The article, ‘Idea of fuel-switch at Koodankulam unheard of’ (TNIE, 14-11-2011) cannot be from someone with basic knowledge of generation of electric power with whatever fuel — fossil (coal, gas, oil) or nuclear — because fuel switching has been going on for decades. Modern generators can switch between gas and coal and vice versa. Though most of the fuel switching takes place from within fossil fuels there have been cases wherein switching has taken place from nuclear to coal or gas. The difference is that while fuel-switching among fossil fuels can take place after power generation has commenced, this would not be possible in the case of nuclear power plant.I had advocated this course since the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant has not gone critical. Therefore fuel-switching is possible from nuclear fuel to coal or gas. There are certain changes and modification that need to be carried out for converting nuclear plants after mothballing the reactor and its containment building. For switching to coal, a new boiler, including a pulverised coal system and furnace, need to be added. If required steam turbines and generators should be modified. New coal unloading, transfer and storage system would be needed. For making the plant pollution-free clean coal technology equipment should be installed.For switching to LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) new gas turbines, each having its own heat recovery steam generator and stack should be installed. For supply of gas install a new LNG tanker gas unloading, transfer and storage system. If need be, modify steam turbines and generators. All these no doubt will take additional time and money. But it is worth because the solution would be abiding and power will be generated. This has happened at other places; why not in Koodankulam? Let us consider the examples of US nuclear power stations. The Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island in New York, which had been completed, was in the end converted to generate electricity from natural gas and wind power. In 1983, the New York State Assembly passed a resolution by 15 votes to one to the effect that Suffolk County on Long Island could not be safely evacuated. The then New York State governor, Mario Cuomo, refused to sign the emergency evacuation plan submitted by the plant’s owners.The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster strengthened opposition from local residents and environmental groups, bringing up to 15,000 people out onto the streets in demonstrations.As a result, the Shoreham nuclear power plant was decommissioned in 1989, before commercial operations were even started. However, the existing equipment was converted and the plant started generating electricity from natural gas in 2002, with an output of 100 MW. In 2005, two 50-kilowatt wind power generators were added, again making use of the existing equipment.The second example is the William H Zimmer nuclear power plant in Moscow, Ohio, which was converted to fuel combustion when it was 97 per cent complete. In 1982, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the plant was poorly constructed, including two instances of defective pipe welds, that industrial safety documents had been forged, and imposed a record-high fine of US $200,000 besides halting construction work on the plant. In 1984, discussions were held on converting the plant from nuclear to coal-fired generation. Conversion work started in 1987 and was completed in 1991. The plant’s power output today is 1,300 MW.Third is the Midland Cogeneration Facility, Michigan. It was originally designed as a nuclear power plant with twin pressurised water reactors. In 1984, the project was terminated at 85 per cent completion after 17 years and $4 billion US dollars investment. Fluor Engineering converted the unfinished plant to a combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired cogeneration facility, starting in 1986 and completed in 1991 at a cost of $500 million. The gas turbines generated a nominal 1,035 MW, and the steam turbines added approximately 335 MW. Here is a case of Taiwan. It has three nuclear plants. The fourth — two 1,350 MW Advanced Boiling Water Reactors — are under construction and the first unit is expected to be completed in 2012, with the second unit about a year later. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is changing all this. There is a strong move to follow the US experience of nuclear power plant conversion, not load nuclear fuel rods to the new plant, but convert it to either coal or LNG fossil-fuel plant. A detailed study and techno-feasibility report is on the anvil.Several other countries that have abandoned nuclear power plants following Fukushima disaster are likely to follow suit. Why not Koodankulam where a vast majority of the people are against it, backed up by a resolution by the State government?(The author is a retired IAS officer and former chairman of Haryana State Electricity Board)
Comments
0 comment