Let us take the cost factor. Running costs are very low but capital costs, construction delays and the costs of eventual decommissioning of plants make nuclear plants extremely uneconomic. Coal plants are costed at Rs.4.5 crores per megawatt and combined-cycle gas or naptha plants around Rs.3 crores per megawatt produced. In contrast, electricity generation through nuclear plants will cost between Rs.7 crores to Rs.10 crores per megawatt. Even The Economist which is pro-nuclear energy says costs worldwide would be $2000 per kilowatt which works out to Rs.8 crores per megawatt. The Wall Street firm, Moody’s in October 2007 said “all in” capital costs would be in the range of $5000 to $6000 per kilowatt. Incidentally, since Governments bear most of the costs in countries like France, Japan and India there is always room for ‘creative accounting’ to minimize estimates which nevertheless are still higher than for other sources.
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:32 PM Permalink
MYTH_3..Nuclear renaissance No company in the US has yet ordered a nuclear plant though some have applied for various kinds of building licenses. The industry is waiting for 100% loan guarantees from the federal government. It already has the Price-Anderson act which puts a cap on liabilities of private companies in case of, say, accidents caused by faulty plant designs, i.e., they should not be held seriously responsible for their errors. In India the government will have to bring in a similar act for private sector participation. This is the socialism that capitalists love – privatize profits, socialize risks and costs! As for thorium, you first have to master the earlier stages of combining reprocessing and fast breeders. France and Japan, the world leaders in fast breeders, have had such technical problems that their record is terribly erratic. Worldwide, over $100 billion has been spent on this, but prospects for commercial breeder use will remain unrealistic for decades
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sandeep on Jul 16, 2008 04:59 AM Permalink
Nuclear Energy generation costs have come down recently. They are down to $2000 per KW now.
Please don't confuse deal signing with Thorium. India has plenty of it but as you say, it is hard to build plants with Thorium as fuel.
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by jino v on Jul 15, 2008 10:04 PM Permalink
How much more coal or petrolium products are available to explore? The stock is depleting and India is now under dark half the day. If not nuclear, whats the alternate?
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:33 PM Permalink
MYTH_4..Nuclear energy will solve our power needs. Nuclear power currently accounts for around 4000 MW of the total 140,000 MW installed electricity generating capacity in the country excluding captive power plants. After nuclear deal with US, India will generate 20000 MW of electricity againest the demand of 300000 MW to 350000 MW of country demand i.e. just 6-7% of our energy needs.
RE:RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sandeep on Jul 16, 2008 05:07 AM Permalink
It will help some. current target by the way is 40000 MW which is quite substantial.
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:32 PM Permalink
MYTH#2 MYTH_2..Nuclear energy is clean The problem of radioactive nuclear waste disposal is simply unsolvable, leaving a mess for future generations. Besides, lax international rules allow all kinds of abuses. France’s La Hague plant uses a pipeline to discharge hundreds of millions of litres of liquid radioactive waste into the English Channel polluting seas flowing to the Arctic. As for global warming how many Indians know that no country, including France and Japan that get 75% and 40% of their electricity respectively from nuclear power, has seen a reduction of carbon emissions because these are also created by transport and industry. Without a revolution in conventional economic thinking and organization which rejects the high-energy intensive model of growth (that in the first place justifies constructing nuclear plants) we cannot overcome the global warming problem. Between 1965 and 1995 Japan obtained an extra 45,000 megawatts through nuclear plants but its annual carbon emissions went up from 400 million tonnes (1965) to 1200 million tonnes (1995). To make a significant difference we would need to build one plant a week for the next 50 years. Either way, this is impossible and would entail huge costs and create an even more difficult and dangerous waste disposal problem.
RE:RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sandeep on Jul 16, 2008 05:06 AM Permalink
Don't get confused by Japan's emissions going up by this number. Real question is what would have happened if Japan or France had installed coal/oil based plants.
Global warming is more imminent problem so again don't compare the 2. The processing plant you have quoted claims the radiation near it is about same as you would get on a transatlantic flight.
RE:MYTH_1..Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sandeep on Jul 16, 2008 05:26 AM Permalink
Also no need to build one plant every one week for 50 years. I wonder where did you get so much disinformation.
