Naysayers call for shunning nuke energy

[KS]

you logic itself is flawed one.

Lets just say you are mindlessly biased and how about a solution to the energy crisis which you seem to be avoiding ?

 

[ajtr]

 

[ajtr]

 

[SHASH2K2]

None of those are reactors are in high earth quake probability areas . They are in medium or low danger areas so whats the point here?

 

[ajtr]

Lets just say you are mindlessly biased and how about a solution to the energy crisis which you seem to be avoiding ?

India can not afford the death of millions of poor to run the ACs of few thousand rich.If india really wants the solution then go for gas fired power plants.

 

[ajtr]

None of those are reactors are in high earth quake probability areas . They are in medium or low danger areas so whats the point here?

Point is where are all those 23 proposed reactor will be located.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Point is where are all those 23 proposed reactor will be located.

They are all located in zone 2 or zone 3 .Arent they ? Being near to zone 4-5 doesnt mean they are in that zone.

 

[sandeepdg]

India can not afford the death of millions of poor to run the ACs of few thousand rich.If india really wants the solution then go for gas fired power plants.

Do you how expensive is importing natural gas from the Gulf ? Do you how difficult and expensive it is to transport gas from the source to destination ? Gas based plants won't be able to meet out power requirements, plus gas is a scarce resource, and whatever is present is being gobbled by the Chinese the world over. At present, there is no source of energy that can provide uninterrupted and highly efficient power generation like nuclear energy, so rest assured its here to stay for the long term.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There is no economic alternative for nuclear energy, it will still be the main source of energy for many nations.

 

[pmaitra]

^^ You make very good points mate. However, what we must consider is that the pictures may often tell only one side of the story. Tsunami and Earthquakes are natural disasters that we have no control over. The Fukushima No.1 plant was one of the many in that area and was commissioned in 1970s and IS THE ONLY ONE so far to be affected by the disaster. The power plants constructed much later were all safely shut down. This means that the engineering had advanced enough in 10 years to make the power plants more secure and sturdy. Our plants will be constructed in a few years from now, surely we should expect them to closely reflect the standards adopted for the newer plants than the older ones from 1970s.

Secondly, we have huge hydroelectric and thermal power plants across the land which too are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters. Juts imagine if one of the huge dams is breached, the disaster would be unimaginable. Yet we continue to build more dams in the belief that they will withstand these shocks.

Good point MayFair.

Yes, as I see it, make our N-Plants in a way they are able to withstand some of the greatest earthquakes India has seen in the last 100 years, locate them away from populated areas as far as possible and build infrastructure and facilities, such as, but not limited to, roads, contamination fighting centres and evacuation vehicles in and around our N-Plants.

 

[pmaitra]

Whoever's bright decision was this map (refer to the stars)? Not a single of the proposed sites are in the white zones!

 

[pmaitra]

http://www.aerb.gov.in/

About AERB:

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board was constituted on November 15, 1983 by the President of India by exercising the powers conferred by the Atomic Energy Act to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions under the Act.

Thanks a bunch Nitesh. Hmmm, so Mr. Bidwai needs to educate himself.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Whoever's bright decision was this map (refer to the stars)? Not a single of the proposed sites are in the white zones!

But they are not in zone 4 and 5 either . That means those zones are not very dangerous. As per reports those units can easily withstand earthquake of 7.5 magnitude . If earthquake occurs with higher intensity then in can occur anywhere and no place is safe.

 

[pmaitra]

But they are not in zone 4 and 5 either . That means those zones are not very dangerous. As per reports those units can easily withstand earthquake of 7.5 magnitude . If earthquake occurs with higher intensity then in can occur anywhere and no place is safe.

I am sorry I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? When we have least active zones (white) available, why go for moderately active zones (yellow)? Why so? When we have better options (white zones) available, why are we choosing an option that is relatively worse than the white zones? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[KS]

Whoever's bright decision was this map (refer to the stars)? Not a single of the proposed sites are in the white zones!

Because of the three white zones (Orissa-Chattisgarh,Deccan and Guj-MP) one is highly Maoist infested, Guj-MP are dense forests.As for the Deccan nuke plants prefer to be near sea for easy access to water.

 

[KS]

India can not afford the death of millions of poor to run the ACs of few thousand rich.If india really wants the solution then go for gas fired power plants.

And who will provide the gas ? Not the Arabian countries again and you are just avoiding the question how can you hold hostage the development of the nation for an earthquake that has million time more chances not happening than happening ?

 

[SHASH2K2]

I am sorry I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? When we have least active zones (white) available, why go for moderately active zones (yellow)? Why so? When we have better options (white zones) available, why are we choosing an option that is relatively worse than the white zones? I makes absolutely no sense to me.

Location of a plant depend on many factors.
1. location should be such that there is not much loss in transmission. ie near places where demands are high.
2. easy connectivity and good location as there are very highly skilled staffs and they just wont into a jungle to work.
3. If you notice locations all nuclera plants are located near some major water sources . power plants need huge amount of water . In case of normal power plants requirements can be fulfilled by creating artificial cooling pond. There may be few complications in summer as water level will go down. In case of nuclear power plant they need continuous supply of water and there cannot be any compromise on that . Nuclear power plant cannot be shutdown like other plants .

 

[SHASH2K2]

US experts say Japan tragedy should not stop India from pursuing nuke energy options​

WASHINGTON: Two American principals who were instrumental in pushing the US-India civilian nuclear deal said on Monday that New Delhi could not afford to forsake nuclear energy even in the wake of the tragedy in Japan although the disaster will have a salutary effect on India's choice of sites and technology.

Carnegie Endowment's Ashley Tellis and US-India Business Council's Ron Somers, who propelled the nuclear agreement within the American strategic and business community respectively, maintained that India must and will continue to embrace nuclear power given the enormous energy deficit the country faces, shortage that cannot be met from any one source.

"India does not have the luxury of renouncing nuclear power," the Mumbai-born Tellis said at a conference on "The Rise of India," hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. "What India will push for is to be more careful about where plants are sited...that is salutary. It will insist that (nuclear reactor) designs are validated a lot more. I don't think there will be a downward revision (of nuclear power targets)."

India plans to increase its nuclear power production from its current 4000 MW installed capacity to 20,000 MW by 2020 and 40,000 MW by 2030 in one of the largest expansions in the world. The earthquake-induced tragedy in Japan has opponents of nuclear power up in arms over a source and technology that is seen by them to be of a catastrophic nature.

But USIBC's Somers maintained that the Japanese designs were of 1972 vintage and current technology would have coped better with the circumstances. "In that sense, it is a blessing India is getting its civilian nuclear program started now because new technology in the event of such an earthquake would automatically shut down (the reactor) and there won't be a possibly of meltdown," Somers said.

Critics of this line of argument, who have already been venting about India considering untested technology for its new projects, say there is no way to insure against catastrophic incidents. That's something even proponents of nuclear power agree, even as they point out that Indian plants have withstood temblors and a tsunami. Already, there is a surge of risk aversion towards nuclear energy across the world, with Germany announcing on Monday that it was taking seven pre-1980 nuclear power plants offline.

But Carnegie's Tellis said that while the Japan tragedy is going to "give India pause" it won't lead to any fundamental revision of targets. "The reason for that is India needs more of everything fast. It needed it yesterday," he said. "Even if all the sources of power were produced on time and very efficiently, India will be confronted with a deficit in terms of power generation. There is no way the arithmetic of demand and supply add up."

Somers too agreed that the Japan tragedy "will it be a setback for nuclear renaissance" and will cause people to think twice about nuclear power as an energy source, but said India should not back down from the nuclear power option. India's energy needs are 70 per cent dependant on hydrocarbons and rising oil prices among other factors spelled danger for food price inflation, which was a potent political issue in India.

 

[ajtr]

 

[ajtr]

And who will provide the gas ? Not the Arabian countries again and you are just avoiding the question how can you hold hostage the development of the nation for an earthquake that has million time more chances not happening than happening ?

Go for IPI and TAPI.