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:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Suraj Singh on Jul 15, 2008 09:48 PM Permalink
Myth #14: The deal is not primarily about making money; it is about creating a new U.S. strategic relationship in south Asia.
Fact: The deal is primarily about making money. The main effect of the deal will be to pardon India – to remove it as a violator of international norms. After such a change in status, there will be no impediment to U.S. arms sales. This is where the real money is, not in nuclear reactors. U.S. exporters have mentioned selling as much as $1.4 billion worth of Boeing airliners, hundreds of F-16 or F/A-18 fighter jets, as well as maritime surveillance planes, advanced radar, helicopters, missile defense and other equipment. The Russian press has even complained that the nuclear deal is a ploy to squeeze Russia out of the Indian arms market.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by suneera rahman on Jul 15, 2008 09:51 PM Permalink
There is a lot of Untruth in costing of power that many anti-neuclearists intentionally hide. How have they priced the hydro- and thermal power? How do you estimate the environmental cost and how do you price it? It is like pricing parent's value. Most of those who are against nuclear power just do not wnat India to have it. Their proclaimed reason are different from the actual one.
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sastry on Jul 15, 2008 09:55 PM Permalink
Your sweeping stmt is not in good taste. I don't agree if you say that there is nothing about nuclear energy.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:18 PM Permalink
MYTH#2Nuclear 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:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:19 PM Permalink
MYTH#3Nuclear 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:RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:19 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:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Ajoy Sen on Jul 15, 2008 09:51 PM Permalink
Thanks for writing in detail the myth people have in their mind about the benifits of the Deal.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by pruodNorth on Jul 15, 2008 09:51 PM Permalink
how u get into this figure that only 20000 MW will be genreated from Nuclear plants after the deal. My undertsanding is limit should be sky only as we will have abundance fuel. Even t he present N plants trun at less than half the capicity ( tarapur etc) will run on full capacity. Have you taken that consederations. Private partership with NRI money is certainly help make N plants all over the country. Forget Thorum at the moment. How about getting uranum from autratlia in big way?
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 10:05 PM Permalink
US Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 10:08 PM Permalink
As Wind energy & solar energy could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, why it can't be for India???
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:59 PM Permalink
Chidambaram, Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India.
"The country's main thrust would be coal-based power in the next 20 years," he said.
Installed capacity of nuclear energy is projected to go up to 20,000 MW by the year 2020 after INDO-US nuclear deal.
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Loan Shark on Jul 15, 2008 09:55 PM Permalink
screw australia, we can uranium from former soviet republics
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Indigo on Jul 15, 2008 09:59 PM Permalink
pruodNorth, The question is not just about generation but also commercialization of the production and distribution of the generation. We do not have proper distribution technolgy/infrastructure what are we going to do abouty generation. I work with the worlds best electrical company enagaged in power genartion/distribution, we are far off from International standards
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Sastry on Jul 15, 2008 09:52 PM Permalink
You are one of the very few people on the board to cite figures and facts. Keep it up.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by Loan Shark on Jul 15, 2008 09:54 PM Permalink
wind and solar energy is not relaible .... wind plants usually do not produce more that 25-30% of their installed capapcity as wind does not blow at all times.
solar energy is also unreliable. however, it is good to power small consumption when far away from a conventional power source
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 09:41 PM Permalink
Dear Sumod Wind energy & solar energy can complete our energy needs for future. India has a large coastal area to generate electricity through winds. At present solar energy is not econimical but research is going on to improve the efficiency of solar cells.
RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by DeeRags on Jul 15, 2008 10:07 PM Permalink
Sonu, The objective here is not to cover 100% of India's energy requirement. Nuclear power can take a small slice of the total pie. Albeit nuclear waste disposal is a big concern. But in future with research on better nuclear waste disposal, there is hope. In any case we will be better off from our present condition. Solar and wind energy also can only form a thin slice of the pie. The bulk has to come from fossil fuels and nuclear with ongoing research about alternative fuels. With time fossil and/or nuclear can be reduced. Its like a balancing equation.
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy MYTH#1 Nuclear Energy is Cheaper
by SONU on Jul 15, 2008 10:11 PM Permalink
US Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.
If Wind energy & solar energy could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, why it can't be for India???
