[arnab]

The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal. Kindly avoid making such statements.

Huh says who? You can claim that nuke is not carbon free but how can you say it is the same as coal?

Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says.

That's still much less than coal-fired power plants and natural-gas turbines. It even does better than solar power and small-scale hydro projects.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html

[arnab]

Its all there; read. You have to do the minimum amount of honest work to educate yourself.

Sir all I ask is a reason to back up your statement about natural uranium use making PHWRs safer than LWRs. Surely you can explain what you have learnt from Ramanna et al. You seem to repeat certain issues ad nauseum. Why be coy now?

[Sanku]

A new study seeks to shake up the assumption that use of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is bound to continue its inexorable rise. In fact, the authors predict that world coal production may reach its peak as early as next year, and then begin a permanent decline.

Yes the coal production is expected to Peak at 2012-2025 time frame.

Note production is expected to peak.

Which means that we are NOT going to see a higher demand for coal than we have now, which means the reserves will last longer.

Unfortunately it cant differentiate between production peaking due to capacity constraints or due to demand satisfaction.

Anyway, here goes more from the same article

The paper underscores the different drivers behind the push for a new path forward on energy—the call is much the same, whether the worry is too much coal or too little.

So too much coal, too little coal same same. Indeed fit for posting on this thread with major equal-equalities issues doing the rounds.

[amit]

The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal. Kindly avoid making such statements.

Gosh all these issues were trashed out and links provided and then we again have this astonishing claim.

Well a coal-fired plant emits 200 time more radioactivity for every MW produced than a nuclear power plant. How's that?

[Sanku]

Its all there; read. You have to do the minimum amount of honest work to educate yourself.

Sir all I ask is a reason to back up your statement about natural uranium use making PHWRs safer than LWRs. Surely you can explain what you have learnt from Ramanna et al. You seem to repeat certain issues ad nauseum. Why be coy now?

And I have told you, but you will have to read yourself. I cant bless you with knowledge in face of stubborn resistance to be educated.

[Sanku]

^^^^^^

Gosh all these issues were trashed out and links provided and then we again have this astonishing claim.

Just because untruths are repeated by people who dont understand does not mean truth changes.

Well a coal-fired plant emits 200 time more radioactivity for every MW produced than a nuclear power plant. How's that?

What relevance does that have in establishing the carbon foot print (assuming if true), pathetic attempt to divert.

[Sanku]

The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal. Kindly avoid making such statements.

Huh says who? You can claim that nuke is not carbon free but how can you say it is the same as coal?

Because there are studies which show it. And have been posted.

Again I am not going to dig them up for you. Go back and read, look for abhishek_sharma and his posts on the thread over past two months.

[arnab]

And I have told you, but you will have to read yourself. I cant bless you with knowledge in face of stubborn resistance to be educated.

Sir then you could have made a generic statement of - 'It has all been discussed before, see Ramanna et all' Since you specifically mentioned Nat U, I thought you might know a little more about it. My bad

So I guess my statement still stands - if PHWRs produce plutonium and are not safe from natural disasters, we cannot call them safer than LWRs, especially since we are seeking best practice safety measures from the IAEA (and not the other way around).

[amit]

Yes the coal production is expected to Peak at 2012-2025 time frame.

Note production is expected to peak.

Which means that we are NOT going to see a higher demand for coal than we have now, which means the reserves will last longer.

Unfortunately it cant differentiate between production peaking due to capacity constraints or due to demand satisfaction.

Just as I thought no idea whatsoever about what "Peak Coal" means. (The portion in bold needs to be preserved for posterity)

Study: World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived

So too much coal, too little coal same same. Indeed fit for posting on this thread with major equal-equalities issues doing the rounds.

I know you have major comprehension skills but this bad?

The quote was:

The paper underscores the different drivers behind the push for a new path forward on energy—the call is much the same, whether the worry is too much coal or too little.

You substitute energy with coal? Gosh you never cease to amaze boss.

[arnab]

Because there are studies which show it. And have been posted.

Again I am not going to dig them up for you. Go back and read, look for abhishek_sharma and his posts on the thread over past two months.

So you are asking us to believe based on a 'study' (by greenpeace?) that the nuke industry which uses coal for building the plant and haulage of raw materials has the same carbon footprint as a coal fired plant which apart from using coal for building the plant and haulage, also uses coal as an input? And these are informed opinions?

[amit]

Just because untruths are repeated by people who dont understand does not mean truth changes.

Can you quote one study which says: The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal.

If you can't then this will only be another proof of who actually utter "untruths".

[Sanku]

And I have told you, but you will have to read yourself. I cant bless you with knowledge in face of stubborn resistance to be educated.

Sir then you could have made a generic statement of - 'It has all been discussed before, see Ramanna et all' Since you specifically mentioned Nat U, I thought you might know a little more about it. My bad

I have been making both generic and specific explanations. You seem to revisit and repeat the question after every 3 pages.

cant be bothered

So I guess my statement still stands - if PHWRs produce plutonium and are not safe from natural disasters, we cannot call them safer than LWRs, especially since we are seeking best practice safety measures from the IAEA (and not the other way around).

No that statement is wrong. even if I were to explain every thing in detail once more with all the links you will pop up after 3 pages and repeat.

Dont you think its quite obvious what silly games you are playing?

[Sanku]

Just because untruths are repeated by people who dont understand does not mean truth changes.

Can you quote one study which says: The net carbon foot print for Nuclear is no less than coal.

If you can't then this will only be another proof of who actually utter "untruths".

I have told you how to two posts back. Go and carry out the exercise then come back.

[Sanku]

./...

Back to fulminations eh. No prob. I think that untruth has been suitably nailed.

[arnab]

No that statement is wrong. even if I were to explain every thing in detail once more with all the links you will pop up after 3 pages and repeat.

Dont you think its quite obvious what silly games you are playing?

Sir - you are the one playing games. Serious discussions merit explanations and honesty You chose to quickly slide to 'other factors' without taking up the Nat U argument? So what is incorrect about my statement? PHWRs don't produce plutonium?

[amit]

So you are asking us to believe based on a 'study' (by greenpeace?) that the nuke industry which uses coal for building the plant and haulage of raw materials has the same carbon footprint as a coal fired plant which apart from using coal for building the plant and haulage, also uses coal as an input? And these are informed opinions?

Arnab,

The actual Greenpeace report resorts to typical fudging, the kind we are witnessing here.

Once this whole life-cycle is taken into consideration, the claim that nuclear power is a 'carbon-free' alternative to current fossil-fuelled power stations doesn't stand up. The most recent studies indicate that, for the richest uranium ores, CO2 emissions across the nuclear cycle are about 33% that of fossil-fuel plants. So far so good - but the fact is that very little uranium ore is of sufficient quality to produce such a result. Poor grades of ore have a content of less than 0.02% uranium-235 (this is the uranium isotope which is necessary to sustain the chain reaction in fuel in a nuclear power plant). As the high grade ores are used up, the industry will become increasingly dependent on lower grade ores - which will mean using more and more energy to 'enrich' the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to a level where it can be used in a reactor.

Note the only actual figure which this paragraph has is 33 per cent of fossil-fuel, and most of that is in plant building.

However the rest of para is based on inneduoes, leaps of faith etc. The same strategy, tactics we are witnessing here.

[Sanku]

No that statement is wrong. even if I were to explain every thing in detail once more with all the links you will pop up after 3 pages and repeat.

Dont you think its quite obvious what silly games you are playing?

Sir - you are the one playing games. Serious discussions merit explanations and honesty You chose to quickly slide to 'other factors' without taking up the Nat U argument? So what is incorrect about my statement? PHWRs don't produce plutonium?

ALL THE BASIC QUESTIONS ARE ADDRESSED IN POSTS BY RAMANA AND SANATANAN ON THIS THREAD.

ALL.

ITS SIMPLE TO SEARCH FOR THEM.

Do that and then we will talk.

[amit]

Ignorance coupled with bravado is an entertaining combination.

Yes true and add mal-intentions to the mix it is dangerous. Coupled with intellectual dishonesty and deliberate twisting of data.

Here is some unbiased truths (unlike TEPCO statements on nuclear safety)

So a nuclear support web page below says

World nuclear association

Current usage
and used only in conventional reactors,
are enough to last for about 80 years.

So current usage will last for BEST CASE 80 years.

Compares to coal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves

World coal reserves

The 930 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves estimated by the Energy Information Administration are equal to about 4,116 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent).[citation needed] The amount of coal burned during 2007 was estimated at 7.075 billion short tons, or 133.179 quadrillion BTU's.[71] This is an average of 18.8 million BTU per short ton. In terms of heat content, this is about 57,000,000 barrels (9,100,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day. By comparison in 2007, natural gas provided 51,000,000 barrels (8,100,000 m3) of oil equivalent per day, while oil provided 85,800,000 barrels per day.

BP, in its 2007 report, estimated at 2006 end that there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 147 years reserves-to-production ratio. This figure only includes reserves classified as "proven"; exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as "proven". However, some nations haven't updated their information and assume reserves remain at the same levels even with withdrawals. Collective projections generally predict that global peak coal production may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case scenario, depending on future coal production rates.[72]

Coupled with 150 years WORST CASE for coal considering growth of production too.

Jai ho.

Sorry I missed this gem.

So WiKi is a better source than NatGeo etc. I guess for some it is.

And I guess it's pointless to talk about the concept of "Peak Coal."

[amit]

Again I am not going to dig them up for you. Go back and read, look for abhishek_sharma and his posts on the thread over past two months.

OK go back and look for abhishek_sharma, ramana, sanatanan etc. Read their posts and then you'll understand what my views are.

[Sanku]

Again I am not going to dig them up for you. Go back and read, look for abhishek_sharma and his posts on the thread over past two months.

OK go back and look for abhishek_sharma, ramana, sanatanan etc. Read their posts and then you'll understand what my views are.

I have read those posts and some of yours. I know what your views are thanks very much. I am not even asking.

[arnab]

So is this what a sankufied thread looks like?

[Sanku]

So is this what a sankufied thread looks like?

I can understand the frustration.

[arnab]

I can understand the frustration.

hope you do - decent discussions derailed by factless wonders Ah well - hopefully nukkad shall be more enlightening now.

[Sanku]

I can understand the frustration.

hope you do - decent discussions derailed by factless wonders Ah well - hopefully nukkad shall be more enlightening now.

Yes, that is true, being short on basic homework, not reading posts which have been made and being in general personal and nasty to compensate for the same seems to have become the norm.

No probs though, I am still around to correct.

[brihaspati]

Folks,

This brihaspati wouldn't go away, so I will repeat my offer:

1. I point out the error in MVR's paper that he was touting provided that he apologizes for being such a pompous ass and accepts that he was wrong.

2. I will keep providing hints so that he can find the error on his own.

believe me, the only reason I play this game is that because we need a way to shut his trap. He has no clue about issues but pontificates wildly. He confuses "burnup" with "partial burn" and now it is the forum's pronblem to educate him while he moves on to his new rant.

so, brihaspati, are points # 1 and #2 acceptable to you? What is your choice?

I will appreciate a fair set of rules so I don't have to keep responding to your nonsense.

Guruprabhu,
If apologies are needed, you should apologize - for starting off with personal innuendos and attacks on me. Moreover you joined in the clamour of MVR being "perfidious" without actually first showing out where he was wrong. I clearly stated in quoting the paper that it was being placed in details for criticizing and analysis. The invitation to find errors there, was given right at the outset. If you are merely responding to that now after opening your own verbal gutter of a "trap" for so many pages - you are at last taking up the real question posed right at the first.

You are deliberately raising the issue of "burn up" and "partial burn" to deflect from the real issue of "falsification of data". The latter term was not even used by me. The comparison of the critique of BARC's earlier claim by its own ex-members were pointed out by me as a pointer to "claims" being made by you on behalf of BARC or IGCAR's as potentially similarly suspect - because "high rates/yields" had once already been made and disputed as being possibly a deliberate "falsification of data". By yours and your fan-clubs argument, if any part or any prior claim by any source appears to be dubious - all other parts or subsequent claims from the same source are dubious.

The personal attacks [and of course the training shows in the use and choice of words] were started by you and your "fan club" [again a term first used by you], the "perfidy" of you you and your "fan-club" in trying to attribute "perfidious/finanical" motivations to your critiques or authors who do not support your claims was again started by you, refusing to put up formal academic challenges through the due academic process for peer reviewed published papers in established international journals - while foul-mouthing the authors on forum - was your method.

Maybe you have a problem in calmly criticizing content, or you find it impossible in your inflated ego to accept contradiction to your "claims"? It seems that by your own claims that you are "familiar" with workings of BARC, so you might well be reflecting work-practices there now? Is it full of people like you who seem to have enough time away from their research to formulate personal attacks on forums and be more engaged in PR on behalf of "unverifiable" tall claims? Is it also full of people like you who eagerly prove their p-sec credentials by quoting "Hindu rate of growth" in every other post? No wonder that with possibly full of people like you, BARC's own ex-members found BARC and the related nuclear establishment responsible for potential "falsification of data", and that BARC has to push for import of "essential technology"!

As you have admitted yourself - that there has been less "talents" going into BARC than into other more "lucrative" areas, and BARC was more about "patriotism"! Maybe the root of the problem lies in that "uber pseudo nationalism" to try and compensate for lack of real talent? Or since "lucrative" channels appear to be irresistible, and since that accusation has already been made by you against your critiques of having selling themselves to NPA lobby and taking money from them, this opens your NPBA lobby also to potential counter accusations of having taken money or seen future "lucrative" cuts in biz deals with foreign nuclear industry - a la Qatrocchi type third party third country safe accounts!

No apologies to arrogance that dubs other posters "pompous asses" and there is no justification to claim any apology. As and when the time comes, we should see to it that what people like you have done or been doing since the heady days of "starved" brilliance of the first successful tests and early reactors - be formally explored and subjected to scrutiny. If you have deliberately falsified claims or lied, you should be exposed and proper penalties imposed, and the DAE and BARC should be checked out for potential politically motivated appointments - as indicated by your proclivity to use expressions typically used by p-sec ideologues.

It is good that you attacked me personally. Reorganization of state protected enclaves of possible political opportunism in fields of science and technology, seriously needed. You can carry on your rant with your "fan club" and go on claiming "dhimmi rates of growth". You just helped me include areas of the state establishment, on my scanner, that I had not considered before that may need a future spring clean.

[somnath]

Not sure if this article was posted here before...

R Rajaraman on potential stocks of fissile material...

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publicatio ... 6-No-3.pdf

1. He estimates WGPu to be in the 550-650 kg range, yielding 110-130 weapons...
2. He estimates current production @ 23 kg (from Dhruva only, as Cirus is now shut) per annum...
3. He also estimates a quitupling of annual capacity when the PFBR is stabilised (which is not under safeguards)....

Some interesting insights on the "benfits" of the nuke deal as well - this was written in 2008, so some of the stuff is aleady "facts" now - decommissioning of Cirus, PFBR not under safeguards etc...

Rajaraman is a bit of an NPA, but NPAs have the only quantified perspective of weapons numbers!

Most importantly, once again, an NPA perspective keeps amazing me how our uber nationalists keep badmouthing the deal...But thats deja vu...Read it for a good etimate of the weapons programme..