visit to school

Visit to school

 I studied in A.RK.Z.P.High school  in Gollapalli , near Nuzvid in Krishna district in Andhra Pradesh from 6th class ( we used to call first form) eleventh class ( we used to call S.S.L.C.) 1959 TO 1965. To see  and remember my friends and the school studied I made trip that village on 16th  March after 45 years of leaving the school. From Hyderabad  I traveled by bus (most of Andhra people prefer to travel in state) and reached the Nuzvid a town nearby to Gollapalli and reached by 15th evening. I stayed in a lodge and had nice sleep in hotel that night.

In the morning I got ready myself by 6 A.M. after completing break fast  in hotel and started by bus to Gollapalli which is 12 km from Nuzvid . I enjoyed traveling bus and recollecting the memories in those school days and  number of our school mates used to walk to school from surrounding villages. I reached Gollapalli at 7 A.M. on 16th morning.

First I made visit to my friend house  Srinivasa Rao retired from bank and settled in the village . But recognize me he took 2 minutes. We have remembered the days we used to visit mango fields for plucking mangoes and eating ’ Thati Moanjalu “ . After that we used to swim in Ramaleru river . I was afraid of swimming. Srinivasa rao and my other friend Prasad used to take me into the river Ramaleru we used to enjoy swimming.

Srnivasa rao inquired about my grand mother I told that she passed away in 30 years back. We got memories of our my grand mother  who was very strict  on my studies and never used to allow me to go any where. In those days My grand mother used  to force me to study up to 9 P.M. in night and I was forced to get up at early morning 4 A.M. to read lessons taught in the class on that  day. What I am today was  it is because of her and my parents  . While my grand father  was little liberal and giving freedom for playing.

Recollecting memories I left srinivasa rao house after much  and  searched MS. Shanta  who was my class mate  in S.S.L.C. she living with her daughter as her husband died some time back. She recently constructed her new house . She invited me inside her house. We recollected  memories of our school days.  MS. Shanta enquired about some of our colleagues who have settled in Hyderabad . I informed her that I am unaware of any our class mates settled in Hyderabad . After having tea I left her house even though she requested me to have lunch in her house. I visited Raghunatha Swami temple. I recollected my memories of that temple in those days I used break coconut to deity whenever there are exams in the school  to get good marks. Beside this temple there is a new Siva deity temple which constructed recently. I prayed for minute in that  temple. Immediately after coming out of temple I paid visit to the house  our beloved teacher MR. Raghunatha acharyulu  who expired some time back. I had few minutes discussion with his daughter and son.

Then I proceeded to school. The school is one kilometer from village . The first batch of S.S.L.C. left as old as in 1950. My paternal uncle P. Laksminarayana  completed his S.S.L.C. in 1950. Whereas I completed my S.S.L.C. in 1965. My sister sarada Devi  who was studying our same school left Gollapalli in between as secondary school was started in our native place. My sister sarada Devi helped me to adjust loneliness in that remote village in those days .  I used to jump the compound wall of  our house situated and used to go to school. Now there are two new buildings to school in addition original old school building. I visited all class rooms and recollected sweet memories of my school teachers and class mates. Now school is not a good it was in 1965. In those days I used to write every day news on notice board with chalk piece as per instructions of our head master.  In those days our head master was R. Satyanarayana and Sitapathi rao in my last days of school leaving. Now at present head master is Mr. Johnson .  The head master informed me one student was selected in III T at Nuzvid last year. The head master requested me to donate some money for purchasing the cricket bats for 10th class children. I told I will get back to him . I saw the play ground where I learn t cycling . The play ground still as it is there I recollected my winning three legged race event and playing basket ball. In addition I used to play caroms. There used to be mango trees which were giving shades to school children are not there now. I was not first in class but I used to come second and third in all subjects. They used to be brisk activities were going on the ground while our school days but now children not showing the interest or may be   lack of motivation from school authorities. Head master room is same room same as last 45 years back. Years passed there is are no better amenities in school environment now .  They should planted some trees at corners of ground. I found there are not many benches for sitting school.  I found some children sitting in the class room and studying. 

I left the school with sweet memories my school days in that school while  thinking what way I can help to that school. I visited  Ravi and Prasad houses situated adjacent school they were employed in private companies in Vijayawada and prematurely retired. I spent one hour in their houses . By that time it is 3 p.m. From  there I boarded bus and reached Hanuman junction .  I had my lunch there and reached back to Nuzvid  by 5.p.m. I boarded bus for Hyderabad and reached 17th morning . I wish if there is any rebirth I want to be the student of that school again.

If any student of our school there in Hyderabad  kindly contact me.

fast breeder reactors and its importance

Fast breeder reactors are least safe

With reference an article in Times of India dated 27th March by  Swami Nathan Ankleswar Aiyyar about fast breeder reactors I wish to point out the following information on fast breeder reactor  and their importance in nuclear energy development in India.

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fuel than it consumes. These reactors were initially (1940) considered appealing due to their superior fuel economy. In a normal light water reactors consumes 3to 4 % of natural uranium that begins fuel cycle which breeder can burn all most all of it( no reprocessing losses) and also generating less waste for equal amount of energy. Breeder can be designed to use thorium which is more abundantly available in India. There is renewed interest in designs because of increased price of uranium.

Fissile material is  produced by neutron irradiation of fertile material particularly uranium U-238 (natural uranium) and thorium -232. This happens some extent in most reactors. Towards the end life a uranium (not Mox, just uranium) PWR fuel element in producing more power bred plutonium than remaining uranium U-235(97 percent uranium ). In breeder reactor a ferrite materials  are deliberately provided, in fuel/or breeder blanket surrounding core. Historically a machine specially designed to create more fuel than it consumes is called breeder.

At present scientists of Indira Gandhi Cent re For Atomic Research (IGCAR) one of the nuclear institution in India are engaged in construction of FBR (FAST BREEDER REACTOR ) 500 Mwe fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam near Chennai with plans to build 111 generation nuclear power program .

India consciously choose peaceful safe path of nuclear energy development aimed at technology development. The strategy of our program was based on development of scientists  and engineers R&D institutions which grew gradually with the development of indigenous know how various fields.

I agree with Swami Nathan  Aiyyar that fast breeder are least safe and globally number of countries closed down fast breeder reactors and their construction costs are very high . But globally fast breeder technology under development  as I am optimistic India we shall be developing FBR in  safe conditions by developing safe  prototype reactor. I fully agree that sodium reacts both water and air and create explosion. But only answer for this question is we have to take safety precautions and while running FBR s just like managing chemical unit.

Every year globally number people die due to explosion in chemical and pharmaceuticals factories due to explosion and due poor safety conditions in coal mines around the world. How can be survive without chemicals and coal? only answer is we have to take enough precautions while managing these units.

All nuclear power plants need huge capital cost normally expected to over -run the expenditure because long construction lead time 48-60 months (in case of light water reactor). Capital cost over -run cost can be recovered, since average life of present generation 111 reactor life is 60 years.

As far as Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants concerned these reactors are BWR (boiling water reactor ) in category of light water reactors supplied and built  by General Electric U.S. . These reactors are not FBR category of reactors.

The fleet of GE -Hitachi nuclear energy(GEH) BWR reactors  has been proven track record of performing reliability and safety for over 40 years. GE has been in nuclear industry since more than half century. There are 92 GE-Hitachi  built BWR plants operating globally. GE  BWR design meets rigorous regularity requirements of U.S. nuclear regulatory commission (NRC) and other  government regulations and have proven to be safe and reliable.

GE-Hitachi nuclear energy reactor design clarification

G E - nuclear energy design clarification

In wake of Japanese nuclear emergency spawned by two week’s back  earth quake and tsunami, questions  are being raised about design of General Electric nuclear reactor known as Mark 1. Nuclear opponents have criticized that Mark 1 as inferior to other reactor designs,U.S.A. reported saying that its containment systems are smaller and more vulnerable to rupturing  under high pressure. The Mark 1 design was used at five of the six nuclear reactor located at Japan’s troubled Fukushima Daiichi plant.

According to an ABC news report, 35 years ago three nuclear scientists went so far to resign from their positions at General  Electric because of their concern over Mark 1 nuclear reactor design.

“ The problem we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with loss of coolant “ Dale G. Bridenbaugh told ABC news in an interview . “The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear containment apart and create an uncontrolled release”

However Bridenbaugh went on to tell ABC news that he believe the design flaws that prompted his resignation from GE eventually addressed at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, and added that GE agreed to a series retrofits at Mark 1 reactor around globe. How effective such retrofitting might have been in question though, with Bridenbaugh admitting that “ the Mark 1 still little more susceptible  to an accident that would result in a loss of containment.

Over the years, others have also expressed concerned over Mark 1 nuclear reactor design. According to U.S.A Today  report , U.S. Atomic Energy Commission official Stephen Hanauer  said in 1972 memo that  the type of system used in Mark 1 was vulnerable and should be discontinued . According ABC News  in 1986, Harold Denton than director of the nuclear regulatory commission  office of nuclear reactor regularity raised doubts saying he did not “ have the same worry feeling about  GE containment that  I do  about larger dry containment's “ 

General Electric for its parts , insists Mark 1 nuclear design is safe. In a statement To U.S.A Today the company the company said Mark 1 is an industry work horse with proven safety record for more than 40 years.

According to New York Times, 23 reactors at 16 locations in U.S. use Mark design including the Oyster Creek Plant in central New Jersey, the Dresden plant near Chicago and the Monticello plant Minneapolis. These reactors have undergone a variety of modifications since initial concern were raised the Times said.

GE SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON MARK 1 CONTAINMENT HISTORY

Recent several news stories have reported that the design of Mark 1 containment system in  nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi power plant has history of problems. As several speculations contained in three stories GE would like to set the record straight. We believe it is too early to know specially what had happened in each of reactors at Fakushima Daiichi . GE committed to participating in research for facts. However   we can address ( GE) the 40 years history of technology and its performance.

Claim : The Mark 1 reactor is less “ physically robust” than competing pressurized water reactors.

GE s  view : the Mark 1 meets all regularity requirements and has performed well over 40 years. Difference in the primary containment systems used in different reactor designs including differences’ in the size of containment vessel-are largely function of different operating characteristic of those designs. For example GE’s containment systems utilize pressure suppression technology, where a pool of water available to condensate steam in the event of an accident and reduce pressure on containment vessel. Units are built to with stand predicted peak containment pressures based upon their design under accident guidelines.

Claim : The Mark 1 should have been discontinued based on statement made in 1972 by Stephen Hanauer  an Atomic Energy Commission   officials who said that its smaller containment vessel design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a build up of hydrogen.

General Electric view : In 1980 the NRC advised that it had  given careful consideration to concern raised by Mr.Hanauer s 1972 memorandum about Mark 1  and that “ the staff, including Dr.Hanauer has concluded that pressure suppression concept for containment design is safe.

Claim : The Mark 1 was cheaper and easier to build -in part because GE used comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure,

Fact claimed by GE :  Because of pressure suppression capability designed onto the Mark 1, GE are able to have smaller containment design. The pressure suppression technology enable the Mark 1 to reduce the pressure in the containment vessel by condensing the steam in suppression  pool. Safety remained our priority and Mark 1 design meet all NRC design criteria

Claim : Modification made to Mark 1 over the fast decades were driven by threats of law suits from utilities over alleged flaws in the system

Fact and GE view : the Mark 1 containment designs were modified in1980’s  to address improvements in technology and changing regulatory requirements. All these  changes required by regulatory authorities have been implemented. The changes resulted from operational experience and improvements in technology and had nothing to do with law suits.

GE nuclear energy situation in Japan

GE expresses condolences continue to be with the people of Japan effected by devastating  impact of last 10 days back unprecedented natural disaster. And GE official continue to monitor the events at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which suffered a loss of power after tsunami struck site.

During the magnitude 8.9 earth quake the GE Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) performed as designed and initiated safe shut down process. We under stand that back up generator performed as designed to begin the cooling process, shortly thereafter , we understand that tsunami disabled the back up generation system.

Immediately following the earth quake and tsunami, Hitachi -GE  nuclear energy (GE ‘s nuclear joint venture Hitachi)  based in Japan  communicated to Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power co (TEPCO)the plant operator stating GE is ready to assist them.  The GE -Hitachi alliance assembled incidence response and engineering teams in Tokyo and Wilmington NC to provide 24/7 support.

While Tepco  is managing efforts,GE has been offering assistance from beginning and now taking number of additional actions, providing technical assistance to TEPCO through their joint venture partners in Japan. Providing technical assistance to U.S. Nuclear regularity commission (NRC) which providing assistance to the Japan government.

Engaging GE -net work of more than 1,000 engineers within GE-Hitachi nuclear energy to provide technical assistance to NRC, nuclear energy institute , the government  of Japan and TEPCO.


REACTOR SAFETY

The fleet of GE-Hitachi nuclear energy (GEH) BWR reactors has proven track record of performing reliability and safety for 40 years. GE has been in nuclear industry for more than  half-century. There are currently 92 GE built BWR plants using licensed GE-BWR design operating globally. GE -BWR meet  the rigorous regularity requirements of U.S. Nuclear regularity commission NRC  and other government regulators , and have proven to be safe and reliable.

The unit 1 reactor at Fakushima Daiichi site went into commercial operation in 1971. It is BWR-3 with Mark 1 containment system. That means the reactor is third generation of BWR design. The reactor in unit 1  is same type  as several reactors in U.S. although every reactor designed specially for each project site. All GEH BWR designs meet all NRC requirement for safe operation during and after earth quake for areas where they are licensed and site BWR reactors are designed to able to safety shut down in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster.

However  GE’s reactor design safe and reliable but   GE-Hitachi nu clear energy to solve core melt down problem in reactor at Fakushima Daiichi plant to avoid people getting effected to radiation.

carbon capture , transportation,storage and its future

Carbon capture ,transportation, storage and its future

The carbon is emitted into atmosphere (as carbon dioxide also called CO2) whenever  we burn any fossil fuel any where . The largest sources are cars and lorries and power stations that burn fossil fuels coal oil or gas. To prevent  the carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere (causing global warming and definitely causing ocean acidification). We  can catch Co2  and stored broadly three different types of technologies for scrubbing exist post combustion-pre combustion and oxy-fuel combustion.

As I have already explained about carbon capture in my previous blog, however  I will just explain briefly about process involved.

The post combustion the CO2 is removed after combustion of fossil fuel- this scheme that would be applied to fossil burning power plants. Here carbon dioxide is captured from flue gases at power stations or large point sources. This technology is well understood and currently used in industrial application although not same scale as might be required in a commercial scale power station.

The technology for post combustion is widely applied in fertilizer ,chemical gaseous fuel (H2 CH4 ) and power production. In these cases the fossil fuel partially oxidized, for instance on a gasifier.  The resulting Syn gas (CO and H20 ) is shifted into CO2 and more H2. The resulting CO2 can be captured from relatively pure exhaust steam . The H2 can now be used as a fuel, the carbon dioxide is removed before combustion takes place. There are several advantages and disadvantages when compared to conventional post combustion carbon dioxide capture. The CO2 is removed after combustion of fossil fuel, but before  flue gas is expanded to atmospheric pressure . The scheme is applied to new fossil fuel  burning plants or existing plants where re-powering is an option.

Oxy fuel combustion

In  oxy fuel combustion the fuel is burned in oxygen instead of air. The limit the resulting flame temperatures to levels common during conventional combustion, cooled flue gas is re circulated  and injected into combustion chamber. The flue gas consists mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor, the latter of which is condensed through cooling. The result is an almost form carbon dioxide steam that can be transported to the sequestration site stored. Power plant processes based on oxy-fuel combustion are some times referred to as “zero emission” cycles, because the CO2 stored is not in fraction removed from flue gas(as in cases of pre-post combustion process but steam gas steam it self.)  To warrant the level “ zero emission” the water would this have to be treated or dispersed appropriately . This technique is promising but initial air separation steps demands a lot of energy.

Transporting carbon dioxide

After carbon dioxide CO2 is captured, the next step is transporting it to a storage site. The current method of transporting CO2 is pipe lines have been in use for decades, and large volume of gases, oil and water flow through pipelines every day. Carbon dioxide pipelines are existing part of U.S. infrastructure-in fact  there are more than 1500 miles (2414 km) of CO2. Pipeline in U.S. today mostly for enhancing oil production. You can put pipeline  just about any where -under ground or under water- with depths ranging from a few feet to a mile.

A  CO2 pipeline usually begins at sources of capture and travels directly to the storage site -although some cases, it might travel as far as it can in the pipeline then transition to a tanker or ship to finish off its journey. It all depends on where  the source, pipeline and storage site or located. Both private and public sector can own pipelines.

Pipelines can transport CO2 in three states gaseous, liquid and solid . Solid CO2 is commonly known as dry ice, and its not cost effective to transport CO2 as a solid. Pipelines commonly transport CO2 in gaseous state. A compressors “ pushes” the gas through the pipeline . Some times a pipeline will have intermittent compressors to keep gas moving. The CO2 must clean (free of hydrogen sulfide and dry),otherwise it can corrode a typical pipeline, which is made of carbon manganese steel.  As of yet, there are no standards in place. For “pipeline quality “ carbon dioxide, but experts  say that pipeline built from stainless steel would have a lower risk of corrosion . This however may not be economical since we would have to build brand new pipelines just for CO2.

Accident with pipeline are rare as we have found in decades use. Only 12 CO2 pipeline leaks occurred from 1966 to 2006,with no human injuries reported . Contrasts that with natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, which had more than 5000 accidents and 107 fatalities in the same period. One reason carbon dioxide pipe line accidents are rare is because we don’t really have that many CO2 pipelines in use. Accidents will likely increase as number of pipelines rises. As CO2 is odor less and color less though adding an odor adding odor to gas could help to detect leaks. Experts recommend construction of pipelines in low population areas to minimize any impact.

Pipeline costs fluctuate depending on the route of pipeline (through heavily congested areas,mountains,off shore). It also possible to transport carbon dioxide  as a liquid using ships or tanker trucks. Liquid CO2 requires low pressure and constant low temperature, so cargo tanks need to be  both pressurized and refrigerated. You might be wondering what happens if a ship or truck carrying a tank of CO2 gets into  accident. Unfortunately there is not much data on subject, but we do know there is asphyxiation risk if massive amount of CO2 escapes into atmosphere. As with tanks that transport natural gas and hazardous material good construction is key.

Carbon storage

After we collect and transport  all carbon dioxide CO2 we are going to need some where to put it. But where? In some sort of giant storage unit  ?  A huge tank out of  desert ? Will we need  land fills to hold CO2 waste?

Don’t  worry the answer to all those questions is “no “  there are two places we have found to store CO2 under ground and under water. In facts  estimates project that the  planet can store up to  10 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. This would allow 100 years of storage of  human created emissions.

First we will talk about under ground storage. The pressure found deep under ground causes CO2 to behave more like a liquid that gas. Because it can seep into spaces in porous rocks, a great amount of CO2 can be stored in relatively small area. Under ground storage also called geological Sequestration is already in use the oil and gas industries to squeeze out extra oil and gas industries to squeeze out extra oil and gas from depleted reservoir oil and gas are well suited to store CO2 as they consists of layers of porous rocks formations that have trapped oil and gas for years. Geological sequestration involves injectingCO2 into under ground  rocks formations  below earth surface. These natural reservoirs have overlaying rocks that form a seal keeping the gas contained.

Basalt formations (volcanic rock ) also appear to be suitable for storing CO2. In fact, basalt is one of most common types of rock in the earth crust-even in ocean floor is made of basalt. Researchers have found that when they inject CO2 into basalt, it eventually turn into lime stone-essentially converting rock. The pacific north west national laboratory in Washington state currently has a team devoted running a pilot project to test basalt carbon storage.

Another project, called CO2 sink, is testing geological sequestration  in a location near Berlin Germany . The project in 2004 aim to create standard for CO2 injection. After injecting CO2 in a standard stone reservoir, scientists will actively study the area for long term integrity and safety, leakage concerns and movement CO2 within reservoir . Also Sleipner gas field off-shore Norway has been injecting carbon dioxide into sea floor since 1996.

In addition to under ground storage, we are looking at ocean for permanent CO2 storage. Some experts claim that we can safely dump CO2 directly into ocean-provided we release it at depths greater than 11,482 feet (3500 meters ). At these depth they think the CO2 will compress to slushy material that will fall to the oceans floor. Oceans carbon storage is largely untested, and there are many concern about safety of marine life and the possibility that carbon dioxide would eventually makes its way back into environment.

Carbon storage concern.

To begin its important to remember that carbon capture and storage (CCS)is not licensee  to continue emitting CO2 into atmosphere. We need to use CCS in addition to other emission reduction efforts. However CCS provided a way to clean up our existing power plants. Current CCS technologies actually require a lot of energy to implement and run up to 40 percent of power station capacity.

Creating a CCS enabled power plants also require a lot of money . Future Gen hopes to build the first coal fueled ZERO emission power plant. Its goal is a create power plant that run on coal but stores carbon emission under ground. The plant would power 1,50,000 homes and generate 275 MW of electricity.

The biggest concern with CCS though is a environmental risk. What happens if the carbon dioxide leaks out from under ground? Because the process is so new ,we don’t  know its long term effects.

What if carbon leaks out in ocean? In 1986 a natural Volcanic eruption  of carbon dioxide from a lake in Cameroon killed nearly 2000 people. They died asphyxiation from being close vicinity to the release of CO2. These numbers don’t even take account the death toll of marine life that called lake home.

Another effect of excess CO2 in water is increased acidity. The ocean actually absorbs CO2 atmosphere - a phenomenon known as carbon sink. Scientists have recently discovered that some oceans are not absorbing as much CO2 as they did in the past. The southern ocean, in particular no longer soaks up as much carbon-dioxide a fact that alarm scientists. The excess CO2 from human emission appears to be staying on the surface of ocean instead of sinking. And more CO2 an ocean absorbs, the more acidity it becomes  high water acidity adversely effect marine life. For examples it reduces the amount of vital calcium carbonate creatures need to build their shell.

The engineers and scientists should develop better and safer technology  for carbon capture ,transportation and storage of co2 at the earliest to help this planet free from global warming for better survival of human beings.

Readers of this blog kindly forward your comments in the coll-um  mentioned for it.
   

NPCIL to improve safety factors in indian nuclear power plants

NPCIL to improve safety factors at nuclear power plants.

On the heals of nuclear disaster in Japan following divesting earth quake, India’s  nuclear power corporation of India (NPCIL)  would improve operational safety procedures improving working conditions of 20 nuclear power plants. Npcil plans to improve latest techniques and improving technical training the concerned safety engineers and technicians and resources of management at existing power plants  as well as those being planned in various parts of country. Latest safety conditions will be maintained at the new plants proposed to secure safety working conditions in the nuclear power plants.

NPCIL is planning a committee  of nuclear experts and scientists and nuclear engineers to suggest in improvements for augmenting and strengthening the safety. S.K.Jain chairman and managing director told to press “ we are closely watching the latest developments in Japan associated with earth quake by holding the discussions with nuclear experts to brought necessary guide lines regarding operational safety and emergency operating facilities closing facilities in the event of crisis of nuclear power plants.

NPCIL associated director Sasikant  Charme said Indian nuclear power plants are less seismic zone. NPCIL will hold discussions with designers and nuclear engineers so that new power plants planned can withstand any natural calamities of higher earth quake magnitude.

Public sector nuclear power corporation of India officials said it would study safety standards at 20 nuclear power plants in the country in wake of nuclear crises associated with tsunami struck Japan

The present situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant did not stabilize and keep watching, therefore it is premature to make any conclusion a expert said.

The Ukrainian nuclear watch dog is analyzing an emergency situation at  Japanese nuclear power plant “ in order  to tighten security and safety standards at Ukrainian nuclear power plants “ a top official Mikolaichuk said. Mikolaichuk said current nuclear  situation  in Japan should be taken in to account by all countries which generate the nuclear power.

These  lesson dictate the need to create a hydrogen control systems in the reactor in the event of major crashes  and combiners,which are passive hydrogen ignite-rs. We have already practiced these lessons, which we are developing, higher security systems for Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

Currently these measures can be realized fully at most recently commissioned reactors namely the second reactor at Khemeintsk  nuclear power plant and fourth nuclear reactor at the Ravi-no nuclear power plant because the security requirements had been tightened over decision for their operation.

“Similar measures are planned at other reactors “ Mikolaichuk stated.

In the comment on the current on the current situation at Japanese nuclear power plants Mikolaichuk noted that “ the development of current  situation at the Fakushima  nuclear power plant showed that its reactors withstood an earthquake measurable mine points but failed to endure the impact of several natural disasters, namely earthquake, the tsunami and the floods.

Burial plan?

Japanese engineers conceded that on Friday that burying a crippled nuclear power plant in sand and concrete may be lost resort to prevent a catastrophic radiation release, the method used to seal huge leakages from Chernobyl in 1986.


But Japan nuclear engineers still hoped to solve the crises by fixing a power cable to at least two reactors to restart water pumps needed to cool overheating nuclear fuel rods. Workers also sprayed water on the no.3 reactor the most critical of plant’s six.
It was first time the facility operator acknowledged burying the sprawling  complex was possible, a sign that piece meal actions such as dumping water  from military helicopters or scrambling to restart cooling pumps may not work. “ it is not impossible to encase the reactors in concrete. But our priority right now is try and cool them down first “ an official from plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co, told reporters.

As Japan entered its second week after a 9-magnitude earthquake and 10m tsunami flattened   coastal cities and killed thousands of people, the world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl looked far from over.

Millions of people in Tokyo continued to work from home, some fearing a blast of radio-active material from    complex, 240 km to the north, although prevailing winds would likely carry contaminated smoke or steam away from dense populated city to dissipate over pacific ocean.

Radiation levels recorded in areas the plant did not pose an immediate risk to human health said Michal O’ Leary, the world  health organization’s representative  in China. “ At this point, there is still no evidence that there’s  been significant radiation spread beyond the immediate zone of the reactors themselves “ O” Leary said.

“ there is some thing that will take some time to work through, possibly weeks, as you eventually remove the majority of heat from reactors and then spent fuel pools “ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief Gregory Jaczko told a news conference at white house.

Let us hope nuclear engineers and scientists of Japan will solve the nuclear crisis in Japan at the earliest.  

Readers of this blog post your comments on coll-um mentioned for it.

carbon capture and storage processes

Carbon capture and storage

The number of projects for capturing green house gases from power plants and cement factories edged up 2010 despite soaring costs and slow progress in U.N. led efforts to slow climate change a study reported.

The focus of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects also shifted more to U.S. from Europe even though U.S. President Barack   Obama has failed to persuade the senate to legislate caps on U.S. green house gases it said.

The global CCS institute said 234 CCS projects were active or planned world wide at the end of 2010, at net rise of 26 from 2009 despite cancellations including Netherlands and Finland.

CCS aims to capture planet warming carbon dioxide in fossil fuels such as  from coal fired power plants or cement factories and bury it in depleted oil and gas reservoir or under ground stores-no commercial  scale  projects yet exist.

“ The global commitment to carbon capture and storage remains strong” according to Australian island institute, whose members include major businesses and government of top emitter led by China , U.S.,Russia and India.

But the study published on institute website pointed to rising costs that have discouraged investments due to sluggish economic growth many developed countries. U.N.reports have suggested CCS could be an important this century as a shift to renewable energies such as wind and solar power in curbing global green house gases emission.

But U.N. climate negotiators have failed to agree a treaty to limit emissions that would help set a global penalty on carbon emissions to provide a surge investments in CCS.

OUR  global industrial and energy systems are built on carbon bared technologies and unsustainable resource demands that threaten to destroy  our society and our planet. Massive loss of wealth, expanding poverty and suffering disastrous climate change, water scarcity and deforestation are the end result of this broken system.

War on carbon

The systems does not change themselves- the same state emergency will continue to endanger our safety, our  lively hood and our planet. We need new thinking, new leadership, and innovation to create a post carbon economy. Our goal not to undo industry, but to remake it  into force for sustainable wealth generation.

Governments and traditional no-profit do initial work and their effort to change global opinion and policy essential  in this fight. However awareness and policy reform are not enough. It is time to reinvent our economic system-it is time to act-it is time to implement solutions. We can no longer afford to be intimidated by the scope and magnitude the climate crises. It is essential that our most talented and driven individuals come together to win this war.

CCS technologies have potential to reduce emissions from fossil fuel power stations (and other industrial plants)by at least 90 percent. They capture CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere and put  it in  an under ground location. Many of these processes have been demonstrated on relatively small scale including some commercial applications in other industries but they have yet to be demonstrated together on a commercial scale on  a power station. Until this is done, CCS will remain  too costly to be used widely and certainty will remain about whether CCS can be viable on commercial scale.



Technology choices

Three methods CO2 capture that are closest to commercial deployment at coal-based fire power plants are

Post combustion

Processes that separate CO2 from the exhaust gasses produced by combustion (burning)of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil or bio-mass) in the air. CO2 is captured using a liquid solvent such as aqueous  amine solution. Once  absorbed by the liquid solvent, CO2 is then released by heating. Post combustion capture has been carried out successfully, but so far on relatively small scale.

Pre combustion

Processes that convert fuel into gaseous mixture of hydrogen and CO2 . The CO2 is then separated and the hydrogen can be burned without producing any CO2  in the exhaust gas. Pre combustion capture is used in industrial processes but it has not been demonstrated in much larger examples of coal gasification.

Oxy -fuel combustion

Oxy-fuel combustion processes that use oxygen rather than air for combustion fuel. This produces exhaust gas that is mainly water vapor and CO2. The exhaust gas has relatively high CO2 concentration (greater than 80 percent by volume) oxy -fuel combustion systems are being developed on a small scale in a  laboratory or demonstration projects.

All these three options are feasible for new coal burning power plants, through certain coal types-such as the high ash coal often found in India are unsafe for pre combustion technologies. Many existing coal plants could be retro-fitted probability with post combustion technology.

Once captured CO2 is then transported by a pipe or for power plants on coast possibly by ship to a site when it can be stored. Oil fields, gas fields ,deep saline formations (aquifers ) and un-mineral coal seams have been suggested as a geological storage site. Here various physical e.g.(highly impermeable cap rock) and geo-chemical trappings mechanism would prevent CO2 escaping to the surface. Other ways of using rock formations-such as the potential for mineralization in basalt rocks-are under investigation.

Co2 is some times injected into declining oil fields to increase oil recovery (known as enhanced oil recovery  while this option has an economic benefit-the additional oil recovered- the environmental cost of extracting more fossil fuels must be seriously considered.

The safety of storage sites-that is how securely they will retain the CO2 is still investigated. There are many sites considered safe, but even they will require continuously monitoring to ensure there is no leakage.

As technology develops the CCS will help to prevent  global green gas emissions and reduce heating of this planet. Scientists and engineers working with carbon capture and storage processes should dedicate  for developing sophisticated technology  sooner as possible  to help global community for reduction of  global warming on the earth.

Nuclear power accident in Japan

Nuclear emergency in Japan
 
The world watches with rapt attention as disaster in Japan stretches into its second day. What began as a shock and concern for those impacted by Friday’s  8.9 magnitude earth quake and subsequent tsunami was quickly displaced by mounting fear that island nation could be on the brink of nuclear disaster. A  explosion rocked Daiichi nuclear power station in Fukushima early this morning raising concern of imminent melt down. Officials say the reactor was not affected by blast and radiation levels are now decreasing. However its still unclear how great the threat of nuclear emergency is. These nuclear  reactors at Fakushima are BWR (boiling water reactors) in six numbers set up in 1972.

What Japan is now trying to avoid is a complete loss of power to the cooling systems at its Fukushima nuclear power plant. This would lead to a loss of coolant or melt down accident a disaster which could have catastrophic impacts on Japan  and much of world.

Radioactive material is used in a nuclear power plant as a heat source -to boil water and produce  steam that  turn a turbine that generate electricity. Huge amounts of radio-active material are made to go through the chain reaction a process in which atomic particles bombard the nuclei of atoms, causing them to break up and generate heat.

But  to keep the nuclear reaction in check to prevent the material over -heating-vast amounts of coolant required-up to  a million gallons of water a minute in most common nuclear power plants  that have been built light water reactors. That is why nuclear power plants are sited along rivers and bays and near to sea to use water as a coolant.

If water which cools reactor “core” its 200000 to 300000 pounds of radio-active fuel load-stops flowing “the emergency core cooling systems” must send water in. If it fails a loss of coolant or melt down accident can occur.

Fukushima

Radiation leaked from an earth quake-crippled nuclear power plant here are on Saturday after blast blew the roof off and authorities prepared to distribute iodine to the people in the vincity  to protect them from explosion severely damaged the main building of the plant it had not effected the reactor core container.

Japan local media said three workers suffered radiation exposure at plant in the wake of Friday’s massive earth quake which sent a 10 meter tsunami ripping through town and cities across the northeastern coast.

The blast raised fear off melt down at power facility 240 kilometers north of Tokyo as officials scrambled  to contain what could be the work nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl explosion in i986 that shocked the world. Still we have to get complete detailed  affect of this nuclear emergency in Japan .It may not effect on going nuclear power plants and their construction schedules .

Indian  nuke plants and their safety

The radiation leak in Japan is raising safety concern in India , bringing the focus back on our crisis management plans.

“ The safety features of Indian nuclear power plants have to be checked to assess whether they can tackle in operable situations” says former Atomic Energy Commission chairman and its member M.R. Srinivasan who has visited the Fukushima plant . “ It was constructed to with stand natural calamities. But what happened on Friday  was some thing unusual. It was a deadly combination of  strong earth quake and tsunami which struck nuclear power plant and damaged it. “

Once details  emerge about the Japanese nuclear incident, Indian scientists are likely to high light the stress points are likely to high light the stress points and prepare a detailed safety audit for nuclear power plants in India.

Nuclear reactors are designed to with stand earth quakes, specific to seismic zones they are located in .in case of Fukushima it is clear that the intensity of earth quake was more than what plant was designed with stand.

How safe are our nuclear power plants in Kaiga (Karnataka ) and Kalpakkam ( Tamilnadu) scientists say there is no danger to Kaiga plant since it has been set up on a high point and is far away from coast. In fact  the Kalpakkam plant did not suffer any damage during 2004 tsunami. An additional wall was built to protect the plant after tsunami . Similarly when Gujarat was stuck by an earth quake in 2001, it had no impact on Kakrapar atomic power station near Surat.


“ There are two fast acting independent and diverse shut down systems at kaiga. We also have safety measuring committee which conducts mock exercise every two years to check the preparedness of different department in case of emergency. “ says G.P.Gupta site director kaiga nuclear power site.

“ The  Kalpakkam  plant was saved when tsunami unit Tamilnadu coast because a decision had been taken to install electrical systems about 50 feet above ground. Consequently nothing was submerged when the area was stuck by tsunami “ says former  chairman AEC P.K.Iyengar .

However Nuclear regularity commission (NRC) toughly check nuclear reactors designs and their location  specially concerned with safety factors before issuing   final approval for setting up nuclear power plants taking into consideration tsunami and earthquakes while these light water reactors required to set up in coastal areas for cooling purpose.  

Readers of this blog kindly for word your comments in coll um mentioned  for improving this blog.

European pressurized reactors and construction difficulties

 European Pressurized Reactors and construction difficulties
,
The next generation design for French reactors will be the European pressurized reactor (EPR) which will have a broader scope than France alone, with pilot plant in Finland undergoing construction activities extending to U.S. and China. The first French EPR is under construction at the Flamanville nuclear power plant, and should be operational zed by 2013.The second EPR reactor will be built at Penly in France and completion scheduled to 2017.

This reactor is one of the newest designs in the world. It was developed by Areva contributing its N4 reactor technology and German company Siemens contributing its Konvoi reactor technology in keeping with French approach of highly standardized plants and proven technology. It uses traditional active safety systems and is more similar to  current plant design than international competitors such as AP 1000 or the ESBWR.

Olkiluoto-3 pilot power plant

The construction of the Olkiluoto power plant commenced in August 2005. It was initially schedule to go on line in 2009, but the project has suffered many delays, and operation is now expected to start 2013 or 2014. It is still expected to be first EPR reactor built and the first generation 111+ reactor to be built in the world. The construction is joint effort of French Areva and German Siemens AG thorough their common subsidiary Areva NP for Finish  operator TVD. The initial cost estimate were about 3.7 billion euros, but there were additional cost over-run of 2.7 billion euros at June 2010. The plant will have an electrical power plant out put of 1600MWe (net)

Progress of plant

In May 2006 construction delays of about one year were announced, following quality control problems across the construction. In part the delays were  due to lack of oversight of sub-contractors inexperienced in the nuclear construction. The delays lead to disappointing results for Areva NP. It blamed delays on the Finish approach to approving technical documentation and designs.

In 2006 TVD announced construction was about 18 months behind schedule so completion was now expected 2010-2011, and were reports Areva was preparing to take 500 million euros charge on its accounts for delay.

At the end of June 2007 it was reported that, the Finish radiation and nuclear safety authority had found a number of safety related design and manufacturing deficiencies.  In August  2007 a further construction delay up to a year was reported associated with construction problems in reinforcing the reactor buildings to withstand an air plane crash, and timely supply of adequate documentation to Finish authorities .

September 2007 Areva reported a construction delays of at least two years and costs more than 25 % over budget. The cost over-runs range up to 1.5 billion euros and after that Areva reported further delay giving expected on line date 2012.

As on 2009 the plant was at least three and half years behind schedule and 50 per cent over budget. Areva  and utility involved are bitter dispute over who will bear the cost of over -run and there is a real risk now that the utility will default. In August 2009 Areva announced 550 millions euros additional provisions for the build, taking plant costs to 5.3 billion euros and wiped out interim operating profits for first half of year 2009.

The dome of containment structure was topped out in September 2009. 90 percent procurement 80 per cent of engineering works and 73 per cent of civil works were completed. In June  2010 Areva announced 400 million euros further provisions taking cost our-run to 2.7 billion euros. The time scale operation slipped to early 2013.

Flamanville -3(second EPR  UNIT)

First concrete was poured for demonstration EPR reactor at Flamanville nuclear power plant on December 6, 2007. This will be the third unit on site  and the second EPR over constructed. Electrical out put will be 1630 Mwe ( net) and project involves around 3.3 billion euros of capital expenditure from EDF(Electricite  De France).

. From October 19, 2005 to February 2006 the project was submitted to a national public debate.

. May 2006 EDF board approved the construction .

.. In December 2007 construction of unit itself began

 .In May 2009 professor Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months construction delays and after series of quality control problems the project is more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it in schedule


 In 2010 EDF announced that costs had increased 50 per cent to 5 billion Euros and commissioning delayed by about two years to 2014.

Progress

In April 2008 the French nuclear safety agency reported that a quarter of welds inspected in secondary containment steel liner are not accordance with norms and cracks have found in construction base. EDF Stated that progress is being made on these issues raised very early construction ,however on 21 May ASN ordered suspension of concrete pouring on this site. A month later concreting work resumed after ASN accepted EDF correction action plan which included external oversight checks.

In August 2010 the regulator ASN reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner.

Taishan 1&2 in China

In 2006 there was a bidding process to build four new EPR reactors in china, and intent to market EPRs  in the United States with Constellation  Energy in April 2006 Areva SA lost this bid in favor of Westinghouse Electric Company to build four AP 1000 reactors because of its refusal to transfer the expertise and knowledge to China. In February 2007 Areva won  another deal worth about 5 billion euros for two other nuclear reactors located in Taishan Guangdong province in southern China in spite of sticking to its previous conditions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy  signed 12  billion dollars deal that will allow the third and four EPRs units to be constructed in China.

Progress

The construction of the first reactor at Taishan started officially on 18th November 2009 and second  on 15th April 2010. Construction of each unit planned to take 46 months significantly faster and cheaper than first two EPR in Finland and France. 

India

Nuclear Power corporation of India (NPCIL) signed agreement with Areva to set up two 1650 MWe  reactors at Jaithapur in Maharashtra state. Environmental clearance was received for EPRs for setting up nuclear reactors.

With above construction problems it is quite evident Areva EPR generation 111+ reactors yet to commence its nuclear reactors in any where in the world. The construction cost over-run may decide unfavorable for any Asian countries further investing in generation 111+ reactors. It is quite  un sure that generation 111+ nuclear reactor technology is affordable and is not successfully operational any where globally even  Westinghouse generation 111+ AP 1000 reactors.

Hence it is generally requested that Areva and Westinghouse sort out construction quality control problems and operational problems and see that these generation111+ reactor plants are put into operation  before Asian countries like China and India should have second thought on planning further  these advanced reactors as China and India aggressively planning to have more advanced reactors to reduce green house gases and reduce dependency on excavating  global oil prices.

The era of cheap oil finished . Nuclear power is more than ever an industry of future and energy. Each EPR saves 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year when it replaces gas fired power plant and 11 million tons of CO2 per year when it replaces a coal power plant.

Nuclear is safe and clean source of energy.

U.S. nuclear fuel cycle

 U.S. nuclear fuel cycle

Currently in  U.S. almost all the uranium used in U.S. commercial reactors is imported with about half of it coming from Russian weapon grade down blended to low enriched uranium Russia . U.S. domestic mining accounts for only  5 percent of the fuel used in U.S. reactors.

Between 1977 and 2005, government policy did not allow reprocessing of used fuel for commercial reactors. Recent legislation however  calls for stepped up for R& D in advanced fuel technology and advanced reactors to recover the energy value used fuel to reduce the volume of nuclear waste.

In 195o s, the U.S.A had great deal of uranium mining prompted by federal subsidies. Peak production since 1970 was 16,800 t u  in 1980, when there were 250 mines in operation. This abruptly dropped to 54 in 1984, when 5,700 t u  produced and then there was steady decline in 2003, by which time there were only  two small operation producing a total of under 1000 tons u / year or about 5 per cent of uranium consumed by U.S. nuclear power plants. So far the first step in nuclear fuel cycle the U.S. must rely on imports of uranium from countries such as Canada and Australia or down blended weapon grade uranium from Russia .

As the price of uranium increased in recent years, a large number of companies have announced plan to refurbish and restart mines in Wyoming , Colorado , Utah ,Arizona and new Mexico . There are now operating mines in Texas, Wyoming , Colorado  and southern Utah  and Wyoming. Most U.S. production has been from new Mexico and Wyoming ,known resources are 1,67,000 t U3O8 in Wyoming , as 1,55,000 t in New Mexico, 2000 t in Texas and around 50,000 t in Utah, Colorado and Arizona . Production potential is about 45 percent in Situ leach (ISL) 55 percent conventional mining . Uranium production from one mill ( white Masa Utah ) and five ISL  operations totaled 1583 t u (1866 U3O8) in 2006 and 1748 t u (2061 t U3O8) in 2007. In 2008 Rosita became sixth ISL production site before being shut  d own and a total ten under ground mines (four more than during 2007) produced uranium. In total 1503 t u (1,774 t U3O8 was produced in 2008.

In 2009 nuclear regularity commission (NRC) issued generic environment impact statement (EIS) on ISL (or situ recovery IS R)mining in western U.S. This will streamline but not eliminate the requirement for supplementary EIS for each new mine. The NRC expects 17 applications for ISL facilities in next couple of years, into each taking 2 years to  process, including public participation.

Conversion of uranium
The large Honey well Metropolis work plant(MTW) in southern Illinois convert uranium oxide U3O8 to uranium hexafluoride UF6, which then goes to USEC ’s Paducah enrichment operation just across the Ohio river as well as customers to abroad. MTW is only conversion plant in U.S. The facility was built in 1950s under government contract to meet military conversion requirements and began providing UF6 for civilian use in 1960s. Capacity has expanded  from 9000 t u as UF6 per year to 17,600 t u as UF6 today and is expected to increase to 23000 t u by 2020.

De-conversion of depleted uranium

De-conversion of depleted uranium (DU) that remains as by product after enrichment has not so far been under taken large scale in U.S. because of legal problems. There are about over 700000 tons of DU hexafluoride in U.S.

Uranium disposition services (UDS) a joint venture of Areva,  Duratek/ energy solutions and Burn& Roe was awarded a 558 million dollars contract by DOE in 2002 to design and build-De conversation plants at Portsmouth Ohio and Paducah Kentucky . The contract ran to August 2010. These plants use a process developed by Areva which it employs at Richmond Washington and Lingen  Germany. The 13,500 t /years Portsmouth plant started in mid 2010 and 18,000 t/year Paducah one is due to do so by first quarter of 2011. At Portsmouth about 2,50,000 tons of depleted UF6 stored with another 75000 tons expected from Oak Ridge, and Paducah some 4,46,000 tons depleted UF6 stored.

Babcock & Wilcox conversion services won a five year 428 million dollars contract from DOE in December 2010 for uranium De conversion operations at both Portsmouth  and Paducah, using these plants.

Enrichment

The U.S.A. currently operating enrichment plants USE s Paducah, Kentucky facility built by government in early 1950s to provide for military reactors. These large gaseous diffusion plant commissioned in 1952 to military use began providing enrichment uranium for civilian reactors in 1960s. Originally government owned USEC became private corporation in 1998, and leased the two large enrichment plants from DOE. In 2001 it consolidated its enrichment operations at Paducah site after closing the older Portsmouth facility Piketon Ohio. Both plants were large energy intensive and cost to run.

Three new enrichment plants  being built by  other companies are expected to begin operations before 2020. In addition  USEC had started building its own enrichment plant, the American centrifuge plant Piketon Ohio which is due to begin in 2010 but project was put on hold in July 2009.

From 2009, Russia’s Tenex  has signed a number of contracts total some 3 billion dollars covering supplies up to 2020.

Uren co U.S .A. ( formerly national enrichment factory )

Uren co U.S.A. has a major centrifuge enrichment plant at Eunice ,New Mexico. It uses 6th generation Uren co technology from Europe  and was planned by Louisiana Energy services (LES) partnership -comprising Uren co, Exton, Duke power, Entergy and Westinghouse . Construction of the 1.5 billion dollars plant was licensed by NRC in mid 2006 when as agreed the three utilities then passed their share to Uren co and company now subsidiary of Uren co U.S.A. Utility support for venture initially amounting to 3.15 billion dollars in orders -was crucial in persuading the NRC that further U.S. enrichment capacity was required beyond that provided and envisaged by USEC.

FUEL FABRICATION

The U.S. has five fuel fabrication facilities to convert enriched uranium oxide into solid pallets for fuel rods. Areva , Westinghouse , Babcock& Wilcox and General Electric operates fabrication facilities in Virginia, Washington state North Carolina and South Carolina.

global nuclear power plants build up

Global nuclear power plants build up

No nuclear power plants were closed last year but some 13 construction plants were started , promising more than on one nuclear per around 2015.

New capacity entering commercial operation in 2010 amounted to 2,839 Mwe (Russia  Rostov 2 , India s  Rajasthan 6 and China’s Ling AO 3 and Quishan 11 - 3 ) while South Korea’s  Shin Kori 1 was grid connected and  was should soon provide another 1000 Mwe  net on commercial basis . The Phoenix reactor in France was officially closed in February 2010, but this had ceased power generation in 2009 and is counted among last year figures.

On 31st December 2010 China National Nuclear Corporation held official ceremony to mark the start of work on Fuqing 3, Fujian province. The 1080 MWe  CPR-1000 UNIT should begin operational in the middle 2015. It was the eighth construction start in china last year as country continued to grow as a major player in nuclear energy.

Around world, last year construction starts in added  up to 15,218 Mwe  gross , according to world nuclear association research. Eight of these were in china (Fuqing 3 , Ningle 3, Taishan 2 ,  Changjiang 1, Haiyang 2, Fangchenggang 1, Yangjang  3 and  Changjiang 2) but work also started at Russia ( Leningrade -11 -2  and Rostov 4) and in India (Kakrapar 3 and 4 ) as well as in Brazil (Angra 3). Separately the installed construction of Japan’s  1383 Mwe  Ohma unit got  back under way after completing re-engineering work  for enhanced earth quake protection.

These 13 new construction projects continue  the global upward trend in nuclear power . In the year 2009 the figure for new construction starts was 11, while 2008 and 2007 each saw ten. Assuming about five years for construction it can be expected reactors will be coming on line around 2012 at double today’s rate of five for year with this to rise to one per month around 2015. According to international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) PRIS data basis  the  last time ten or more new reactors started in a single year was 1990.

China nuclear energy

China should keep a clear head, on nuclear power concentrate more on generation 111 reactors and keep its new build ambitions for 2020 to around 100 Gwe  said state body recently.

The advise came from state council research office (SCRO) which takes independent policy recommendation to state council on a strategic matters. It appeared officially in Xinhua’s weekly out look publication.

While noting that situation for development of more nuclear power is good the body said we should keep a clear head. Not only seeing favorable  factors, but paying attention also to variety of constraints to ensure steady progress.

Going too far too fast “ could threaten the long-term healthy development of nuclear power. The country already has 13 reactors in operation with total capacity of over 10 Gwe . Some 32 more already have been approved by authorities to bring another 34 Gwe -and construction has started 25 th of these. The SCRO celebrated the progress made and successful import of generation 111 Westinghouse AP 1000 design which is meant to form the backbones of china’s future nuclear fleet.

However , ambitious target to deploy AP 1000s with reduced foreign imputes have proven difficult due to from frequent quality control issues in the supply chain . As result of more of generation 11 CPR-1000 and CNP design units are under construction or on order. Only china is building generation 11 units in a such large numbers , said SCRO country 57 on books.

Reactors built today should operate 50 or 60 years meaning large fleet of generation 11 units will still in operation into 2070, when even generation 111 reactors would have been surpassed, perhaps even by commercial nuclear fission. The should careful concerns ’ the volume of second generation units under construction the scale should not be  too large to avoid being perceived as being behind curve of international safety in future. The SCRO was mindful of the 100 fold increase in probabilistic safety brought by generation 111 and future generates would continue the trend.

Another factor potentially affecting safety is nuclear power work force . While staff can be technically trained in four to eight years safety culture takes longer at operational level.

This issue is magnified in regularity regime where salaries are lower than industry and work force numbers remain relatively low. SCRO said that most countries employ 30-40 regularity staff per reactor in their fleet, but national nuclear safety administration has only 1000 staff- a figure that must more than quadruple by 2020. It was also noted frankly “ the independence of regularity authorities is not enough.

The body calculated the present rate of nuclear development to require new investment of some RM-BI  1 trillion(151million dollars by 2020, not country those units being built now. This figure  could rise if supply chain issues impact schedules, with repercussions for companies borrowing to build  and for economics of Chinese nuclear program me   overall.

India nuclear energy developments

In India nuclear power plants holds the fourth position among the different resources of electricity, thermal ,hydro ,renewable resources being first ,second third respectively. Presently 20 nuclear power plants are which generate 4,560 MW (2.9 % total installed power base ) and  4 such power plants are in pipe line and would generating around 2,720  MW. India’s  contribution of fusion development done through its involvement in ITER project.

Since beginning of 1990 Russia has always been chief supplier of nuclear fuel to the country of India. The deterioration domestic uranium resources caused the decline of electricity production from nuclear energy in India by 12.83 % during 2006 to 2008. The country has signed contract regarding nuclear fuel with countries like France , U.K., U.S. , Canada , Namibia ,Kazakhstan  and Argentina after nuclear supplier group (NSG) declared  a waiver in September 2008 to allow India to commence world wide nuclear fuel trade. India even signed 700 million dollars agreement with Russia in February 2009 and about 2000 tons of nuclear fuel enriched uranium supply.

Presently India aims at increasing the input of nuclear energy to total electricity production from 4.2 percent to 9 percent by 2032.

The country capacity of installed nuclear energy production will rise to 6000 MW. AS per report India holds 9th position  in regard to count of  operational nuclear energy reactor in the world and all 9 under  construction which include 2 EPRs to be constructed by Areva of France. Taps -3 and Taps -4 are 540 MW atomic reactors of Indian origin . India 717 million dollars venture of swift breeder reactor  is likely to be operate during first quarter of 2011.

India envisages a significant growth of nuclear power industry in recent future as according to Indo - U.S. nuclear agreement India allowed to carry out national trade technologies so as to develop its capacity power generation .During operational phase of this deal , the country expected to improve total nuclear power production to 63000 MW by 2032 according to nuclear power corporation of India (NPCIL).

Apart from using imported enriched uranium and safe guards of IAEA , India has developed several nuclear fuel cycle aspects for supporting its reactors limited imports have strongly affected the advancement of selected technologies . The feature of heavy water reactors to allow burning of uranium with slight or no enrichment capacity makes its usage more attractive. India has worked hard in developing thorium fuel cycle. While there is  limitation in country’s  uranium deposits , there are some greater treasuries of thorium which can multiply the power with equal mass of fuel by hundred times . The fact of thorium, being used in heavy water reactors has tied growth of two. At Kalpakkam atomic power station located near Chennai , a pro-type  type  reactor is still under construction which would able to burn Plutonium fuel whilst irradiating a thorium layer.

From above analysis of world nuclear power production we believe nuclear energy has bright future in addition supplying energy and it  is a clean source of energy with long life of nuclear reactors, which can pay back entire capital cost of plant construction  including overruns.

climate change and global warming

Climate change and global warming

The climate is changing . The earth is warming up there is now overwhelming scientific consensus  that it is happening and human induced. With  global warming on the increase and species and their habitats on the decrease chances of Eco-systems to adopt naturally are diminishing.

Many are agreed that climate change one of greatest  threats facing the planet. Recent years show increasing temperatures in various regions and or increasing extremities in weather pattern.

For many years, large influential businesses and governments have been against the idea of global warming . Many have poured lot of resources into discrediting what has generally been accepted for a long time as a real.

Now the main stream of generally worried about climate change impacts and the discourse seem to have shifted accordingly. Some businesses that once engaged in disinformation campaign have even changed their opinions some even requesting governments for  regulation and direction on this issue. However  a few  influential companies and organizations are still attempting to undermine climate change actions and concern. For number of years there have been concern that the climate change negotiations will essentially ignored a key principal of climate change frame works : the common but differential responsibilities.

This recognizes that historically
. Industrial nations have emitted far more green house gas emission ( even if some developing nations are only now increasing their.)
.. Rich countries therefore face biggest responsibility and burden for action to address the climate change.
.. Rich countries therefore must support developing nations adopt, through financing and technologies transfer for examples.

This actions of “ climate justice “ is typically ignored by rich nations and their main stream media, making it to blame china and India and other developing countries for failures in  climate change mitigation negotiations.

Development expert Martin Khor, calculated that taking historical emissions into account, the rich nations owe  a “ carbon debt”  because they have already used  more than their fair quota of emissions.

It is likely that rich countries will emit 200 gig tons of carbon more than what it would under fairer allocation ( that is there will be likely emit a total of 325 giga tons  out of maximum 600 gt by 2050.)

However rather than continue down the path of unequal development  industrialized  nations can help pay off their “ carbon debt” by truly helping emerging countries develop along a clean path , such as through the promised but -barely delivered technology transfer, finance and capacity building.

So far however rich nations have done very little within the Kyoto protocol to reduce emission by any meaningful amount, while they are all negotiating a follow on treaty that brings more pressure to developing countries to agree to emission loggers.

In effect  the more there will be delay the poor nations will have to save the earth with their sacrifices (and if it works an history shows, the rich and powerful will first away to  rewrite history to claim they were the ones that saved the planet.

Global temperatures change has been an issue for long back but present scenario this issue has emerged as havoc for developing world by developing countries to drive political and economic motives . Prof. Rafiq Ahmed department of geography and earth science university of Wisconsin U.S. said that some scientists believe that the prediction of climate changes are to be pessimistic  and unrealistic because computer predictions based on present day data. He further added that the temperature rises when green house gasses like carbon dioxide , water vapor methane and nitrous oxide trap heat and light from sun in the earth atmosphere and effect human, animals and plants.

Prof . Farasat Ali  Siddique chairman and coordinator  department of geography said that according to U.S. global change research program-me global warming is unequivocal and last 5 decades is primarily because human induced emission of heat trapping gasses like coal, oil and gas along with clearing forests, changing in agriculture practices and other activities. He said that the department is planning to start applied geography program-me under a scheme so that such issues should be investigated more deeply and intelligently  for developing countries  awareness not only among educated but also laymen to make them understand the severity of global warming and its effects.

Extreme Winter Weather Linked to Climate Change

This winter’s heavy snow falls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in air due to  global climate change as panel of scientists said recently.

The extreme moisture is likely to bring on extra ordinary  flooding with onset of spring in the northern Hemisphere , as deep snow pack melts and expected heavy rains add to seasonal run off the scientist said in a telephone briefing.

As planet warm up, more water from oceans is evaporated into atmosphere said Todd Sean Ford a climate scientist at union of concerned scientists. At same time because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold onto more of moisture that it takes in.

Intense storms are often the result when the atmosphere reaches to saturated point Sanford said. This year, a series of heavy storms over the U.S. Mid west is north east have dropped up to 400 percent of average snows in some locations said Jeff Masters director of meteorology at weather under ground.

“ if you were to take all that water and melt it, it would come out of more than 6 inches over large swaths of the area “ Maters said . If all that water gets unleashed in hurry, in a sudden warming, and some heavy rains in the area” . we could be looking at record flooding along the upper Mississippi river and red river in north Dakota that tallies projections by U.S. Weather service, which last month said  a large stretch of north central United States is that at risk of moderate major flooding in this spring.

Spring creep

Spring floods could be exacerbated by spring creeps a phenomenon where spring creeps begins earlier than previously.

“We have documented in mountains of U.S. West the spring run off pulse now comes between one and three weeks earlier than it used to 60 years ago “ Masters said . “And  that’s because warmer temperatures  tending to melt that snow pack earlier and earlier “ .

In the last century global average temperature have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit 8 (Celsius) last year  tied for the warmest in modern record. One place this warm the shown up was in Arctic, which is a major weather maker for northern Hemisphere according to Mark Serreze  director of U.S. national snow and ice data centre.

One driver of this winters “crazy weather” Serreze said, is an atmospheric  pattern known as “ Arctic Oscillation which has moved into what climate  scientists call a negative phase.

This phase means there is a high pressure over Arctic and low pressure at  mid -latitudes, which makes Arctic zone relatively warm but spills cold Arctic air south word  to place like the U.S. Midwest and north east.

The negative Arctic oscillation has been evident for two years in row, the same two winters that have had extreme storms and heavy  snow falls.

It is possible but not certain, that negative Arctic oscillation is liked to warming of Arctic which is in turn influenced by decrease in sea ice cover throughout the region.

The only underlying explanation for these events in climate warming due to heightened green house gas levels Serreze said.

By above weather conditions we can understand entire global weather patterns trying to change in the atmospheric conditions due to global warming. This to under stand for laymen to know about climate change and that  causing global warming effecting humans animals and plants . We being citizens of this society to we should aware  about global warming and take necessary precautions for reducing green house gases and adopting climate conditions favorable for human survival on this planet ..