Nuclear power emerges as green option for Asia

The article says India plans to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 megawatts to 20,000 megawatts in the next decade. Impossible, I say for many reasons.

A five fold upgrade in ten years? Good luck.

We want every man, woman and child to have electric power and cheap fuel. We want a bigger climate footprint. Step lightly, but don't tip toe.

Not unrealistic if they allow global bids. AECL is just ripe for such projects. Not to mention Areva and GE. Workable if they don't demand their own fuel production.

AECL could do it by itself if invited. Add in competition and local companies and not so hard at all..

http://www.aecl.ca/CANDU-Country/Record.htm

Four years from first pour to in service. Twenty GWatts represents sixteen such projects staggered over six years with the tools for one stage moving on to the next project in sequence.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Not unrealistic if they allow global bids. AECL is just ripe for such projects. Not to mention Areva and GE. Workable if they don't demand their own fuel production.
AECL could do it by itself if invited. Add in competition and local companies and not so hard at all..
http://www.aecl.ca/CANDU-Country/Record.htm
Four years from first pour to in service. Twenty GWatts represents sixteen such projects staggered over six years with the tools for one stage moving on to the next project in sequence.

Not unrealistic?? Not hard at all?? UNTRUE. Your own link says: "A leader among nuclear vendors, AECL has designed, built and delivered six CANDU 6 reactors to international customers in the last decade. All of these projects have been delivered on or ahead of schedule, and on budget."

Plus there are NOT enough materials or manpower or manufaturing capacity to supply such an undertaking in India or in a region where others also want nuclear-generated electricty.

If MattJ knew some nuclear science and technology, he would be most outraged here about the Pu and T, i.e. proliferation materials, produced in Candu's. They are a menace; a nightmare to those who know nuclear science and technology.

truthist wrote:

The article says India plans to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 megawatts to 20,000 megawatts in the next decade. Impossible, I say for many reasons.

India is still under the influence of the old buddies in the Soviet Union who believed in "Five Year Plans".

So they will start the program with much fanfare and an unrealistic goal, and if they have any luck, they will will 10,000 MW or so by the next decade. They will then call that a success -- if AGW hasn't already dried up the Monsoons;)

truthist wrote:

If MattJ knew some nuclear science and technology, he would be most outraged here about the Pu and T,

'T'? Did you discover a new element today?

As for Pu, yes, I know about that: the only safe fuel cycles for Pu are those that burn it up with Thorium as described at http://www.thoriumpower.com/default2.asp... and http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF... .

It is really bad that India is using Pu239, since it will be easy for terrorists to infiltrate them and steal weapons grade material.

i.e. proliferation materials, produced in Candu's. They are a menace; a nightmare to those who know nuclear science and technology.

Well, yeah, that is why I support President Carter's decision NOT to build CANDUs in the US. You were the one who seemed to delight in knowing how many of the are built in Canada -- and in how the World Nuclear Association encourages such reactors all over the world.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
'T'? Did you discover a new element today?

I first thought you called me as CJ does.

There is a possibility to keep in mind. With my jet lag, I can't specify but there is/are new element(s) to be added to the periodic chart;)

Recalling the D-T fusion reaction I posted earlier, I was referring to H3, i.e. tritium, T. Of course, for the benefit of others, D is deuterium, the other isotope of hydrogen. The Candu's are perfect manufaturers of both T and Pu.

As for Pu, yes, I know about that: the only safe fuel cycles for Pu are those that burn it up with Thorium as described at http://www.thoriumpower.com/default2.asp... and http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF... .
It is really bad that India is using Pu239, since it will be easy for terrorists to infiltrate them and steal weapons grade material.

I would discourage the use of the adjectives "safe" and "easy." Risk communication should be better than exageration that comes back to bite you in a big way.

<quoted text> You were the one who seemed to delight in knowing how many of the are built in Canada -- and in how the World Nuclear Association encourages such reactors all over the world.

UNTRUE. I have NOT and I would never be delighted with the Candu's for power production. Never ever.

I have not noticed such a bias in that site. Please show where it is, if you can.

I meant 'periodic table.'

truthist wrote:

earlier, I was referring to H3, i.e. tritium, T. Of course, for the benefit of others, D is deuterium, the other isotope of hydrogen. The Candu's are perfect manufaturers of both T and Pu.

And since out of the context of D-T, nobody DOES use 'T' to mean 'Tritium', I suggest you use 'H3' as you did above instead.

I would discourage the use of the adjectives "safe" and "easy." Risk communication should be better than exageration that comes back to bite you in a big way.

That kind of misplaced caution is one of the reasons your posts come across as obfuscatory lifeless prose -- when you are not trading insults;)

<quoted text>UNTRUE. I have NOT and I would never be delighted with the Candu's for power production. Never ever.

Well, I am not going to quibble over what you said that lead me to that conclusion -- except, of course, when you call them "perfect manufacturers" as you just did above;)

I am glad to hear you recognize their danger. But this is why you should NOT have called them "perfect manufaturers[sic] of both T and Pu".

Dangerous manufacturers are not perfect manufacturers.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
And since out of the context of D-T, nobody DOES use 'T' to mean 'Tritium', I suggest you use 'H3' as you did above instead.
<quoted text>
That kind of misplaced caution is one of the reasons your posts come across as obfuscatory lifeless prose -- when you are not trading insults;)
<quoted text>
Well, I am not going to quibble over what you said that lead me to that conclusion -- except, of course, when you call them "perfect manufacturers" as you just did above;)
I am glad to hear you recognize their danger. But this is why you should NOT have called them "perfect manufaturers[sic] of both T and Pu".
Dangerous manufacturers are not perfect manufacturers.

Risk Communication is a subject of study. Those who have studied would recognize my use as proper.

The same goes for 'perfect:' The science and technology of the Candu's qualify them as perfect for the production of large quantities of weapon materials. They are PERFECT for that purpose. This needs to be stressed. Then that they should not be built as I have.

If you are not quibling, then admit once that you were wrong or mistaken.

You should not have posted this comment.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>
Risk Communication is a subject of study. Those who have studied would recognize my use as proper.

You miss the point: you are not WRITING to those people here!

Your so-called "risk communication" background seems to have been heavy on equivocating on the meaning of the word 'communication';)

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
That kind of misplaced caution is one of the reasons your posts come across as obfuscatory lifeless prose -- when you are not trading insults;)

One of the reasons?

However -- your misplaced confidence is based on your deep IGNORANCE.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You miss the point: you are not WRITING to those people here!
Your so-called "risk communication" background seems to have been heavy on equivocating on the meaning of the word 'communication';)

You miss the point when you don't know what you are talking about.

I wrote: Risk communication should be better than exageration that comes back to bite you in a big way.

Can you think of an example?

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>You miss the point when you don't know what you are talking about.
I wrote: Risk communication should be better than exageration that comes back to bite you in a big way.
Can you think of an example?

An example of exaggeration? There's always your "science is my way";)

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
An example of exaggeration? There's always your "science is my way";)

Are you smiling too?

Electricity too cheap to meter!
China syndrome!
Environmentally-safe fusion reactors!
Clean coal!
.
.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>Are you smiling too?
Electricity too cheap to meter!

Heh;) I recognize that as a prediction from nuclear industry advocates in the 50s and 60s!

China syndrome!

This was an exaggeration from the other side...

Environmentally-safe fusion reactors!

Sounds like an exaggeration to me;)

Clean coal!
.
.

We had better hope that we can make this one work -- even if the only way we can make it work economically is to use nuclear power to pump the CO2 to underground storage areas -- or even split the CO2 to make new fuel out of it!

We have just WAY too many new coal plants we are not going to be able to shut down: the best we can hope for is to build on the carbon-capture technology.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Heh;) I recognize that as a prediction from nuclear industry advocates in the 50s and 60s!
<quoted text>
This was an exaggeration from the other side...
<quoted text>
Sounds like an exaggeration to me;)
<quoted text>
We had better hope that we can make this one work -- even if the only way we can make it work economically is to use nuclear power to pump the CO2 to underground storage areas -- or even split the CO2 to make new fuel out of it!
We have just WAY too many new coal plants we are not going to be able to shut down: the best we can hope for is to build on the carbon-capture technology.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….

Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…

Global warming, as a political vehicle,”-

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor
of the Institute of Science and Technology Research
at Chubu University in Japan.

==

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”-

Award-winning Paleontologist
Dr. Eduardo Tonni,
of the Committee
for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires
and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

==

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil...

I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”-

South Afican Nuclear Physicist
and Chemical Engineer
Dr. Philip Lloyd,

a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

==

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”-

Atmospheric physicist
James A. Peden,
formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

You wonder which one is more dangerous. Nuclear are Coal fired plants?

I think they should build coal planets, and help us mitigate away from ice age climate change. We have a long time deal with climate, fire, CO2 and man. We are good with CO2 and climate, we need more of both.

PWRs are a rich men's option. Koreea and Japan are building them.

US and Germany could also build PWRs, but don't - for a variety of reasons.

CANDUs tho, are a poor man's choice, and a reasonable one at that. That indians decided that dying of hunger is a worse alternative than the terrorist bugaboo -it's just heartening to see a state acting rationally on nuclear energy.