02-19-2011, 01:36 PM
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-commen...-games-528
One thing I do not understand about BK's article:
Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost.
My understanding is that the full capacity of the reactor cannot be used in low burn up mode because of speed of refuelling, etc. But the reactor itself may be run at lower power and part of this lower power can be used in this mode. If Arunji's 10% estimate is correct, using 10% of the power available in the 8 reactors in this mode will itself ensure we get more or less what we need- provided we sustain it and use all our reprocessing capacity to reprocess this only.
The economic cost is lower power generation, and these reactors in this mode wont be operating profitably from the financial point of view ( for NPCIL, say). Any other cost to this ? But economic cost should not be a deterrent here.
Should we take the message that transparency in the build-up is necessary for credibility rather than take everything in this article literally ?
Another thing I did not understand: BK still insists that even currently (with our puny deterrent), the response to a TSP first strike will obliterate TSP as a nation. How can a few tens of wpns cause TSP to stop functioning ?
One thing I do not understand about BK's article:
Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost.
My understanding is that the full capacity of the reactor cannot be used in low burn up mode because of speed of refuelling, etc. But the reactor itself may be run at lower power and part of this lower power can be used in this mode. If Arunji's 10% estimate is correct, using 10% of the power available in the 8 reactors in this mode will itself ensure we get more or less what we need- provided we sustain it and use all our reprocessing capacity to reprocess this only.
The economic cost is lower power generation, and these reactors in this mode wont be operating profitably from the financial point of view ( for NPCIL, say). Any other cost to this ? But economic cost should not be a deterrent here.
Should we take the message that transparency in the build-up is necessary for credibility rather than take everything in this article literally ?
Another thing I did not understand: BK still insists that even currently (with our puny deterrent), the response to a TSP first strike will obliterate TSP as a nation. How can a few tens of wpns cause TSP to stop functioning ?