What's new

US accepts Pakistan as a responsible nuclear state.

we dont have 2 . u are masters at messing up on yr own. unlike us and the russians u and the US can never be friends. u are a declared islamic republic while the usa talks abt a crusade. yr frndship will always be temporary and filled with distrust. u dont need us 2 help u there

Actually it was a slap on indian diplomacy thts trying to stop arms deals and talks foolishly tries to give an expression tht Pakistans nukes are not safe.
Aqal mand kay liye ishara he kafi hai
Translation: a signal is enough for a wise person but i m sorry in ur case.
:pakistan:
 
Actually it was a slap on indian diplomacy thts trying to stop arms deals and talks foolishly tries to give an expression tht Pakistans nukes are not safe.
Aqal mand kay liye ishara he kafi hai
Translation: a signal is enough for a wise person but i m sorry in ur case.
:pakistan:

Good for Pakistan. Now we can't say following proverb anymore.

"beggers are not choosers"
 
I had made my views clear in another thread as to why nuclear reactors is not the right way to go for Pakistan. I will try and make a detailed assesment here in order to further my assertion with some facts!

Costs:

Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate is of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or "all-in" cost). Due to increase in comodity prices, this could go up further by 20-30%.

The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant and should give an idea of the investment required:

February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[16] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.

Note: Data compiled from "Economics of nuclear power" WNA-2009

(Compare this with the cost of constructing NG power plants or coal power plants which for the same capacity of 2000 ~ 2200 MW would require 2.5 to 3.5 billion USD!!)

Next let us look at the time frames (construction)

Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in four years or less (42 months for CANDU ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for an EPR and 45 months for an ESBWR) as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants. However, most new plants under construction (such as finland EPR) are facing delays and other issues.
Read this !!

OL3 EPR wipes out AREVA profits - Nuclear Reaction - A Greenpeace blog about nuclear power

Compare this with the well proven track record (more or less) of NG & coal fired plants which require 2-3 years (max) to build (same capacity) and are more or less in budget.

With the Iran-Pakistan pipeline finalized, it would be prudent for pakistan to go for Gas based power plants which reduce transportation costs (pipelines), provide improved efficiency, easier growth opportunities, less issues wrt waste disposal and finally, highly economical!

IMO, nuclear deal for Pakistan does not provide with energy incentives unless countries decide to make such plants for free!
 
Trust me i wouldn't have bothered even if US had not accepted Pakistan as a responsible nuclear state :P
 
A welcomed move - :usflag:

But we don't necessarily need any approval we need electricity for our country and clean , non oil related energy
 
A welcomed move - :usflag:

But we don't necessarily need any approval we need electricity for our country and clean , non oil related energy

Yes bro, i will futher your words that this cheap energy of 24/7 will
bring our per unit cost of production to amazing level where it will combine with
cheap labor will boost our export to higher level and import substitutes will start at great pace.
We will not need any borrowing for our balance of payment thing.
It will bring multiplier effect in our economy and hence will lead to optimal utilization of our resources. Financing will be not a problem when the financial institution see the eminent outcome from the project, as running meters will generate more money.
 
Last edited:
Actually it was a slap on indian diplomacy thts trying to stop arms deals and talks foolishly tries to give an expression tht Pakistans nukes are not safe.
Aqal mand kay liye ishara he kafi hai
Translation: a signal is enough for a wise person but i m sorry in ur case.
:pakistan:

only a fool will believe that pakistani nukes are not safe. were people supposed 2 believ that some bearded cavemen who believe that education is haraam will be able to master the handling of nukes and better still be able to capture those nukes from one of the world's most powerful militaries ?? indian ramblings on pakistani nukes were always meant 2 stir up a hornets nest for pakistan and those ramblings served their purpose for india.

now i hope u got the signal
 
only a fool will believe that pakistani nukes are not safe. were people supposed 2 believ that some bearded cavemen who believe that education is haraam will be able to master the handling of nukes and better still be able to capture those nukes from one of the world's most powerful militaries ?? indian ramblings on pakistani nukes were always meant 2 stir up a hornets nest for pakistan and those ramblings served their purpose for india.

now i hope u got the signal


What purposes served by those indian rambling and what are india purpose now?

Care to elaborate.
 
Back
Top Bottom