india commited to nuclear energy

India committed to nuclear energy

On a day when the world marked the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl nuclear disaster India reaffirmed its commitment to an ambitious nuclear energy plan by pushing ahead with the first phase of controversial nuclear power project at Jaithapur in Maharashtra  with additional safety measures and “generous new compensation package “ to be announced soon.

But in a concession to heightened public awareness and over sight, the government on 26th April promised to introduce a bill in a next session of parliament creating independent  and autonomous nuclear regulatory authority of India that would subsume the existing Atomic Energy Regularity Board (AERB)

The AERB has criticized for being administratively sub-ordinate to the Atomic energy establishment whose operations it is meant to regulate. The decision to clear decks for setting up two 1650 Mwe reactors at Jaithapur was taken a meeting convened in Delhi here by Prime Minister MR. Manmohn Singh. It was attended by Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, minister for state in prime minister office V.Narayana Swamy and minister of state environment and forests Jairam Ramesh. Among those who briefed prime minister were S. Benerji secretary department of Atomic Energy S.K. Jain nuclear power corporation of India will operate plant at Jaithapur and national security ad-visor Shiva Shankar Me non.

The meeting also decided to make public the initial results of six safety review committee set up after Fukushima accident as also action taken on previous safety reviews . The government will invite the operational review safety review team of international atomic energy authority to assist in its own safety reviews and audit. All reactors and technologies whether indigenous or imported, will without exception, meet safety standards that are stipulated by regulatory authorities and will be complete transparency in the functioning of nuclear power program MR. Ramesh said.

The meeting reiterated that India’s nuclear energy needs were vast and growing and nuclear energy was an important clean energy option which would be perused with full regard to safety, lively hood and security of people. “ government inaction is to ensure nuclear power that is safe, secure and economical. While imported reactors have their place, indigenous  designed and reactors will continue to be at very foundation of country’s nuclear program Mr.Narayana swami said.

Environmental approval for Jaithapur power park was accorded in November 2010 with 35 pre conditions. The prime minister was informed that each of the conditions would be adhered to in a fully transparent manner . A comprehensive environmental impact assessment of two reactors would be done when both become operational in 2019. An official release said Dr. Singh under scored that safety of nuclear power plants was a matter of highest priority and there was need for improving public communication and out reach on the part of department of Atomic Energy and nuclear power corporation of India limited.  

geo-thermal will put to use carbon dioxide

 Geo thermal energy

Geo thermal will put carbon dioxide to good use.

Geothermal power holds enormous opportunities to provide affordable clean energy that avoids green house gases like carbon dioxide ( CO2) that because Geo-thermal technologies rely on heat found under earth’s surface to generate uninterrupted, low cost renewable energy that is virtually emissions free. Now Utah based start up is working an innovative project that could make Geo-thermal power even more  beneficial .

Just last month , Green Fire Energy began work to demonstrate a process that would use CO2 to harness Geo-thermal energy to make electricity. What is more, the technology has to add carbon sequestration -not to mention reduced water consumption- to the benefits already associated with Geo thermal power. The originally emerged several years ago from work of Geo-scientist Donald Brown at department energy’s Los Ala mos national club. Karsten Preuss and others at department’s Lawrence Berkeley  national lab since over view of Green Fires process to convert CO2 into electricity.

Now Green Fire plan to test that theory on and around Arizona soil. In September 2010, the office energy efficiency and renewable energy’s  Geo thermal technologies program awarded Green Fire a 2 million dollars cost share award to conduct the first field demonstration of CO2 based Geo thermal system. This project will rely on Geo thermal resources and naturally occurring carbon dioxide from St john Dome near Spring-ville, Arizona.

Green Fire planned demonstration facility will work much like conventional Geo-thermal power plants, which sends a “  Geo-thermal fluid “ usually water -to be heated by under ground rock formations and return to the surface as a steam, powering turbines that produce electricity . Instead of water , Green Fire will test CO2 as its Geo thermal fluid. Usually  water -to be heated by under ground rock formations and returned to the surface as a steam, powering turbines that produce electricity. Instead water, Green Fire will test CO2 as its go -thermal fluid. Carbon dioxide from St. John dome- the product of past volcanic activity- will be tapped, pressurized to a ‘ super critical’ state and inject under ground when this CO2 returns to surface, it will cycle through power conversion system creating power. After each cycle, the CO2 will be compressed and re injected under ground. During this process, a portion of CO2 will be permanently tapped in porous under ground rocks. Thus the process emits no-carbon- and may actually store some of it deep under ground.

Getting Geo-thermal power with CO2 instead of water would be particularly beneficial in the arid south western U.S., where water is scarce. Moreover super critical CO2 may actually be a better geo-thermal fluid than water in key ways . Studies suggest that CO2 may have higher heat recovery rates, lower pumping costs due to buoyancy effects, and fewer problems with rock alternation and surface equipment problems.

Pending suitable results from geological testing that is under way, the company is scheduled to drill its first geo-thermal well later this year.

Should the project demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of this un conventional Geo -thermal energy technology, Green Fire would ultimately look to build several 50 MW Geo-thermal plants, supplementing naturally occurring  CO2 from the St. John dome formations with emissions from conventional power plants in the region. Six coal fired power plants in the area account for 100 million tons of CO2 each year, much of which could be stored or canalized through Geo-thermal formation sequestrating emissions and generating clean, renewable energy as a rocks.

 The department of energy is working with innovative start ups like Green Fire energy to provide promising technologies with the funding and support they need, ensuring that lessons learned from demonstration like this one will help us better understand how Geo-thermal energy and carbon sequestration can contribute to meeting long term energy goals. 

China -wind power development

 China - wind power  development

China and South Korea - off shore wind power

China and South Korea have actively pursuing  the introduction off-shore wind energy generation. Both countries appear to have strong desire to encourage their own domestic manufactures to gain expertise in off-shore wind power foster for the business as high growth export industry . The countries may further strengthen their focus on wind power if concern over nuclear power continuous to grow due to the accident at Fakushima nuclear power station.

According to report released by Japanese wind power association (JWPA)  china has introduced at end of  2010 a cumulative total installed capacity of 42 GW on shore and offshore wind power combined surpassing its initial 30 GW- target capacity far ahead of the intended target year 2o2o. Most facilities has thus far been installed in the inland area of country, and there is an increasing need of  off shore wind power in order to supply electricity to coastal areas with high power demand.

It has been confirmed that china has a total installed capacity of slightly more than 100 MW to date and several projects underway for additional 200-300 MW. A draft of country’s new energy industry development plan  currently under review aim  to achieve  by 2020 an installed capacity of 30 GW with off shore wind power alone and enormous 150 GW with on shore and offshore wind combined.

Mean while South Korea which had made a relatively late start in wind power industry recently developed  a mechanism to promote off shore wind power through concerted effects across its public and private sections. The country   has  set up a target of installing 2500 MW off shore capacity by 2019 to become  worlds third largest wind power producer. South Korea a keen interest promoting floating off shore wind turbines, as indicated by its move to make proposal for international standards to international Electro technical commission (IEC). There are high expectations in the country for off shore wind power  as promising  future export industry.

As  it standards Japan has so far been felt behind China and Korea in wind power development. JWPA states in its report  “ Japan as a country surrounded by sea has significantly high wind power potential than china and Korea. To make most of this resource, we urge Japan government to positively consider  the introduction of off shore wind power with same or greater level of determination than these two countries.”

China and wind power developments

China is on track to install as much as 18 Gws  wind power capacity this year as world’s second biggest economy continues to diversify its energy resources, according to official at Chinese Renewable Energy industry association. If all goes well, the country will end 2011 with total capacity of 58GW of installed capacity moving ahead with plans to install as much as 150-230 Gws over next decade . China already has world’s largest installed wind power capacity.

The new capacity will be state built and financed like much else in china . According to observes , the five national power companies China power investment group, Guardian Datant,  Huanent  and Huadian will build the largest wind farms. So far the largest of these is Datants 400 MW farm in the Jialing province.

Overall country will invest 5000 RMB per KW ( U.S. dollars 764 or about 764 ,000 dollars per MW of wind turbine capacity. Ma Lingjuan trade  body secretary  general says  the price  is declining fast , with some turbines selling for as little as 4000 RMB( 611,OOO U.S. dollars ) per MW. State banks will fund the developers behind projects  but some international banks  and world bank will also will also financing she adds.

The bulk of new capacity will be on shore with just 100 MW earn marked for offshore capacity in Guangzhou province in eastern china .
North eastern provinces of inner Mongolia Hube i and Gansu will likely host most of the new projects, Deeping their geological lead in industry. The three provinces account for 80 per cent installed capacity with inner Mongolia taking up as much as one third.

When asked why China putting so much money behind wind, Lingjuan says the technology is cheaper  to develop  than solar or bio-mass where collection of raw material is very challenging in China .

“ Wind power is most economical feasible technology that can develop at a large scale “ she adds.

Wind is likely to lead China renewable agenda. The country hopes to derive 15 percent of its power from clean energy by 2020.

Under scoring just how the lucrative the industry has become , largest wind power developer Long Yuan power group last month announced that its profits had more than doubled over last year to 2 billion Yuan ( U.S. Dollars 305 million from just under 900 million Yuan( U.S. dollars 137 million ) the year before. The company said its hopes to install 2 GW of capacity this year, bringing the total it operates to 9 GW.

In addition the cash firm expanding abroad making no secret of its plans to “pro actively “ expand to South Africa, North America and eastern Europe.

Grid and pricing challenges

But wind power  development in China is not without difficulties. The industry faces several growth challenges including a still limited inter connection capacity and escalating price war between manufacturers.

Ling Juan  says  around 10 % of last year installed capacity cannot be connected to net work due  to grid barriers. While government has pledged to resolve matter, Ma says more innovation and investment needed to ensure these and upcoming wind farms can be successfully plugged to domestic power net work.

According to observers, the state has promised to invest 500 billion RMB  (U.S. Dollars 76 billion) to expand the country power net work to accommodate the growing wind industry’s requirements.

Linda Chen director strategy and business development at Spanish wind power firm Gamesa,  says pricing competition is also pierce, making it hard for foreign turbine manufacturers to penetrate the Chinese market.

Apart from transmission challenges, there are very competitive pricing issues. The domestic manufacturers can sell at very low prices”  Chen says adding that she hopes new market regulation will even the playing field.

That has not stopped Gamesa from growing China, however taking on other leading turbine manufacturers such as Si-novel  and Gold wind. Si novel is currently in second place in terms of market share in the global wind turbine manufacturing space with Gold wind ranking number four. Gamesa is currently the sixth largest  wind turbine manufacturer.

Gamesa has invested 90 million ( 128 million U.S. dollars ) to build five manufacturing plants in country since 2000. It has to open a sixth one -which will make nacelles - by end of the year.

Overall Gamesa has 2200 MW  installed turbine capacity and over  2,7000 MW of installed capacity in its own wind farms.

According to Ling Juan, turbine manufacturers are also set to pour millions to improve this anti -disaster technology , in light of Japan’s  recent earthquake and tsunami. Though Japan wind industry reportedly survived the tragedy un scattered-due to its robust anti quake design-China is said to lag behind Japan in this regard, observers say.

Ling Juan says manufacturers are keenly aware of China’ s  vulnerability - to earth quakes and tsunamis and acknowledges design “ need improvement” especially for off shore wind facility.

Readers of this kindly forward your comment in the coll um mentioned.   

Japan nuclear crises and developments

Japan nuclear crises and latest developments

Tokyo Electric  lay out plan for its  reactors

The Tokyo Electric power company laid out an ambitious plan on Sunday  for bringing the reactor at its hobbled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into stable state known as cold shut down within next nine months  and trying to reduce the level of radio-active materials being released in the mean time.

The blue for action represents Tokyo Electrics most concrete time liable yet for controlling  the reactors and improving safety at the plant, which was damaged by massive  earthquake and tsunami six weeks ago.
The first part of its plan, expected to take three months, would include building new cooling systems, critical to preventing catastrophic releases of radio-active materials. Then company hopes to covered three badly damaged reactor buildings and install filters to reduce contamination being released into air.

By announcing the construction of new cooling systems the company implicitly acknowledged what out side experts had been warning for weeks, that the company earlier plan to repair to existing cooling system was unlikely work because the equipment was too badly damaged. The change in approach means that  the country must resign itself to several more months of radio active emission- into air and possibly into Pacific-even though the appeals to be less volatile than it was.

For weeks workers have been consumed with reacting to cascade of problems created not only original disasters but also by make shift fixes for bring the plant under control. By making its announcement on Sunday Tokyo Electric was trying to show that conditions had apparently improved enough in recent days that it was now able to turn some of its attention for planning for future.

“The  company has been doing its utmost to prevent a worsening situation “  Tokyo Electric chair man, Tsunehisa  Katsumata, told news conference.

“We  have put together a road map “ he said adding “ we will put our full efforts into achieving these goals.

On Sunday meanwhile the government  said that  evacuated who were forced to leave their homes near Daiichi plant will be able to start returning in six to  9 months after land is decontaminated. The announcement seems to suggest that few places would be put off limits as they were after more divesting 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. But Japanese  official did not  provide specific about low contaminated the land was within several  miles of plant.

In any case the statements were the clearest indication yet that the tens of thousands of people evacuated from the area and living in shelters will not soon be able to return their homes, or  to town  that were destroyed by tsunami. It is also mean that the badly shaken government will have to continue to provide for displaced people even as it struggles to rebuild from quake and stabilize economy.

One government official and nuclear power expert said they  thought Tokyo Electric plan could work, although one said the company should try for cold shut down sooner. A cold shut down means that that the temperature of water in a reactor is below boiling point. Although cooling must continue, the water will not boil away quickly even at atmospheric pressure. Boiling must be avoided because fuel rods have to be kept under water to avoid melt down.

The Japanese government and the company, known as Tepco, have been evenly optimistic in the past. Several weeks ago for instance the company said it hoped that its success in bringing live power lines back to plant would enable workers to quickly restart the existing  cooling systems even though the  equipment would have had survive not just natural disasters, but explosions that rocked the plant in following days.

The announcement on Sunday that new cooling systems would be built was first admission that effects to restart the old system had failed.

Hindeko  Nishiyama, deputy general of nuclear and industrial safety agency, said that  normal cooling systems cannot be revived . In a show of support U.S. Secretary of state  Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to Japan on Sunday from Seoul, South Korea becoming first American official to visit since disaster. She told Japan’s  foreign minister , Takeaki Matsumoto that her visit reflected “ our strong bonds of friendship that go very deep into hearts of people.”

Mrs.Cliton said that the U.S. was “ doing every thing we can to support Japan and we have very good co-operation.” The United  States military has participated in rescue efforts in Japan even after some personnel were exposed to radiation, and Americans quietly helped reopen the airport in Sendai.

While it is difficult to answer some important questions about  the safety of the Fakushima Daiichi plant, in part because it is contaminated now for workers to get close to reactors, the state department said last week that situation at around plant had become less perilous.

Since cooling systems at the plant failed, Tokyo Electric has been cooling the reactors and pools that hold used, but still hot, fuel rods by pouring tons of water on them. But as water boils in the reactor, pressure rises too high to pump in more water, so workers have vent to atmosphere and feed in more water, a procedure known as “feed and bleed”.

That means the plant is consistently spewing radio active materials into air. And although much water that used evaporates, tons of run off have also been created.

Immediately after quake helicopters dropped water on reactor buildings and workers sprayed water into them with fire hoses. The company has since set up large pumping trucks at reactors. At some reactors, the arm of the trucks that deliver the water have been placed over the damaged walls of buildings, enabling to be shot more directly at the reactors and pools and reducing run off.

The long term solution announced Sunday  to build new cooling systems, would eliminate the run off because it would be a closed loop, like systems previously used at the plant. Such systems cool steam comes off reactors, creating water, which is pumped back into reactors. The systems would also stop venting, if they worked correctly.

Until the new  system can be built, Tokyo Electric intends to set up a water processing unit that removes radio-active particles and salt and store it in tanks. But  sign of how much improvisation has gone into plan, company officials said that they would turn  a concrete- walled waste treatment building into large storage tank to hold up to 30,000 tons of contaminated water.

The company plans to place temporary covers three of six reactors buildings at the plant and install air filters to help reduce venting  the company said. Engineers will also start designing structures with concrete roof and sides.

Officials said the temporary covers would made of material similar to tough fabric used to wrap buildings under construction. The company warned that covers could be damaged in a typhoon.

Goshi  Hasono a special ad-visor to prime minister Naoto Kan identified  two risks to company plans :  that the new cooling systems would be too hard  to build quickly and that serious after shock or tsunami could lead a further damage at site before changes could be made.

Hironobu Unesaki,  a professor at research reactor institute at Kyoto university said long term plan seemed mostly sound. But he said company should try to achieve cold shut down of reactors sooner than six to nine months to reduce risk of a large scale radiation release.

nuclear energy economy

Nuclear energy  economy

The main use of nuclear energy is generating electricity. Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation except where there is direct access to low cost  fossil fuels.

Fuel costs for nuclear plants are minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital cost are greater than those for coal -fired plants and much greater these for gas fired plants. In assessing the economics of nuclear power De commissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

Coal is and will be probably remain economically attractive in countries such as China, U.S. and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal reserves as long as carbon emission are cost free.

Nuclear energy in many places competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation despite relatively high capital cost and need to internalize all waste disposal and De commissioning costs. If health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken in to account, the economics  of nuclear power outstanding.

The basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel cost compared to coal, oil gas fired plants.

In March  2011 uranium cost

Approximate U.S. dollars cost to get  1 kg uranium as UO2 reactor fuel

Uranium ( spot price

Uranium --------- 1299 U.S. dollars
Conversion -------  98   U.S. dollars
Enrichment --------1132 U.S. dollars
Fuel fabrication ----240 U.S. dollars
--------------------------------------------
Total cost          --- 2769 U.S. dollars


At 45,000 Mwd/t burn up this gives 3,60,000 Kwh electrical energy per kg. Hence fuel cost 0.77 cents/ Kwh

Fuel costs are one area of steady increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance the Spain the nuclear energy cost reduced by 29 per cent over period 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn up to achieve 40 percent fuel cost reduction. Prospectively a further 8 per cent increase in burn up will give another 5 percent reduction in fuel cost.

Uranium has the advantage  of being highly concentrated energy which easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than  for coal or oil. One kilo gram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as same amount of coal. it is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradable commodity.

There are other possible savings. For example if used fuel is reprocessed and recovered Plutonium and uranium is used mixed oil (MOX) fuel more energy can be extracted. The cost of achieving this are large, but offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by smaller amount of high level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to MOX assembly plus some vitrified high level waste, resulting in only about 35 % of volume mass and cost of disposal.



Comparison the economics of different forms of electricity generation.

It is important to distinguish between economics of nuclear power plants already in operation and those of planning stage. Once capital investment cost are effectively “sunk” existing plants operation at very low costs and are effectively “ cash machines” . Their  operation and maintenance and fuel costs ( including used fuel management) are along with hydro plants,  the low end of the spectrum and make them very suitable as base load suppliers.

The U.S. figures 2008 published by NEI shows that the general picture with nuclear generating power at 1.82 C/Kwh .

Doubling the uranium price (say from 25 dollars to 50 dollars per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.5 to 0.62 U.S. Cents per Kwh , an increase of one quarter, and is expected cost of generation of the best U.S. plants from 1.3 U.S. Cents per Kwh  to 1.42 cents per Kwh  (an increase of 10 percent). So while there is some impact, it is comparatively minor especially by comparison with the impact of gas prices on economics gas operating plants. In these 90 percent marginal cost can be fuel. Only if uranium prices rise to above 100 dollars per lb U3O8( 260 pall / kg Uranium) and stay there  for prolonged period (which seem to be unlikely) will the impact on nuclear generating costs be considerable.

Nevertheless, for nuclear power plant operating in competitive power markets where it is impossible to pass on any fuel price increase( utility is a price taker) higher uranium prices will cut corporate profitability, yet fuel cost have been relatively stable over a period- the rise  in world uranium price 2003 to 2007 added generation costs, but conversion, enrichment and fabrication costs did not follow the same trend. 


Nuclear future cost competitiveness

There are three broad -components  capital, finance and operating costs. Capital and financing cost makes up project cost.

Capital costs

 Compress several things the bare plant cost (usually identified a engineering-procurement-construction ( EPC cost  )  the owner costs (land, cooling infrastructure, administration and associated buildings, site works, switch yard project management licenses etc )  cost escalation and inflation. Owner costs may include transmission infrastructure . The term overnight capital costs is often used, meaning EPC plus owners cost and excluding financing, escalation due increased material and lab our costs and inflation. Construction cost-some times called “ all in cost “ adds to overnight cost any escalation and interest during and up to  the start of construction. It is expressed in the same units as overnight cost and is useful for identifying total cost of construction and for determining the effects of construction delays. In general construction cost of nuclear power plant are significantly higher than for coal-or gas fired power plants because of need to use special materials and incorporated sophisticated safety features and back up control equipment.

Long construction period will push up financing costs, and part they have done so spectacularly Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997, and build over period 4 years and 48 to 60 months  in typical projection plants to do. 

Decommission costs are about 9-15 per cent initial capital costs of nuclear power plant. But when discounted they contribute only few per cent to the investment costs and is less to generation costs. U.S.A. they account for 0.1 -0.2 cents / Kwh which are more than 5 % of  cost of electricity produced.

Financing costs

Financing costs, will depend on the rate of interest on debt, the debt equity ratio  and if regulated how capital costs are recovered. There must be allowance for rate of return on equity which is risk capital.

Operating costs include operating and maintenance (O&M ) plus fuel. Fuel cost figures include used fuel management and final waste disposable . These costs while usually external for other technologies are internal for nuclear power.(i.e. they have to be paid or set aside security by utility generating power , and cost passed on to the customer in a actual tariff).

The “back end “ of fuel cycle including used fuel storage and disposal in waste repository, contributes up to 10 % of overall cost per kwh - rather less if there is direct disposal of fuel used rather than reprocessing. The 26 million U.S. dollars U.S. fuel program is funded by0.1 cent /kwh levy.

It is important to note that capital cost figures quoted by reactor vendors or which are general and cannot site specific, will usually just for EPC costs. This is because owners costs will vary hugely,  most of all according to whether a plant is Greenfield or established site perhaps replacing an old plant.

The end of 2008 vendor figures for overnight costs (excluding owner cost have been quoted as

GE -Hitachi ESBWR just under U.S. dollars 3000/ KW
GE-Hitachi ABWR just over U.S. dollars 3000/KW
Westinghouse AP 1000 about U.S. dollars 3000/KW

There several possible resources of variation which preclude confident comparison of overnight or EPC capital costs-e.g. whether initial core load of fuel included. Much more obvious is whether the price for nuclear Island alone ( nuclear steam supply system or whole plant including turbines and generators all the above figures include these.) further differences relate to site works such as well as land are permitting-usually they ensure all owner costs as out lined earlier in this matter .Financing costs are additional adding typically around 30 per cent and finally there is the question of  whether cost figures are in current or (specified year dollar values or in those of the year in which spending occurs.)

Overall expenditure you look nuclear power plant with a life 60 years ( generation third reactors ) capital cost will easily recoverable and nuclear power is cheap if you take long time into consideration.

carbon capture and storage for power plants

 Carbon capture and storage for power plants

Limitations

One limitation carbon capture and storage (CCS) is its energy penalty. The technology is expected to use  between 10 and 40 percent of energy produced by a power stations. Wide scale adoption of CCS may erase efficiency gains  of last 50 years and resource consumption by one -third. Even taking the fuel penalty into consideration however overall levels of CO2 abatement would remain high at approximately 80-90 percent compared to the plant without CCS. It is theoretically possible for CCS when combined with combustion bio-mass to result in net negative emission but this is not currently feasible given the lack of development of CCS technologies and limitations of bio-mass production.


The use CCS can reduce CO2 emission from stacks of coal power plants by 85-90 percent or more, but it has no effect on CO2 emissions due to mining and transport of coal. It  will actually “ increase such emissions and of air pollutants per unit of net delivered power and will increase all ecological, land use , air pollution and water pollution impacts from coal mining transport and processing, because CCS system requires 25 more energy this 25 percent more coal combustion than does system without CCS.

Another concern regards the permanence storing schemes. It is claimed that safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed and that even very low leakage rates could under mine any dim ate mitigation effect. The IPCC concludes however  that the portion of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99 per cent over 100 years and likely to exceed 99 percent over 1000 years.

Finally there is the issue of cost. Green Peace claimed that CCS could lead a doubling plant costs. CCS though may remain economically attractive in comparison to other  low -carbon electricity  generation . It is also claimed by opponents to CCS that  many spent on CCS will divert investments away from other solutions to climate change.

CCS cost

Although the process involved in CCS have been  demonstrated  in other industrial application no commercial scale projects which integrate these process exit, the costs therefore are some what uncertain. Some recent credible estimates indicate that a carbon price of U.S. dollar 60 per U.S. - ton is required to make capture and storage competitive. Corresponding  to an increase in electricity price of about U.S. 6c per Kwh( based on typical coal fired power plant emissions of 2.13 pounds per Kwh) . This would double the typical U.S. industrial electricity price now at around 6C  per Kwh )  and increase the typical retail residential electricity price by about 50 per cent. ( assuming 100 percent power is from coal, which may not necessarily be the case as this varies from state to state similar ( approximately )  price increases would likely to be expected in coal dependent countries such as Australia because the capture technology and chemistry as well as the transport and injection costs from such power plants would not, in overall sense vary significantly from country to country.

The reasons that CCS is expected to cause such power price increases are several . Firstly the increased energy requirement of capturing and compressing CO2 significantly raises the operating cost of CCS - equipped power plants. In addition these are added investment and capital costs. The process would increase fuel requirement of a plant with CCS by about 25 percent for a coal fired plant and 15 percent  for gas powered plant. The cost of this extra fuel, as well as storage and other system costs, are  estimated to increase the cost of energy from power plants with CCS by 30-60 percent depending on specific circumstances. Pre commercial CCS demonstrated projects are likely to be more expensive than mature CCS technology, the total additional cost of an large scale CCS demonstration projects are estimated to be C 5- 1.1 billion per project over project life time. Other applications are possible. In the belief that use of sequestered carbon could be harnessed to off-set  the cost of capture and storage, Walker Architects published the first CO2 gas  CAES application proposing  use of sequestered   CO2 for energy storage on October 24 ,2008. To date  the feasibility of such potential off-sets have not been examined.


The cost of CCS depends on capture and storage which varies according to method used. Geological storage in saline formations or depleted oil & gas fields typically cost U.S. dollar 0.5 to 8.00 per ton of CO2 injected plus additional U.S. dollars 0.10 to 0.30 for monitoring costs. When storage is combined with enhanced oil recovery to extract from oil fields , however  the storage could yield net benefits of U.S. dollar 10-16 per ton CO2 injected (based in 2003 oil prices) this would negate some of effect of carbon capture when oil was burnt as fuel. Comparisons of CCS with other energy sources can be found in wind energy, solar energy, and economics of new nuclear power plants.

Environmental effect on CCS

The theoretical merit of CCS systems in the reduction of CO2 emissions by up to 90 per cent depending on plant type. Generally environmental effects from use of CCS arise during power production CO2 capture, transport and storage issues relating to storage are discussed.

Additional energy required for CO2 capture and this means that substantially more fuel has to be used, depending on plant type. For super critical pulverized coal (PC) plants using current technologies the extra energy requirements range from 24- 40 percent, while natural gas combined cycle  (IGCC) plants range it is
14-25 per cent (IPCC 2005). Obviously  fuel use and environmental problem arising from mining and extraction of coal or gas increase accordingly. Plants equipped with flue gas De sulphurization  (FGD) systems for sulfur dioxide control require proportionally greater amount of lime stone  and systems equipped  with selective catalytic reduction systems for nitrogen oxide produced during combustion require proportionally greater amounts of Ammonia. IPCC has provided estimates of air emission from various CCS plant design. While CO2 is drastically reduced though never completely captured, emission of air pollutants increase significantly, generally due to energy penalty capture. Hence the use of CCS entails a reduction in air quality.

Carbon capture and storage  needs detailed investigation of additional cost and reduction of these costs developing carbon capture storage technology economically viable for capture of CO2 from power plants,  effects as new entrepreneurs to develop safe technology without incurring additional costs which will reduce global warming . Initial stage of CO2 capture, let us not discuss the effect of coal, and gas mining extraction environmental effects as CO2 capture its self  in elementary stage. As engineers and scientists  to study effectively detailed and economical carbon capture and storage process and innovate processes that reduce the cost .

Government to finance and promote carbon capture from power plants and encourage entrepreneurs to enter into the research and development. Even carbon capture may be better option instead of government proposing to levy carbon tax on coal burning  and producing power in plants which is better for environment. 


In addition to  developing sophisticated technologies carbon capture government  to encourage technocrats to invest in storing under ground or under sea and any method which useful for environment. The  technology needs innovation and needs investments and detailed investigation about carbon storage without leaking back to earth by  effecting environment.

If technology is available government to invite and encourage foreign investors to invest in these carbon capture and transportation and storage from power plants to save earth from global warming. Government need to develop infrastructure  to young engineers venture to carbon capture process transportation and storing for overall improvement of environment on this planet.  

my mother

My mother

I mother name is Katyayeni Devi was born in village Perekalapudi  village  Tenali Mandal of Guntur district on 5th September 1932. Perakalapudi was her grand mother native village. At the age of 10 she lost her mother Annapurna. Her mother (our ammamma ) died during her delivery time. My maternal uncle (Hari venkata Subbarao was  six years old then .  My ammamma died  two days before Vinayakachaviti.  Our mamayya ( our maternal uncle could not understand about death and was crying. My mother told me that she was very much upset with the death of her mother . My mother describe the incident as most unfortunate incidence in her life.  My mother told me she got married to my father at the age of 12  who was village doctor and agriculture farmer . My  Mother gave birth to my elder sister at  the age of when she was 15 years old. My mother was a hard worker. We have three brothers and two sisters to my parents. My father was always traveling to surrounding villages for giving medical care to villagers my mother left alone and was looking after us very  affectionately . Some times she used to get angry on us but was very affectionate to towards us.

In those days non of our relatives use to come to our house to assist  her in her house hold work. She never traveled any where any relatives houses because my father always insist her she must be in the house.

My father died 1996 after that she was staying along with my sister Sarada ( some small period she was staying in our native place)

During my father was alive he never allowed my mother  to go her father village since always tide up look after  us. In addition  to giving medical care to villagers of our village and surrounding villages at the same time my father was elected as Managing trustee of Someswara temple in our village . Always we used to get guests in our house. My mother  was looking after them including cooking the food. My mother hardly gone any where on pilgrimage as she always tied up house hold work.

My mother is having habit of reading weekly magazines which my father used to get from towns. Even to day she reads magazines. Due old age her eyes will not permit her to read long time.

My father used to scold her if food prepared was  not  his taste and used to patiently obeying ill treatment my father used to give her. We being children afraid of talking to our father at that point. Next morning my parents use to start working without feeling of previous night incidence.

My mother is 78 years old without any disease and healthy except small skin problems.
My mother prepares very deliciously ‘’gares “ now people call as Vadas which I am fond of eating .
 If I like to  reborn  to same mother if at all any rebirth is there,  I will take care of her better as I cannot change or alter any present position now.

We all brothers and sisters take care of our mother . We love our mother who sacrificed her life bringing up us.


p.m. baburao

indian- nuclear reactors and safety

Indian nuclear reactors safety

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) of India is consistently monitoring the situation at Japan’s nuclear sites in aftermath of unprecedented earthquake and Tsunami . Technical information in as the situation is evolving and clear picture will emerge progressively. A detailed review of the entire situation will be taken up by AERB as full information available.

In India out of 20 reactors under operation only two units namely Tarapur 1& 2 are boiling water reactor (BWR s) similar to one at Fakushima Japan. All reactors in India are designed to with standard the effect of earthquake and Tsunami of specific magnitude which are designed based on conservative criteria.

At part of periodic safety review process AERB had earlier carried out a detailed safety assessment of all old plants in India including Tarapur atomic power station 1 &2. Based on these assessments, several upgrades in safety measures such as provision of additional diesel generators for providing emergency power supply were made.

Emergency preparedness plans are existing for all nuclear power plants in the country with respect to plant ,site and off-site consequences. The emergency plans are periodically released to see that mitigation measures in the event of unlikely situation are in place.

AERB will be carrying out a comprehensive reassessment of safety and emergency mitigation measures of all Indian nuclear power plants in the light of unprecedented event in Japan.

Prime Minister Manmohn  Singh recently said on the occasion of conferment of Department of Atomic Energy’s life time achievement award 2009 ceremony that “ today India has demonstrated its capabilities in all scientific and technological aspects associated design development , construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors and associated fuel cycles facilities. We  owe this success of  indigenous three -stage program whose foundation was laid by. Dr. Ho-mi Bhabha .


The decades of nuclear isolation under which our nuclear program evolved has fortunately ended, India is now an active participant international civil nuclear energy co-operation. This brought with it new  opportunities as well as new responsibilities. I have no doubt that opening of doors international co-operation will help us in our efforts to enhance our energy security.

For a large  fast growing economy like ours it is imperative that we tap all sources of energy and diverse  our energy mix. Nuclear energy has potential of playing an increasingly important role in giving our country energy independence from traditional  and often polluting sources of energy.

The tragedy of the Fakushima Daiichi power plant in Japan has raised  world wide  concerns about the safety of nuclear energy as a source of power. It is vitally important to address these concerns.

The people of India have to be convinced about safety and security of out nuclear power plants. We shall bring openness and transparency in decision making process relating to our nuclear energy program and improve our capacity to respond to public desire  to kept informed about decisions and issues that are concern to them. I would like to see accountability and transparency in functioning of our nuclear power plants.

The government will take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of our plants. I have already directed technical review  of all safety  systems of our nuclear power plants using best  expertise available in the country. The future reactors that will be built in India will have to certified by Indian regulating authority and meet its safety standards. This will apply equally to reactors and technologies that are important from abroad.

We will strengthen the Atomic Regulatory Board and make it fully autonomous  and independent regularity authority. We will ensure that it is of highest and best international standard. Prime Minster conclude.

In the wake of growing public demands for a review of nuclear reactor safety parliament standing committee on science and technology will meet next week to examine what India should do ensure its  own civil nuclear  energy is safe. Pointing out Prime  Minister  Manmohn Singh had assured parliament that a direction was given for detailed re-view of nuclear power plants, the Raj ya Shabha M.P. Jabir Husain wrote to the chair man of committee T. Subbirami  Reddy to convene a meeting at the earliest.

Mr. Hussian suggested that officials of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, and Department of Atomic Energy to be invited to details steps being taken as follow up to Prime Minister  directive.

Present Indian reactors safety.

. Scientists are  stating that  the recent development in Japan will not De- motivate India nuclear energy activities. They told that nuclear power plants are according to standards of safety. The chairman of Nuclear Power Corporation of India  told that nuclear power plants are conducting the activities with best available safety measures. 

.. The cooling system in Indian nuclear power plants is not dependent on supply of electricity, the indirect method cooling system in place.

-- The earthquake standards are  not enough at the time in Tarapur centre which founded, but it is improved and changed safety standards .

-- The nuclear power plants were built by considering like by predicting the   Tsunami height.

-- Kakrapar nuclear power plant centre efficiently managed the earth quake that is occurred in Bhuj  on 26th  January 2011. The Madras nuclear power plant closed without releasing any radiation that may lead to worst affects at time of Tsunami attack in year 2004 and re started normally in few days.

-- Two reactors of 1000 MW capacity that are constructing in nuclear power plant Kundankulam Tamilnadu are being built higher height that sea level to ensure no threat from Tsunami.

--Indian reactors will use  two level safety covering.

- All  reactors in Japan are fifth earth quake zone whereas as all reactors in India  are two, three ,four  earthquake zone earth quake severity is less in these zones.

-- It is not like the controlling system in other countries, in India license will be given for five years to nuclear power plants and later license will be given after doing safety test. 

In view of globally governments including in India taking enough steps and precautionary safety measures for safety of nuclear power plants it is advised that nuclear energy is safe and need  global  support as a energy mix in all countries to reduce global warming and improving and developing the  latest technology with  safety parameters in nuclear power reactors  in case of any earthquake of Tsunami.

Seismic effect on Japan nuclear power plants

Seismic effect on Japan nuclear power plants

While global nuclear power plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, in the event of earthquakes and in the movement of major earth movement, to shut down safely.

In 1995 the closest  nuclear power plants, some 100 km north Kobe, were un affected by severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but 2004,2005,2007,2009 and 2011 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings.

In 1979 three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during divesting Taiwan  earth quake, and were  restarted two days later.

In March  2011 eleven operating nuclear power plant shut down automatically during the major earthquakes. Three of these subsequently caused an INES level 5 accident due to loss of power leading to loss of cooling

Nuclear facilities are designed so that earth quakes and other external events will not jeopardize the safety of plant. In France for instance nuclear power plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as 1000 year calculated each site. It is estimated that world wide 20 per cent nuclear reactors are operating in the area of Seismic activity. The international atomic energy agency (IAEA) has a safety guide on Seismic risks for nuclear power plants. Various systems are used in planning including Probabilistic  Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) which is recommended by IAEA and widely accepted.

Because of frequency and magnitude of earthquake in Japan, particular attention is paid to Seismic issues in the siting,design and construction of nuclear power plants.


Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion. These used to be specified as S1and S2 but S's in Gal units. These plants are fitted with seismic detectors.  The logarithmic Richer  Magnitude scale or more precisely the moment Magnitude scale generally used to day) measures the overall energy released in the earthquakes and there is not always a good correlation between the intensity that and intensity (ground motion) in particular place.

Japan revised regulatory guide for reviewing seismic design of nuclear power reactors facilities in September  2006 increased the S's figure to be equivalent to an earthquake 6.7 on the Richter or moment magnitude scale directly under reactor- factor 1.5 (up from magnitude 6.5). PGA or design basic earthquake ground motion is measured in Galileo units -Gal ( cm/sec2 ) or g the force of gravity one g being 980 Gal.

The former design basis earthquake ground motion or peak ground acceleration (PGA) level S1 was defined as largest earth quake which can reasonably to expected to occur at the site of nuclear power plant, based on the known seism city     of the area and local active faults. A power reactor could continue to operate safely during an SI level earthquake, though in practice they are set to trip at lower levels. If it did shut down ,reactor would be expected to restart soon after an SI event. The revised seismic regulation released in May 2007 increased the S1 figure  to be equivalent to 6.7 on the logarithmic Richer scale- a factor 1.5 (up from 6.5). PGA is measured in Galileo units Gal (cm/ sec2) or g -the force of gravity, one g being 980  Gal the non S1 unit used here.

Larger earth quakes ground motions in the region, considering the tectonic structure's  and other factors must also be taken  into account, although their probability is very low. The largest conceivable such ground motion was upper limit design basis extreme earthquake ground motion (PGA) S2 generally assuming a magnitude 6.5 earthquake directly under the reactor. The plant safety systems would be effective during an S2 level earthquake to ensure safe shut down without release of radio activity though extensive inspection would be required before re-start. In particular reactor pressure vessel ,control rods and drive system and reactor containment should suffer no damage at all. After the magnitude 7.2 Kobe earthquake in 1995 the safety of nuclear facility in Japan reviewed along with design guide lines for their construction . The Japanese nuclear safety commission (NSC) then approved new standards were also thoroughly reviewed  at this time.  After recalculating the seismic design criteria required for nuclear power plant to survive near the epicenter of large earthquake the NSC concluded that under current guide lines such plant could survive quake of magnitude 7.75. The Kobe earthquake was 7.2.

PGA has long been considered un satisfactory indicator of damage to structures and some seismologists are proposing to replace it with cumulative average velocity (CAV) as more useful measures since it brings in displacement and duration.

Japan’ s  Rokkasha  reprocessing plant and associated facilities are built on stable rock and are designed to withstand on earthquake of magnitude 8.25 there.

Following a magnitude 7.3 earthquake in 2000 in then area where no geological fault was known, Japan’s NSC ordered full view of country’s seismic guide lines which had been adopted by NSC in 1981 and particularly revised in 2001 ) in light of newly accumulated knowledge on seismology and earthquake engineering and advanced technologies of seismic design.  The new regulatory guide for reviewing seismic design of nuclear reactor facilities was published in September 2006 and resulted in NSC and industrial safety agency (NISA) calling for reactor owners with NISA to under take plant specific reviews of seismic safety, to be completed in2008 .

The main result of this review was that the SI-S2 system was formerly replaced by NSC in September 2006 with  a single design basis earth quake ground motion (DBGM S's) still measured in Gal. the guide states that main reactor facilities “ shall maintain safety functions under seismic force caused byDBGM S's . “ they and ancillary facilities should also with stand the “ seismic force loading of those caused by elastically dynamic design earthquake ground  motion Sd(ED-GM Sd) calculated from stress analysis and being at least half the Ss figure.

In March 2008 TEPCO up graded it estimates of likely design basis earthquake ground motion S's for Fakushima in 600 Gal other operators have adopted the same figure (magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Taiheiyou-ok earthquake in March did not exceed this at Fukushima). In October 2008 TEPCO accepted 1000 Gal (1.02g)DB GM as new design basis for  ,Kashiwazaki , Kariwa,  following the July 2007 earthquake.

Japanese nuclear power plants such as Hamaoka near Tokai are in regions where earthquake of magnitude 8.5 may be expected. In fact the Tokai region has been racked by every major earthquake about every 150 years and it is 155 years since last big one Chub u -Harmaoka reactors were designed to withstand  such anticipated Tokai earthquake and had design basis S1 of 450 Gal and S2 of 600 Gal. Units 3 &4 were originally designed for 600 Gal, but S's standard established in September 2007 required 800 Gal. Since these units 3-5 have been upgraded to the new S's standard 1000 Gal. in August 2009 magnitude 6.5 earthquake nearby automatically shut down Harnaoka 4 &5 with ground motion of 426 Gal being recorded at unit 5. Some ancillary equipment was damaged and reactor 3&4 were restarted after rechecking. Restart unit 5 was repeatedly differed as company analyzed  why such seismic acceleration was recorded on it, coupled with some planned maintenance being  under taken during shut down. It restarted in January 2011.

Harnaoka units 1&2 had been shut down since 2001 and 2004 respectively pending seismic upgrading- they have originally designed to with stand only 450 Gal. in December 2008 the company decided to write off and a new reactor to replace them. Modifying the 1970’s units to new seismic standards would have cost about U.S. dollars 3.3 billion and has been  un economic so Chub u opted for U.S. dollar 1.7 billion written down instead.

Early in 2010 Japan’s METI confirmed that seismic safety of Manju fast reactor was adequate under new standards requiring S's Gal PG A. Assessments were carried out in conjunction with Kansas Mahima plant and JAPC s Tsuruga plants both nearby.

South Korea new APR-1400 reactor is designed to with stand 300 Gal seismic acceleration. The older is designed for 200 Gal but being up graded to at least 300 Gal so as to offered to Turkey and Jordan.

In U.S.A the Diablo Canyon plant is designed for 735 Gal peak ground acceleration and San Onopre  plant is designed for a 0.657 Gal peak ground acceleration.

Japan March 2011 Tohoku-Taiheiyou -Oki


The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki earth quake at 2.46 P.M. on 11th March did considerable damage and 14 meter tsunami it created caused even more. It appears to have been double quake giving a severe duration of about 3 minutes and was centered 130 km off-shore of the city Sendai in Miyagi prefecture on the eastern coast of Honshu Island. It moved Honstru  4 meters east and apparently subsided the nearby coast line by half meter. Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in region were operating at that time all shut down automatically when quake hit. Power  was available to run cooling pumps at most of the units and they achieved cold shut down in few days. However at TEPCO  Fukhushima  Daaichi  plant where three reactors were shut down by earthquake  the emergency diesel generators started as expected as expected but then shut down an hour  later when submerged by tsunami . Other  systems proved  inadequate and led authorities to order, and subsequently extend an evacuation while  engineers worked to re start power. About nine hours later mobile power supply units reached the plant and were being connected. Meanwhile units 1-3 had only battery power in sufficient to drive the cooling pumps.

The operating units which shut down were TEPCO ‘s  Fukushima Daiichi 1,2,3 Fakushima Daini 1,2,3,4 Tohoku’ s Onagawa 1,2,3 and Japcos  Tokai Onagawa 1 briefly suffered  a fire in non-turbine building, but the main problem centered on Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3 . First pressure inside the containment structures increased steadily and led to this being vented to the  atmosphere on going basis. Vented gases and vapor including hydrogen, produced by  exothermic interaction of fuels very hot Zirconium cladding with water. Later on 12th there was hydrogen explosion in the building above unit 1 reactor containment, and another  one  two days later in unit 3, from venting as hydrogen mixed with air. Then on 15th unit 2 ruptured its pressure suppression chamber under actual reactor  releasing some radio activity. Inside water level had dropped, exposing fuel, and this was addressed by pumping sea water into reactor pressure vessels.

Then separate set of problems arose as spent fuel ponds in upper part of the reactors structures were found to be depleted in water. In unit 4  the fuel there got hot enough to form hydrogen and other explosion destroyed the top of building and damaged unit’s  3 super structure further .The  focus since has been on replenishing the water pond’s  of unit 3&4 with some success , though the gaps in the roof and cladding . Unit 4 was undergoing maintenance and all its 548 fuel assemblies were  in that pond, along with new and used fuel, total 1535 assemblies giving it heat load about 3 MW thermal, according to France  ISRN. Unit 3 & pool contained fuel assemblies.

Japan’s nuclear & industrial  safety agency eventually declared the accident as level 5 on INES scale- an accident with wider consequences, the same level as three Mile Island 1979. The design basis acceleration for both Fakhushima  plants had been up graded in 2008 and now quoted horizontal 441- 489 Gal for Daiichi and 415-434 Gal for Daini.  The interim recorded data for both plants shows that 550 Gal was maximum if Daiichi in foundation of unit 2 ( other figures 281-548 Gal) and 254 Gal maximum for Daini. Unit 2,3and 5 exceed the maximum response acceleration design basis in E-W direction by about 20 % . Recording was 130-150 seconds. ( ground acceleration was around 2000 Gal few kilometers north on sediments.

In view of this it is being noticed that nuclear safety commission( NSC) of Japan had taken several steps to reduce impact earthquakes on nuclear power plants. But March 2011 earthquake (magnitude 9.0) combined with tsunami affected  Fakushima Daiichi plant which seems to be a rare case. However it is advised  to take  necessary safety steps to reduce impact of earthquake magnitude 9 and above for safe shut down of reactors automatically in event of earth quake associated with tsunami  . Nuclear scientists and engineers to design reactors that can with stand especially taking consideration of tsunami  without spreading any radiation in the event of core melt .

india-nuclear power

India -nuclear power

As on 2010 India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six power plants generating 4,780 MW. While other 5 new plants are under construction are  expected to generate an additional 2720MW. The nuclear industry is undergoing expansion with plan to increase nuclear power out put to 63,000 MW. by 2032 as per expectations and plans of nuclear power corporation of India (NPCIL). India is global leader in development  of thorium based fast breeder reactors.

India domestic uranium reserves are limited and is dependent on imported nuclear fuel for their under operation nuclear power plants . Due lack of sufficient reserves of uranium India nuclear power generation declined by 12.83 per cent from 2006 to 2008. Following waiver from nuclear supply group (NSG) in September 2008 which allowed India commences procurement of uranium from international trade. India has uranium supply agreements with Russia , Mongolia,Kazakhstan, Argentina, and  Namibia.

NPCIL plans to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4 per cent to 9 per cent in 25 years. India’s NPCIL signed an agreement with Areva  of France for constructing 2 EPR (European Pressurized Reactors). India implementing U.S. dollars 717 million fast breeder reactor project and is expected to be operational by 2011.

On the other hand NSG Group constrained India from freely importing nuclear fuel at volume and cost level it would like to support goals of expanding its nuclear generating capacity at least 20,000 MW by 2020 which may little difficult due to paucity of funds. On the other hand the NSG Group embargo forced the India government arm NPCIL to support and activity to fund the development India nuclear technologies in all key areas required to create and maintain domestic nuclear industry. This has created large pool nuclear scientists ,engineers, technicians that developed independent capabilities in the area of fast breeder reactors, thermal breeder reactors and on thorium fuel cycle, nuclear fuel reprocessing and tritium extraction and production.

The nuclear industry is expected to under go a significance in coming years due to passing Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement. This agreement will allow to India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel(uranium) and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance power generation capacity.

India has already been imported enriched uranium for light water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards , but has developed other aspects of nuclear fuel cycle to support reactors in use of heavy water reactors has been particularly  attraction for nation because it allows uranium to be burnt a little or no enrichment capacities. India has developed nuclear fuel cycle in development of thorium centered fuel cycle. India reserves of uranium limited, there are much greater  reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of energy with same mass of uranium. Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket under construction at Madras Kalpakkam  power station. 

The domestic reserves of uranium 80,000 to 1,12,000  tons of uranium( 1 percent of global uranium reserves) is largely enough to supply India‘s  commercial and military reactors as well as supply all needs India’s nuclear arsenal. Nuclear power consume 2000 metric tonnes  of uranium per annul requirements. Therefore India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for foreseeable  future. India has enrichment technology but not exploited commercially  in large scale. India has to  mine and extract uranium at present problem is lot of resistance from local land owners for uranium extraction in addition India need investments in  development of latest enrichment technology . 

Electricity demand in India is increasing rapidly and India’s total generation capacity 1,62,000 MW at present triple the 1990 out put though still represented only 591 billion Kwh per ca-pita per year. However after steady in transmission losses this resulted in only 591 billion Kwh consumption. Coal provides 68 percent of electricity for the present, but reserves are limited. Gas provides 8 percent, hydro 14 percent. The ca-pita consumption figure is expected double by 2020 with 63 percent annual growth and reach 5000-6000 Kwh by 2050.

A KPMG report in 2007 said India needed to spend 150 billion dollars on power infrastructure  over next five years including transmission and distribution.

India nuclear  energy  development primary policy body

The Atomic Energy establishment was set up at Trombay , near Mumbai in 1957 and renamed as Bhabha Atomic Research Center(BARC) ten year later. The Indian Atomic  Energy  Commission (AEC)is the main policy body at present. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) is responsible for design, construction commissioning and operation of thermal nuclear power plants . At start of 2010 it said it had enough cash on hand for 10,000 Mwe new plant. Its funding model is 70 percent equity 30 percent debt financing . However it is aiming to involve other public sectors and private corporations in future nuclear power expansion notably NTPC (National thermal power corporation. NTPC is largely government owned and 1962 Atomic Act prohibits private control of nuclear power generation though it allows investment. So far there is no policy change over allowing control of private sector into  nuclear power generation.

More recent development in India

The  Tarapur 3 &4  reactors of 540 Mwe gross (490 Mwe net) were developed endogenously from 220 Mwe(gross) model PHWR and were built by NPCIL. 

The first  Tarapur -4  was connected to grid in June 2005 started commercial operation in September . Tarapur -4s criticality came five years after pouring the  first concrete and seven months ahead of schedule. Unit  3 was about a year behind it and it was connected to grid in June 2006 with commercial operation in August five months a head of schedule.

Russia’s Atoms troy export is building the country’s first larger power plant comprising two VVER  1000 (V-392) under Russian financed 3 billion U.S. dollars contract. A long term credit facility covers  about half cost of plant. The AES-92 unit at Kundankulam, Tamilnadu are being built by NPCIL and will be commissioned and operated by Npcil under IAEA safeguards. Russia is supplying all enriched fuel through life of plant though India will reprocess it and keep Plutonium. The first unit was due to start operation later 2008,but this schedule has slipped more than three years. It is now due to start up in April 2011. The second unit is about 6-8 months behind it while first core load of fuel was delivered early 2008. There has been delays in supply of some equipment and documentation central system documentation was delivered late, and when reviewed by NPCIL it showed up the need for significant refining and reworking some specification.

Kaiga 3 started up February was  connected to the grid in April and went into commercial operation- in May 2007. Unit 4 started up in November 2010 and was grid connected in January 2011,but is about 30 months behind original schedule due to shortage uranium. The Kaiga units are not under un  safeguards so cannot use imported uranium.

RAPP-5 started up in November 2009,using imported Russian fuel and in December it was connected to northern grid. RAPP-6 started up January 2010 and connected at the end of March . Both are now under commercial production.

Under plans for India specific safeguards to be administratively IAEA in relation to the civil-military separation plan, eight further reactors will be safeguarded ( beyond Tarapur 1&2 Rajasthan 1&2 and  Kundankulam 1&2) Rajasthan  3&4 by 2010,Rajasthan 5&6 by 2011, Kakrapar  1&2 by 2012 and Narora 1&2 by 2014.

However India’s nuclear energy future seems to be rosy, but NPCIL should develop plans further growth of nuclear energy by negotiating with  foreign suppliers like Areva, GEH and Westinghouse by taking latest  safety parameters incorporating safety  design of light water  reactors that will with stand in the event of earthquakes and tsunamis. The financing the nuclear power should be like Russia financing half cost nuclear power plants with long term credit facility  with performance bank guarantee  from suppliers.