PAEC aims to install 8,800MW of nuclear power capacity by 2030

[muse]

We have just 25% of Pakistan's land cultivated, huge potential there if we can have more water, especially Baluchistan.

Irony -- But I know you mean the infrastructure to manage water as a precious national economic resource

Oh, one more thing - these alternates are not cheaper, they are in fact more expensive

 

[Markus]

One Question for anyone who has knowledge on nuclear plants:-

Does it make more sense to have less number of plants running at a higher efficiency or have more number of plants running at a lower efficiency?

What efforts need to be undertaken to successfully run the plant at a higher efficiency ?

This question is in general and is not directed to Pakistan's nuclear plants, so do not jump the gun.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Irony -- But I know you mean the infrastructure to manage water as a precious national economic resource

Oh, one more thing - these alternates are not cheaper, they are in fact more expensive

Installation would be expensive, not the running costs.

Plus as i said, whatever is more effective and efficient, if not all.

I believe there is a solar power plant in US, around Las Vegas, which uses unique system, its cost effective as the method is very simple, here read this: Full steam ahead for Nevada solar project - CNET News

Good read about the tech i am talking about: Concentrated solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the per kW cost of these solar tech is nearly equal or less compared to what the IPPs & RPPs are costing us, with fuel being free in the solar sector, while in our current IPPs & RPPs we are using up our precious resource of gas to run them or furnace oil, which again takes away foreign reserves from us.

Solar power with time and improvement in technology, will improve and the cost per kW will be further reduced.

One major thing is that we are not gonna be using our gas or foreign reserves, thus in the long run, these solar power plants are gonna be more economical. As we have plenty of area available where plenty of direct sunlight can be received, thus maximum efficiency.

 

[TaimiKhan]

One Question for anyone who has knowledge on nuclear plants:-

Does it make more sense to have less number of plants running at a higher efficiency or have more number of plants running at a lower efficiency?

What efforts need to be undertaken to successfully run the plant at a higher efficiency ?

This question is in general and is not directed to Pakistan's nuclear plants, so do not jump the gun.

Well better to have less number of plants with higher output. As it will reduce the fixed costs, resulting in more cheaper electricity from one plant.

As time goes by, new tech is being rolled out, through which more electricity can be generated with same usage of fuel.

Best option nowadays are the 3rd generation of the nuclear plants, which can be more efficient with less number of plants.

" A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs. "

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[somebozo]

How about we invite forigen companies to operate plants on BOT basis. Since these are for pure civilian use we dont want to have any sort of millitary interferance...they are free to monitor and safeguard it all they want as well ship out the waste plotonium. Our core demand is energy and energy shall we get..

what would be the reaction of western countries over this?

Best option nowadays are the 3rd generation of the nuclear plants, which can be more efficient with less number of plants.

China has already developed its 4th gen reactor in collaboration with WestingHouse.4th are more efficient and simpler to manage and employ a multi core design giving upto to 1gW in a single reactor package.

 

[justanobserver]

^^
You're assuming just a single reactor in a plant, infact with multiple 3rd gen reactors you can have a single plant generating 10GW (not uncommon)

 

[Markus]

Well better to have less number of plants with higher output. As it will reduce the fixed costs, resulting in more cheaper electricity from one plant.

As time goes by, new tech is being rolled out, through which more electricity can be generated with same usage of fuel.

Best option nowadays are the 3rd generation of the nuclear plants, which can be more efficient with less number of plants.

" A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs. "

Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I believe it requires special efforts on learning as to how operate a plant at its maximum efficiency, takes time, comes thru experience.

 

[TaimiKhan]

But I believe it requires special efforts on learning as to how operate a plant at its maximum efficiency, takes time, comes thru experience.

Well that is what these 3rd gen plants are offering.

Do read the link i gave, these are more or like the 2nd gen plants, but with better efficiency and effectiveness covering all the sectors of the nuclear plant, which off course they have learned through experience.

Plus,individual users / countries, with their own experience can take steps which can result in effectiveness and efficiency of the older plants, but these 3rd gen plants are something totally new.

 

[TaimiKhan]

^^
You're assuming just a single reactor in a plant, infact with multiple 3rd gen reactors you can have a single plant generating 10GW (not uncommon)

Well it is a good option, but still each reactor may need its own human resource, but still fixed costs may be kept lower.

But another problem arises is, that by having such a huge power generation plant at one location, would require very lengthy power lines for transportation, which again creates problem.

Thus better solution, to have multi power plants at multi locationa with 2-3 nuclear reactors in one complex, so that distances are reduced, which will result in less line losses and expenditures and other problems.

 

[justanobserver]

^
Take a gaze at this monster

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant

Reactors active : 7 (8,212 MW)

 

[TaimiKhan]

^
Take a gaze at this monster

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant

Reactors active : 7 (8,212 MW)

Huge, and these all are the 3rd gen nuke plants.

Similarly, in Pakistan Chasma nuclear complex would be in future consisting of about 4 nuclear reactors, though their output would be much less, in total something like 1250-1280MW capacity. May get a 5th reactor of 1000MW also.

Similarly at Karachi, plans are for 2 1000MW plants at one location.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

2030? lol what a joke

Should be with in next 3 years

 

[Markus]

2030? lol what a joke

No, its not a joke, several feasibility studies need to be undertaken before construction can start, all this activity take up a lot of time.

Should be with in next 3 years

3 years!!!

Now thats what is a JOKE.

 

[somebozo]

^^
You're assuming just a single reactor in a plant, infact with multiple 3rd gen reactors you can have a single plant generating 10GW (not uncommon)

But they are still "multiple 3rd reactors" running next to each other. This topology is different than multi-core reactors concept in 4th gen.

Think of mutiple processors vs single quad core processor..both are conceptually same but characterstics, output, efficiency vastly differ.

 

[su-47]

Because they are cheaper?

Not just that. They are more reliable, and renewable. Nuclear plants can have accidents. Look at Chernobyl. God forbid, should that happen again, it can leave a vast area uninhabitable. The economic damage will be tremendous, since fallout can affect a very large area. But i have yet to hear of a solar plant or wind farm causing any form of damage.

Secondly, there is 100% secure supply. Nuclear fuel can be blocked with sanctions, turning the power plants into nothing more than large ornamental statues. But no one can block your share of wind or sunshine. So unless the plants themselves are destroyed, you get uninterrupted power, and NO SANCTIONS can stop the supply.

Lastly, they are environmental friendly. Nuclear waste has to be disposed. Wind and Solar power produce 100% clean energy.

Just a few advantages.