Should we rely on nuclear power?

[sunny_aus]

---

---

Should we rely on nuclear power?


1. Nuclear power is clearly a dead-end technology. It is not sustainable since there is only a 50-year supply of uranium left in the world.

2. Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.

3. Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.

4. It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.

5. The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.

6. Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.

7. The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.

8. Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.

For:
1. Huge amounts of energy are produced from small amounts of uranium. There is also a gradual shift to thorium-based reactors.

2. Low fuel costs and ease of transport more than compensate for these high costs. The overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity is 50% to 80% that of other fuel sources.

3. It is but another victim of threat perception and false propaganda generated by ill-informed environmentalists and activists.

4. It is relatively clean and climate friendly, compared to a coal-fired power station that produces 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2, causing global warming. Even the waste it generates is compact, and considered a ‘strategic fuel reserve’ for future.

5. For every unit of electricity, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal 45 fold and natural gas 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. It has a better safety record than fossil fuels.

6. All power plants age as they have a finite life and need to be decommissioned within time. Power plants always have inherent risks, which can be muted with vigilant management.

7. Nuclear plants are safely and profitably operating in 31 countries around the world. 24 new nuclear reactors are under construction in 11 countries.

8. Installing solar cells to replace a $2.56bn nuclear power plant would cost $92bn, which is 36 times more expensive, and the cells would cover 150 sq km area. Alternatives will prove to be expansive.

9. Countries like India, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear programmes.


Should we rely on nuclear power?-Quickies -Features-The Economic Times

[sunny_aus]

Should we rely on nuclear power?


1. Nuclear power is clearly a dead-end technology. It is not sustainable since there is only a 50-year supply of uranium left in the world.

2. Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.

3. Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.

4. It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.

5. The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.

6. Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.

7. The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.

8. Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.

For:
1. Huge amounts of energy are produced from small amounts of uranium. There is also a gradual shift to thorium-based reactors.

2. Low fuel costs and ease of transport more than compensate for these high costs. The overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity is 50% to 80% that of other fuel sources.

3. It is but another victim of threat perception and false propaganda generated by ill-informed environmentalists and activists.

4. It is relatively clean and climate friendly, compared to a coal-fired power station that produces 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2, causing global warming. Even the waste it generates is compact, and considered a ‘strategic fuel reserve’ for future.

5. For every unit of electricity, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal 45 fold and natural gas 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. It has a better safety record than fossil fuels.

6. All power plants age as they have a finite life and need to be decommissioned within time. Power plants always have inherent risks, which can be muted with vigilant management.

7. Nuclear plants are safely and profitably operating in 31 countries around the world. 24 new nuclear reactors are under construction in 11 countries.

8. Installing solar cells to replace a $2.56bn nuclear power plant would cost $92bn, which is 36 times more expensive, and the cells would cover 150 sq km area. Alternatives will prove to be expansive.

9. Countries like India, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear programmes.


Should we rely on nuclear power?-Quickies -Features-The Economic Times

India plans gas pipeline from Oman

NEW DELHI: With two proposed overland transnational pipelines through Pakistan caught in geopolitical knots, fresh efforts have been launched to revive a long-buried plan of establishing an international energy lifeline under Arabian Sea to feed gas to India’s fuel-guzzling economy from West Asia.

The tensions between the United States and Iran and concerns over security situation in Afghanistan have bogged down progress on the pipelines from Iran and Turkmenistan, respectively. With India’s gas demand expected to overshoot 200 million cubic metres a day from 170 at present, an engineering construction conglomerate, which has former petroleum secretary T N R Rao as key member in the project team, has moved in to fill the void, the Times of India reported.

Since December 2007 through February, South Asia Gas Enterprise (SAGE) has given presentations to power, oil ministries, state-owned generation utility National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), gas utility GAIL, flagship refiner Indian Oil, Tata group, fertilizer companies besides government-run engineering consultancy firm Engineers India Ltd.

SAGE revived the proposal for laying a pipeline under sea between Oman’s Ras al Jifan and coastal Gujarat’s Rapar Gadhwali to ferry about 8 tcf (trillion cubic feet) of gas.

Its presentation said gas could flow as early as 2012 and projected a requirement of $2.1-3.4 billion investment and a (transportation) tariff of around $1.1 to $ 1.8 per mbtu (million British thermal unit).

It skirted issue of identifying specific gas source, saying “over 2,000 tcf reserves are reported to be available in the Middle East”, implying a common carrier nature. Several major gas pipelines around the world run under sea. Even Pakistan has a joint venture with Persian Gulf-South Asia ((P-Gusa) gas company of Qatar for laying a deep sea pipeline linking two countries for bringing gas to Gwadar port and China is planning to tap into it once - if at all - it is built.


India plans gas pipeline from Oman

[sunny_aus]

TAPI gas pipeline finalised

Work on four-nation project to start from 2010


ISLAMABAD: The 10th steering committee of oil ministers from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India on Thursday agreed to start construction work on the much-delayed TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline project in 2010.

This was stated at a joint press conference by Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Khwaja Muhammad Asif, Turkmen Minister for Oil and Gas Industry Dr Baymurad Hojamuhamedov, Afghan Minister of Mines Mohammad Ibrahim Adel and Indian Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Shri Murli Deora here after the conclusion of the steering committee meeting.

The second meeting of the technical working group (TWG) of the four countries was also held the same day. The gas pipeline project, to be completed at the cost of $7.6 billion, will start supplying 3.2 billion cubic feet gas per day through 56-inch diameter pipeline.

The pipeline will start from Dauletabad field in Turkmenistan to Fazilka at the Pakistan-India border, passing through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan and Multan in Pakistan. The project cost estimate was $3.3 billion in 2004, which has now been updated to $7.6 billion. The price increase was due to sharp increase in the price of steel, construction cost and the cost of compressor stations.

Key principles for future gas sales and purchase agreement will be agreed bilaterally between the buyer and sellers under the heads of agreement discussions. However, any issue that remains unresolved will be left for GSPA (Gas Sales Purchase Agreement), the The Turkmen side informed the meeting that it would submit before Sept 2008 whereas the gas specification would be supplied within one-month time, says the announcement. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) that is facilitating the talks will take up the issue for a comprehensive review of the feasibility study to move forward to the next phase of inviting investors’ interest in the project, the announcement added.

The parties have also agreed to form a consortium of investors to undertake a detailed feasibility study and further action, it said. The project would be completed to achieve first gas flow in 2015.

Khwaja Asif said all four countries were committed to finalise the project. He said despite significant increase in the project cost estimates, the project was still considered as economically and financially viable.

To a question, he said Turkmenistan would provide third party certification of reserves before the next meeting of the steering committee of ministers from four countries to be held in September/October this year in New Delhi.

He further said security issue would be sorted out once the project would start. To another question, he said the signatory countries were going ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project and there was no question of pressure in this regard. He said he would discuss matters pertaining to the project today (Friday).

The Indian petroleum minister to a question said matters relating to transit fee of the IPI project with Pakistan would also be discussed in that meeting. Answering a question, the Indian petroleum secretary said construction work on the project would start in 2010 and gas supply would begin in 2015. Resident Director Asian Development Bank Peter Fidon said the project would lead to economic development and alleviation of poverty.


Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

[fatman17]

^^^this project will not materialise because of the security situation in afghanistan and FATA in pakistan.

[sunny_aus]

Turkey offers oil pipe lifeline to India


BANGALORE - Turkey has offered - during a visit by Foreign Minister Ali Babacan to India this month - to facilitate the supply of oil to India from Central Asia via Israel through a combination of overland pipelines and super tankers.

Under the plan, oil transported through Turkey's extensive pipeline infrastructure from Central Asia to its Ceyhan port would be sent across the Mediterranean Sea by tanker to Israel's port of Ashkelon. There it would be fed into Israel's Ashkelon-Eilat 254-kilometer pipeline. From Eilat port, again by tanker, it would be sent through the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea via the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea to India. Neither Israel nor the US have commented on the proposal.

The Turkish offer holds out the promise of a well-established route by which energy-hungry India could access Central Asian reserves, in contrast to less-practical alternatives.

India imports about 70% of its oil requirements, a dependence that may increase to over 91% by 2020. About 45% of present needs comes from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - according to Indian Planning Commission figures, and if one includes oil imports from other parts of the Middle East, the region accounts for about 67% of India's oil imports.

India, anxious to reduce this dependence on the Middle East for its fuel, given the political volatility of the region, is looking to Myanmar and Vietnam in its more immediate neighborhood, Sudan and Nigeria in Africa, and Turkmenistan in Central Asia to secure oil and also gas supplies.

The success of those efforts have been mixed. It won significant stakes in Russia's Sakhalin I oilfields, but lost out - often to China - in bids for assets in Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Myanmar and Canada over the past two years. No less easy have been India's efforts to clinch oil pipeline deals.

A plan to bring gas from Myanmar, to the east, by pipeline through Bangladesh fell apart when Dhaka wanted India in return to agree to a free-trade corridor to Nepal and to remove existing trade barriers between India and Bangladesh. It also demanded what India saw as exorbitant transit fees. India now hopes to route a pipeline from Myanmar that bypasses Bangladesh, running through India's northeastern states before reaching Kolkata.

If the pipeline to India's east has been a non-starter, a plan for one to its west - the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline - is looking almost as tenuous. Strongly opposed by the US because of Washington's differences with Tehran, the US$7.5 billion IPI pipeline also faces difficulties over Iran's pricing of the oil and transit fees demanded by Pakistan.

The prospects of a $4 billion Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) project are slightly brighter, if only because it is backed by the US and international financial institutions. India was invited to join the project last year. On the down side, Turkmenistan, whose total gas output is about 60 billion cubic meters (bcm), recently agreed to increase gas deliveries to Russia's Gazprom to about 50 bcm. That would leave little gas for transport through the TAP pipeline, making it an unviable proposition.

In this context, Turkey's offer to India has considerable potential - at least the pipelines that might bring Central Asian oil to India already exist. The 1,768-kilometer Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which carries a million barrels of oil a day from Azeri and Kazakh oil fields and the Caspian Sea - the world's third-largest oil and gas reserve - to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, has been in operation since 2006.

The Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline, also known as the Trans-Israel pipeline or Tipline, has been functioning for several years. Built in 1968 to transport oil from Iran - then under the Shah - to Israel, it was largely unused except to carry transshipments of Egyptian oil. In other words, it carried oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. The direction of the flow was reversed a few years ago when Russia began transporting oil through Israel's overland pipeline. It was then picked up by tankers that traveled through the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea to Asian markets.

Using the Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline and the Gulf of Aqaba would let India's supplies skip the Suez route, with several advantages.

Israeli ports, already supplied by super tankers, accommodate larger vessels than those that can pass through the Suez Canal, and tariffs for the Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline are lower than those charged by Egypt for shipping through the Suez, itself a more congested route than the Gulf of Aqaba. Costs could fall further if a proposed undersea pipeline connecting Ceyhan with Israel goes ahead. Babacan said in Delhi that a feasibility report on the project will be conducted soon.

Making Ankara's offer even more attractive to India is that the pipelines involved do not run through Pakistan and are not at risk of being disrupted in the event of a souring of India-Pakistan relations.

A supply deal with Turkey would extend India's links with both that country and Israel. The Indian Oil Corporation has picked up a 12.5% stake in a pipeline from Turkey's Black Sea port of Samsun to the Ceyhan pipeline, while India's ties with Israel have already deepened dramatically over the past decade or so.

Securing oil for the pipeline deal is another matter. India's ambitions to win stakes in the oilfields of Central Asian countries have so far outpaced its achievements.

OMEL, an Indian joint venture of state-run ONGC-Videsh Ltd, the overseas arm of Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) and Mittal Energy Ltd, has been looking for stakes in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. These are at different stages of progress and a finalization of any deals remains elusive.

In Kazakhstan, after losing to China in 2005 in its effort to buy a Canadian company, PetroKazakhstan, that had stakes in Kazakh oil fields, India is now eyeing a stake in the Satpayev oil block in the Caspian Sea. The Kazakh government is said to be willing to sell 50% to OMEL, with Kazakh national company KazMunaiGaz (KMG) holding the balance.

The Indian Mittal group last year acquired Russian oil firm Lukoil's 50% stake in Caspian Investments Resources for $980 million. The acquisition was initially proposed to be done by OMEL. Mittal has since said that it will transfer the assets to OMEL but ONGC officials are skeptical that it will do so.

In Azerbaijan, Tata Petrodyne Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of India's Tata Sons, has linked up with state refiner Indian Oil Corporation and exploration firm Oil India Ltd to make a bid for a 51% stake in Shivran Oil Operating Company held by Caspian Energy Group (CEG). Shivran runs the Kyurovdag oil field in Azerbaijan. Earlier, OMEL failed with a $300 million bid.

In Turkmenistan, OMEL has acquired a 30% stake in Block No 11 and 12 in the Turkmen sector of the Caspian Sea. Other stakeholders in the block are the Danish company Maersk Oil (36%) and the German company Wintershall 34%.


Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

[sunny_aus]

Iran gas pipeline deal to be clinched soon: India


Indicating that the $ 7.4 billion Iran- Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline deal would be “clinched soon” Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Murli Deora said on Sunday that he would apprise Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the ‘bilateral talks’ with Pakistan during the coming week.

“Stating that India and Pakistan had almost worked out a general agreement on the transit fee,” Deora said that the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be utilized to pave way for trilateral talks on the deal, Hindu reported.

“The talks with the Pakistan leadership were very cordial and assuring. I will be updating the Prime Minister on all the issues, including the IPI pipeline, and also the $ 7.3 billion Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline that India has formally joined this time,” he said.

The next round of ministerial negotiations for the TAPI pipeline will be held in October this year after a certification of the gas assets of Turkmenistan for the gas pipeline.

“I am very optimistic about the IPI pipeline as it would go a along way in meeting India’s energy requirements in the long run,” Deora added.

The 2,700-km-long pipeline is scheduled to be completed by 2011 and would initially carry 600 million cubic metres of gas per day.

Deora said he had also met the political leadership of Pakistan, including the People’s Party of Pakistan (PPP) co-Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari, and Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) president Nawaz Sharif during his recent visit to Islamabad.

He said Sharif had strongly favoured increasing people-to-people contacts and doing away with visa restrictions for travel between India and Pakistan.

Iran gas pipeline deal to be clinched soon: India - Pakistan, Deora, India, Minister, TAPI, Prime, Sharif, Nawaz - natural-gas

[sunny_aus]

Should we rely on nuclear power?


1. Nuclear power is clearly a dead-end technology. It is not sustainable since there is only a 50-year supply of uranium left in the world.

2. Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.

3. Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.

4. It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.

5. The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.

6. Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.

7. The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.

8. Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.

For:
1. Huge amounts of energy are produced from small amounts of uranium. There is also a gradual shift to thorium-based reactors.

2. Low fuel costs and ease of transport more than compensate for these high costs. The overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity is 50% to 80% that of other fuel sources.

3. It is but another victim of threat perception and false propaganda generated by ill-informed environmentalists and activists.

4. It is relatively clean and climate friendly, compared to a coal-fired power station that produces 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2, causing global warming. Even the waste it generates is compact, and considered a ‘strategic fuel reserve’ for future.

5. For every unit of electricity, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal 45 fold and natural gas 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. It has a better safety record than fossil fuels.

6. All power plants age as they have a finite life and need to be decommissioned within time. Power plants always have inherent risks, which can be muted with vigilant management.

7. Nuclear plants are safely and profitably operating in 31 countries around the world. 24 new nuclear reactors are under construction in 11 countries.

8. Installing solar cells to replace a $2.56bn nuclear power plant would cost $92bn, which is 36 times more expensive, and the cells would cover 150 sq km area. Alternatives will prove to be expansive.

9. Countries like India, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear programmes.


Should we rely on nuclear power?-Quickies -Features-The Economic Times

Natural gas production to jump two-fold by 2011-12


NEW DELHI: India's natural gas production will more than double to 170 million standard cubic meters per day by 2011-12 after fields such as Reliance Industries' eastern offshore KG-D6 reach peak output.

In 2007-08, domestic production at 79.40 mmscmd and 31.50 mmscmd from import LNG met some 60 per cent of the demand, according to latest projections made by the Petroleum Ministry.

State-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) will produce 47.06 mmscmd of gas this fiscal, almost unchanged from 47.19 mmscmd of 2007-08. This output will rise to 51.65 mmscmd by 2011-12, while Oil India Ltd will contribute 10 mmscmd.

Reliance Industries' KG-D6 will start producing this year at an initial rate of 40 mmscmd, rising to 60 mmscmd in 2009-10 and to 80 mmscmd in 2011-12. When KG-D6 hits peak, the share of fuel produced by fields operated by private sector firms would touch 102.57 mmscmd (in 2011-12).

The projections anticipate an additional 2 mmscmd output from Mahanadi basin NEC-25 field of Reliance in 2011-12 and 4.5 mmscmd from Gujarat State Petroleum Corp's Krishna Godavari basin field.

India's import of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also slated to more than double to 23.25 million tons by 2011-12 from 9 million tons in 2007-08 after Dabhol, Kochi and Mangalore terminals become operational.

Petronet LNG's Dahej terminal will see capacity doubling to almost 12 million tons and Shell's Hazira terminal is seen operating at 2.5 million tons, unchanged from present times. Dabhol may import 5 million tons, Kochi 2.5 and Mangalore 1.25 million tons, the projections stated.

Together with 81.38 mmscmd of LNG, the country's total gas availability will touch 252.09 mmscmd in 2011-12 from 110.9 mmscmd now.


Natural gas production to jump two-fold by 2011-12- Oil & Gas-Energy-News By Industry-News-The Economic Times

[sunny_aus]

Should we rely on nuclear power?


1. Nuclear power is clearly a dead-end technology. It is not sustainable since there is only a 50-year supply of uranium left in the world.

2. Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.

3. Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.

4. It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.

5. The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.

6. Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.

7. The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.

8. Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.

For:
1. Huge amounts of energy are produced from small amounts of uranium. There is also a gradual shift to thorium-based reactors.

2. Low fuel costs and ease of transport more than compensate for these high costs. The overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity is 50% to 80% that of other fuel sources.

3. It is but another victim of threat perception and false propaganda generated by ill-informed environmentalists and activists.

4. It is relatively clean and climate friendly, compared to a coal-fired power station that produces 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2, causing global warming. Even the waste it generates is compact, and considered a ‘strategic fuel reserve’ for future.

5. For every unit of electricity, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal 45 fold and natural gas 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. It has a better safety record than fossil fuels.

6. All power plants age as they have a finite life and need to be decommissioned within time. Power plants always have inherent risks, which can be muted with vigilant management.

7. Nuclear plants are safely and profitably operating in 31 countries around the world. 24 new nuclear reactors are under construction in 11 countries.

8. Installing solar cells to replace a $2.56bn nuclear power plant would cost $92bn, which is 36 times more expensive, and the cells would cover 150 sq km area. Alternatives will prove to be expansive.

9. Countries like India, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear programmes.


Should we rely on nuclear power?-Quickies -Features-The Economic Times

Towards Self-Sufficiency in Power
NTPC

Suresh P. Prabhu

Union Minister of Power


Electricity is the prime mover of growth and is vital to the sustenance of a modern economy. The projected growth of the Indian economy depends heavily on the performance and growth of the power sector. It is the endeavour of the Government to ensure that agriculture, industry, commercial establishments and all households receive uninterrupted supply of electricity at affordable rates. It is a matter of pride that the power sector has made steady progress. The installed capacity in the country has gone up from 1,713 MW in 1950 to more than 104,000 MW today. The Ministry of Power envisages providing reliable, affordable and quality power supply to all users by 2012.

The Government has set before itself a target of creating 100,000 MW of additional capacity by the year 2012 and I have made it a personal mission to see that this target is achieved. Out of the additional capacity of 100,000 MW to be set up by 2012, about 41,000 MW would be set up in the Tenth Plan. In addition, a capacity of about 4,200 MW is likely to be available from renewables. The Central Sector would contribute 22,500 MW, the State Sector 11,400 MW and the Private Sector 7,100 MW. Of the 41,000 MW capacity so targeted, projects around 18,500 MW are already under construction. Moreover, about 8,700 MW of aggregate capacity already has the requisite approvals.

I realise that the requirement of resources for the capacity addition programme of this magnitude is huge. For this, all efforts have been made and the outlay for the Central Power Sector has been raised from Rs.45,591 crore during the Ninth Plan to Rs.143,399 crore in theTenth Plan, an increase of about more than 200 per cent. To ensure adequate funding of our hydro projects in the Central Sector, the Gross Budgetary Support for the Central Sector for the Tenth Plan has been finalised at Rs. 25,000 crore which is 67 per cent more than the corresponding Ninth Plan figure.

At my specific instruction to give top priority to capacity addition, the Central Electricity Authority and also the senior officers of the Ministry have held detailed discussions with each of the States and its utilities before deciding on the projects to be commissioned in the Tenth Plan. This "bottoms-up" approach will be more successful as the States have given their commitment for successful completion of the projects that have been finalised in consultation with them. The Government has also put in place an intensive monitoring process to review all identified projects quarterly. The State Sector projects, region-wise, are being reviewed separately by the Central Electricity Authority. To ensure early clearance to project proposals, a mechanism for effective co-ordination with the Ministry of Coal and the Ministry of Environment and Forest has been put in place by me.

The thrust given on reforms is also expected to give positive results within the next two to three years which would lead to rationalisation of tariff, lowering of T & D losses, etc. This would encourage the private sector to bring in further investments for capacity addition. There is full political commitment to reforms as is evident by the resolution adopted in the last Chief Ministers/Power Ministers Conference held in March, 2001. This has been further strengthened by the MoUs which have been signed by the Ministry of Power with 21 States.

With all these initiatives taken by the Ministry and with the understanding and support of the people, I am confident that we will be able to achieve the capacity addition target set for the 10th Plan.

Despite this impressive growth in capacity addition, the per capita consumption in India is one of the lowest and is estimated at about 350 units. The Indian per capita consumption for electricity is about one-fourth of the world’s average and the corresponding figures for countries such as China, U. S. A. and U. K. are 750 units, 12,000 units and 5,000 units, respectively. Along with the low level of per capita consumption, the fact that India continues to have peaking shortage of approximately 13 per cent and energy shortage of about 7 per cent is a matter of concern.

India has large deposits of coal, estimated at 70 billion tonnes. It also has an enormous hydro potential, estimated at approximately 84,000 MW at 60 per cent load factor. India has utilised only about 16 per cent of its hydro potential till date and another 7 per cent is under construction. Given the fact that coal is available within the country in abundance, it is natural that 71 per cent of our power generation is through thermal sources. The corresponding ratios for hydro, nuclear and wind are 25 per cent, 2.7 per cent and 1 per cent, respectively.

The growth of installed capacity in India over the successive Plan periods has been as follows:

The capacity addition, by and large, has always lagged behind the targets which had been set before the onset of the Plan period. The only exception being the Seventh Plan where we had achieved 96 per cent of the target. The targets as well as achievements during the Fifth Plan onwards have been as follows:

Targets for the Ninth Plan

Central Sector Private Sector State Sector Total Achievements during the Ninth Plan

Central Sector Private Sector State Sector Total

The Government of India had taken a major policy decision in 1991 to throw open the power sector for private sector investments and for this purpose, the existing electricity laws were amended. This step was taken because it was increasingly realised that, given the quantum of demand for power, it would be impossible for the public sector to raise the required resources on its own. A number of policy measures have been taken thereafter by the Government in order to make the sector more investor-friendly.
Some of the major initiatives are indicated as under:

• 100 per cent FDI permitted on automatic approval route without any upper ceiling.

• Raising limit for requirement of TEC by CEA.

• Power to approve schemes decentralised.

• Competitive bidding made mandatory

• Crisis Resolution Group set up for resolving ‘last mile’ problems.

• Relaxation of 40 per cent cap for debt exposure to financial institutions, etc.

In addition to the above, the Government, in its effort to boost setting up of additional capacity, formulated the Hydro Policy and also the revised Mega Policy in 1998. Other changes were also made with respect to procedures for clearance of hydro projects wherein the three-stage clearance mechanism was put in place in June 2001. This has lowered the gestation time for hydro projects.

The response to the policies of the Government for inviting private capital has been good but not to the extent that was desired or expected. Consequently, since 1992-93, about 6,800 MW of private power has been commissioned, another about 5,000 MW approximately is under execution. One of the primary reasons for non-participation of the private sector has been the poor financial health of the State Electricity Boards. None of the State utilities today are earning a positive rate of return and the overdues of the SEBs/Utilities have crossed Rs. 41,000 crore. The thrust of the Government, at present, is therefore on reforms wherein the primary objective is to improve the financial health of the State Electricity Boards so that they are in a position to pay for the power they purchase from the generating stations. In its drive towards reforms, the Government has created the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in 1998 which has been followed by the setting up of 21 other State Electricity Regulatory Commissions in various States. It is expected that with the setting up of these commissions, tariffs would be rationalised in the long run which would have a salutary effect on the financial viability of the State Electricity Boards.

The Government is separately tackling the problem of reforms through improvements in the distribution sector which holds the key for a successful reforms movement. The implementation of the Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme through which 63 circles have been identified to be developed as ‘centres of excellence’ is a major step in this direction. Since power is a concurrent subject, the Government engages the States in regular discussions and the last such interaction took place during the Chief Ministers’/ Power Ministers’ conference which was organised in March, 2001. During this Conference, it was resolved that power sector reforms would be depoliticised and carried on with more vigour. In its effort to act as a facilitator and catalyst for the power sector reforms, the Ministry of Power has signed 19 Memoranda of Understanding with as many States wherein a time-bound path for reforms has been laid down and in lieu of this, the Central Government would extend assistance to the States by way of enhanced share from Central generating stations, financial assistance under the APDRP scheme, etc. These MoUs are being regularly monitored so that the targets laid down are adhered to by the States. Another major initiative was the one-time settlement of the dues of the SEBs which was recently approved by the Cabinet. This would enable the SEBs to start their functioning on a clean slate. The Government now proposes to make reforms mandatory in the States for which the Electricity Bill, 2001 has been introduced in Parliament. The Bill at present is being scrutinised by the Standing Committee.

While it is clear that we are progressing well on the reforms path, it is no doubt a long drawn process and the benefits are likely to be visible after three to four years. All the same, the trend which has been seen is encouraging and from the tariff orders which have been issued by 12 State Electricity Regulatory Commissions, one can see a positive move towards rationalisation of tariffs. In order to maintain the tempo of investments in the power sector, it is felt that the public sector, both in the Centre and in the States, should take a lead in setting up of power projects since the private sector would be able to make investments only after the reforms programme shows tangible results.

India is a growing economy and the yearly growth rate which has been worked out for the Tenth Plan is about 8-9 per cent per annum. To maintain this rate of growth, the power sector has to grow in the order of at least 10 per cent per annum since otherwise, there will be a supply side bottleneck. The 16th Electric Power Survey has estimated that the energy requirement by the year 2012 would be 975 billion units with a corresponding peak demand of 157,000 MW. In terms of additional capacity which needs to be created by 2012, this works out to more than 100,000 MW during the next two Plan periods to cater to the requirement of installed capacity required by the end of the Eleventh Plan period of 212,000 MW (matches to peak load of 157,000 MW). This, no doubt, is a Herculean task given the resources which have to be invested for setting up of this additional capacity. It has been estimated that the investment required inclusive of the costs for execution of transmission and distribution lines may well reach US $ 200 billion.

For the Tenth Plan, the target of 41,100 MW for new capacity addition has been kept. The break-up between Central, State and Private Sector projects and also between thermal hydro, etc. are as under:

In addition, MNES is to contribute 3,100 MW while 1,020 MW share from Tala Project, Bhutan, is also likely during the Plan period. One major shift which has been adopted for the Tenth Plan is that before finalising the list of projects, detailed discussions have been held with each of the States/Utilities. Their views have been assessed and the projects have been identified with their concurrence. This 'bottoms-up' approach is expected to be more fruitful since the States have given commitment on the implementation of the projects which have been identified. In order to ensure that the tempo of State sector investments in the power sector are maintained, the Minister of Power has addressed individual letters to the Chief Ministers requesting them to enhance the power sector outlay in the State Plans. The performance in respect of capacity addition is expected to be better than what has been achieved in the past since there are Central Sector projects aggregating to almost 11,000 MW which are under execution. Further, another 3,160 MW of Central sector projects are nearing the award for main plant order. In addition to the above, Central sector projects with a cumulative capacity of 8,047 MW are under various stages of approval. In the State sector also, to cut down the gestation time for projects, some projects have been taken up under the negotiated route with BHEL. They are Panipat unit of Haryana, Raichur and Bellary of Karnataka and Suratgarh of Rajasthan.

As mentioned earlier, the performance of the reforms programme in the power sector will play a crucial role in determining the success of the capacity addition programme. In a nutshell, what can be said is that though the initial trend for the reforms programme is encouraging, it would take another three to four years for the benefits to be visible.


NTPC

[Contrarian]

Dude, for us, having a big nuke industry is extremely important. Wait for 2-3 decades when Thorium reactors become commercially viable. Then it will be us who dictate the terms to the NSG.

India has half the worlds thorium reserves

[Spring Onion]

Dude, for us, having a big nuke industry is extremely important. Wait for 2-3 decades when Thorium reactors become commercially viable. Then it will be us who dictate the terms to the NSG.

India has half the worlds thorium reserves

Thats why US is eyeing India for deal

[Contrarian]

Thats why US is eyeing India for deal

I am unable to understand your point. Do explain in detail.

[Spring Onion]

I am unable to understand your point. Do explain in detail.

When i was in India i had a detailed sitting over this aspect. US would like to try get share in this large stock of thorium. (My personal opinion may be im wrong but i feel this)

[nitesh]

That will be interesting, but the way the nuke deal is going seems like dead.

Some info about thorium reserves: Enough for 2500 years.......

The Hindu Business Line : Nuclear negotiations — India has the upper hand
Untitled Document
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

[Contrarian]

---

---

When i was in India i had a detailed sitting over this aspect. US would like to try get share in this large stock of thorium. (My personal opinion may be im wrong but i feel this)

Yeah, in a couple of decades, most nations would have a complete 3 stage nuclear cycle. In the third stage you need Thorium. The demand for thorium at that time should be great. Our dependency on the NSG is basically for Uranium, that will end when the Thorium reactors reach commercial viability. Thereafter, we would be invited to be a part of NSG.

US wouldnt get a share of this stock per say, it would be exported to them like any other country, maybe preferential treatment of some kind depending on the factors then but they wont be comming here to mine their own share or something.

The nuke deal OTOH is much more than just a way to get Uranium, it is a way to end the last of the sanctions against India. We cant import dual use items, and it is SEVERELY hampering all our endeavours in high technology from the ground up to even the space sector.