Featured K-2 nuclear power plant connected to grid

[[--Leo--]]

I dont know enough about these things but Pakistan has nuclear capable warheads developed inhouse so claiming that pak has zero research is IMO not true. Then theres a program of development of a nuclear reactor for submarine. Pak might not have enough knowledge to develop a 1000MW inhouse reactor but still might develop a small 100MW reactor.

Pakistan might have done some research in 70's and 80's now they have stopped. Now that technology is out dated. My question is Pakistan is buying very expensive reactors without ToT i wonder why?

Not in this case. The spent fuel will be stored per IAEA safeguards from what I understand.

Separation of the civilian and military nuclear programs and complying with IAEA safeguards and best practices is necessary for Pakistan to continue making a case for NSG membership and have continued international cooperation in the civilian nuclear power sector.

I believe even the Chinese reactor is based on a French design (with improvements).

Pakistan's limited resources have been directed into the nuclear weapons program.

But why buying so expensive ?Two reactor for 9.5 billion dollars are they crazy or what in that amount they could build at least 3 of them without any ToT and thing is technology is limited to military no input/exploration allowed for civilian like Russia. We must learn from China and America every involvement of civilian is there and they can get benefit from it for civilian uses.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Congratulations.

Don't fret about the cost. Just be glad that we have a lower cost alternative to Furnace Oil, the darling of folks at the Ministry of Petroleum etc... The investment decision was made when nobody would have invested in Pakistan due to risk. WoT's fallout will keep hurting us for the next two decades or until these investment decisions cease to matter much.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But why buying so expensive ?Two reactor for 9.5 billion dollars are they crazy or what in that amount they could build at least 3 of them without any ToT and thing is technology is limited to military no input/exploration allowed for civilian like Russia. We must learn from China and America every involvement of civilian is there and they can get benefit from it for civilian uses.

The UAE's reactor complex is costing them an estimated $24 billion for 4 reactors of 1345MW.

Per reactor cost of $6 billion, around the same as Pakistan's when you account for the slightly lower power output on the Pakistani reactors.

China was also the ONLY country willing to provide civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan, arguing that China-Pakistan cooperation was grandfathered in prior to NSG restrictions on States that were not signatories to the NPT. This was a geo-political move by China and Pakistan to bypass US influence in the NSG preventing Pakistan from getting ANY foreign support for its civilian nuclear program without signing the NPT (the US used its influence to get India an exemption). So you can't look at the value of these NPP's solely through the cost aspect.

u need a reactor to get fuel for weapons

Khushab Complex.

 

[niaz]

you can use the reactor fuel for weapons right?

The answer to your question is both yes & no. The ‘Yes being the fact that there would always be some Plutonium (Pu-239) produced when the neutron is absorbed by the Uranium -238. Normally it takes about 3 years for the fissile portion of fuel (U-235) to be spent. The spent Uranium fuel, when processed would yield about 2 to 3% of Pu-239 which can be used to make an atomic bomb.

The ‘ No’ is the fact that reactors specifically designed to make convert U-238 to Pu-239 are called Fast Neutron Reactors and would produce more Pu-239 than the U-235 consumed as fuel. Such a reactor's fuel can be processed after as little as 3 months. Normal nuclear power reactors including the K-2 do not come under this classification.

The $9-billion price tag for the nameplate capacity of 2,200 MW which comes to $4.1-million per MW is indeed very high and nearly 4 times the cost of a gas-fed power plant. Since the fuel cost of a nuclear power plant is very low compared to fossil fuel, the ‘Levelized Cost’ over 25 to 30 years of operation would probably make it more competitive. However, to the best of my knowledge nuclear power even at the Levelized cost ( LCOE) is probably more expensive than a state-of-the-art gas-fed plant assuming that gas/petroleum prices would not again rebound to $100/ bbl oil equivalent primarily because the clean up after the plant is past its operating life, is expensive & onerous.

However, I would still prefer nuclear power over gas/coal-based power because nuclear power plants do not produce any atmospheric polluting emissions.

 

[Last starfighter]

Fantastic news. At 1100MW, that is a serious beast.

Wonder if there are any strategic aspects here as well apart from just electricity production.

Bitcoin mining

 

[razgriz19]

We're refurbishing our 4 units at the cost $12.8 billion CAD
This just includes replacement of certain parts, not the whole facility.

Darlington's First Refurbishment: A Model for Nuclear Construction

The successful refurbishment of Unit 2 at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station marked a pivotal milestone for Ontario Power Generation’s 10-year, C$12.8 billion overhaul of the plant’s four CANDU

www.powermag.com

.

The answer to your question is both yes & no. The ‘Yes being the fact that there would always be some Plutonium (Pu-239) produced when the neutron is absorbed by the Uranium -238. Normally it takes about 3 years for the fissile portion of fuel (U-235) to be spent. The spent Uranium fuel, when processed would yield about 2 to 3% of Pu-239 which can be used to make an atomic bomb.

The ‘ No’ is the fact that reactors specifically designed to make convert U-238 to Pu-239 are called Fast Neutron Reactors and would produce more Pu-239 than the U-235 consumed as fuel. Such a reactor's fuel can be processed after as little as 3 months. Normal nuclear power reactors including the K-2 do not come under this classification.

The $9-billion price tag for the nameplate capacity of 2,200 MW which comes to $4.1-million per MW is indeed very high and nearly 4 times the cost of a gas-fed power plant. Since the fuel cost of a nuclear power plant is very low compared to fossil fuel, the ‘Levelized Cost’ over 25 to 30 years of operation would probably make it more competitive. However, to the best of my knowledge nuclear power even at the Levelized cost ( LCOE) is probably more expensive than a state-of-the-art gas-fed plant assuming that gas/petroleum prices would not again rebound to $100/ bbl oil equivalent primarily because the clean up after the plant is past its operating life, is expensive & onerous.

However, I would still prefer nuclear power over gas/coal-based power because nuclear power plants do not produce any atmospheric polluting emissions.

 

[vi-va]

The answer to your question is both yes & no. The ‘Yes being the fact that there would always be some Plutonium (Pu-239) produced when the neutron is absorbed by the Uranium -238. Normally it takes about 3 years for the fissile portion of fuel (U-235) to be spent. The spent Uranium fuel, when processed would yield about 2 to 3% of Pu-239 which can be used to make an atomic bomb.

The ‘ No’ is the fact that reactors specifically designed to make convert U-238 to Pu-239 are called Fast Neutron Reactors and would produce more Pu-239 than the U-235 consumed as fuel. Such a reactor's fuel can be processed after as little as 3 months. Normal nuclear power reactors including the K-2 do not come under this classification.

The $9-billion price tag for the nameplate capacity of 2,200 MW which comes to $4.1-million per MW is indeed very high and nearly 4 times the cost of a gas-fed power plant. Since the fuel cost of a nuclear power plant is very low compared to fossil fuel, the ‘Levelized Cost’ over 25 to 30 years of operation would probably make it more competitive. However, to the best of my knowledge nuclear power even at the Levelized cost ( LCOE) is probably more expensive than a state-of-the-art gas-fed plant assuming that gas/petroleum prices would not again rebound to $100/ bbl oil equivalent primarily because the clean up after the plant is past its operating life, is expensive & onerous.

However, I would still prefer nuclear power over gas/coal-based power because nuclear power plants do not produce any atmospheric polluting emissions.

One important note, Pakistan need to import natural gas from ME, which give your partner/enemy a leverage over Pakistan on foreign/domestic policy, or even blackmail, threaten supply cut during emergency.

Gas storage is very costly and vulnerable, while Uranium is the opposite, very compact, the most energy intensive fuel on earth.

 

[Michel Niesten]

What Pakistan (and others) should do is invest in the future of nuclear energy. Thorium based power plants have much less nuclear waste as the uranium based power plants.
but of course it’s a great achievement to build (though expensive) nuclear powerplants. In Europe groups like Greenpeace have a very strong anti-nuclear powerplant lobby. So I am happy to read Pakistan is not listening to those groups and builds new nuclear powerplants. The only viable option for producing a steady flow of green energy without carbon emissions

 

[ziaulislam]

Pakistan might have done some research in 70's and 80's now they have stopped. Now that technology is out dated. My question is Pakistan is buying very expensive reactors without ToT i wonder why?


But why buying so expensive ?Two reactor for 9.5 billion dollars are they crazy or what in that amount they could build at least 3 of them without any ToT and thing is technology is limited to military no input/exploration allowed for civilian like Russia. We must learn from China and America every involvement of civilian is there and they can get benefit from it for civilian uses.

First two reactors wont give u tot
Second we dont have acess to market
Third we arent paying a penny upfront its all under long term concessational loan

One important note, Pakistan need to import natural gas from ME, which give your partner/enemy a leverage over Pakistan on foreign/domestic policy, or even blackmail, threaten supply cut during emergency.

Gas storage is very costly and vulnerable, while Uranium is the opposite, very compact, the most energy intensive fuel on earth.

Future is hydrogen

Use solar energy to produce hydrogen and then use

Though solar is cheapest source of power the hydrogen may still be expensive as compared to dirt cheap gas (though at time it will be cheaper, market fluctuates a lot in LNG)but atleast u get independence

solar+hydrogen will still be cheaper then nuclear and existent gas turbines can be switched to it

Nuclear has a role if there is enough investment into it which isnt happening

Congratulations.

Don't fret about the cost. Just be glad that we have a lower cost alternative to Furnace Oil, the darling of folks at the Ministry of Petroleum etc... The investment decision was made when nobody would have invested in Pakistan due to risk. WoT's fallout will keep hurting us for the next two decades or until these investment decisions cease to matter much.

2 plants at 9.5b$ isnt expensive

It was good deal

Better then CPEC coal projects which was real sucker punch

PMLN govt should have setup only govt based LNG if it could nt get a ROR of 12% deal rather then offering 20%

Now the LNG plants are even cheaper then those CPEC coal projects

 

[Abdulrehman 2978]

An Expensive one. Pakistan have zero research in this field we shouldn't depend on Chinese tech all the time Anyways Great news

Yea Pakistan doesn't have nuclear knowledge that's why we were able to build nuclear bombs
We were able to create our own fuel for KANUPP after Canada banned it. We didn't have knowledge that's why we were able to build plutonium enrichment reactors. We didn't have knowledge that's why we were able to build 4 nuclear reactors at chashma. Definitely don't have knowledge...

 

[Dalit]

Can America offer this to Pakistan? Not even 10% of it.

Long live China Pakistan relations.

An Expensive one. Pakistan have zero research in this field we shouldn't depend on Chinese tech all the time Anyways Great news

You don't know what you are talking about. Pakistan is a nuclear power with nuclear know how. Surely nuclear reactors for civilian purpose requires additional knowledge, but we are not far off. LOL at expensive. What a pessimistic view. Nuclear reactors repay their worth in gold.

I am sure when Pakistan became a nuclear power you must have said a very expensive decision.

 

[FuturePAF]

Fantastic news. At 1100MW, that is a serious beast.

Wonder if there are any strategic aspects here as well apart from just electricity production.

Percentage of our electricity from a carbon neutral source improves our standing in the world when it comes to climate change. (Which is also why I suspect they shutdown the coal fire plant/s?) We will probably leverage this to seek some international cooperation under the Paris climate accords, possibly selling carbon credits for hard cash, or preferential trade deals. Let’s see if the government can work this into our diplomatic strategy consider how important the major economies keep claiming climate change is.

Considering the Pakistani population is 2.5% of global population, but only emits 0.5% of global emissions (before this power plant came online and before the coal fire plants were shutdown), it has a strong case for redress, and this carbon neutral energy source makes its case even stronger.

by comparison, India makes up 17.5% of the global population and emits over 7% of global emissions; twice as much as Pakistan per capita

Pakistan CO2 Emissions - Worldometer

Current and historical CO2 Emissions of Pakistan

www.worldometers.info

p.s. at the very least, Pakistan could be compensated to pay off the IPP and end the circular debt problem, and get FDI into more dams and canals (which is also carbon neutral form of electricity generation, prevent climate refugees due to water scarcity, ensures food security, and minimizes damage from floods, as well as increases arable land to employ more people and grow the tax base)

But the Pakistani government needs to negotiate hard, and not sell its self short. Not increasing emissions means not fully industrializing. Pakistan needs to make it clear that it will industrialize, and if the global community wants to help it will do so with less emissions, otherwise it will have to fire up those coal fire plants.

 

[N.Siddiqui]

Can America offer this to Pakistan? Not even 10% of it.

Long live China Pakistan relations.


You don't know what you are talking about. Pakistan is a nuclear power with nuclear know how. Surely nuclear reactors for civilian purpose requires additional knowledge, but we are not far off. LOL at expensive. What a pessimistic view. Nuclear reactors repay their worth in gold.

I am sure when Pakistan became a nuclear power you must have said a very expensive decision.

PAEC is running efficiently all the nuclear power plants for the last 40 years, Pakistan has the technical know how and expertise in the nuclear field, civilian and military included.

 

[xyx007]

this is a great gift of china to pakistan on 23 March .

 

[Dalit]

PAEC is running efficiently all the nuclear power plants for the last 40 years, Pakistan has the technical know how and expertise in the nuclear field, civilian and military included.

Thanks for clarifying this. Alhamdulillah and mashAllah to that.