[ads11]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Easy. Nuclear.

And the govt is doing that. Plan is to have some 18 new power plants in the next 8-10 years which will vastly reduce power gap. Once that happens, EVs will be a no brainer in the country.

I'm glad that India isn't turning away from nuclear. I firmly believe that you're going to need it for base load supply and if India can get thorium based fast breeder reactors to work, you'd really unlock a lot using readily available domestic supplies. However nuclear does have a long lead in time to bring online, not to mention the admittedly very high CAPEX which impacts the unit costs of nuclear electricity.

I still think in India there's plenty of room for the low hanging fruit of renewables in terms of solar and wind. In terms of the latter, there's seemingly decent potential along either seaboard within the EEZ to have offshore wind farm zones. Main issue is the high interest rates have kneecapped that sector globally a bit. But that's where the state can come in because longer term it's in the national interest to electrify and then clean up the supply.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Easy. Nuclear.

And the govt is doing that. Plan is to have some 18 new power plants in the next 8-10 years which will vastly reduce power gap. Once that happens, EVs will be a no brainer in the country.

When a nuclear plant in Kaiga was proposed, I took part in the protests. It resulted in the destruction of thousands of hectares of delicate forest in the western ghat region. Now if they need to build more nuclear plants to feed the EVs, better they find more Eco-friendly route.
BTW there are reports of radiation affecting the Kaiga region. Not everything gets reported. If making EVs viable involves more nuclear plants, I would be happy to keep my ICE cars.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Guna

If making EVs viable involves more nuclear plants, I would be happy to keep my ICE cars.

Even I am against Nuclear plants, they are costly, takes an average of 10 years to build, they cannot compete with Solar +wind+ Battery storage. REs can be commissioned in phases as we build along.

I do not like to live in a 75km radius of a nuclear plant, people don't have such issues with RE. Unfortunately there is a proposed nuclear plant 60km near to our home in Vizag.

I believe by switching to more energy effecient appliances like BLDC Fans, Heat pumps, induction cooking we can entirely avoid adding new energy capacity.

Having said that, India being a developing country we need to add new energy capacity(nuclear or RE) even if EVs are not in the equation.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I do not like to live in a 75km radius of a nuclear plant, people don't have such issues with RE. Unfortunately there is a proposed nuclear plant 60km near to our home in Vizag.

Hi, SKC! I am from Y'zag too and I heard that N-plant project is shelved. You sure it's happening?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in the wake of Chernobyl mishap, Germans stripped down/moth-balled their N-plants and now paid a heavy price for being dependent on Russia for their energy needs. Ukraine war affected Germany badly. I'm neither for nor against N-plants but it may see revival in Western Europe, given their energy needs.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Hi, SKC! I am from Y'zag too and I heard that N-plant project is shelved. You sure it's happening?

I saw Kovvada mentioned in the upcoming nuclear plants.

Why is there so much delay in implementing the nuclear power projects at Jaitapur in Maharashtra and Kovvada in Andhra Pradesh, where the French and the Americans were to build reactors? Are they insisting they will not pay damages if there are accidents?

Discussions with the EDF [of France] and Westinghouse [of the U.S.] on technical issues for Jaitapur and Kovvada are in progress.

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sc...le67751083.ece

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in the wake of Chernobyl mishap, Germans stripped down/moth-balled their N-plants and now paid a heavy price for being dependent on Russia for their energy needs. Ukraine war affected Germany badly. I'm neither for nor against N-plants but it may see revival in Western Europe, given their energy needs.

It is increasingly difficult for nuclear to compete with RE prices.

Germany faced some issues when they closed nuclear plants after Fukushima, it is also pointed out recently in leaked documents where someone deliberately closed nuclear plants without a proper scientific study.

As it stands today, the power generation from coal + gas in Germany is at its lowest( see below graph). As per COP agreements, RE should triple by 2030, so RE will increase from current 267Twh to ~800Twh by 2030, which means Germany will not depend on Nuclear or Coal or Gas by 2030.

Recently I read that the French had to shutdown 5 nuclear plants as they have excess cheap RE in the grid.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Germany faced some issues when they closed nuclear plants after Fukushima,

My bad. You're right. It was Fukushima which prompted Germans to do what they did. N-plants can't compete with RE on cost front but they beat coal-fired plants, I am sure. As for RE, I wonder what stopped world to adopt RE in bigger grander scale than it has? Could oil lobby be behind that, too, by influencing politicians not to go all out on RE?

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

My bad. You're right. It was Fukushima which prompted Germans to do what they did. N-plants can't compete with RE on cost front but they beat coal-fired plants, I am sure. As for RE, I wonder what stopped world to adopt RE in bigger grander scale than it has? Could oil lobby be behind that, too, by influencing politicians not to go all out on RE?

I think the atomic bomb followed by Chernobyl and Three miles Island had unfortunately killed the case for N-plants. Not just public opinion but it also affects the transfer of tech.
By far Nuclear is one of the cleanest of all technologies around clearly better than coal and often even better than Big hydro powered projects. And India has a large thorium deposit.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

My bad. You're right. It was Fukushima which prompted Germans to do what they did. N-plants can't compete with RE on cost front but they beat coal-fired plants, I am sure. As for RE, I wonder what stopped world to adopt RE in bigger grander scale than it has? Could oil lobby be behind that, too, by influencing politicians not to go all out on RE?

I think Nuclear plants cannot beat coal fired plants in price per kwh, one reason is to build Nuclear plants the cost escalation is huge, the time to build sometimes takes multiple decades. There are huge govt subsidies involved, tax payers need to keep paying 100s of years to store and protect the waste

RE became price parity with coal just around 2015-2017, offcourse some people will say oh! solar panels invented in 1960s.

Now Solar+wind+Battery storage is cheaper than coal. It's very difficult to compete with RE, even the fossil and Nuclear lobby cannot stop it now.

All countries have committed to triple their RE generation by 2030, so in 6 years we are going to triple the generation of what we took several years to achieve.

Just like RE, EVs will be price parity in couple of years if not already, they add value to each other.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I do not like to live in a 75km radius of a nuclear plant, people don't have such issues with RE.

I wish this were true but you'd be surprised how you get opposition to wind (especially onshore but offshore too) and geothermal projects. I say this having worked in offshore wind and now working in geothermal. It's amazing how universal the power of NIMBYism is.

I believe by switching to more energy effecient appliances like BLDC Fans, Heat pumps, induction cooking we can entirely avoid adding new energy capacity.

Absolutely, I think increasing efficiencies wherever we can is mandatory. We shouldn't drop the ball on it but I think despite making those efficiencies, we'll still be fighting against a raising ceiling for overall demand, so these efforts have to go in tandem with bringing new sources on stream (this includes not just the replacement of existing non RE sources but new capacity too). So in that regard I don't think we can outright reject nuclear from the mix.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Germany faced some issues when they closed nuclear plants after Fukushima, it is also pointed out recently in leaked documents where someone deliberately closed nuclear plants without a proper scientific study.

The anti nuclear stance in Germany is a particularly distinct one because for numerous reasons, this one issue has become somewhat detached from facts and become enormously emotive for large sections of the populace. Make no mistake though, the decision to suddenly dump nuclear has straightjacketed Germany in more ways than one in the aftermath. Without access to stable long term contract prices for industrial users you now have Germany facing the alarming situation where their vaunted industries could move their units outside Germany.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I think Nuclear plants cannot beat coal fired plants in price per kwh, one reason is to build Nuclear plants the cost escalation is huge, the time to build sometimes takes multiple decades. There are huge govt subsidies involved, tax payers need to keep paying 100s of years to store and protect the waste

There's no denying nuclear has all these drawbacks but I don't think it's as cut and dry. France did show that if you settled on a single design and essentially scaled it, eventually you could bring costs down drastically through the establishment of a large scale industry behind the sector. Obviously having canned large parts of that industry in the aftermath of Chernobyl and the injection of German style anti nuclear rhetoric in the French political discourse, they're staring at the long end of a bill in terms of needing to replace those aging reactors. I think the best way of understanding the cost of nuclear reactors is if we think of them as big capital ships, like an aircraft carrier. They're never made in the sort of huge numbers where you can iron out niggles over the course of a deep production run, therefore essentially they're prototypes that are pressed into operational use and thus have all the accompanying issues one'd expect. Similar for these large reactors like Hinkley Point C. They're massive projects, with huge output, but equally enormous costs. Perhaps then there's merit to the arguments made by those developing Small Modular Reactors. The modular nature tackles both the set up costs due to the ability to 'mass produce', whilst also allowing for quicker set up. This in turn helps reduce the long lead time for nuclear projects to break even (a Huge huge factor in why I don't think private nuclear projects work. No way the private sector would willingly sink money in with such a large time to ROI when traditional thermal plants and RE offer relatively quicker ROI. Hence nuclear projects are often national projects). Finally SMRs obviate the need for the absolutely gobsmacking scale of remediation and shielding you require for the behemoth reactors, so that too brings down cost and time. Personally I've always been a bit surprised none of the big defence contractors haven't spun off a division offering their nuclear submarine reactors in some containerised form for civilian use (I know there's a sprinkling of proposals to this effect out there now).

Again, I should emphasise, I absolutely believe we need more RE in wind and solar. But I don't entirely agree with batteries being the means to circumvent the glaring Achilles heel of RE, their intermittency. But there's a myriad interesting proposals being pursued to store that excess supply for re-release at peak grid load times, so it's evident a solution will manifest. As the German eg shows, ultimately stable supply on long term contract prices are crucial to a nations industrial base and I'm not quite sure RE has that figured yet. All that being said I absolutely encourage folks to get behind the sector, there's so much going on now. It's a super exciting time.

[SKC-auto]

This is what I was trying to say.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-checkout=true

Originally Posted by ads11

But I don't entirely agree with batteries being the means to circumvent the glaring Achilles heel of RE, their intermittency.

Yes, intermittency is a problem, and we need massive scale of battery deployment. I am not sure how many years it will take for such a transition, what we need to do in the transition years is also a question.

By one estimate Australia needs 120GWh(1.2M model S batteries) of storage to cover 5 hours of intermittency. It may look fancy today but will be a reality tomorrow.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Yes, intermittency is a problem, and we need massive scale of battery deployment. I am not sure how many years it will take for such a transition, what we need to do in the transition years is also a question.

By one estimate Australia needs 120GWh(1.2M model S batteries) of storage to cover 5 hours of intermittency. It may look fancy today but will be a reality tomorrow.

Yeah I still think using multiple batteries in giant scale packs is a silly use of those resources. Where I think 'batteries' make sense is in a panoply of storage solutions where that energy is stored by different means. Be it gravitational, compressed air, thermally (in flooded mines), hydrogen, etc. (all to varying degrees of healthy skepticism). For the batteries though to me it feels like those resources are much better utilised elsewhere, vehicles and what not, than at grid scale. Having said that, if there was a way to utilise the batteries in parked EVs to help pad out those demand variability in the grid, I think there's room to explore. It's obviously far trickier a way to resolve the issue but I think it's a far more effective use of those resources than a static battery station. And I say this regardless of if there's breakthroughs in solid state batteries or non REE based chemistry based batteries.

This is what I was trying to say.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-checkout=true

It was paywalled but I think I know the gist. What I will say is that there's levels of horse trading going on with pitching European grid scale electricity generation, LCOE, usage and other such parameters, obviously to different ends. I don't doubt that the nuclear sector has faced headwinds but I also think that the obvious benefits it offers gets lost amidst somewhat inflated and emotive discourse around the issues it does indeed have. Or to put it another way, I think a philosophical element gets added to the nuclear discourse that adds a complication to discussions that you don't quite have when it comes to other REs.

Ultimately though we're both arguing for the same thing: a cleaner grid, just slight differences over dealing with how to solve the baseload issue.