Low on fuel and no sign of deal, nuclear power plants take a hit

[bananas]

"Peak Uranium" hits India.
Even with 3 reactors down, they don't have enough fuel for the other units.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/288931.html

Front Page

Low on fuel and no sign of deal, nuclear power plants take a hit

Amitabh Sinha
Posted online: Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 0223 hrs

10% dip in generation Capacity factor of 10 of 17 units has gone down as against previous year — Kalpakkam Unit I capacity has fallen from 72% to 36%

NEW DELHI, MARCH 26: With the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement still far from being done, a shortage in fuel supplies has resulted in a majority of nuclear power plants in India showing a decline in their operating capacities compared to last year. This has led to a 10 per cent reduction in overall power generation.

According to information available on the website of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), the capacity factor of ten of the 17 units has gone down in 2007-08 (till February) compared to the previous year. In some cases, like Unit-I in Kalpakkam, the fall in the operating capacity has been drastic, coming down to 36 per cent from 72 per cent last year. Unit-1 in Kakrapar has similarly been operating at only 46 per cent of its capacity as compared to 67 per cent last year.

<snip>

Asked about the decline in total power generation, NPCIL pointed out that three of the units, one each at Narora, Kaiga and Rawatbhatta, have not operated for most of the year because of different maintenance related reasons. The plant at Narora underwent a coolant channel replacement and has already been synchronized back into operation earlier this month. The Kaiga unit is shut down since August last year because of generator repair and replacement and is expected to resume operations within a week.

<snip>

Not surprisingly, the two nuclear plants still running at around 90 per cent of their capacities are the units 1 and 2 at Tarapore which had received emergency fuel supplies from Russia last year. Such supplies are not possible for any other Indian reactor till the nuclear deal is operationalised.

[diane in sf]

1. Hopefully the Indians will dispose of their nuclear waste more carefully than

they do their sewage and plastic bags.

[Kolesar]

9. My landlady said the men are peeing in the streets

She went over there to visit family and then she died. After she came back

[diane in sf]

10. It's not the peeing in the streets, it's untreated sewage (shit) everywhere, sewage borne

illness is rampant there and kills a lot of people every year and makes a lot more people sick and unproductive at any point in time. The climate is too arid to wantonly use flush toilets. The sewage treatment there was really designed by the finest minds of the 14th century.

India is a wonderful place, but my objection to it is that so many people's lives are wasted by huge inequities. First, 40% of the country is kept in grinding poverty--the kind where people are brain-damaged from malnutrition. The Hindu majority wastes women's productivity as well--women are supposed to be in the house and cooking--not in the work force. This is especially true in the poorer, more conservative places.

The thing that horrifies me most about India is how many people are just trapped in hideous poverty--sort of like what Bushco is trying to do here. This is why I donate to Grameen and similar loan programs.

In the 90's I spent 6 months traveling all around India while working and living pretty cheap, which is why I'm familiar with some of their issues.

[Kolesar]

11. I would think that virus or bacteria "plagues" would kill people

One of the cases that clean water activists make for cleaning up septic tank sewage systems is that the microbes can cause kidney disease. I am pretty sure that our dog got a bladder infection from a contaminated stream in our neighborhood. She was later diagnosed with kidney disease that eventually killed her.

[diane in sf]

13. Very sorry about your dog and landlady! One of the biggest advances in longevity

here and in Europe came from cleaning up people's water supplies and separating them from sewage. One of the others around the world has been controlling mosquitoes.

[gear_head]

2. is $73 a pound Uranium, unreasonable?

(U3O8)

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

EDit, something not working right.

you-three-oh-eight

[bananas]

3. Apparently so. nt

[jpak]

4. This is impossible - the NEI told us this can't happen.

The supply of uranium is infinite.

LOL

[Dogmudgeon]

5. "Peak uranium"? Not quite. It's lack of mill capacity.

It says so right in the article.

Without mentioning anything about the fuel shortage, the official said the total power generation had been consistent with fuel availability through the year. However, NPCIL had, in an earlier communication to The Indian Express, pointed out that there are five functional uranium mines but just one processing mill working in Jadugudda in Jharkhand. Supplies from this one mill were not sufficient to run all the nuclear plants at their full capacities, it had said, adding that once another processing mill in Jharkhand starts operations shortly, the situation would improve significantly.

(In the OP source; emphasis mine.)

The price af uranium has declined quite a bit in the last year. The immanent death of the uranium industry the anti-nuclearists were gloating over last year seems to have been one of the blips typical of the development of any natural resource. At 3-15 PPM throughout the crust alone, there is still only enough left for seven or eight million years.

--p!

[bananas]

6. They've had this lack of mill capacity for a couple of years - what's the hold up?

Is it just bad planning?
Here's how "Peak Oilers" explain a lack of oil refineries:

"The real reason no new refineries have been built for almost 30 years is simple: any oil company that wants to stay profitable isn't going to invest in new refineries when they know there is going to be less and less oil to refine."
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

:popcorn:

edit to add: Or maybe they were planning to buy it from Australia?
Oops! Australia won't sell it to them because they haven't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty!
Imagine that - their policy on nuclear weapons is directly affecting the operation of their nuclear reactors.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. What's the hold up -- in India

Crushing poverty?

But enjoy your popcorn. People in India are seldom able to afford it if it's available at all.

--p!

[bananas]

8. And signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty would alleviate that

Once they sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is a lot of international assistance available.
That's what the NPT and IAEA are there for - to help countries develop peaceful nuclear energy.
But India won't do it.
India wants more nuclear weapons.
They could alleviate some of their "crushing poverty" by signing the NPT.
If they sign the NPT, they don't have to build expensive milling equipment,
they can buy cheap uranium from Australia.
They could sign the NPT today, and alleviate some of their "crushing poverty" right away.
Why won't India sign the NPT?
Because they want more nuclear weapons.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. "Submit or Die" seldom works.

I'm surprised that you would advocate a fundamentally Stalinistic solution -- poverty and starvation for millions of people as a punishment for political disobedience -- when more democratic and humane recourse exists.

The Indians are paranoid, with some good reasons. First, take a look at their situation with Pakistan, and the volatility of its government -- and how well the West keeps its promises to Third World nations.

Then, too, the West is willing to inflict pain at the suggestion of its intellectual anti-nuclear class.

I'm also surprised that you are now supporting "help(ing) countries develop peaceful nuclear energy."

But this entire issue, the one you posted about, is that you claimed there was a peak uranium crisis in India, when it was really a crisis of milling capacity. Generally speaking, when demand outstrips processed/manufactured supply as opposed to raw supply, that means that the resource is in more demand, not less available.

The poverty suffered by the poor of India ought not be intensified to pursue a political agenda. That's something Cheney would do, isn't it?

--p!

[DCKit]

14. For Dick, assuring continued poverty is an end in itself.

Your example is invalid.

[bananas]

15. Wow - you think the IAEA is a Stalinist organization?

You're comparing El Baradei to Josef Stalin?
That's just sick.