India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Theo_Fidel]

So if india with an industrial output growing at 14% and increasing urbanisation needs to address the ever increasing base load , nuclear energy is inevitable.

I used to think that way too. It sounds very seductive until you do the math.

GP & I had a long series of points on it some time back. At an investment of $150 Billion the GOI plans to set up about 25,000 MW of fresh Nuclear capacity by 2025 or so. I will give it to them that all this will happen despite some grave doubts. I'll even give them the cost which I think is an underestimate for new esp. foreign reactors.

But look at what we get for that investment. Over 15 years we will get 25,000/15 = 1,666 MW of power addition per year. Our present power capacity ~ 200,000 MW. Mostly Coal & Hydel. So average capacity addition is 200,000/1,666=0.833%. Less than 1% per annum. This for a economy growing at 8%+. Projections are that by 2025 we will need ~ 700,000 MW capacity conservatively. Out of which the 25,000 MW nuclear works out to 3.5%.

Load factor is a function of access to uranium, specifically enriched uranium which imported at the sellers price. AT 25,000 MW. we will need about 250x25 = 6,250 Tonnes of the enriched stuff every year. The 50,000 ton Tummulapalle deposit of regular Uranium will be exhausted in 8 years. If it is enriched even less, on the order of 3-4 years.

Yes after a 15 year program & $150 Billion spent Nuclear will go from 2% at present to 3.5%. Call me underwhelmed.

Storage is a simple engineering problem. Once Solar becomes < coal it will be solved. Probably from some combination of pumped hydel to molten salt to electric car battery grid to compressed air.

[Arjun]

TF, investment of $150 Bn does not mean anything without taking into account the lifespan of these plants...At the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether capital and operating costs can be amortized by the operator to deliver electricity at a rate that consumers are willing to pay, without sacrificing the operator's profitability. From what I understand the answer to that is yes, NPCIL will be delivering electricity at a competitive rate.

As for your other argument, I think the target is about 63000 MW of nuclear power by 2035. If you don't think that is sufficient- all that implies is the govt needs to be even more ambitious in setting targets for nuclear power - and that Kudankulam-type protests need to be dealt with firmly.

[Philip]

The problem with alternative energy sources is that they are not 14X7 sources of power.Wind power is highly seasonal,and so is solar power though to a lesser extent.Only N-power can give one a 24X7 capability and even if the amount is as low as 3.5-5% of all power produced,its constant availability and "cleanlness" its what is attractive.Secondly,coupled with N-plants near the sea,desalination plants will help provide potable water in an age of acute water shortages too.Or key ports like Bombay,Madras,Calcutta,Cochin,etc.,require huge water requirements and river diverting in the case of Madras from Andhra has been one expensive option.

Utimately it has to be acknowledged that a holistic approach to power production is what will deliver the goods.I've been saying this from N-deal debate times.Fossil fuel power plants pollute the environment and as we are now seeing,unecptcted floods and incessant rains have limited coal production this monsoon,affecting powr plants and industries all down the line.If the distribution and transmission line losses are reduced even a few %,the added power availability would be enormous.This requires huge investments in underground cabling in metros and large cities to prevent power theft,therefore whichever way one looks at oit,massive amounts of money are required whatever the type of power plant is planned.Where the GOI can acelerate power production is by allowing renewable energy plants like windmills and solar plants to avail themselves of 100% depreciation,tax hlidays and even govt. subsidies.This will spur development even further in this new industry and if offshore windmills are also promoted,even futher.

However,right now we cannot afford the luxury of abandoning N-energy whatsoever,as there is simply NO alternative.

[Theo_Fidel]

Arjun,

Where is the Uranium going to come from. Esp. the U-235. Also $150 Billion absolutely matters. Once the investment is made we will be locked in. Long term. the only way forward will be to flog the nuclear plants @ 100% plf for 40+ years. Also 25,000 MW is not enough and is extremely complicated does not mean one should double down and aim for 63,000 MW.

I think that something has fundamentally changed with respect to renewable power. Its cost is dropping so rapidly that all previous technologies will have to do a fundamental reassessment. The future energy world will be fundamentally different from the present one. This is the primary reason nuclear power is being pushed on us. There is a small window in which to get us 'hooked'. We would be wise not to get locked in.

WRT Kudankulam as long as the plant has not started people will have upper hand. People know this. Starting is 9/10ths of the law. DIDI knows this and has banned the technology outright from her state. Anyone for dealing with her 'firmly'.

[Aditya_V]

I think states like Kerala and WB, which do not want to take any risks for generating Nuclear power, should be penalised with draw downs froms from the Central Grid.

[chaanakya]

By all projections , Nuclear energy would not even cross 5% of total generating capacity that India would add to by 2032. It would be laughable to talk about climate change, green house gases, peak load and base load requirement and 24X7 availability in overall energy scenario.Those who talk of renewable energy not being available 24X7 would be surprised to know that Sun does not shine at all places at the same time nor does wind flow but if you take a large swath of geographical area you can easily make available RE 24X7. The only constraint is storage and with viability of RE going up no doubt it would be solved. Perhaps large regional grids itself would act as storage.Energy requirements for different categories of consumers can be met from different sources and not necessarily locked into one specific source.

AFAIK KKNPP, there is a big question mark on more reactors. The existing one would not have much problem in starting if Govt comes out with result of review.

According to news reports Australia has lifted ban on uranium sale to India so supply of Uranium might not pose issue.

[chaanakya]

Utimately it has to be acknowledged that a holistic approach to power production is what will deliver the goods.I've been saying this from N-deal debate times.Fossil fuel power plants pollute the environment and as we are now seeing,unecptcted floods and incessant rains have limited coal production this monsoon,affecting powr plants and industries all down the line.If the distribution and transmission line losses are reduced even a few %,the added power availability would be enormous.This requires huge investments in underground cabling in metros and large cities to prevent power theft,therefore whichever way one looks at oit,massive amounts of money are required whatever the type of power plant is planned.Where the GOI can acelerate power production is by allowing renewable energy plants like windmills and solar plants to avail themselves of 100% depreciation,tax hlidays and even govt. subsidies.This will spur development even further in this new industry and if offshore windmills are also promoted,even futher. .

You have raised key issues affecting power sector and reforms in many areas are sorely needed. Each issue merits a separate post in its own right.

[Arjun]

Where is the Uranium going to come from. Esp. the U-235.

Imports - from Australia and other sources.

I think that something has fundamentally changed with respect to renewable power. Its cost is dropping so rapidly that all previous technologies will have to do a fundamental reassessment. The future energy world will be fundamentally different from the present one. This is the primary reason nuclear power is being pushed on us. There is a small window in which to get us 'hooked'. We would be wise not to get locked in.

India should continue to pursue large scale programs in both renewables as well as nuclear. There is NO clear answer as of today that either one of them is comfortably superior to the other alternative. Until there is one, India needs to pursue both options equally vigorously.

As regards the 'locked in' argument, lets look at this way...The bottomline is India cannot waste anymore time dithering. For her development she needs to have a full-scale energy policy in place and implementation proceeding as per targets. Until a clear winner is decided in terms of nuclear vs renewables (and no such event has occurred at this point) - the country needs to invest in both, which is what is happening. Once a plan has been put in place based on the best available inputs - the focus needs to be on execution...

There is no doubt massive innovation that is being encouraged in the renewables space currently - and it is possible that some of this is close to tipping point in terms of commercial viability of the technologies considering cost, consistency, safety and other parameters. Say in 2020, if wind/solar/biofuel emerges as a clear winner - more egggs can then be put into that basket. But don't think we are there yet.

[Neela]

Arjun,
I think that something has fundamentally changed with respect to renewable power. Its cost is dropping so rapidly that all previous technologies will have to do a fundamental reassessment. The future energy world will be fundamentally different from the present one. This is the primary reason nuclear power is being pushed on us. There is a small window in which to get us 'hooked'. We would be wise not to get locked in.

Your conclusions are premature.
It brings me to an interesting discussion I had with an ex-colleague who is working with Ying Li solar. There is currently 100% overcapacity in the manufacture of PV cells. Installed manufacturing capacity of far outstrips demand. About 200 companies are involved in manufacturing this. This has led to the current "cheap as chips" price.
Consolidation is just around the corner and expect this to happen in the next few years. Remember, once the bank loans runs out , most companies will be pleading for a takeover from larger players. As fewer companies manufacture, prices will rise.
As someone who lost a job 3 years back precisely because the same game was played in the DRAM memory market, I can vouch that this will happen.

But Theo Ji - please tell us how this will not bring grief to the locals? The land is gone And solar panels today do not have hardly any need for labour - so jobs are gone! With land gone, agriculture and food security becomes a threat! Oh dear Oh dear! What then? Back to protesting against Government hegemony?

[chaanakya]

There is no doubt massive innovation that is being encouraged in the renewables space currently - and it is possible that some of this is close to tipping point in terms of commercial viability of the technologies considering cost, consistency, safety and other parameters. Say in 2020, if wind/solar/biofuel emerges as a clear winner - more egggs can then be put into that basket. But don't think we are there yet.

Rernewables are already 21000MW in terms of grid connected generating capacity , and 618 MW off grid and more is planned i.e. 20000 in SPV alone by 2022. Going by the response, it might be achieved by 2017. So already lot of eggs has been put in the basket and far more than Nuclear energy as of now. In terms of RE we are far ahead of some of the developed or developing countries. Of course China, as usual, has a lead now in projected SPV and Wind power capacity.

[chaanakya]

But Theo Ji - please tell us how this will not bring grief to the locals? The land is gone And solar panels today do not have hardly any need for labour - so jobs are gone! With land gone, agriculture and food security becomes a threat! Oh dear Oh dear! What then? Back to protesting against Government hegemony?

According to a study conducted by a US research agency 1 MW of RE would provide job to 10 people through out the year. And perhaps nobody recommends to put solar panels on fertile land. Wind mills can function in conjunction with farming activities. Footprint is small and farmers get benefited. Land is not gone as it is only lease/rentals not outright sale/acquisition. They get rentals on fallow land which serves them well.They also get power on site for irrigation purposes. No more subsidy or free grid power. Less burden on grid and tax payers.They are also recruited to look after safety and security of installations on part time basis. No national security issue or restriction to visit the plant site. Of course power would be taken away from Wind and sun and that could be a point for aloo like politicians bent on fooling others.

Can someone tell us how much land is locked up if one takes the sanitized zone , no development zone and evacuation area into account for nuclear power? How much area is uninhabitable or un-agriculturable in Fuk-D? and for how long? How many of us are willing to give radiated rice with Cs 137 etc to their children and self? Any takers for Fuku Rice and fish, notwithstanding good and beneficial effects of radiation.

On no cost food security is to be compromised.So one needs to put in such conditions which does not divert arable land and does not divert population from their areas where they lived for generations.

[harbans]

TF, investment of $150 Bn does not mean anything without taking into account the lifespan of these plants...

Arjun Ji, just like to add to what you posted: That the cost of delay and scalability must be factored in all these calculations. With nuclear we can scale up on the energy matrix quite fast to enable sustained high growth. By minimizing our energy basket we run the risk of not putting up enough power to meet the demand. If we cannot scale up fast we run the risk of slowing growth. Slowing growth enables poverty continuation and thus lesser allocations to health, education and defense. Nuclear on the scalability level the cleanest energy source for India. No choice really.

[Philip]

As a believer in renewable energy myself,I have a small investment in wind power,but do know from experience about the problems it faces with seasonable production,asinine state govt. politcies,mismanagement of EBs,ad nauseum.I know from the media that in one state,during peak wind season,the EB simply didn't bank the power for their own mismaganement reasons! Getting the private sector to invest in renewable sources is difficult when certain states behave as blackmailers.For those who have industries which need the power they are reasonably OK,but for those who have invested to sell the power to the state,they are at the mercy of the corrupt EBs,who pay well over a year late.

In TN alone,I learnt that some windmill owners are due hundreds of crores from the EB.To which state than can someone who wants to invest in windpower run to? Gujarat? At whgat rates too?The states charge high rates pr uynti but pay investors/producers a pittance and ages late.There is a limitation as to the wind resources available also in each region,and unless the GOI takes the bold step of offshore windfarms,as the UK has done,and allows the private sector to take charge,taking a "power tax" alone as commission for land/sea lease,the opportunity of increasing the wind energy production will be feeble.I must also mention that in Europe,there is ahuge controversy about wind farms on land,due to noise pollution (ever tried living next to a wind farm?),visual pollution,etc.

Unless alternative energy,production and distribution/sale is given a free hand to the private sector,with attractive subsidies,it will grow at a snail's pace.Someone I know is putting up a huge solar power plant in a certain state,I must find out from him his experience of the same.

But we're here to talk about our N-issues and to me focussed upon our N-requirements,both civil and military,especially in the light of unrestricted N-weapons production by Pak,the highest priority must be given to developing an indigenous nuclear industry going the FBT route.Where friendly nations are willing to provide us with N-reactors as at KKM,adhering to our stringent liability clauses ,and are willing to provide us with fuel and plants,we should plump for them provided they meet the most stringent standards post-Fukushima.Those states that do not wish N-power plants located in their territory,will not b provided with extra power that they might require from Central sources,and can use the treadmill as an "alternative renewable and sustainable energy" resource a I've said before!

PS:Rumour has it that the KKM agits in part are also a bit of armtwisting by the regime to extract more power from it!

[Lilo]

By all projections , Nuclear energy would not even cross 5% of total generating capacity that India would add to by 2032. It would be laughable to talk about climate change, green house gases, peak load and base load requirement and 24X7 availability in overall energy scenario.............. The only constraint is storage and with viability of RE going up no doubt it would be solved. Perhaps large regional grids itself would act as storage.Energy requirements for different categories of consumers can be met from different sources and not necessarily locked into one specific source.

Chaanakya, can you tell me what would be the percentage split b/w MWhrs produced by respective power sources in 2025 when you are saying that nuke power wont be greater than 5% of the total GENERATING (installed¿) capacity ?
Guessing myself, what ever be the figure for nuclear, i think it might be atleast 4 times its generating capacity .i.e 5%x4=20%.
The others could be 50% thermal, 20% hydro and 10% RE.

Regarding the 21000MW of RE already connected to the grid , considering the dismal load factors in RE installations it might as well be 4000MW effective.
Further, i for one dont see any proven storage solution for RE in sight. This fact this and the difficulty in producing alternating current through solar ..itself greatly limits the utility of RE.

[Neela]

But Theo Ji - please tell us how this will not bring grief to the locals? The land is gone And solar panels today do not have hardly any need for labour - so jobs are gone! With land gone, agriculture and food security becomes a threat! Oh dear Oh dear! What then? Back to protesting against Government hegemony?

According to a study conducted by a US research agency 1 MW of RE would provide job to 10 people through out the year. And perhaps nobody recommends to put solar panels on fertile land. Wind mills can function in conjunction with farming activities. Footprint is small and farmers get benefited. Land is not gone as it is only lease/rentals not outright sale/acquisition. They get rentals on fallow land which serves them well.They also get power on site for irrigation purposes. No more subsidy or free grid power. Less burden on grid and tax payers.They are also recruited to look after safety and security of installations on part time basis. No national security issue or restriction to visit the plant site. Of course power would be taken away from Wind and sun and that could be a point for aloo like politicians bent on fooling others.

Sirji, you are making this discussion more vague and rudderless now!
My point was against Solar alone. And it makes sense to leave it at that and take up everything else from energy-from-waves/leaves/human fart later.

What if you need arable land in the future for food security? What will you do then? With world population projected to double within decades, do you realize that we have to make as much land arable as possible? What will happen to the Solar farms then? Are you planning to rip them apart and throw them into the sea? You don't look like a green warrior now!

Solar farms need hardly any labour - if you go through the countryside in Germany, you will see many such farms. Now the important thing to understand here is that Germany has among the highest cost of labour and if it were so labour intensive, I doubt anyone would have set it up. The initial setup will require labour -- after that there is a dramatic fall in requirements.

And manufacturing solar and semiconductor stuff is a massive drain on and fresh water. Why are you depleting the world"s fresh water resources?

Can someone tell us how much land is locked up if one takes the sanitized zone , no development zone and evacuation area into account for nuclear power? How much area is uninhabitable or un-agriculturable in Fuk-D? and for how long? How many of us are willing to give radiated rice with Cs 137 etc to their children and self? Any takers for Fuku Rice and fish, notwithstanding good and beneficial effects of radiation.

Not so fast amigo! Safety of the THIS nuclear plant was never discussed but suddenly you just jump to Fuk-u rice!
And I guess you continue to eat rice now - background radiation notwithstanding!

On no cost food security is to be compromised.So one needs to put in such conditions which does not divert arable land and does not divert population from their areas where they lived for generations.

Again..."lived for generations" , "grief to locals" is all too much noise. What exactly is diverting populations? Under what circumstances?

[chaanakya]

Philip What you say and your experience in RE is valid and must be addressed. Unless Distribution and Transmission are corporatized and open access is provided these things would face hurdle. RE should get priority scheduling to avoid waste of generating capacity. With smart Grid Scheduling concerns can be addressed properly. Already many steps have been taken to ensure grid discipline. Up to 50 MW no scheduling is required in many states. Hence RE power can be effectively utilized. Now, the payment part is concerned, let me tell you that since nuclear power gets GOI back up dues would be deducted from State fund by the central govt. No such facility is extended to RE generators. hence they are at mercy of State ED. Moreover ED can draw power without actually paying to the Grid, only book adjustment. While in RE power private parties are made to suffer by not allowing to supply power and then not paying in time for supplied power.

There is a need for structural reforms in Power sector.

However , my point here is simple, there is no need to argue against RE to show the necessity of Nuclear power. The quantum of power planned for nuclear energy would not stand scrutiny of absolute necessity of one over the other. So Let it be argued on its own merit.

[Philip]

Quite right.C.

[Neela]

However , my point here is simple, there is no need to argue against RE to show the necessity of Nuclear power. The quantum of power planned for nuclear energy would not stand scrutiny of absolute necessity of one over the other. So Let it be argued on its own merit.

Completely and fully agree on this! The balance between the two is hard to find.

People cite the reaction of Germany post-Fuku and say if they can do it , everyone can. This is a false premise.
The 1980s saw the german political class jump headlong into Nuclear , overriding massive discomfort from the populace. Those generations continue to live and be the primary vote bank against nuclear power. The key thing is that France has 20 nuclear reactors producing a surplus 20% of energy. GErmany lives with this comfort and are get it cheap! So it can live with saying no to nuclear power.

[chaanakya]

Sirji, you are making this discussion more vague and rudderless now!
My point was against Solar alone. And it makes sense to leave it at that and take up everything else from energy-from-waves/leaves/human fart later.

That figure was for Solar , specifically. for others it is somewhat higher.

What if you need arable land in the future for food security? What will you do then? With world population projected to double within decades, do you realize that we have to make as much land arable as possible? What will happen to the Solar farms then? Are you planning to rip them apart and throw them into the sea? You don't look like a green warrior now!

Perhaps you need to know what a Fallow land is and then read the post again

Solar farms need hardly any labour - if you go through the countryside in Germany, you will see many such farms. Now the important thing to understand here is that Germany has among the highest cost of labour and if it were so labour intensive, I doubt anyone would have set it up. The initial setup will require labour -- after that there is a dramatic fall in requirements.

Well the figure does take into account the labor required for Solar plants irrespective of location.

And manufacturing solar and semiconductor stuff is a massive drain on and fresh water. Why are you depleting the world"s fresh water resources?

Wel I suppose you would have heard of economies of silicon wafers and water requirements and treatment plant. How much energy it uses to make solar cells. All that is part of studies and . It does not result in depletion of water, else China would have gone bone dry by now, going by your argument.

Can someone tell us how much land is locked up if one takes the sanitized zone , no development zone and evacuation area into account for nuclear power? How much area is uninhabitable or un-agriculturable in Fuk-D? and for how long? How many of us are willing to give radiated rice with Cs 137 etc to their children and self? Any takers for Fuku Rice and fish, notwithstanding good and beneficial effects of radiation.

Not so fast amigo! Safety of the THIS nuclear plant was never discussed but suddenly you just jump to Fuk-u rice!
And I guess you continue to eat rice now - background radiation notwithstanding!

You are mistaken again. One of the major issues raised is safety concerns after FUK-D. Please feel free to read previous posts. And yes I continue to eat rice with the assurance that these are Cs137 free and radiation limit is adhered to and I assume that enforcement agencies do a good job of monitoring notwithstanding the general mistrust.

On no cost food security is to be compromised.So one needs to put in such conditions which does not divert arable land and does not divert population from their areas where they lived for generations.

Again..."lived for generations" , "grief to locals" is all too much noise. What exactly is diverting populations? Under what circumstances?

You would have heard of resettlement issues in large projects, where population get displaced. Well to say the least , when Nuclear plant goes kaput for some reason or the other

[amit]

Aha I see the discussion is back to solar energy.

Let me put in my two cents before scooting away.

Germany is one of the biggest champions of solar energy and has huge subsidies on solar power. But let's keep the economics of solar power generation vis a vis other forms - coal, nuclear and thermal - out of the way for now.

Also let's forget small details like baseload generation as opposed to peakload.

Let's instead concentrate on something which should be less controversial that is how big solar farms need to be for efficient generation. Coming back to Germany, the Waldpolenz Solar Park is by far the biggest solar farm built. And when completed it will generate a decent 40 MW of power enough for about 40,000 homes. Great isn't it? But what they don't write in big print in the sales brochure and what champions of solar power here gloss over, or refuse to discuss, is the size of these farms. Take the Waldpolenz farm. It is equivalent to about 200 football field or more precisely 2 square km. Mind you this with state of the art efficient solar panels.

So now do some basic back of the envelope calculations. If it takes 2 square km to generate 40MW of power, how much would it take to generate 1,500 MW of power - that the new nuclear power plants would be doing?

Heck if you're a bit more ambitious (or honest with yourself) why don't you calculate how many square km of solar farms would be required to light up say NCR?

Once you've done that just read up the the amount of power requirement that's been projected for India by say 2030 in terms of GW and then calculate the square km needed.

Does India have sufficient land? And can the land be taken over peacefully?

Folks, whichever way you want to cut it or dice it or spin it, you can't walk away from nuclear, unless you want to condemn your next generation to a nightmare of coal fired thermal power plants, one located in each district of India.

This is not to say solar is bad or that it shouldn't be pursued. The point that needs to be repeatedly hammered home is that India needs progress in all areas - coal (the new generation plants with carbon capture), thermal (exploiting the Himalayas), nuclear (do note that the LWRs are Gen 6 plants while Fukushima was Gen 1), solar, wind, tide etc.

Anyone who tries to argue that despite India's power deficiency nuclear can be ignored, is simply agenda driven - just like the JNU jhollawallas.

OK back to scoot mode before my morality is again questioned.

PS: In case anyone thinks I made up all of the above, please see http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.co ... olenz.html

[chaanakya]

Completely and fully agree on this! The balance between the two is hard to find.

People cite the reaction of Germany post-Fuku and say if they can do it , everyone can. This is a false premise.
The 1980s saw the german political class jump headlong into Nuclear , overriding massive discomfort from the populace. Those generations continue to live and be the primary vote bank against nuclear power. The key thing is that France has 20 nuclear reactors producing a surplus 20% of energy. GErmany lives with this comfort and are get it cheap! So it can live with saying no to nuclear power.

Yes, that is another issue. Why Germany is important. For one reason. If it succeeds it would show that development can be without Nuclear power as well. I am just watching these countries including Germany and japan and how it pans out.

Quite right , France is exporting to Germany and that question has been asked. yet to get satisfactory answer.
So jury is still out there.

I would say , notwithstanding its demerits ( which all sources have in different measures) Nuclear power is one of the component in Energy Policy and it can not be overlooked.For me safety aspects are more important. If independent analysis and reporting is done that would go a long way in assuring populations affected. I would not close this option for one reason alone "Energy Security" but would not stop to look to alternatives.

[Lilo]

actually fallow land is one which is uncultivated for the moment.
General practice is that fertile land is left fallow for few years after say 5 yrs of continuous cultivation so that natural fertility factors could be rejenerated.
Such a rotating scheme of fallow and fertile plots practised in indian agriculture makes permanent installation of solar panels in fallow land impossible.

[Aditya_V]

Completely and fully agree on this! The balance between the two is hard to find.

People cite the reaction of Germany post-Fuku and say if they can do it , everyone can. This is a false premise.
The 1980s saw the german political class jump headlong into Nuclear , overriding massive discomfort from the populace. Those generations continue to live and be the primary vote bank against nuclear power. The key thing is that France has 20 nuclear reactors producing a surplus 20% of energy. GErmany lives with this comfort and are get it cheap! So it can live with saying no to nuclear power.

Yes, that is another issue. Why Germany is important. For one reason. If it succeeds it would show that development can be without Nuclear power as well. I am just watching these countries including Germany and japan and how it pans out.

Quite right , France is exporting to Germany and that question has been asked. yet to get satisfactory answer.
So jury is still out there.

I would say , notwithstanding its demerits ( which all sources have in different measures) Nuclear power is one of the component in Energy Policy and it can not be overlooked.For me safety aspects are more important. If independent analysis and reporting is done that would go a long way in assuring populations affected. I would not close this option for one reason alone "Energy Security" but would not stop to look to alternatives.

Germany also gets a good amount of piped Russian Gas, a situation we cannot have due to neighbours like Pakistan.

[gakakkad]

>>Germany also gets a good amount of piped Russian Gas, a situation we cannot have due to neighbours like Pakistan.

Some day , we should try and explore the feasibility of depopulating TSP and its potential risks and benefits to us . In a decade or twos time it might actually be a good option . Poe's law not intended. I am dead serious .

[Neela]

You would have heard of resettlement issues in large projects, where population get displaced. Well to say the least , when Nuclear plant goes kaput for some reason or the other

Sorry chaanakya-ji - these types of arguments are precisely the things which are causes for rudderless discussions. This danger-in-the-dark scenarios are not for educated minds.
The standard protocols have been followed by the scientists and one must have full faith in them. The technological developments which prevent these from happening have been well researched and incorporated into the plant for known dangers! That is about any human can do and everything else is beyond human control.

[Neela]

actually fallow land is one which is uncultivated for the moment.
General practice is that fertile land is left fallow for few years after say 5 yrs of continuous cultivation so that natural fertility factors could be rejenerated.
Such a rotating scheme of fallow and fertile plots practised in indian agriculture makes permanent installation of solar panels in fallow land impossible.

Precisely - and that I thought needed no explanation. The world's population will put enormous stress on any land that is available 25 years from now. We will have to scrape the barrel for this land.

[Sanatanan]

Nuclear Safety: Apex Court to Hear NGO's Petition Today

No order on PIL on nuclear safety, SC keeps the issue open

[chaanakya]

You would have heard of resettlement issues in large projects, where population get displaced. Well to say the least , when Nuclear plant goes kaput for some reason or the other

Sorry chaanakya-ji - these types of arguments are precisely the things which are causes for rudderless discussions. This danger-in-the-dark scenarios are not for educated minds. .

Yes, reasons are quite well known and seen by all, at least I thought needed no elaboration. Of course when we choose to close our eyes to dangers it would not exist in the minds of closed eyes. That shows up when we start attributing motives to the local populace and talk about having faith in experts, that too in onlee a particular type of experts and no others.

[chaanakya]

actually fallow land is one which is uncultivated for the moment.
General practice is that fertile land is left fallow for few years after say 5 yrs of continuous cultivation so that natural fertility factors could be rejenerated.
Such a rotating scheme of fallow and fertile plots practised in indian agriculture makes permanent installation of solar panels in fallow land impossible.

Precisely - and that I thought needed no explanation. The world's population will put enormous stress on any land that is available 25 years from now. We will have to scrape the barrel for this land.

Agree on that ( my bad), please read that as uncultivable land or barren , arid, desert type. In fact SPV is quite effective in rajasthan.

[subodh]

Also let's forget small details like baseload generation as opposed to peakload.

Very good post.

All this talk about renewables, etc - be it in India or in the US - is bascially at heart a tax scam for the Vinod Khoslas of the world - stealing tax payer funds via various schemes.

For a large economy, baseload power cannot come from much beyond super thermal, large hydel, nuclear and the like. Genuine and reliable peaker cannot come from anything but hydrocarbon fired (preferably NatGas) 'quick-on' gen plants.

All this other stuff is for green jollies, unable to make a difference in the real world, and surviving only as along as every stage of the process (from manufacture, to land acquisition, to installation to operation) heavily subsidised for the most part.

It infuriating to see tax dollars wasted this way, but I guess its part of the democratic process.

[chaanakya]

Chaanakya, can you tell me what would be the percentage split b/w MWhrs produced by respective power sources in 2025 when you are saying that nuke power wont be greater than 5% of the total GENERATING (installed¿) capacity ?
Guessing myself, what ever be the figure for nuclear, i think it might be atleast 4 times its generating capacity .i.e 5%x4=20%.
The others could be 50% thermal, 20% hydro and 10% RE.

Regarding the 21000MW of RE already connected to the grid , considering the dismal load factors in RE installations it might as well be 4000MW effective.
Further, i for one dont see any proven storage solution for RE in sight. This fact this and the difficulty in producing alternating current through solar ..itself greatly limits the utility of RE.

Its a good question. I can give you pointers to it by giving actual figures for october 2011.
Thermal
PLF 98%
Installed capacity 119040.98 MW
Generation for Oct 2011 58818 MU
Hydro

Installed capacity 38708 MW
generation for Oct 2011 11997 MU
Nuclear
PLF 76%
Installed capacity 4780 MW
Generation for Oct 2011 2715 MU


Actual generation in 2025 would depend on system demand, fuel availability and shutdowns due to various factors.

[chaanakya]

Aha I see the discussion is back to solar energy.

That can be said by someone who thinks renewables is only Solar and that too specifically SPV.

[Neela]

Aha I see the discussion is back to solar energy.

That can be said by someone who thinks renewables is only Solar and that too specifically SPV.

Chaanakya

Sirji, you are making this discussion more vague and rudderless now!
My point was against Solar alone. And it makes sense to leave it at that and take up everything else from energy-from-waves/leaves/human fart later.

is what I said!
No elaborations needed here I think!
Simple, terse and to the point and addressing the person I want to. Not sure if that can be said by someone you!

[Theo_Fidel]

actually fallow land is one which is uncultivated for the moment.

Other than some local practice, India does not practice organized fallow land agriculture anywhere. If there is land and finance & environment allows the land is cropped immediately. No exceptions.

What India does practice is 'marginal' land agriculture. About 60% or so of present cropland of 350 million acres is under marginal land agriculture. Every so often enough rain lands to plant crops. Marginal land agriculture is one of the things that makes our agriculture so inefficient and average productivity so low. If the 'crop' shifts to electricity harvest year round this would be far far better use of large chunks of this land.

Much of Kudankulam itself is marginal land agriculture. About 4,800 acres of various areas has been acquired. There was some speculation earlier that if this was fully covered with PV & wind turbines, the power output might even be larger than KKNPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOI was panicked/bought off into some very hasty decisions without much thought at all. Present impasse is a key symptom of this dysfunction. No one even knows who exactly is in charge and who is doing what. Random GOI officials make random comments and wild accusations and then negotiate the next day. Craziness.

This is the apparatus KKNPP will operate under.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is saying abandon the potential opportunity of nuclear power. But one must go into into with eyes wide open and after a lot of soul searching to work out all the linkages that will be required for the next 60 years. Will there be enough U-235 available for 60 years and will it be available for import. Just doing the quick math for 25,000 MW alone we will need ~ 400,000 tonnes of Uraniumenriched Uranium alone.(edit later ) This far exceeds Australia known Uranium reserves leave alone the 1 million tons or so we will need for enrichment.
Lets do some math again. All these imported reactors, including KKNPP need enriched Uranium. There is no open market for this. The very very few agencies involved charge about $300 per pound unenriched (Uranium+enrichment+fabrication) to make 3%-4% enriched stuff . Once fabricated the fuel pellets and rods cost about $300 per pound unenriched. A reactor needs about 250 metric tonnes unenriched U per 1000 MW. So $300x2200lbsx250= $165 Million per year per 1000 MW. Assuming modest cost escalator over 60 years of 3% annually. In 2071 it will cost about ~ $ 1.5 Billion per 1000MW annually. So over 60 years $750 Million median x 60 x 25 (25,000/1000) = 2.340 Trillion dollars (With a T). Averaging out (much back loaded and hidden) it is $40 Billion annually for 3.5% or even less of our electricity per year.

And this is just fuel cost. It would be a $2.340 Trillion wealth transfer from India to already wealthy countries. You can see why the $150 Billion reactors is just a down payment. And this is assuming Uranium does not substantially inflate from present costs. Extremely unlikely IMHO. For some comparison our entire oil import bill is now about $80 Billion annually.

This is just one un-discussed aspect of the whole thing. How little we as a nation understand this boon-doogle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take that same $40 Billion annually and apply it to say renewable PV alone. Right now PV costs about $1 Billion per 1000 MW installed (latest JNNUSM). Say capacity factor of 25%. So need $4 Billion per 1000 MW at 100% plf. This will give us 10,000 MW annually for 25 years. 25x10,000=250,000 MW of PV panels at 100% PLF.

If PV prices drop 50% as expected over the next 5 years. We will get 500,000 MW of PV 100% equivalent installed for just the cost of the Uranium alone.

JNNUSM 2022 goal needs to be changed to 220,000 MW. I think that is how much we will get.
------------------------------------------------------------

When the price of PV is so low our energy economy will change whether we like it or not to an intermittent source. Not dissimilar to how TN ended up with 5,000 MW of wind. Something TN was and is completely unprepared for. TN should have invested to convert its dams into pumped storage and increased the capacity of these dams. mullaperiyar/pykara(limited pumped)/bhavani/mettur/papanasam/aliyar/etc should have all been pumped storage by now. This would have allowed TN further proceed to allow full 80m wind development of 15,000 MW+.

At present we are sleep walking into this situation. Completely unprepared.

[chaanakya]

Aha I see the discussion is back to solar energy.

That can be said by someone who thinks renewables is only Solar and that too specifically SPV.

Chaanakya

Sirji, you are making this discussion more vague and rudderless now!
My point was against Solar alone. And it makes sense to leave it at that and take up everything else from energy-from-waves/leaves/human fart later.

is what I said!
No elaborations needed here I think!
Simple, terse and to the point and addressing the person I want to. Not sure if that can be said by someone you!

My comment followed from his post directly after my reply to your post. He thought it was solar alone that is being discussed. What I was pointing out was true for most of RE. And your point was not even correct for Solar. So I am sure that can be said.

[chaanakya]

actually fallow land is one which is uncultivated for the moment.

Other than some local practice, India does not practice organized fallow land agriculture anywhere. If there is land and finance & environment allows the land is cropped immediately. No exceptions.

What India does practice is 'marginal' land agriculture. About 60% or so of present cropland of 350 million acres is under marginal land agriculture. Every so often enough rain lands to plant crops. Marginal land agriculture is one of the things that makes our agriculture so inefficient and average productivity so low. If the 'crop' shifts to electricity harvest year round this would be far far better use of large chunks of this land.

Much of Kudankulam itself is marginal land agriculture. About 4,800 acres of various areas has been acquired. There was some speculation earlier that if this was fully covered with PV & wind turbines, the power output might even be larger than KKNPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOI was panicked/bought off into some very hasty decisions without much thought at all. Present impasse is a key symptom of this dysfunction. No one even knows who exactly is in charge and who is doing what. Random GOI officials make random comments and wild accusations and then negotiate the next day. Craziness.

This is the apparatus KKNPP will operate under.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is saying abandon the potential opportunity of nuclear power. But one must go into into with eyes wide open and after a lot of soul searching to work out all the linkages that will be required for the next 60 years. Will there be enough U-235 available for 60 years and will it be available for import. Just doing the quick math for 25,000 MW alone we will need ~ 400,000 tonnes of enriched Uranium alone. This far exceeds Australia known Uranium reserves leave alone the 1 million tons or so we will need for enrichment.

Lets do some math again. All these imported reactors, including KKNPP need enriched Uranium. There is no open market for this. The very very few agencies involved charge about $300 per pound unenriched (Uranium+enrichment+fabrication) to make 3%-4% enriched stuff . Once fabricated the fuel pellets and rods cost about $300 per pound unenriched. A reactor needs about 250 metric tonnes unenriched U per 1000 MW. So $300x2200lbsx250= $165 Million per year per 1000 MW. Assuming modest cost escalator over 60 years of 3% annually. In 2071 it will cost about ~ $ 1.5 Billion per 1000MW annually. So over 60 years $750 Million median x 60 x 25 (25,000/1000) = 2.340 Trillion dollars (With a T). Averaging out (much back loaded and hidden) it is $40 Billion annually for 3.5% or even less of our electricity per year.

And this is just fuel cost. It would be a $2.340 Trillion wealth transfer from India to already wealthy countries. You can see why the $150 Billion reactors is just a down payment. And this is assuming Uranium does not substantially inflate from present costs. Extremely unlikely IMHO. For some comparison our entire oil import bill is now about $80 Billion annually.

This is just one un-discussed aspect of the whole thing. How little we as a nation understand this boon-doogle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take that same $40 Billion annually and apply it to say renewable PV alone. Right now PV costs about $1 Billion per 1000 MW installed (latest JNNUSM). Say capacity factor of 25%. So need $4 Billion per 1000 MW at 100% plf. This will give us 10,000 MW annually for 25 years. 25x10,000=250,000 MW of PV panels at 100% PLF.

If PV prices drop 50% as expected over the next 5 years. We will get 500,000 MW of PV 100% equivalent installed for just the cost of the Uranium alone.

JNNUSM 2022 goal needs to be changed to 220,000 MW. I think that is how much we will get.
------------------------------------------------------------

When the price of PV is so low our energy economy will change whether we like it or not to an intermittent source. Not dissimilar to how TN ended up with 5,000 MW of wind. Something TN was and is completely unprepared for. TN should have invested to convert its dams into pumped storage and increased the capacity of these dams. mullaperiyar/pykara(limited pumped)/bhavani/mettur/papanasam/aliyar/etc should have all been pumped storage by now. This would have allowed TN further proceed to allow full 80m wind development of 15,000 MW+.

At present we are sleep walking into this situation. Completely unprepared.

Theo , his definition of fallow land is correct. Its a different matter how far we leave land fallow in actual practice.
You have made thought provoking post on future of RE. But then you would also be accused of Scamming taxpayers money.

[Theo_Fidel]

Chanaakya,

This is OT but typical fallow agriculture in India is different. It is a variant of slash and burn where jungle regrows and wood/wild plants are harvested. Then jungle is burned/cleared and cropped again. Some small tribal groups practise this in the hills around here. Not in any organised agricultural areas.

I think what he is talking about is a variant of crop rotation. Where a legume crop is grown and plowed under to enrich the soil. Some areas of TN practise that but typically do it only for 3 months or so. In our climate 3 months is enough to overgrow a field.

[ramdas]

TF,

25000MWe = 75000MWth

Under an open fuel cycle, with LWRs, burnup is 40000MWd/tHM or more. So, the amount of enriched uranium (4%) reqd for a 40 year lifespan is 75000*365*40/40000 = 27375 tons
NOT 400000 tons.

This amounts to 27275*4/0.7 approx. 162000 tons of unenriched uranium.

This does NOT take into account the enhancement of our nuclear program due to the plutonium available from reprocessing, etc. You have either not checked the figures you give, or you are deliberately falsifying them.

Why do the protestors want to know about weapon activities in their vicinity ? Why the plans to protest against Kalpakkam facilities ? Does this not clearly indicate that the agenda is to stall the nuclear power as well as strategic program, with Kudankulam the thin end of the wedge ?

This sinister gameplan must be foiled ASAP. It is unfortunate that the Catholic church, instead of sticking to religious matters, is lending a shoulder to this typeof subversion of national interest.

[Theo_Fidel]

TF,

25000MWe = 75000MWth

Under an open fuel cycle, with LWRs, burnup is 40000MWd/tHM or more. So, the amount of enriched uranium (4%) reqd for a 40 year lifespan is 75000*365*40/40000 = 27375 tons
NOT 400000 tons.

This amounts to 27275*4/0.7 approx. 162000 tons of unenriched uranium.

Rji,

I used the world convention of 250 tons unenriched per 1000 MW annual.

The reason IMO is that present enrichment uses about 8-10 kg to produce 1 kg enriched 4% + 9 kg depleted 0.3 Uranium. To go better the enrichment costs spiral on a log scale. Also went for 60 years which is the extended life of these plants.

But yes you are correct that enriched quantity is less than unenriched. That sentence of mine may be confusing. Not sure why I put that 1 million number in. I must have been thinking of some reason that escapes me at present. but we will need minimum 250x25x60 ~ 400,000 tons of unenriched U for these plants. better burnup would change that number.

[Theo_Fidel]

Another data point.

Under the present cycle a fuel rod contains about 200 kg of enriched Uranium and costs ~ $1 Million. Of that 200 kg only 8 kg is U-235 and is fissile though some very limited burn up of U-238 does occur.

So $1,000,000/8000 grams = $125 per gram.
Present price of Gold 1 gram = $55 per gram.

So we are taking some thing more expensive than gold burning it in a reactor one time and calling it our energy program.