nuclear power plants for india [2011]

1Publishers : Environmental Study Centre Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?



THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTRE

VISION : The Environmental Study Centre shall strive to procure and protect the bio-Diversity, to meet the futre challenges of deterioration of the surrounding Environment.

MISSION : The Environmental Study Centre is committed to Nurture the Environmentby creating awareness among the School and College Students by strenghthening theEco-Clubs.

✤ Develop and promote knowledge of the Traditional food & Herbal MedicinalPractices.

✤ Promote a platform for participatory learning by organising Eco-friendly life stylecamps. It helps to know the importance and to live in harmony with the nature.

✤ ESC has developed natural resource management training centre at santhekaduroutskirts of Shimoga.

Environmental Study Centre conducts "Value Education for Life and EnvironmentalEducation" camps where in students learn and realize the importance of nature and to livein harmony with nature. And apply the same principles while learning Science, Technology,Arts and Commerce etc.

Environmental Study Centre has been conducting "PARISARA MITRA SHAALAAWARD PROGRAMME" in Shivamogga District level. About 1500 HPS & 500 HighSchools participate in this programme every year. We initiated this programme since 2007-08.

"PARISARA MITRA SHAALA AWARD PROGRAMME" is extended to 2 more districtin this year 2011-12. Kolar District and Chikkaballapura district is implementing thisprogramme with the support of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB)Bangalore. The KSPCB is planning to extend this programme in all the 30 districts ofKarnataka.

Environmental Study Centre has initiated the Programme "DHANVANTHARISCHOOL" in the district every year regularly. The programme intend to develop and promotetraditional Food & Home Herbal medicinal practices. The programme was started in theyear 2008-09 in the district.

Environmental Study Centre has taken few Research studies on Bio-diversity. Forinculcating the spirit of scientific research in Natural Science, 600 students from 12 schoolsare doing Research activities and learning on Tree Phenology of Forest and Avenue Treesof Shivamogga District for a Scientific understanding of climate change at regional level.

Environmental Study Centre is publishing Bi-monthly magazine "PARISARAPATRIKE" which contains the various activies of the eco-friendly schools and DhanvantariSchools. This magazine has been circulating to the all Higher Primary and High schools inthe district.



Hon. President : Sri H. ANNAPPASanthe Kaduru.

President : Prof. T.S. HOOVAIAH GOWDAPrincipal, Sahyadri ScienceCollege, Shivamogga.

Vice President : Prof. A. S.CHANDRASHEKARRetired Principal,Retd. District Governor, Rotary

Secretary : Sri G. L. JANARDHANAEnvironmentalist, Shivamogga.

Treasurer : Sri S.CHANDRASHEKARCivil Engineer, Shivamogga

Directors : Sri C. S. CHANDRASHEKARRetired Deputy Thahshildar

Sri K. S. PUTTAPPARetired Manager Vijaya Bank

JNANA SAGARANAAVE TRUST (R)

(Senior Citizens Knowledge resource Bank)

KIDS (R)(Kodachadri IntegratedDevelopment Society)

Hon. president : Sri H. ANNAPPASanthekaduru.

President : Sri C.S.CHANDRASHEKARRetired Deputy Thahshildar

Vice President : Sri K.S.PUTTAPPARetired Manager Vijaya Bank

Secretary : Sri G. L. JANARDHANAEnvironmentalist, Shivamogga.

Joint Secretary : Sri DINESH H.Hosanagara

Treasurer : Sri S. CHANDRASHEKARCivil Engineer, Shivamogga

Directors : Smt. Dr. MYTHILIAyurveda Practitioner,Shivamogga.

Dr. NANDA A. ,Bhadravathi

Smt. B. Premanath,Hosanagara

Sri, Rudresh.M.N.Shivamogga

Dr. B.B. HOSETTIChairman, Dept. of Zoology

Kuvempu University,Shankaraghatta.

Dr. J. NARAYANReader, Dept. of Environmental

Science,Kuvempu UniversityShankaraghatta.

ADVISORY BOARDSri PANDURANGA HEGDEPromoter Appiko movement

in Karnataka

Prof. KAMALAKARExamination controller SahyadriScience college, Shivamogga.

Prof. B. JAYADEVAPPAPrincipal Sahyadri ArtsCollege Shivamogga

Prof. C. U.SOMASHEKARRetired principal Kodachadri

College, Hosanagara.

Dr. N. B.DESAIPhysics lecturer, Sahyadri Science

College. Shivamogga.

Sri CHANNABASAVAPPAAuditor Cooperative

Department Shivamogga.

Contact

Director, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTREAnnappa Garden, Santhekadur - 577 222

Shivamogga, Karnataka, IndiaPhone : +91 8182 240688, M : 94804 31983

Website : jsntrust.org E-mail : [email protected]



Dr. A. N.Nagaraj, Ph.D&

Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PGDip (Techgy Mgmt)

WRITTEN BY

PUBLISHERS

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTRESANTHEKADUR, Shivamogga - 577 222, Karnataka, India

Phone : +91 8182 240688, Email : [email protected]

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR INDIAARE THEY THE MOST DANGEROUS

ANDCOSTLY SOURCES OF POWER ?



"Nuclear Power Plants for India Are they the most dangerous and costly sources

of power ?" A book of Pros & Cons of Nuclear Power Plant on Environment, Written

by A.N. Nagaraj, Ph.D. and Shankar Sharma, B.E.(Elec.) PGDip (Techgy Mgmt) Power

Policy Analyst

Pages : 65

First Publish : 11-11-2011

(National Seminar on Nuclear Energy and Environment at

Kumpu University Campus)

Price : Rs. 40-00

Copy Right : Authors

Copies : 2000

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

KIDS & Jnanasagara Naave Trust

Santhekadur, Shivamogga - 577 222

Karnataka, India

Phone : +91 8182 240688

Website : jsntrust.org

Email : [email protected]

Printers : Varma Graphic Arts

Maruthi Rice Mill Building

B.H. Road, Shivamogga

M : 98802 81181



Publisher

Globally there is a greater concern and awareness about the nuclear energy, reactors,

radiations and radiation effects on the biotic factors of the environment and the related

issues are being debated in various international forum. The development of nuclear energy

have shown that it can provide immense benefit to mankind. The use of nuclear energy in

different fields of our routine life is rapidly increasing. Large number of nuclear facilities

including nuclear power reactors and accelerators are operating world over and usage of

radiation and radio isotopes in medical, agricultural industry are increasing. Also, the

conventional energy sector is faced with emission, reduction, shortage of power. Under

such situations, nuclear energy as a viable alternate source of energy is being accepted

world over.

The radionuclides released into the environment enter into the food chains and bio-

geo-chemical cycles and bio-concentrate and bio-accumulate into the bodies of living

organisms and finally reaching human body causing Carcinogenic problems and radiation

related illness. Therefore there is a need for clear and strong strategy to protect the

environment and biodiversity from the ill effects of radiation. A lot of debate is also going

on to control the disausters effects such as the nuclear mishap at Chernobyl and recently

at Fukushima in Japan.

In view of the renewed interest in the nuclear energy and environmental protection, E.S.C.

has brought a book in Kannada "Manukula Vinashakke Anusthavara Saaku" it was writte

by Sri. A.N. Nagaraj, Ph.D., Former Consultant, F.A.O., U.N.O. This book has created

awareness among the people. We get solidarity by nook & corners of the society in the

State.

There were request came from the other states, in the view of this we requested Dr.

A.N. Nagaraj and Mr. Shankar Sharma, Power Policy Analyst to write book in English

with additional information. Environmental Study Centre is thankful to Dr. A.N. Nagaraj

and Mr. Shankar Sharma for documented the essential information. To publish this

book Environmental Study Centre collegues had put their effort. I thank Prof. Hoovaiah

Gowda, Dr. Nanda, A., Mr. S. Chandrashekar and Mr. Dinesh Hosanagar for their support.

We thank to Mr. Bindu Madhava S.T. and Shashikumar K.S. of Varma Graphic Arts for

neat Type setting and Printing.



Authors' Preface

Though there have been a number of books, articles and reports on various aspects of

nuclear power, a single source of information on major aspects of interest to common man

was found to be missing. This book is intended to be a useful hand book about the science

of nuclear energy, the process of producing power from nuclear power plants, and the

risks/safety issues involved in the process, costs to the society, and the role of nuclear

power in the Indian context. A number of references have been provided to enable the

readers to get additional reading material. Certain holistic issues such a the need for a

realistic demand forecast, nature's limit in supporting such demand, the socio-environmental

impacts of unlimited energy demand, and how the legitimate demand for energy of all

sections of our society can be fulfilled with sustainable and non-polluting sources of energy

have been discussed. An important decision making tool by the name of Costs & Benefits

Analysis (CBA) has been discussed with an example for clarity. Views, statements and

articles by few knowledgeable people on nuclear power industry have also been quoted.

We would consider that our efforts are fully rewarded if this book helps in effective

participation of the Civil Society in an informed decision making on nuclear power policy

for the country.

We are grateful to Sri G. L. Janardhan of the Environmental Study Center and his team

for offering to publish this book.

A.N.Nagaraj, Ph.D., Bioilogist, Consultant Expert to Food and Agricultural Organization

of United Nations (Retd.), Environmentalist and Health Consultant, Thirthahalli.

Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PG Dip (Tech. Mgmt.), Power Policy Analyst, Thirthahalli.



GLOSSORY

PART I : 7The chemistry and Biological effects of nuclear power

CHAPTER 1 : 8INTRODUCTION : Nuclear Power around the World

CHAPTER 2 : 10Production of nuclear power

CHAPTER 3 : 17Problems in managing radioactive waste

CHAPTER 4 : 22Some Nuclear Accidents

CHAPTER 5 : 27Conclusions and suggestions

PART II : 29Nuclear Power Technology Major issues on technology,risks, public safety, economics and credible alternatives

CHAPTER 6 : 30Nuclear Power Technology

CHAPTER 7 : 34Economics & Safety of Nuclear Power

CHAPTER 8 : 41Is Nuclear Power green and relevant to Indian scenario?

CHAPTER 9 : 46Credible alternatives to Nuclear Power from Indian perspective

CHAPTER 10 : 55Holistic view of overall costs to the society: Costs & Benefits Analysis

CHAPTER 11 : 60Conclusions

THE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE ORGANISATION 63



Dr. A.N.Nagaraj

Has a Ph.D. degree in Biology from the University of Illinois, Urbana IL, U.S.A. He was anExpert-consultant to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. He hasbeen active in movements for conservation of the environment

The chemistry and Biological effects of nuclear power

A. N. Nagaraj, Ph.D.

Former Consultant, F.A.O., U.N.O.

PART I



CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION : Nuclear Power around the World

The most important steps in the production of nuclear power from the fission of uranium

and plutonium include mining for the uranium ore, enriching it for producing power, production

of power from nuclear power plants and storage of radioactive waste that is produced on

a large scale. In many countries around the world, workers in and around uranium and

thorium mines, storage sites, uranium enrichment plants, power production plants, and

radioactive waste storage plants, have a higher incidence of cancer, several other radiation

related diseases, and birth of defective children. During the process of production of nuclear

power, thousands of tons of radioactive materials are being produced, that continue to

pollute the environment for generations to come. These radioactive substances are

extremely dangerous to human health. During minor accidents that are quite common, and

even when there are no accidents, radioactive substances are being continuously released

into the environment and are polluting the environment around nuclear power plants. That

is why the incidence of cancer etc. as mentioned earlier, are much higher among uranium

miners, people living around mining areas, populations living near nuclear power plants

and waste storage plants. Scientists have yet to discover safe permanent methods for

storing high level radioactive waste products that are liable to explode and contaminate

the environment if they are not continuously cooled or if cooling devices fail. Radioactive

substances have been found in harmful quantities even in human mother's milk in U.S.A.

and other countries having nuclear power plants. A scientific study has recorded that 170,000

more people had died during nine years after the Three Mile Accident in the U.S.A. than

during a similar period before the accident. The Chernobyl accident in Ukraine of the

former Soviet Union resulted in a large increase in incidence of cancers and other diseases

of the thyroid gland, blood, alimentary canal, skin, the gonads etc. and the birth of defective

children affecting more than two crores of people in countries bordering Chernobyl.

Besides, nuclear power production and disposal of radioactive power plants after 30-

40 years of use are extremely costly processes; and so are the disposal of intensely

radioactive high level and intermediate level waste. If the cost of waste disposal and the

costs of research are included in computing the cost of production, nuclear power production

is the most expensive among all methods of power generation available to us.

The above considerations, and the powerful opposition from an enlightened public,

have persuaded or forced governments of several western countries such as Sweden,

Denmark and Germany to abandon nuclear power and gradually shift over to more



environmentally friendly and sustainable sources of power. Australia and New Zealand

have opted out of nuclear power. Recently, after the Fukushima accident in Japan, the

Japanese government has decided to phase out nuclear power plants and replace them

with sustainable eco-friendly sources of power. Nuclear power plants are more liable now

than ever, to be targets of terrorists. If terrorists succeed in exploding any nuclear power

plant, or radioactive waste storage facility, the resulting pollution of the environment will

cause thousands of cancers and birth of thousands of defective children over a long period

of time. It is, therefore, extremely important for the public in India to become aware of

hazards of nuclear power generation so they could put pressure on the central government

to abandon nuclear power and opt for more eco-friendly sources of power.

In the coming chapters, we will discuss various steps in the process of power generation

from nuclear power plants and how at every step thousands of people, in this and coming

generations, are being adversely affected. Nuclear power generation will only enrich and

benefit a small number of industrialists, bureaucrats and scientists, who can make huge

profits and become rich, or attain positions of power.

We will consider next, various steps in the generation of power from nuclear power

plants, and the risks involved to human life in particular and life in general.



CHAPTER 2Production of nuclear power

Extraction of uranium ore and its storage : During the process of extraction of

uranium or thorium ore, radon-222 a radioactive gas is produced in large quantities 100,000

times more than previously believed. After separating the part of the ore rich in uranium,

the waste products left over, called tailings, are also radioactive and are extremely harmful

to humans living around the dumping grounds. It has been found that among the workers in

the uranium and thorium mines or people living around the mines, the rate of various kinds

of cancer and birth of defective children is twenty times more than in general populations

farther away. Research studies have established that this is true in Niger (Africa), in U.S.A.,

Austria, Czech Republic, Kerala and Bihar in India.

Such radioactive waste of uranium had accumulated to 300 million tons in the 1990s in

U.S.A., and every year 15 million tons are being added. In Bihar's Singabhoomi every day

a thousand tons of uranium ore are being mined.

Uranium-235 in nature is widely and sparsely distributed, and rarely gets into the body

of human beings and animals. When it undergoes fission, it releases alpha particles that

become harmless within minutes and before it travels 4-5 centimeters. Therefore, natural

uranium-235 is harmless to humans. But in the nuclear reactors, tons of uranium-235 is

stored in one area. During accidents it is likely to spill out in large quantities into the

environment, and may get into the bodies of animals and humans. If uranium-235 atoms

undergo fission inside the human body, the alpha particles, neutrons and gamma rays that

are released could potentially cause radiation damage to some part of the body.

Also, the new radioactive elements produced during fission of large quantities of uranium-

235 in the reactors are far more dangerous to humans and animals for generations to

come.

Partial purification of uranium ore: Uranium ore in nature contains both uranium-

235 and uranium-238. of the two isotopes of uranium, only uranium-235 is fissionable. For

manufacturing a bomb, uranium-235 needs to be in high concentrations. However, for

producing electricity it need not be as pure. To increase the quantity of uranium-235 in the

ore, uranium hexafluoride gas is passed through several membranes. This gas is highly

radioactive and if it leaks out, it is highly dangerous to people living around the area. There

is one such plant in Ratnahalli near Mysore which is a heavily populated area. In such

purification plants, radioactive waste materials are temporarily stored in open unprotected



concrete tanks unlike in power plants where they are stored in tanks with protective concrete

and lead covers. In times of war, or attacks by terrorists, or during unexpected earthquakes,

these storage tanks are liable to spill out in large quantities endangering people living

around the area. Dr. Patricia Lindup has calculated that if a small nuclear bomb is exploded

on such a storage facility, people living around 18000 square miles would receive a very

high amount (50 rads) of radiation. People around 40,000 square miles would receive 10

rads which is still harmful to humans.

Production of Electricity from nuclear power plants: Structure of the atom: The

atom is the smallest particle of all elements that preserves all the qualities of the element.

Atoms of all elements have a nucleus that consists of a specific number of positively charged

particles called protons and a certain number of electrically neutral neutrons, except the

nucleus of hydrogen atom which contains only a single proton and no neutrons. If the nucleus

of an element loses or gains a single proton, it becomes another element. One or more

negatively charged electrons orbit around the nucleus.

The number of protons in an element is called its atomic number, and the weight of the

protons and neutrons together is called its atomic weight. For example, the atomic number

of hydrogen is 1 because it has 1 proton in its nucleus. Its atomic weight is also 1. Helium

has 2 protons in its nucleus, and its atomic number is 2; it also has 2 neutrons in its nucleus

and its atomic weight, therefore, is 2 +2 =4. Atoms are so small that they can not be seen

even in a microscope. Ten crores of hydrogen atoms can be arranged in a single line

measuring less than 1 centimeter. 5 crores of hydrogen atoms put together is less than 1

gram in weight. Their size and weight cannot be measured directly and are measured

indirectly. Electrons are even lighter and weigh about 1850th of a hydrogen atom. The

weight of hydrogen atom is assumed to be 1, and the weight of atoms of all other elements

is comparative to the weight of the hydrogen atom. For example, Oxygen atom weighs 16

times that of hydrogen atom, because it has 8 protons + 8 neutrons, and its atomic weight

is therefore 16.

Isotopes: There are some oxygen atoms the nuclei of which have the usual 8 protons,

but have 9 neutrons, and therefore having an atomic weight of 17. Still other oxygen atoms

have 8 protons and 10 neutrons and thus having an atomic weight of 18. These two elements

are called isotopes of oxygen. All these are still oxygen atoms because they have 8 protons

which is the atomic number of oxygen, but only differ in the number of neutrons in the

nucleus.

Stable and unstable elements: A stable element is one that does not change into

another element without any external force. An unstable element, such as uranium-235 or



plutonium-239, is one with a large number of protons and neutrons, that spontaneously

undergoes nuclear fission, and releases radioactive positively charged alpha particles

and beta particles, and neutrons that are electrically neutral, and also radioactive gamma

rays. When such an unstable or radioactive element undergoes fission, it splits into two

unequal halves and produces two different radioactive elements. These, new radioactive

elements spontaneously split up several times, each time producing more and more

radioactive elements. After several such splits, the process results in the production of a

stable element. For example, uranium -235 after splitting about 80 times becomes lead-

207 which is stable and therefore non-radioactive. Uranium-238 after about 80 fissions

becomes lead-206, another stable element.

When alpha particles and beta particles that have a positive electrical charge, hit the

nucleus of an element, they are repelled by nuclei which are also positively charged, and

therefore cannot enter the nucleus. But when they are expelled at high speeds during

artificially induced fission, they can enter the nucleus of elements that they come in contact

with. Then, they either displace one or two protons from the nucleus, or add a proton to the

nucleus, thus changing the element. For example, Iron, aluminum, silicon, calcium etc.

when exposed to such radiation will no longer be the same elements. Neutrons are normally

expelled at high speeds during fission of nuclei of any radioactive heavy element such as

uranium-235 or plutonium-239. At such speeds, they cannot enter nuclei of other elements

and are rebounded. After hitting several nuclei and losing speed they can enter nuclei of

other elements, change the number of protons in the nucleus which then becomes a different

element.

The radioactive particles released during nuclear fission and the gamma rays interact

with elements in the reactor vessel, the concrete walls, cooling liquid, the pipes and

machinery they come in contact with and convert them to more and more radioactive

elements. Radiation causes mutations in the human genome most of which are harmful

and may cause cancers, birth of deformed children, and malfunctioning of many organs in

the body

Human beings coming in contact with any of these substances develop radiation related

diseases in the blood and most organs in the body, such as cancers of thyroid, lungs,

alimentary canal and the gonads. Children born to parents exposed to radiation are much

more likely to be deformed than those who are not thus exposed.

Nuclear bombs and nuclear power: As mentioned earlier, nuclei of heavy atoms like

that of uranium-235 and plutonium-239 spontaneously split into two unequal halves. In nature

this reaction is confined to just a few atoms and does not result in a chain reaction. However,



man can create conditions under which the neutrons that come out of fission of one nucleus

split other nuclei releasing more neutrons that split more nuclei finally resulting in a chain

reaction. Such a chain reaction releases a tremendous amount of power, while creating

new radioactive elements and is utilized in creating an atom bomb. Fission of one gram of

uranium-235 is equal to the explosion of 176,000 tons of TNT.

This kind of chain reaction can not take place with a small amount of uranium-235, but

does occur when this element is concentrated in a ball at least 10 centimeters in diameter

weighing about 10 kilograms. In the atom bombs that were exploded over Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, small balls of uranium-235 in one bomb, and plutonium-239 in another were

packed separately when they were dropped over the targets. It was so arranged that these

little balls would come together to form a large ball at the target area. When this happens,

within a split second the chain reaction is completed and all uranium or plutonium atoms

are split in a chain reaction. This results in creating high temperatures at the epicenter of

explosion enough to melt anything that comes in the way. Even concrete structures and

metals are melted and instantly vaporized. Farther away from the center of explosion, a

powerful storm is created and it pulverizes anything that comes in the way including concrete

buildings.

Production of electricity from nuclear fission: In a nuclear bomb, the fission chain

reaction is uncontrolled. However, in a nuclear power reactor, this chain reaction is controlled

and regulated. Small balls of partially purified uranium-235 and uranium-238 are kept in

graphite bricks. Neutrons released from splitting uranium-235 nuclei hit carbon atoms in

graphite and are thus slowed down enabling it to split nuclei of other uranium-235 atoms.

Cadmium is used to control the speed of reaction. Water or liquid sodium is used cool the

reactor continuously. Under such conditions the heat released is controlled and is utilized

in producing electricity. This method of producing electricity needs very much less material

than coal, petrol, or similar fuel, because uranium-235 because one kilogram of uranium-

235 gives energy equal to 1000 tons of coal. Therefore, we need to transport and store

just one gram of uranium as against 1000 tons of coal. Heat from fission of one

gram of uranium is enough to heat up 23 crore liters of water to boiling point or

the electricity produced can light up 1000 bulbs of 100 watts capacity for 28 years.

Also production of electricity by nuclear reactors does not produce carbon-dioxide and

smoke as coal and petroleum do. Therefore many developing countries that need large

amounts of electricity and developed countries that consume large amounts of power are

opting for nuclear power. However, nuclear power generation releases more harmful

byproducts than carbon-dioxide, and is considerably more expensive than other methods



of generation. These facts are ignored by countries adopting nuclear power generation

because of the enormous economic power of nuclear industry and the nations that

manufacture and sell nuclear reactors. We will elaborate on these aspects later, but let us

first consider the harmful byproducts of nuclear power generation.

Products of nuclear power generation : Nuclear fission in the reactors results in the

following kinds of products: 1. tremendous power. 2. Large amounts of neutrons and

radioactive isotopes of elements and 3. Gamma rays.

Power and Radioactive substances : As mentioned earlier, fission of just one

kilogram of uranium-235 produces heat equivalent to that produced by 1000 tons of coal.

When this fission takes place under controlled conditions in a nuclear power reactor, and

the heat produced is continuously cooled, it can be used for producing electricity. All these

processes require complex machinery, and the more complex the machinery is the more

likely it is to fail sometime during its 30-40 years of life. Any failure of machinery, particularly

the cooling devices, could cause explosions, spillage of large amounts of radioactive

materials to the environment with the attendant catastrophic results. Before the Chernobyl

accident in 1986, there were 149 minor and major accidents in nuclear power plants,

either due to mechanical or human failures. More details of some of the major accidents

will be given later.

Also, the operators of such complex machinery have to be constantly on the alert. The

slightest negligence on the part of the operators could cause an explosion and spillage of

radioactive materials with harmful effects as mentioned earlier.

Nuclear fission during the generation of nuclear power produces 200 radioactive

isotopes of 36 elements some of which remain radioactive and harmful to human beings

for thousands of years causing cancers and other diseases and birth defects among children

for generations to come. Hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive concrete and

machinery will have to be disposed of over thousands of acres of land. These disposal

sites have to be carefully monitored and cooled over hundreds of years. More details of

the costs and risks involved in such operations will be given later.

Gamma rays: These are electromagnetic waves that travel at 300,000 kilometers per

second, and can penetrate through normal walls, metal containers, and the human body,

change many elements to radioactive elements, cause mutations in the human genome,

leading to cancers of various organs, and the birth of defective children. Concrete walls

one meter thick and thick lead containers can slow down the penetration of gamma rays.

Radioactive materials having long half lives have therefore to be stored in special thick

concrete containers with thick lining of lead and have to be handled by robots.



Plutonium: Among the new radioactive elements produced in nuclear reactors, Plutonium

is one of the most poisonous substances created by man. Before man created plutonium,

there was no plutonium recorded in appreciable amounts anywhere in the world. This

element is harmful to humans even in concentrations of one part in trillion parts of air or

water. Five grams of plutonium, if distributed equally among all humans in this world and

they consume it, are enough to kill them all. Such a killer element has now been produced

in thousands of tons by the nuclear reactors all around, and is stored in large concentrations

around the reactors. If one kilogram of plutonium is mixed with a bomb and exploded, it

can kill thousands of people. According to one estimate humans have produced about

2000-3000 tons of plutonium that are temporarily stored in reactor sites. If it gets into the

hands of terrorists and they manufacture a nuclear bomb and use it, they can kill thousands

of people.

Quantity, half lives of radioactive elements : Every ton of uranium oxide in the reactor

produces 200 tons of radioactive waste. This waste is classified into three categories.

High level waste consists of high concentrations of radioactive elements that have a 'half

life' longer than 30 years. 'Half life' is the time taken for half the quantity of the element to

decay and get converted to a non-radioactive element.

The half-lives of some radio-active elements are :

(1 billion = 100 crores)

uranium-238 4.1 billion years;

thorium-232 14.1 billion years;

potassium-40 1.3 billion years;

rubidium-87 47 billion years; and

lutesium-176 20 billion years.

Concrete walls, steel pipes and machinery lose their radioactivity in about 100-200

years and are classified as medium level waste.

Paper and glass that are radioactive are still harmful to humans but only for a few years,

are classified as low level waste.

Storing high level radioactive waste presents serious problems because it produces

large amount of heat and may explode if it is not kept cooled continuously. At present, it is

vitrified in glass and temporarily stored in thick steel and lead cylinders kept in concrete

shelters 1000 meters below ground level in the reactor site. This is to prevent them from

leaking out into the environment. However, they continue to be reactive and produce high

temperatures and need to be cooled continuously. Such a storage facility in a place called



Kishthim in Soviet Russia exploded in the 1950's, spilled huge amounts of radioactive

material into the soil and the river nearby. Thousands of people had to be evacuated from

several villages and towns near the facility. Details of the accident were not published by

the U.S.S.R government.



CHAPTER 3

Problems in managing radioactive waste

Radioactive waste in India: Dr. H.N. Sethna had estimated the quantity of different

radioactive waste by about 2000 A.D.:

Ordinary solid waste : 107,000 cubic meters,

Low level radioactive waste : 71,000 cubic meters,

Intermediate level radioactive waste : 71,000 cubic meters,

High level radioactive waste : 8000 cubic meters.

Low-level waste: A small reactor, of the type of reactors operating in Kaiga producing

235 megawatts of power, during its lifetime of 30 years is expected to produce 18,000

cubic meters of low level waste. If this waste is spread over a football field, it will be a pile

four meters high. From 6 such reactors in Kaiga the low level waste produced will fill six

football fields to a height of four meters. Such waste piles will not explode and therefore

nuclear scientists are not worried about how to store them. But, according to biologists,

the radiation emanating from these wastes will increase the incidence of cancer and

radiation related diseases, and birth of deformed children in areas around the storage

area.

High level radioactive waste: The high level waste produced in nuclear reactors is

chemically highly reactive. If not controlled, such activity produces intense heat which will

cause explosions and spread of radioactive materials into the environment. The storage

sites have to be kept cooled all the time for hundreds of years to come. If, for some reason

the cooling devices fail, explosions of the type that occurred in a storage site of the former

U.S.S.R., in the Ural Mountains at a place called Kishthim, the cooling devices did fail in

1957. There was a huge explosion spilling radioactive substances to about 5000 square

kilometers of the surrounding area. A river flowing in the area, underground water, the soil,

the animals, and the crops were contaminated. All the people and animals from the

surrounding thirty populated areas had to be evacuated and resettled in safer areas. The

U.S.S.R. government did not give details of the number of people dying from cancers and

the number of deformed children born.

In India and all over the world, millions of gallons of high level and medium level

radioactive waste has been generated during the last 50-60 years, and is temporarily

stored in lead, steel and concrete containers. They are spilling into the environment during

minor accidents, or due to leakages in pipes, and storage structures. In many countries,



these leakages have increased the incidence of cancers, birth of defective children and

other radiation related diseases around nuclear power plants and waste storage sites.

For example, around the nuclear power plants in Rajasthan, Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu,

and around Kaiga in Karnataka, radioactive material spilling out into the atmosphere have

caused increased incidence of cancers, birth defects and other kinds of radiation related

diseases. In U.S.A., 400,000 gallons of radioactive waste had leaked out into the

environment around the Hanford storage facility. 27 million gallons of high level radioactive

waste had spilled out of Savanna River reactor into an area of about 300 square miles;

this included 300 kilograms of plutonium! The workers in this plant are reported to have

received 130% more radiation than normal radiation from natural sources increasing the

incidence of myeloid leukemia by 200% and rectal cancer by 300%. Similar effects have

also recorded among workers in the Hanford facility.

Over several decades, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.A.E.C) has conducted

several studies to determine methods and sites for safe storage of high level radioactive

waste. Experiments were conducted in five disposal sites deep inside basalt rocks, salt

mines and granite rocks. For example, in salt mines of the state of Kansas, 300-1200

deep holes were bored and the high level waste was to be stored in steel and lead canisters.

This area was chosen because it was considered to be geologically stable. But, after the

site was prepared, for some unknown reason, there was an earth quake in the surrounding

area, and the site got flooded with 175,000 gallons of water. That site was, therefore

abandoned. Similar problems surfaced in the other four sites also.

In 1995, the U.S.A.E.C prepared a plan to bury the high level wastes in the yucca mountain

ranges of the state of Nevada. The governor of Nevada, the people of the state, and

geologists opposed this plan because there was a geological fault in the area which made

it risky.

Nuclear scientists of the U.S.S.R., in an experiment, stored high level radioactive waste

in deep holes drilled in rocks under the sea, believing that leakage of radiation from the

sites was highly unlikely. But, to their surprise, radioactive materials were detected within

a few hours of storage in fishes and other aquatic animals around the area. The scientists,

therefore, abandoned the idea of storing high level waste in such sites.

Permanent disposal of nuclear waste: As the reactor and the storage containers

get older, it becomes more and more difficult to prevent leakages into the environment.

With age, storage tanks of radioactive waste are more likely to leak, and after the reactor

is closed down it becomes more difficult to supervise the storage facilities. Also, it is safer

to remove the high level nuclear waste for permanent storage to a site far away from



population centers, preferably to a desert or mountainous area, or store them in abandoned

mines. Details of a project for disposal of an old reactor on the banks of Ohio River are

given next: Concrete walls of the reactor, and pipes 14 kilometers long are to be cut into

manageable sizes using remote controlled robots. They have to be loaded into about 120

huge trucks using robots and moved into barges on the river using huge cranes. The barges

move along the west coast to the storage site in a desert about 13,640 kilometers away

from the reactor site and buried there with remote controlled machines. The whole process

is estimated to take about four and half years, and cost an equivalent of 104 crores of

rupees.

Cost of disposal of radioactive waste : Since all parts of nuclear reactors including

the concrete walls, machinery, pipes etc. also become radioactive, even after removal of

radioactive fuel, large quantity of radioactive material still remain in the reactor. In a retired

reactor in U.S.A., even after the removal of most of the radioactive fuel, 21 million curies of

radioactive materials could not be removed.

One estimate of the department of atomic energy in U.S.A. for the disposal of radioactive

material that had accumulated till 1988 was 150 billion dollars (6,45,000 crores of rupees

at Rs. 43.00 per dollar).

Radioactive materials released into the environment: It is not possible to

concentrate and vitrify all the radioactive substances produced in the reactors. Some part

of radioactive waste is mixed with water and released into the river or sea nearby. Nuclear

scientists believe that the amount of radioactivity in materials thus released is not harmful

to humans. They believe that exposure to 5 rems of radioactivity is safe to humans. But,

according Nobel laureate biologist Dr. George Wald, even a very small increase in

background radioactivity will increase the incidence of cancer in the population of the

area. Experiments have indicated that exposure to radiation of just 0.5 rem increases the

incidence of cancer by 0.6% and the incidence of birth of defective children by 0.6%. If

pregnant women are exposed to an x ray of 0.25 rem, it increases the incidence leukemia

and other cancers by 0.25%.

Dr. Helen Caldecott has measured the level of radioactivity around nuclear power plants

and has reported that it is definitely and significantly higher than in areas farther away. This

is partly because of radiation from gamma rays penetrating even concrete walls, routine

release of radioactive water, and also because of leakages from the reactor. Also, the fish

growing in water containing a very small amount of radioactive materials accumulate these

materials in their tissues to the extent of 13,000 times the amount of radioactivity found in

the water. People consuming such fish will suffer from radiation related problems.



Possibility of accidents : Nuclear scientists have always claimed that their reactors

are fairly safe. Still, by 1986, there had been 152 accidents in nuclear reactors, and the

Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the 153rd one. These had occurred in scientifically and

technologically well advanced countries like U.S.A., Britain, Switzerland, Germany, France

and Japan. In these countries the technical expertise for managing accidents, safety

precautions, preparedness for meeting emergencies and quickness of executing a rescue

operation are very much better than in India.

All kinds of machines are likely to fail. If the machinery is extremely complex as in nuclear

reactors, some part is likely to fail sometime. Defects in machinery, mistakes committed

by the operators, mechanical failure of cooling devices, earthquakes, tsunamis, or the

willful sabotages committed by terrorists could cause serious accidents. Under such

conditions, the worst accident could cause the top of the reactor to blow off liberating a

radioactive cloud that travels hundreds of miles raining radioactive materials all over. Or,

the bottom of the reactor could melt and release radioactive materials into the soil,

underground water sources or rivers causing diseases and death to thousands of people.

Such accidents are not merely hypothetical, but have actually happened. Reputed nuclear

scientists of U.S.A., Dr. Alvin Weinberg and Dr. David Lilienthal, and Dr. Hannes Alfven a

former member of Swedish Atomic Energy Commission have accepted the possibility of

such accidents.

In 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had identified 183 problems in nuclear

reactors that could cause serious accidents. Five years later in 1992, scientists had worked

out solutions for only five of these problems. The other 178 problems remained unsolved.

According to one estimate, accidents due to operators' mistakes are 33% to 66%.

All over the world, the reactor vessels, steam generators, containment structures etc.

are losing strength because of high heat and constant bombardment of neutrons. These

developments increase chances of accidents which release radioactive particles and

gamma rays causing thousands and millions of deaths over a long period of time.

So far, serious accidents have occurred at Enrico Fermi Reactor, Idaho falls and Three

Mile Island reactors in U.S.A., Wind scale reactor in Britain, Luciens reactor in Switzerland,

Chernobyl reactors in Ukraine of the former U.S.S.R and recently Fukushima in Japan.

According to Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of U.S.S.R, the possibility of terrorists

sabotaging nuclear reactors is now greater than ever. India is extremely likely to be an

important target for terrorists.

Estimates of deaths from nuclear accidents: According to an estimate prepared

by a committee constituted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a serious nuclear



accident in which there is either a melt down of the reaction vessel, or a rupture of the top

of the reactor, 3000 people will die within a few days from radiation sickness; 45,000

people may die in course of time from cancers; 45,000 will suffer from severe radiation

related problems; 2,40,000 people will suffer from radiation related thyroid problems; and

5000 children will be born with defective organs.

In Europe and India, in places where the population density is 5 times higher than in the

U.S.A., you may expect the figures to be 5 times higher, that is, 15,000 people will die in a

few days; 2,25,000 people will die in course of time from cancers; 12,00,000 people will

suffer from radiation related thyroid problems, and 25,000 children will be born with

defective organs. In a country like India where the administration is uncaring and lacks

dedicated administrators, we may expect the fatalities to be even greater. Also, when we

consider the deaths and damages from the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the figures given

by the U.S. Committee were very much lower than what actually occurred after the accident.

In the next chapter, we will consider details of damages from some accidents that have

occurred in nuclear power plants.



CHAPTER 4

Some Nuclear Accidents

As mentioned earlier, in spite of claims by nuclear establishments and nuclear industries

that accidents in nuclear power plants are highly unlikely, more than 150 accidents have

occurred in nuclear plants all over the world, some of them in most technologically advanced

countries. In this chapter we will consider details of some such accidents.

The Wind scale accident: In Britain, a nuclear reactor in a place called Wind scale

exploded in 1957 releasing radioactive clouds that spread to Ireland and parts of Europe.

Because of secrecy that surrounds all nuclear research and reactors, very little was known

about the damage to humans from this accident up to 1988. Among girls who were 12-

18years old at the time of the accident, 47 were married by 1977 and had delivered 141

children. Among these children, six had the disease called Down's syndrome, whereas

among general population before the accident, just one child in 600 had come down with

this disease. The incidence of this disease after the accident was 24 times that before the

accident.

The Three Mile Island accident : In the state of Pennsylvania in U.S.A., a nuclear

reactor had one of the most serious accidents in 1979 in which the bottom of a nuclear

reactor melted down. This happened because of the failure of the cooling system and the

alternative cooling system at the same time. The radioactive fuel in the reactor spilled into

the soil underneath the reactor, but got caught in a crevice in the rocks and so did not

spread into the underground water and the environment as it would have otherwise done.

Therefore, the scientists and the general public in U.S.A. heaved a sigh of relief with the

belief that they had just escaped from a major disaster. However, a study conducted 9

years after the accident showed that 130,000 more people had died in the area during the

nine years after the accident than during a similar period before the accident. This clearly

shows how nuclear radiation kills people over a long period of time almost imperceptibly.

Unless a scientific study is conducted, people would never have attributed the deaths from

cancers of various organs and from numerous other diseases to increased radiation from

a nuclear accident. The effects of a nuclear accident or of the regular release of

radioactive materials from nuclear reactors are rarely immediate and obvious, but

occur slowly and imperceptibly over a long period of time.

The Chernobyl accident : In Chernobyl of the state of Ukraine of the former U.S.S.R.,

the most serious accident in the history of nuclear power generation occurred on April 26,

1986. For some reason, an engineer stopped the supply of steam to the reactor for a split



second. The switch board indicated that an accident could occur. The operator became

scared, got confused and in a few seconds made six mistakes that resulted in thirty

explosions and fires within seconds. The top of the reactor melted and opened a big hole

through which a radioactive cloud spilled out into the atmosphere. This cloud spread and

rained radioactive substances on countries around such as Sweden 1280 kilometers away

and West Germany 2000 kilometers away.

To reduce the degree of damage done, the concerned authorities acted immediately

with great speed. Within hours after the gravity of the situation became apparent, numerous

helicopters specially equipped with radiation resistant lead and steel shields, poured 5000

tons of sand, marble pieces, dolomite ore, lead and boron over the top of the reactor to

close the hole, and extinguish the fires. They emptied 19 tons of radioactive waste with the

help of bulldozers similarly protected with lead and steel shields. They cooled down the

bottom of the reactor vessel with liquid nitrogen to prevent a melt down of the bottom of the

reactor. In spite of all this, the center of the reactors with 180 tons of radioactive fuel was

still burning even after two months.

To prevent the spread of radioactive materials, the authorities buried the reactor in

concrete piled 55 meters high, 200 meters long and 100 meters wide. Because of all

these precautions and timely action only 4% of the radioactive materials stored in the

reactor had spilled out. Still, 100 million curies of radioactive materials had polluted several

countries in Europe To clean out the reactor of a large part of the radioactive materials,

7000 workers worked incessantly exposing themselves to radiation damage. Some of

them received a very high dose of radiation of 200 rem, 3000 workers received a high

dose of 25 rem, and 400 workers received a dose of 75 rem. (An exposure to even 0.25

rem will increase the incidence of cancer.)

The concrete dome built over the reactor deteriorated in about 8-10 years and the

government had to build another concrete dome to bury the reactor. After about 5 years

another reactor caught fire, was badly damaged and had to be closed down. The

government of Ukraine finally decided to close down all the four reactors in Chernobyl.

Within hours after the seriousness of the accident became obvious, the concerned

authorities mobilized 2172 buses and 1786 trucks to evacuate 135,000 people from 50

villages and towns around Chernobyl. Even before this could be done, a large number of

people had received a high dose of radiation. All women who were pregnant in the area as

well as those in other countries had to be aborted to prevent birth of deformed children.

Around Chernobyl 50,000 square kilometers (1 crore and 25 lakhs of acres) of agricultural

land was highly polluted with radioactive materials and was declared unfit for cultivation



and human habitation. Even in countries like Sweden, Denmark and West Germany 1000-

2000 kilometers away from Chernobyl, thousands of radiation affected animals had to be

slaughtered. Contaminated milk, meat and vegetables had to be destroyed. Radioactive

materials had polluted a total of 77,000 square kilometers in U.S.S.R. and Europe.

According to the 'World Health Organization' of the United Nations, 49 lakhs of people

in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and 2.2 crores of people in Byelorussia were adversely

affected by the Chernobyl accident, and many had developed cancers, diseases of the

alimentary, respiratory, reproductive, nervous, ductless glands and other systems. Thyroid

problems among children had doubled and problems of nose and throat had increased

ten fold. 800,000 people were severely affected. 335,000 people from around Chernobyl

lost their land, houses and commercial establishments and had to settle down far away

from their former homes. It is now 25 years after the accident and still they can not even

dream of going back to their homes because the area is still unsafe to live.

The cost of cleaning out the reactor number four was estimated to be 40.4 billion

US dollars (1,73,720 crores of rupees). Add to this, the losses incurred by all

countries in U.S.S.R and Europe in losses of men and animals, food and other

materials that had to be destroyed because of radioactive contamination, the total

losses from this accident would be two or three times the cost of cleaning out the

reactor number-4 of Chernobyl.

If such an accident occurs in India, do we have lead and steel lined helicopters

ready to pour sand, marble pieces, dolomite ore, lead and boron over the reactors

to put out the fires in the reactor and seal the hole at the top as they did in Chernobyl

? Can we mobilize thousands of buses and trucks to quickly move people out of

the accident area to safer places? Do we have lead and steel lined bulldozers

ready to clean out radioactive debris? If the authorities in Chernobyl did not act

as quickly as they did, many more lives would have been lost not merely around

Chernobyl but also in countries around Ukraine. As an illustration of what could

happen if such an accident occurs in India, let us look at how authorities in Bhopal

managed the poison gas leak in Bhopal more than twenty five years ago.

At the time of the leakage of the poisonous gas methyl isocyanate from a factory near

the town of Bhopal in the state of Madhya Pradesh, on December 4th, 1984, my cousin

and his family lived in Bhopal. Some time around midnight his wife and two children suddenly

woke up choking with the smell of some kind of gas. Tears poured down from their eyes.

They came out of their house to catch some fresh air and saw hundreds of people in the

street running in a certain direction. No officials were in sight to tell people what happened,



where to go and how to protect themselves from the poisonous gas. There were no buses

or trucks to help people move. My cousin and family moved in the same direction in which

other people were moving. They came to a lake where the density of the poison gas was

much less because the water in the lake was absorbing the gas. They stayed there all

night until they could no longer smell the gas. Early next morning they walked back home

still not knowing what happened. Even 24 hours after the accident the authorities did not

provide any help for transportation or medical help. Doctors had no information on what

medicine they should give as an antidote for the poisonous gas. If the authorities were so

uncaring and unprepared to handle such a minor accident, would they suddenly change for

the better if there was a nuclear accident? At the instance of the Prime Minister an

emergency evacuation was conducted around the Kalpakkam nuclear reactor in Tamil

Nadu. The results clearly indicated that administrative machinery and the people were

unprepared to meet an emergency. This is true for a place like Kalpakkam where there

are nice roads, the terrain is smooth and the people are somewhat educated. In places

like Kaiga and Jaitapur where the terrain around is mountainous and not easily accessible,

can we expect a successful emergency evacuation within a short time?

The Fukushima nuclear accident : The recent accident in the nuclear power plants

at Fukushima in the Daiichi prefecture of Japan has occurred 25 years after the Chernobyl

accident. Because of a severe earthquake and the Psunami that followed, the regular

cooling devices as well as the alternative cooling devices failed at the same time. This

resulted in explosions in three reactors and melt down of the reactors as indicated by a

large increase in radioactivity around the reactor and the sea around. Within a few days

the leakage of radioactive substances spread far and wide and a small increase was

reported even from San Francisco on the west coast of U.S.A. Because of a tremendous

increase in radiation it was not possible to know clearly what happened and extent of

damage. We know now that radioactive materials including plutonium have escaped in a

big way into the environment, some of which have even reached Tokyo with a population of

13 million people 250 kilometers away from Fukushima. The people in areas around

Fukushima, and even in Tokyo have been advised not to drink water from public water

supply system, eat fresh vegetables, fruits, meat and dairy products. 190 workers from the

nuclear plants have received very high doses of radiation and will soon die from burns,

failure various organ systems, radiation damage. Probably thousands of people have

already received high doses of radiation and will come down with cancers of various

systems in the body. Thousands of children will come down with diseases of the thyroid

gland, and thousands children will be born with deformed bodies.



70,000 people from around a radius of 20-30 kilometers from the reactor site were

evacuated in first phase of evacuation. Later on, another 135,000 people had to be

evacuated. Many of these people would have received high doses of radiation before they

were evacuated. The level of radiation around the reactor is 100,000 micro sieverts per

hour which is 8660 times the normal level. As stated earlier, even minute increases in

radiation will increase the incidence of cancers and birth of deformed children. This accident

is probably much more serious than the Chernobyl accident because three reactors have

been severely damaged and much more radioactive materials have escaped into the

atmosphere than in Chernobyl. Japan is much more thickly populated than Ukraine, and

therefore we may expect more than 5 crores of people to suffer from the consequences

from this accident. During the next ten to twenty years thousands possibly millions will

come down with cancers of various systems, thyroid glands, and failure of various systems

in the body. Thousands of deformed children will be born and nobody knows how to prevent

these adverse effects.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has decided to close down all the four reactors

in Fukushima. Some of them were quite old and had developed cracks in the reactor

vessel and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N.R.C) of Japan had pointed this out.

The company did nothing to correct these faults. Still, the N.R.C. had permitted the company

to run these unsafe reactors for ten years more than the stipulated retiring age of 40 years.

This demonstrates the clout that the company has with the N.R.C. authorities who have

ignored safety concerns in favor of the company.

U.S.A., Australia, Canada, Singapore and several other countries have banned the

import of food products from the areas around 80 kilometers from Fukushima. The people

of Japan seem to have realized that nuclear power generation is dangerous and have put

pressure on their government to renounce nuclear power. The Japanese government has

announced that they will phase out nuclear power and switch over to eco-friendly sources

of power.



CHAPTER 5

Conclusions and suggestions1. People working in the uranium mines of U.S.A., Africa, Europe, Australia and India,

and those living in areas around piles of tailings have a much higher incidence of cancers

of several organs, birth of deformed children, and many other radiation related diseases.

2. The accidents at Three Mile Island in the U.S., Wind scale in Britain, Chernobyl in

Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan, and the minor accidents in more than 150 reactors all

over the world, have increased the background radiation around the nuclear power

plants. In addition, the routine release of radioactive materials into the rivers, lakes and

the sea around more than 300 nuclear power plants have also contributed to the increase

in radioactivity. Besides, the fishes and other edible aquatic animals that grow in such

radiation infested waters keep storing radioactive materials present in water, and usually

have 10,000 to 15000 times more such material than is present in the water in which

they grow. People who consume such infested fish and other aquatic animals get a

very high dose of radioactive materials. This causes innumerable mutations in the

genomes of human beings and animals which in many cases results in increased

incidence of cancers, disorders of various organ systems and the birth of deformed

children. Since this happens over a long period of time, it is difficult to pin it down to

increase in radioactivity. But, innumerable experiments by biologists have clearly

indicated that even a small increase in radiation results in increased incidence of cancer,

birth of deformed children and of various other kinds of diseases.

3. Since all nuclear reactors have many kinds of complicated machinery some of which

are likely to have some defects, they are most likely to break down some time during

their life time. The operators of these machines, like all operators of machines, are

likely to make mistakes, some of which may result in 33% to 66% of the accidents.

Some accidents in nuclear reactors, however, may result in release of large quantities

of radioactive substances which cause serious diseases over several generations

among people exposed to these substances.

Serious accidents have occurred in several countries. For example: nine years

after the Three Mile Island accident 130,000 more people had died than during

nine years before the accident. Because of the Chernobyl accident millions of

people have been affected by diseases related to increased radiation such as

cancers and birth of deformed children over a period of 25 years. Similar fate

awaits the people in Japan during the next 10-20 years because of the

Fukushima accident.



Former president of the U.S.S.R., Mikhail Gorbachev has pointed out that since nuclear

power has caused tremendous suffering to millions of people, we should seriously

consider replacing it with safer and cleaner methods of power generation. He has also

pointed out that terrorists are now more likely to attack nuclear plants than a few years

ago.

Therefore nuclear power is potentially much more dangerous than any other

source of power.

4. Former President Gorbachev has also pointed out that between 1947 and 1999, the

U.S. has subsidized the nuclear industry both directly and indirectly to the tune of 260

billion U.S. dollars equal to 11,44,000 crores of rupees. The cost of cleaning out the

nuclear debris in the Chernobyl reactor number 4 was 40.4 billion dollars equal to

1,73,720 crores of rupees. The losses occurred by other nations of the former U.S.S.R

and Europe would be much more than the cost of cleaning the Chernobyl reactor. When

all these factors are considered, and the potential of nuclear power for causing

more losses, nuclear power is the most expensive source of power available

to us.

5. Safer and more eco-friendly alternatives than nuclear power are available and

should be utilized Details are discussed in detail in part II of this book.

6. In view of the above facts, it is clear that even though nuclear power is the most

dangerous and the most expensive source of power, our government is opting for it

only because of the financial clout of the companies that manufacture nuclear power

generating plants, and the pressure of the countries where such plants are manufactured.

Our governments will scrap nuclear power only if the people of the areas where

these plants are to be built are vehemently opposed to them and are likely to

vote out governments that support nuclear power.

7. To build up support among the people for the cause of resisting the imposition of nuclear

power, we should establish close working relations with students and various

organizations interested in environmental protection

8. We have to spread information about the dangers of nuclear power by publishing articles

and books on the subject among the people all over the country, and organize

conferences and rallies to convince the governments concerned that the people are

vehemently opposed to nuclear power. These articles and books should be sent to all

the peoples' representatives, both in the state assemblies and the parliament at the

centre. Only when the political parties are convinced that they will be defeated

at the polls if they support nuclear power, they are likely to scrap nuclear power.



Shankar Sharma has a bachelor degree (Electrical Engineering) from the University

of Mysore, and PG Diploma (Technology Management) from Deakin University, Australia.

He has over 31 years of professional experience in the areas of electricity generation,

transmission and distribution in India, New Zealand and Australia. At present he is engaged

as a Power Policy Analyst, and lives on the bank of river Tunga in Western Ghats of

Karnataka. He is engaged in advocacy and activism on energy usage resposnibility and

environmental protection. He can be contacted through his

e-mail: [email protected]

Nuclear Power TechnologyMajor issues on technology, risks, public safety,

economics and credible alternatives

SHANKAR SHARMAPower Policy Analyst

PART II



CHAPTER 6

Nuclear Power Technology

This section aims to cover the major issues associated with producing electricity from

nuclear power technology. Nuclear technology used in other areas such as food industry,

health care, industries etc. is not included.

Basically a nuclear power plant involves generating steam from the energy released

from nuclear fission, and to run a steam turbine and an electric generator. Except for the

method of obtaining the steam and all the associated aspects, all other aspects of a nuclear

power plant can be compared to that of a coal power plant. Issues on equipment such as

generator circuit breakers, transformers, measuring and control instruments/systems,

electric sub-station, transmission lines, the control room etc. are similar to that of other

conventional technology power plants.

Two most commonly used type of nuclear reactors are: Boiling Water Reactor and

Pressurised Water Reactor. Main components of a nuclear power plant are: nuclear reactor,

steam turbine, generator, cooling system, safety valves, feed water pumps, and other

electrical accessories/ systems.

Nuclear reactor (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : A nuclear reactor initiates and

controls sustained nuclear chain reaction. The nuclear reactor is the heart of the plant. In its

central part, the reactor core's heat is generated by controlled nuclear fission. With this

heat, a coolant is heated as it is pumped through the reactor and thereby removes the

energy from the reactor. Heat from nuclear fission is used to raise steam, which runs

through turbines, which in turn powers electrical generators.

Since nuclear fission creates radioactivity, the reactor core is surrounded by a protective

shield. This containment absorbs radiation and prevents radioactive material from being

released into the environment. In addition, many reactors are equipped with a dome of

concrete to protect the reactor against external impacts. In nuclear power plants, different

types of reactors, nuclear fuels, and cooling circuits and moderators are used.

Steam turbine : The object of the steam turbine is to convert the heat contained in

steam into mechanical energy. The engine house with the steam turbine is usually structurally

separated from the main reactor building. It is aligned to prevent debris from the destruction

of a turbine in operation from flying towards the reactor.

Electric generator : The generator converts kinetic energy supplied by the steam turbine

into electrical energy.



Cooling system : A cooling system removes heat from the reactor core and transports

it to another area of the plant, where the thermal energy can be harnessed to produce

electricity. It also takes away the excess heat from the system to keep the overall heat

transfer process within the manageable limits.

Feed water pump : The Feed water pump controls the transfer of water from the feed

water tank to the reactor for steam generation.

Safety valves : Safety valves, as the name indicates, are for the safety of the various

equipment and personnel in the power plant, and are designed to release/shut different

subsystems when a given parameter exceeds the pre-set safety limit.

Spent fuel storage facility : The large quantities of nuclear waste, which gets

accumulated after the nuclear fission process, needs to be stored under stringent conditions

of safety for long periods.

Complexity of nuclear power plants (Reference Source: Wikipedia): Nuclear

power plants are some of the most sophisticated and complex energy systems ever

designed. Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot

be deemed failure-proof. The reactors are so enormously complex machines with the

possibility of a large number of things that can go wrong. As happened at Three Mile

Island in 1979, one malfunction led to another, and then to a series of others, until the core

of the reactor itself began to melt, and even the world's most highly trained nuclear engineers

did not know how to respond. The accident revealed serious deficiencies in a system that

was meant to protect public health and safety. A fundamental issue related to complexity

is that nuclear power systems have exceedingly long lifetimes. The timeframe involved

from the start of construction of a commercial nuclear power station, through to the safe

disposal of its last radioactive waste, may be 100 to 150 years. The fact that no nuclear

power plant has completed this timeframe yet gives raise to the concern that there may be

many failure modes not experienced so far. It appears almost impossible to ensure

adequate levels of safety during such a long period. The type of failure modes experienced

in the three major nuclear accidents in the history (at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and

Fukushima) are all known to be different.

Failure modes of nuclear power plants (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : There

are concerns that a combination of human and mechanical error at a nuclear facility could

result in significant harm to people and the environment. Operating nuclear reactors contain

large amounts of radioactive fission products which, if dispersed, can pose a direct radiation

hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation, and be ingested by humans and animals. Human

exposure at high enough levels can cause both short-term illness and death and longer-



term death by cancer and other diseases. However, it is said that it is impossible for a

commercial nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb since the fuel is never sufficiently

enriched for this to occur.

Nuclear reactors can fail in a variety of ways. Should the instability of the nuclear material

generate unexpected behavior, it may result in an uncontrolled power excursion. Normally,

the cooling system in a reactor is designed to be able to handle the excess heat this

causes; however, should the reactor also experience a loss-of-coolant accident, then the

fuel may melt or cause the vessel it is contained in to overheat and melt. This event is

called a nuclear meltdown.

The most common failure mode in a nuclear power plant of utmost concern is the failure

of the cooling system of the reactor. Even after shutting down, for some time the reactor

will need external energy to power its cooling systems. Normally this energy is provided by

the power grid to that the plant is connected, or by emergency diesel generators, or by a

battery bank. Failure to provide power for the cooling systems, as happened in Fukushima,

can cause serious accidents. Such a failure of cooling system of the reactor can happen

because of many reasons, and it is generally felt that it is impossible to design a nuclear

power plant with foolproof cooling system, as can be gauged from the three major accidents

which have happened. In Fukushima three independent supply systems to power the cooling

systems failed to prevent the damage in a strange coincidence of failures.

Intentional cause of such failures may be the result of nuclear terrorism : The

large number of incidents, near accidents, minor accidents and major accidents even in

techno-economically advanced countries such as USA, Russia and Japan have established

the fact that nuclear power cannot be risk free even in the best of circumstances. The

nuclear power plant technology is so complex that any of such incidents, near accidents,

minor accidents can escalate quickly into a major accident.

Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : Nuclear

reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades,

have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and

campaigns. Hence such credible attacks on nuclear installations are the major sources of

concern for security agencies. Some such incidences are:

✤ In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq.

✤ In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research

facility.

✤ Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times.



✤ In Iraq in 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot facility.

✤ In 1991, Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant.

✤ In September 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.

Controversy (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : Proponents argue that nuclear power

is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy

security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels. Proponents advance the

notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable

alternative of fossil fuel. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can

be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational

safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of

power plants.

Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.

These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining,

processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the

unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves

are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there

have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be

reduced through new technology. They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of

the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning,

and the amount energy required to keep the nuclear waste safe for thousands of years,

nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source. If we consider the fact that the spent

nuclear fuel needs cooling for thousands of years in order to prevent form nuclear accidents,

will clearly reveal that they probably consume more energy than produce in a nuclear power

plant.

A high level understanding of various issues associated with nuclear power

technology may be considered essential to enable the Civil Society to participate

in well-informed decision making process.



CHAPTER 7

Economics & Safety of Nuclear Power

The fact that not many nuclear power plants have been built for over 3 decades since

the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 can say a lot about the true economics of building them.

Few nuclear power plants are being built in China and India, but one cannot say that the

true economics of building them have been objectively considered by the STATE agencies

owning them.

The new nuclear power plant being built in Europe is by EDF at Flamanville in France.

It is now at least four years behind time and Euro 2.7 Billion over budget. The only other

new nuclear plant being built in Europe is at Olkiluoto in Finland. Areva, the builder of this

plant is reported to be four years late and Euro 2.6 Billion over budget.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/20/edf-french-nuclear-reactor-delays]

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-power-gas-coal].

It is reported that the effect of the delay and ballooning costs at Flamanville 3 on the

ultimate cost of the electricity produced, as per Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at

the university of Sussex, is that the cost per kilowatt hour has jumped between 33% and

45% in the last few years. It is estimated that the cost is particularly sensitive to delays, as

this widens the gap between the heavy capital outlay and the point at which money starts

to flow back in.

When nuclear power was initially propounded as a possible source of electricity, it was

touted as so cheap that even metering its consumption was considered unnecessary.

Today it is the seen as the costliest source of electrical power. It is projected that at Jaitapura

(Maharastra) the total cost of the proposed power capacity of 9,900 MW with 6 of EPR

reactors will be about Rs. 200,000 Crores. This comes to about Rs. 20 Crores per MW. In

comparison the cost of a coal power plant is about 7 - 9 Crores/MW, and that of a hydel

power plant is about Rs. 8 - 10 Crores/MW. Even the cost of a solar power plant, which

was being dismissed as very costly till recently, is known to be about Rs. 18-20 Crores /

MW without any of the attendant risks of nuclear power. In view of the continuously dropping

costs of solar power technology, there is already a projection that by 2017 the cost of solar

power will compare favorably with that of coal power. So, even the cost aspect of nuclear

power seems to be against the technology.

Long term storage of nuclear waste is a major issue requiring our attention. Even US,

which has over 100 nuclear reactors and which depends upon nuclear power for about



20% of its electricity generation capacity, has not found a satisfactory answer to this

problem. The U.S. government is reported to have invested $9 billion developing a storage

site for reprocessed nuclear spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada province, which is

perhaps the most studied geological structure in the world. Despite this enormous

investment in building an underground, secure storage site, Nevada's less than 3 million

residents have refused to endorse the project as a result of safety and environmental

concerns. If storing spent nuclear fuel deep inside a mountain surrounded on all sides by

about 100 miles of empty desert is considered unsafe, it seems certainly odd that in India,

where the density of population is very high and where we cannot afford to keep an area of

100 kM radius without habitation, it is not an issue at all.

In a related article Dr. M V Ramana has shown that the cost of a 235 MWe nuclear

power unit at Kaiga, Karnataka is much more than that of a comparable size coal power

unit at Raichur, both built at about the same time. Dr. M V Ramana has established with

reasonable amount of certainty that the real cost of a modern nuclear power station is

clearly higher than that of a comparable size coal based power station. If we also take into

objective account the long term storage costs, insurance costs, government subsidies

and all the associated environmental and health costs, the nuclear power projects will be

much costlier than any other conventional power sources. Subsequent to Fukushima

disaster, the requirement for additional safety features is expected to be stringent enough

to make the cost of nuclear power even higher than the present costs. So, even the cost

advantage of nuclear energy is not there anymore.

Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, had expressed his concerns

in an article 'Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned'. He has said: " … But it is

necessary to realize that nuclear power is not a panacea, as some observers allege, for

energy sufficiency or climate change. Its cost-effectiveness is also exaggerated, as its

real cost does not account for many hidden expenses. In the United States, for example,

direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with

an additional $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar

energy combined over this same period totaled only $5.5 billion."

In an article, Dr. Michael I. Niman, a professor of Journalism and Media Studies at

Buffalo State College has anlysed the nuclear power cost: "Nuclear power operators

creating problems and then foisting them onto the government to fix when they, as we

unfortunately put it, go nuclear, is such a norm globally as to be codified in law. The potential

risk from a nuclear accident is so huge as to be commercially uninsurable. In fact, if the

nuclear power industry were left to fend for itself in the free market, it would instantly collapse,



turning upside-down once risk gets factored into any equation. The risk of catastrophe is

so high, and the potential catastrophe so large, that the cost of insurance, assuming

hypothetically that it was available, raises the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity off of the

charts."

In an article "India's nuclear chimera" Down to Earth magazine ( Issue Aug.15, 2010)

has covered the cost and time over runs in nuclear power plants, and has concluded that

"Going by the Kudankulan example, India's nuclear power generation target is a pie in the

sky."

The exorbitant capital and operating costs, cost and time over runs, subsidies and

hidden costs in the Indian context of nuclear power plants have also been quietly ignored

by the nuclear establishemnts. International studies have established that if we take into

account the true costs associated with disposing nuclear waste, decommissioning the

worn out plants, and insuring reactors against catastrophic failures into objective account,

building nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market is not simply economical. If the

import of technology and fuel are to be relied upon the energy security becomes a major

issue which has not been addressed. It is very strange that Integrated Energy Policy has

not dedicated much space for the discussion on nuclear power issues.

As stated by Hazel Henderson, a columnist (Deccan Herald of 29.6.2010), "Nuclear

energy, heavily subsidized since its inception, is still the most inefficient, expensive and

hazardous way that humans have ever devised to boil water."

There is also a considered opinion of the experts that due to exorbitant costs associated

and the base load nature, nuclear power can be at best suited to rich societies with high

per capita consumption. But for a poor country, like India, can it be a suitable option from

a holistic perspective?

Safety concerns for the Public : Since each of the three techno-economic super

powers (USA, Russia and Japan) has experienced the nuclear emergency from their power

plants, the very wisdom of relying on nuclear power technology is being increasingly

questioned. If such resource rich and knowledgeable communities could not avert nuclear

emergencies, can our densely populated and ill-prepared society ever hope to avert the

possible human catastrophe from a nuclear mishap?

While the country is fortunate that there have been no major accidents in the nuclear

establishment, the observers are of the opinion that adequate safety of operation in the

nuclear facilities within the country cannot be guaranteed for various reasons. While more

and more complex safety systems/redundancies are being designed and built for the overall



safety of nuclear power stations, it should be noted that they are only increasing the number

of sub-systems and the complexity. Such complex systems can result in increasing the

risk of failure of individual sub-systems/ sub-components (because of unintended/

unexpected interaction between sub-systems), and increasing new accident modes. All

these can result in an increase in the number of automatic shutdown of reactors or

catastrophic failures. The rapidity at which a minor problem in the complex system of safety

can escalate into a major disaster is great in a nuclear power station, as experienced at

Chernobyl.

Tall claims have been made about the capability of Indian nuclear establishments,

especially the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), to ensure complete safety of

nuclear power projects. The fact that the people manning AERB are generally deputed

from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) OR Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., which is

the operator of the nuclear power plants in the country, cannot assure the complete

operational independence of AERB. As far as Chernobyl disaster is concerned Indian

nuclear authorities have said that "… secrecy was part of the Soviet culture..." How

transparent are the issues with our own nuclear establishments? Mr. A Gopalakrishnan, A

former Chairman of AERB, has expressed concern about the complete dependence of

AERB on DAE for resources.

While the nuclear emergency caused by Tsunami/earthquake recently has thrown up

many critical issues even in a safety and quality conscious country like Japan, it is very

hard to imagine that the powerful and secretive nuclear power sector in our country (a

country generally associated with corrupt and poor quality practices) has taken all the

essential and adequate precautions to avoid such nuclear emergencies. It is even more

critical to ask ourselves whether a densely populated and resource constrained country

like ours can afford to take risk of a nuclear emergency?

It will be pertinent to note that, consequent to the nuclear emergency at Fukushima, Dr.

A Gopalakrishnan, Former Chairman, AERB, has expressed serious concerns about the

nuclear power park plans (of multiple units of huge capacity in single location), and called

for making the AERB very independent of DAE. Dr. A Gopalakrishnan has said: "The

people of India face a serious dilemma. The Fukushima incident has clearly brought out

the reality that a nation far more technologically capable, better organised, and disciplined

than India is today suffering seriously from a nuclear catastrophe. Out of sheer arrogance

and ignorance, the government of India and its nuclear agencies do not wish to pause and

debate the issues, but would rather move on in a hurry after a sham of a safety audit, which

is conducted by a captive regulatory agency, as they have done three times in the past."



Mr. Jairam Ramesh, a minister himself, is reported to have written to PM seeking review

of nuclear power park plan at Jaitapura, Maharastra.

Dr P Balaram, director of the prestigious Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and

part of prime minister Manmohan Singh's scientific advisory council, described the events

in Japan as "a wake-up call" for India. In an open letter, signed by more than 50 prominent

figures, Dr. Balaram has stated: "In the light of what has happened in Japan.... we strongly

believe that India must radically review its nuclear power policy for appropriateness, safety,

costs, and public acceptance, and undertake an independent, transparent safety audit of

all its nuclear facilities, which involves non-DAE experts and civil society organisations.

Pending the review, there should be a moratorium on all further nuclear activity, and

revocation of recent clearances for nuclear projects," said Dr Balaram. He said he agreed

to be a co-signatory to a key petition seeking a nuclear moratorium because many of

India's proposed nuclear plants were likely to come up in populated and ecologically

sensitive areas.

The proponents of nuclear power in India project it as a very safe technology. But the

reality in Indian conditions seems to be vastly different. In an article by rediff NEWS at

rediff.com on 4th October 2010 under the title "197 suicides and 1,733 deaths at India's

nuclear establishments in last 15 yrs", it was mentioned that "197 employees belonging to

a number of nuclear establishments and related institutes in India have committed suicide

and 1,733 scientists and employees belonging to these centres have died of illnesses like

multiple organ failure, lung cancer, cirrhosis of liver etc, as per a report compiled by Mumbai-

based RTI activist Chetan Kothari."

As per Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the

author of "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer":

"Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels- in

fact, does it add substantially to global warming. Solar power, wind energy and geothermal

energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs. At the beginning, we had

no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie Curie and her daughter didn't know that

the radioactive materials they handled would kill them. But it didn't take long for the

early nuclear physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of radioactive

elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy

would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge,

credibility and legitimacy to end it."



On safe practices in nuclear industry in India, the ex-chairman of the Atomic Energy

Regulatory Board (AERB) Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has the following to say: " The Japanese

are the world's best experts in earthquake-resistant designs. They are also most

knowledgeable in protective designs against tsunami impact. Japan is a country that has

a superb disaster management organisation throughout their nation, and an often-rehearsed

working team to handle such emergencies." "In contrast, in India, we are most disorganised

and unprepared for the handling of emergencies of any kind of even much less severity.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's (AERB's) disaster preparedness oversight is mostly

on paper and the drills they once in a while conduct are half-hearted efforts which amount

more to a sham."

A new dimension to the public safety is the 'nuclear terrorism'. In this regard Mikhail

Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, had expressed his concern in an article

"Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned". He says: " …. I also remain concerned

over the dangers of terrorist attacks on power reactors and terrorist groups' acquisition of

fissile material. After the heavy damage wrought by terrorist groups in New York, Moscow,

Madrid, Tokyo, Bali, and elsewhere over the past 15 years, we must very carefully consider

the vulnerability of reactor fuel, spent fuel pools, dry storage casks, and related fissile

materials and facilities to sabotage, attack, and theft. While the Chernobyl disaster was

accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well

be intentional." His caution of wisdom also included : " First of all, it is vitally important to

prevent any possibility of a repetition of the Chernobyl accident. This was a horrendous

disaster because of the direct human cost, the large tracts of land poisoned, the scale of

population displacement, the great loss of livelihoods, and the long-term trauma suffered

by individuals yanked from their homeland and heritage. Victims of the tragedy were

confronted by a crisis which they could scarcely understand and against which they had no

defense. The material damage inflicted by Chernobyl, although enormous, pales in

significance when compared to the ongoing human costs. The true scope of the tragedy

still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear

threat. It is also a striking symbol of modern technological risk."

Major issues for the society with Nuclear power technology

Economic Issues Demands large tracts of forests and fertile land; huge Capital costs;

long term waste management costs; serious shortages of nuclear

fuels in India; impact on food availability subsequent to accidents;

true costs to society can be huge



Social Issues Peoples' displacement and health; long term health implications;

inter generational implications of nuclear waste;

Environmental Mining related pollution; radiation emission during operations and

from nuclear wastes for centuries ; radiation contamination of air,

water and land; contamination of food products

In a presentation with the title "Why A Future For The Nuclear Industry Is Risky" Peter

Bradford, Former Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists many concerns

as below:

✤ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE STATED TERRORIST TARGETS : A

SUCCESSFUL ATTACK COULD HALT NEW CONSTRUCTION EVEN AFTER

SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURE

✤ USED NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE REMAINS UNRESOLVED

✤ ON GLOBAL WARMING: THERE ARE MUCH BETTER SOLUTIONS

There have been suggestions from Indian nuclear authorities that the safe storage of

nuclear waste is technically feasible during its active life time. Is it really so, and even if it is

so, what about the huge costs involved? Are the efforts/costs to keep nuclear waste safe

for thousands of years worthy of all the risks involved? In this regard there are credible and

serious concerns that whereas the present generation may get the benefit of electricity

from nuclear power, the future generations have to deal with all the risks and costs

associated with the spent fuel. Is this fair or socially responsible?

In the case of a complex technology such as nuclear power the true value and

the credible risks to the stakeholders should be determined objectively.



Is Nuclear Power green and relevant toIndian scenario?

CHAPTER 8

The debate as to whether nuclear power is a safe, suitable and essential option for

India has been going on for many decades. While the proponents of the nuclear power

have been offering many arguments in favour of the option, there have been any numbers

of issues raised by those who consider it to be not the best solution to meet the legitimate

energy requirements of our society on a sustainable basis.

Observers of nuclear power industry have been of the opinion that whereas the nuclear

establishment in the country has been making tall claims on the increased role of nuclear

energy, the reality has been much less in successive decades after independence. On the

basis of many plans and assuming optimistic development times, Dr. Homi Bhabha had

announced that there would be 8,000 MW of nuclear power in the country by 1980. As the

years progressed, these predictions increased. By 1962, the prediction was that nuclear

energy would generate 20,000 -25,000 MW by 1987 and by 1969 the Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC) predicted that by 2000 there would be 43,500 MW of nuclear

generating capacity. All of this was before a single unit of nuclear electricity was produced

in the country – India’s first reactor, Tarapur, was only commissioned in 1969! {M. V. Ramana,

“Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

The reality has been quite different. Installed capacity of nuclear power generation in

1979-80 was about 600 MW; about 950 MW in 1987; 2,720 MW in 2000; and 4,780 MW

in mid-2011. Despite the huge increase in the total power generation capacity in India,

from a meager 1,800 MW in 1950 to 177,000 MW in 2011, the total contribution of nuclear

power to the total power generation capacity is about 2.7% only.

The observers are also of the opinion that this utter failure has not been because of a

paucity of resources or the encouragement. Practically all governments have favored

nuclear energy and the Department of Atomic Energy’s (DAE) budgets have always been

high. The high allocations for the DAE have come at the cost of promoting other, more

sustainable, sources of power. In 2002-03, for example, the DAE was allocated Rs. 33.5

billion, dwarfing in comparison the Rs. 4.7 billion allocated to the Ministry of Nonconventional

Energy Sources (MNES), which is in charge of developing solar, wind, small hydro, and

biomass based power. Despite the smaller allocations, installed capacity of these

renewable energy sources was 18,455 MW in 2011 (as compared to 4.780 MW of nuclear

power). {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March

2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.



Integrated Energy Policy (IEP) admits that India is poorly endowed with Uranium, and

that the known sources within the country can supply only about 10,000 MW of power

capacity based on Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR). It also say that because of

low grade Uranium ore available in the country, Indian nuclear fuel costs at least 3 times

that of international supplies (IEP: Page 74). It adds that the substantial Thorium reserve

in the country should be harnessed by converting it into fissile material through three stage

development: PHWRs, fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), and reactors based on Uranium -

233 and Thorium -232 cycle, which is still reported to be far away from reality. Yet IEP

advocates a large and unrealistic addition to nuclear power capacity by 2031-32; increase

from present level of about 3,700 MW to 63,000. In this context can we say that nuclear

power can play a major role in bringing energy self sufficiency to our masses?

Nuclear power is a sector on which the govt. is known to be spending large amounts of

national resources, because of which much more discussion of all the related issues must

be held before building future nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the views of Dept. of

Atomic Energy and the personal views of nuclear power proponents seem to have been

simply accepted by IEP. The fact that not a single a nuclear reactor has been approved in

USA or UK after the Chernobyl disaster; the difficulties faced in 1-2-3 agreement with

USA; and public opposition to Nuclear Damages Civil Liability Bill etc. have not been

taken into objective account in IEP.

Pro-nuclear advocates have started to argue that nuclear power is a good option against

Global Warming. Observers are of the opinion that “flailing nuclear establishments around

the world, including India’s, have grabbed this second opportunity and made claims for

massive state investments in the hope of resurrecting an industry that has largely collapsed

due to its inability to provide clean, safe or cheap electricity”. Two assumptions made by

such pro-nuclear advocates are fundamentally flawed. One is that Global Warming can be

contained without fundamentally changing the Western pattern of energy consumption,

because nuclear energy is tiny contributor to energy mix world wide. It is generally

considered to be impossible to contain Global Warming without significantly reducing the

energy consumption levels of Western/ developed countries.

The second flawed assumption is that adoption of nuclear power can make sense as a

strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions. In this regard an example of Japan, a pro-

nuclear energy country until the Fukushima disaster, is given. As Jinzaburo Takagi, a

Japanese nuclear Chemist, has showed, from 1965 to 1995 Japan’s nuclear power plant

capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period its CO2 emissions

increased from about 400 million tons to about 1,200 million tons. Increased use of nuclear



power did not really reduce Japan’s emission levels. {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in

India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

In an article “Too hot to handle? The future of Civil Nuclear Power” Frank Barnaby and

James Kemp of Oxford Research Group have discussed why the nuclear power cannot

be an acceptable option in the future, even from the Global Warming considerations. They

point out that if nuclear power were to play more than a marginal role in combating global

warming then some nuclear-power reactors would have to be operated even in these

countries, where there is no nuclear power as of now. They have estimated that about

2,500 Nuclear reactors of average capacity 1,000 MWe would be required, and nearly

four new reactors would have to begin construction each month from now until 2075. Looking

at the past experience of slow growth, the increasing public opposition, the safety issues,

the threat of nuclear terrorism etc. such a huge addition of installed capacity is impossible.

Additionally, the amount of energy consumed in the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining

stage till its radio active emission gets reduced to safe levels after hundreds of years is

estimated to be colossal. The contribution to atmospheric pollution at the stages of mining

and processing, and radiation leaks to atmosphere are not inconsiderable. Taking all

these facts into objective account it seems futile to argue that the nuclear power can make

considerable contribution to mitigating the threat of Global Warming.

As a part of long term power policy all the related issues w.r.t a technology must be

considered. But in the case of nuclear power technology the issues relating to the

environmental impacts of nuclear ore mining, radiation risks involved in the entire cycle,

popular local opposition for locating a nuclear reactor in a given area, difficulties

experienced in land acquisition, the threat of nuclear terrorism, the huge costs to the society,

and the crucial issue of long term storage of spent fuel are not even referred to by the

proponents of nuclear power. The huge opposition to Kaiga Nuclear power project, the

ongoing massive opposition to Kundamkulam Project, Tamil Nadu CM’s letter to the centre

to stop the construction work at Kundamkulam, the strong opposition to Jaitapur Project

proposal, the cancellation of approval by West Bengal govt. to Haripur project proposal

are all unambiguous signs that people of the country have not been convinced about the

safety and usefulness of nuclear power. The unfortunate nuclear accident at Fukushima,

Japan in Mach 2011 has brought about a paradigm shift in the way people are looking at

the relevance of nuclear power.

The nuclear emergency at Fukushima subsequent to a strong earth quake and tsunami

has rightly focused on the question whether the nuclear power technology is a safe way to

obtain electricity. There has been a groundswell of concern on the safety of nuclear power



technology in various parts of the world including Switzerland, Germany, Japan, US and

China. Japan, which was planning to increase the nuclear power capacity to about 50%

(from the level of about 30%) in next few decades, has shut down many reactors as safety

precaution, and is reported to have taken a very conscious decision to reduce the reliance

on nuclear power in the short term, and to eliminate the nuclear power from its energy

basket in the long term. Germany, which had relied on nuclear power for about 26% of its

power generating capacity, has taken a clear decision through a referendum to eliminate

all its nuclear power plants. It is pertinent to note that since year 2000 the power sector in

USA had proposed more than 150 coal power plants and seen them cancelled due to

opposition from environmentalists. But not a single nuclear power project has come

anywhere close to being approved during last 3 decades. Australia and New Zealand are

the two countries who have steadfastly maintained a ‘no nuclear power’ policy. It is relevant

to mention here that Australia has one of the largest reserves of nuclear fissile material

and is refusing to sell the same to India in view of the NPT obligations. We need to appreciate

as to why nuclear power has not been pursued in these countries, if the technology is safe,

reliable, green, renewable, and of acceptable costs. The huge issues of capital costs and

safety concerns were the primary reasons for this scenario.

As per IEP’s projection even with about 13 times increases in capacity by 2031-32

(from present level of about 4,700 MW to 63,000 MW), nuclear contribution can only be

about 8 % of the total capacity (IEP: Page 48). As compared to this huge capacity addition

projection many countries are planning to raise the percentage of renewables to about

20% of their energy mix. Being a tropical country India is endowed with much more

renewable energy potential such as solar power than many other countries which have

shown determination to increase their renewable energy share to 20-25%. Israel is

reported to be planning for about 50% share of renewable energy. As per a simulation by

Greenpeace International, by 2050 India can meet around 65% of electricity and 50% of

the Primary Energy demands from renewable energy sources.

A less known DAE document of 2008 is “A Strategy for the Growth of Electricity in India”

(http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/doc10/index.htm ). Dr. Anil Kakodkar, AEC, delivered a public

lecture at Indian Academy of sciences, Bangalore on 4 July 2008 referring to this document.

A cursory look at this document can put even a nuclear power advocate to deep concern.

This report indicates that DAE has a nuclear energy plan not covered fully in IEP 2006.

According to it about 275,000 MW is to be generated through nuclear power by 2050,

and it may mean a 6,000 MW nuclear park every 100 kM of the Indian Coastline. Though

this stupendously ambitious plan (may mean adding on an average 16,400 MW of nuclear

power capacity every year during next 40 years) looks hilarious to say the least, looking at



what has happened so far in the last 50 years, it should be a matter of grave concern to our

society because it indicates the determination of DAE to expand nuclear power capacity

exponentially, and the scope for the denial of adequate financial resources to develop

renewable energy sources.

The recent decision by the govt. to import large capacity nuclear reactors, such as the

proposed 1650 MWe French evolutionary pressurised reactors (EPR) for Jaitapur,

Maharstra has come under strong criticism by even the former nuclear industry people.

‘The decision taken by the government to import about 40,000 MWe of light water reactors

within the next two decades has no justifiable technical or economic basis,’ ex-chairman

of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in a

statement.

“…The first objection is that the Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) to be built in

Jaitapur, having not been commissioned anywhere in the world, is a non-existent reactor

whose potential problems are totally unknown even to Areva, its developer, let alone India’s

Nuclear Power Corporation” Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in a statement. Appealing to

the government to ‘immediately and permanently’ cancel all plans to import foreign nuclear

reactors irrespective of promises given by the prime minister to foreign governments,

Gopalakrishnan also wanted the nuclear power policy of the Manmohan Singh government

thoroughly debated in parliament and openly discussed with energy specialists in the country.

‘It should be preceded by a re-look of the overall energy policy of our country to assess

whether all viable non-nuclear electricity generation schemes have been given their due

priority, before we jump-start an extensive nuclear power programme,’ Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan

added.

Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in another statement: “ … but most important, the PM

must realise that there is absolutely no clarity or public confidence in the opaque nuclear

power policy he is presently following. The PM has not provided any detailed justification

for the unilateral promises he had made to import about 40,000 MWe foreign nuclear

reactors by 2020, which appears to be at the heart of this baseless revised policy.”

In view of the multifarious problems associated with nuclear power plants and

its small contribution to overall power scenario in India even by 2031-32, and in

view of credible concerns by very responsible leaders, our society should

thoroughly review whether the resources made available for nuclear power sector

is well spent on developing the new & renewable energy sources, which can

eliminate all the thorny issues associated with nuclear power sector.



Credible alternatives to Nuclear Power from Indian perspective

CHAPTER 9

Keeping in proper perspective the fact that the contribution of nuclear power to the total

power generation capacity is only 2.7% even after massive budgetary support since 1950s

should raise the very pertinent question as to how important is nuclear power in the context

of overall power sector in India.

India's Total Installed Power Capacity

(MOP website as on 30.6.2011)

Fuel MW Percentage of total capacity

Total Thermal 115,650 65.4

Coal 96,744 54.7

Gas 17,706 10.0

Oil 1,200 0.7

Hydro 38,106 21.5

Nuclear 4,780 2.7

Renewable 18,455 10.4

Total 1,76,990

The power sector in the country is characterised by the gross inefficiency prevailing in

the system; whether it is in generation, transmission, distribution or utilization. From the

perspective of the transmission & distribution losses alone in the country, it becomes

strikingly evident that bringing it to 10% from the present level of 25% can provide more

virtual additional power capacity than the total projected nuclear power capacity of 12,000

MW by 2020. The international best practice in T&D losses is below 5%, and many

electricity supply companies in the country have already registered T&D losses below

15%. Hence it should not be an impossible task.

No objective study of the demand/supply of electricity in the country can be undertaken

without effectively considering the gross efficiency prevailing in the sector, as also

acknowledged by various official agencies.

The average Plant Load Factor (PLF) of the coal power plants in the country is about

73%, which if taken to 90% can provide about 15,000 MW of virtual additional capacity in



the existing infrastructure. The potential for efficiency gains from hydel power plants is not

inconsiderable either.

T&D losses (2009 - 10) (CEA, 18th APS Report)

Region Losses (%)

Northern Region 27 (Range from 20 to 64)

Western Region 26 (Range from 13 to 35)

Southern Region 19 (Range from 14 to 20)

Eastern Region 27 (Range from 21 to 42)

N E Region 34 (Range from 29 to 64)

All India 25

Typical T&D losses (Source: CEA/power Ministry)

Country T&D Losses (%)

India 25

Russia 12

UK 8

China 7

USA 6

Japan 4

Germany 4

As per a study by Himamshu Thakkar of South Asian Network for Dams, Rivers, and

People (SANDRP), out of 228 operational hydel projects in India as on 31.3.2007, which

were surveyed by him, 82% were underperforming with actual generation of electricity

which was less than 50% of the design capacity

The National Electricity Policy states: "It would have to be clearly recognized that

Power Sector will remain unviable until T&D losses are brought down significantly and

rapidly. A large number of States have been reporting losses of over 40% in the recent

years. By any standards, these are unsustainable and imply a steady decline of power

sector operations. Continuation of the present level of losses would not only pose a

threat to the power sector operations but also jeopardize the growth prospects of the

economy as a whole. No reforms can succeed in the midst of such large pilferages on a

continuing basis."



Urgent measures such as improving the generating plant performance; reducing the

T&D losses; minimizing the wastage in end usage; optimising the demand side

management (DSM); and maximising energy conservation will be able not only to eliminate

the existing deficits, but also will be able to meet a good portion of the future electricity

demand.

"India's power sector is a leaking bucket; the holes deliberately crafted and the leaks

carefully collected as economic rents by various stake holders that control the system.

The logical thing to do would be to fix the bucket rather than to persistently emphasise

shortages of power and forever make exaggerated estimates of future demand for power.

Most initiatives in the power sector (IPPs and mega power projects) are nothing but ways

of pouring more water into the bucket so that consistency and quantity of leaks are assured

…."

Deepak S Parekh, Chairman, Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation,

September 2004.

The perceived need for any additional power plants in the country needs to be considered

in the context of many other blunders within the power sector: the unscientifically targeted

subsidies which have become unsustainable; huge losses incurred by the electricity supply

companies; corrupt political interference in the affairs of these companies; lack of social

and environmental responsibility for these companies; and poor work practices in these

companies. Such deficiencies for decades have resulted in serious problems for the

society as a whole. Without addressing these serious deficiencies to invest massively in

additional power capacity will be a huge drain on the society.

As per a recent study report by Prayas Energy Group, Pune ("Energy Savings Potential

In Indian Households From Improved Appliance Efficiency") usage of energy efficient

models of common house hold appliances such as lamps, refrigerators, fans, TVs, radios

etc. can result in about 30% energy savings annually by 2013. This corresponds to an

avoided additional generating capacity of 25,000 MW.



Power Sector Efficiency in India

(Source: Compiled on the basis of many reports/article on

Indian Power Sector)

Power Sector Area Prevailing level of Potential for

efficiency / loss improvement/savings

in India (percentage of total

annual energy)

Generating capacity utilisation 50 - 60% 5-10 %

Aggregate Technical &

Commercial losses (AT&C) 35 - 40 % 15 -20%

End use efficiency in agriculture 45 - 50 % 15-20%

End use efficiency in industries 50 - 60 % 5 -10 %

and commerce

End use efficiency in other areas 40 - 50 % 5 -10 %

(domestic, street lights and others)

Demand Side Management Potential to reduce the effective demand on the

grid by more than 20%

A rational analysis of the gross inefficiency prevailing in various segments of the power

sector will reveal that about 30 - 40% of the present demand can be met by the efficiency

improvement measures, which would make the existing scenario to be surplus by a

considerable margin.

Blatantly inefficient practices have been going on for decades despite clear warning

from the power sector observers since 1980s. The questionable need for additional

capacity and dire need for rationalization of the available electrical energy distribution

becomes evidently clear from the statistics on the actual growth of Indian power sector as

in the box below.

The total installed generating capacity in the country has gone up from about 1,000

MW in 1947 to 1,77,000 MW in 2011, a whopping 177 times increase.



National per capita electricity consumption has gone up from 283 kWH in 1992-93 to

about 700 kWH in 2010-11, an increase of 250%.

But 40% of the households, mostly in rural areas, have no access to electricity even

in 2009.

{Source: as per Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) & Press Information Bureau,

Govt. of India.}

As per 13th Finance Commission the national level financial loss of electricity supply

companies (ESCOMs) could be more than Rs. 69,000 Crores in 2010-11 and could reach

Rs. 116,000 Crores in 2014-15. It would be sacrilegious to continue to incur such huge

losses, and also to commit more resources to build nuclear power plants, which have so

many questions against them. As the Bureau of Energy Efficiency has estimated, at the

prevailing cost of additional energy generation, it costs a unit of energy about one fourth

the cost to save than to produce it with new capacity.

A press release on 31st March 2011 by Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Power

refers to a study on potential savings in the states, and indicates that the total

consumption assessed in all States is 501,003 MU of electricity; there is a deficit of

73,093 MU and the total energy saving potential is 75,364.08 MU. This is about 15 % of

the total consumption. This clearly indicates that in reality there is no need for the crippling

power cuts we are facing today.

Should the country not be putting all its efforts within power sector in bringing the efficiency

to the international best practice levels as a top priority before investing money in

questionable technology such as nuclear power? This alone can reduce the need not only

for many additional generation capacity of any type, but certainly for nuclear power plants,

which can come only at huge costs to our society.

IEP itself says: "India's conventional energy reserves are limited and we must develop

all available and economic alternatives. … Clearly over the next 25 years energy

efficiency and conservation are the most important virtual energy supply sources that

India possesses."

IEP also estimates that CO2 generated from energy use can be reduced by 35%

through effective deployment of efficiency, DSM measures and renewables. IEP's main

action recommendation for energy security is: "… relentlessly pursue energy efficiency

and energy conservation as the most important virtual source of domestic energy".

Being a tropical country, India is also endowed with huge potential in new and renewable

energy resources as mentioned in the table below. In this regard what Mikhail Gorbachev,

former President of the Soviet Union, has said should be of huge importance. In the article



"Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned" he has said: " To end the vicious cycle of

"poverty versus safe environment," the world must quickly transition to efficient, safe, and

renewable energy, which will bring enormous economic, social, and environmental benefits.

As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows,

we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy-wind, solar,

geothermal, hydro-and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives as safer,

more efficient, and more affordable avenues for meeting both energy demands and

conserving our fragile planet."

N&RE Potential in India

(Source: MNRE)

Potential: Remarks

(Grid interactive

power only)

1. Wind energy > 45,000 MW 100,000 MW as per World Institute

of Sustainable Energy

2. Small hydro 15,000 MW

3. Solar over 5,000 trillion Potential estimated to be many times

kWH/year more than the total energy needs of

the country; As per World Institute of

Sustainable Energy

CSP based solar power - 200,000 MW

Solar PV based power - 200,000 MW

4. Bio-mass >> 25,000 Not known

5. Geo-thermal Huge Estimates not known

and Ocean

energy

Huge emphasis is needed on decentralized energy options in the future energy policy.

Major options which have been considered as techno-economically viable are:



✤ Roof top solar Photo Voltaic systems, which can meet most of the domestic and

smaller loads, such as lighting, TV, computers etc. These are being increasingly

used in countries like Germany and USA not only to meet the domestic necessities,

but for even exporting the excess power to the grid through a mechanism known as

Feed-in- tariff.

✤ Solar water heaters have established themselves as very effective tools to provide

hot water for houses, nursing homes, hotels etc. at very economical prices. They

are found to be very popular in Towns and cities, but can find good use in rural areas

also.

✤ Community based bio-mass systems are highly suited for rural areas, which generally

have very good supply of bio-mass.

✤ At places where there is good average wind speed throughout the year, wind turbines

can provide very cheap power either at the community level or at the individual

house holds level.

Such decentralised power systems have the potential to meet most of the rural

loads when they are used in hybrid mode of one or more individual systems, and

can provide many other sustainable benefits:

✤ Will greatly reduce the burden on the grid based power supply system; drastically

reduce the T&D losses; and vastly improve the power supply to those consumers

essentially needing the grid supply;

✤ Will drastically reduce the need for conventional technology power plants and the

associated transmission & distribution network;

✤ Will assist in drastically reducing the GHG emissions;

✤ Provide a sustainable, environmental and people friendly energy supply model;

✤ Will accelerate the rural electrification due to shorter gestation period of individual

projects;

✤ Will lead to increase in rural employment opportunities, and hence in minimizing

urban migration.

The proponents of nuclear power keep raising few concerns w.r.t new & renewable

energy sources. Two most common issues raised in this regard are:

✤ they are not firm power and

✤ their comparable cost with conventional energy sources is high



The reality is:

✤ Many applications such as lighting or water pumping do not require 24 hours supply

- can be backed up by battery banks where needed

✤ Cost from the conventional energy sources is increasing while that of renewables is

decreasing. Commercially available roof top solar PV panel cost has come down

by more than 50% between 2008 and 2011.

✤ The projected cost of conventional energy sources is unreal - many hidden costs

(such as health, environment and other societal costs) and subsidies; many

externalities are not taken into account.

In this context a Greenpeace report deserves special attention. This report titled "energy

{R}evolution, A SUSTAINABLE INDIA ENERGY OUTLOOK" with international authorship

has dealt with the Indian energy scenario in good amount of detail, and has come up with

a credible set of solutions. An important point highlighted in this report is the huge potential

available in reducing the demand for energy without adversely affecting the legitimate

needs of our society. This projection indicates the feasibility in reduction of about 38% in

demand by 2050 as compared to the reference scenario of IEA.

The study report is confident that by adopting suitable measures " by 2030 about 35%

of India's electricity could come from renewable energies" AND " by 2050, 54% of primary

energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources". The report states: "A

more radical scenario - which takes the advanced projections of renewables industry into

account - could even phase out coal by 2050. Dangerous Climate Change might force us

to accelerate the development of renewables faster." This projection has huge relevance

for nuclear power sector too.

Keeping in view the overall welfare of our communities, and the sustainability of energy

supply scenario, huge emphasis is essential to develop and harness renewable energy

sources as the first option of energy source for each MW of additional demand. A substantial

percentage of the renewable energy sources can be distributed type such as roof top

solar and community based bio-mass plants in order to minimise the additional land

requirements and to reduce the T&D losses. Such distributed type energy sources will

assist in accelerated rural electrification and reduce overall investment in power

transmission and distribution network. Assuming about 3 crore house holds in the country

(10% of the total) to be suitable and economically able to support roof-top solar photo

voltaic systems of 2 kW each, 60,000 MW installed capacity of solar power in distributed

mode is feasible. If we also take the huge potential available to effectively use the roof



tops available on schools, colleges, offices, industrial houses, govt. buildings, commercial

establishments etc. for converting the plenty of sun light to electricity, the generating capacity

will be astounding, and the insignificance of nuclear power plants become obvious.

Such roof top solar PV installations can not only meet much of the local electricity

demand, but can also export the excess electricity generated to the integrated grid under

a mechanism called "Feed-in Tariff" which will be of win-win situation for all the concerned.

Similarly, solar and/or bio-mass plants at village/community levels developed/implemented

with care can transform the energy scenario in the country. Such holistic considerations

can provide many times more power capacity than the 275,000 MW nuclear power capacity

as planned by DAE by 2050, and can come at much less overall cost to the society, and

without the threat of nuclear holocaust.

It will tantamount to letting down the public if nuclear power policy is to be pursued

without objectively considering various options available to meet our electricity demand.



CHAPTER 10

Holistic view of overall costs to the society:Costs & Benefits Analysis

In deliberating as to how much and what technology to be adopted in adding to the

electricity generating capacity, there is a dire need to keep the overall costs and benefits

to our society of such a policy in proper perspective. Any course of action we may take in

order to meet the growing power demand in future will have deleterious impacts on our

natural resources and environment, as also on the vulnerable sections of our society. Hence

there is an imminent need to take utmost care in minimizing such impacts.

A good decision making mechanism in this regard is Costs & Benefits Analysis, which

will take into account all possible costs and benefits (direct and indirect, tangible and

intangible) to our society in an objective way, and deliberate in detail on the best course of

action in the overall benefit of the society. Any decision to build a nuclear facility (or for that

matter any technology we may like to adapt) should be preceded by such a diligent process.

In projecting the future electricity demand due care is needed to take into account the

importance of a realistic figure, the limit of the nature to support such a demand, and the

huge cost to the society of unlimited energy demand. Hence a realistic power demand

projection itself is the first step in our electricity demand/supply analysis. In this regard the

power demand projection methodology by the concerned planning agencies, as exemplified

by IEP and the report of the 17th Electric Power Survey Committee (under Central Electricity

Authority), deserves drastic changes.

In view of the fact that that there is a steep decline in Compounded Annual Growth Rate

(CAGR) of electricity consumption from 6.87% in the 30-year period (between 1974-5

and 2004-05) to 4.30% in last 5-years (between 1999-2000 and 2004-05), and taking into

account the changed consumption profile (the increased contribution of services sector to

the GDP, the scope available for efficiency increase etc.), it is prudent to project only a 4 -

5% CAGR of electricity consumption for next 20-25 years. Assuming that the total installed

capacity has to grow at the same rate, the total installed capacity in the country can be

projected to be in the range of about 388,000 MW (for 4% CAGR) to 497,000 MW (5%

CAGR) by 2031-32. This is in stark contrast to 778,000 MW (at 8% CAGR) as projected

by IEP. With adequate emphasis on transferring most of the smaller loads such as lighting

in domestic, commercial and streetlights etc. and appliances such as TV, computers, small

water pumps etc. on to distributed renewable energy sources such as roof top solar PV

panels, roof top solar/wind hybrids, community based bio-mass systems etc. the demand



growth of the integrated grid can largely be contained within manageable limits in future

without having to add many conventional power plants. Hence the real need for a huge

growth for nuclear power, as projected by the nuclear establishment can be credibly

questioned.

In view of the serious implications of unlimited energy demand, there is rather an

inevitable requirement to estimate objectively what is the least amount of energy needed

to wipe out poverty, and how best to meet it in a sustainable manner. This is in stark

contrast to the faulty prevailing policy of projecting power capacity based on 8-9% GDP

growth.

One example of how an objective consideration of Costs & Benefits Analysis (CBA)

can be crucial for the power sector is in the case of the proposed Jaitapura Nuclear Power

Project in Maharastra. The essential aspect of an objectively considered CBA is to consider

various credible options available to meet a given objective. In the present case assuming

that generating electricity alone is the objective, a decent understanding of the Indian power

sector indicates that there are many benign options available to get an equivalent of 9,990

MW of generating capacity.

✤ Since the nuclear power plants consume about 10% of generated power in station

auxiliary systems, we may not expect more than 9,000 MW export from Jaitapura

nuclear power plant at any given time. Assuming that the plant is dedicated for the

Western Region alone, 30% of T&D losses prevailing in the region (during 2006-07

as per CEA annual report) will mean that a maximum of about 6,300 MW of this

project can be available for end consumers in the business as usual scenario.

Because of past experience of an availability factor of 80% for the Indian nuclear

power plants, this also corresponds to about 44,000 Million Units of annual energy

for the end use.

T&D losses in Western Region alone, if reduced to 15% (as per the National

Electricity Policy target of 15% T&D losses by 2012), Western Region can get

additionally about 4,800 MW (in Western Region the peak demand met was 32,100

MW in 2009-10 as per CEA website) from the existing facilities itself.

Additionally, even if only 50% of the inefficient incandescent lamps in the Western

Region (in the states of Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Gujarath, and

Goa) are replaced by much more efficient CFLs the additional virtual capacity

available can be more than 1,500 MW.

From these two simple efficiency improvement measures alone the region can get

more than 6,300 MW additional virtual capacity, which is what the net benefit could



be from the proposed power plant. These two efficiency improvement benefits can

come at a cost which is likely to be less than 25% of the direct financial cost of the

proposed nuclear power project. Not a single tree needs to be cut; nor a single

family will be displaced; not single ton of GHG emission will be added, no radiation

risk is involved. On the contrary, the two efficiency improvement measures will lead

to reduced total GHG emissions in the country.

✤ At the national level on an average, about 34% of the electricity consumption is for

the irrigation pump sets (IP sets), which are reported to be wasting about 40 - 50%

of that energy due to technical reasons. It is also known that this loss can be reduced

to less than 10% by simple technical measures at a small cost. The Western Region,

with heavy usage of IP sets in Maharastra and Gujarat, can be assumed to be

consuming at least 34% of electricity in IP sets alone.

Electricity consumed in Western Region during 2009-10 was about 223,000 Million

Units (as per CEA website) out of which about 76,000 Million Units (34% of the total

consumption) can be assumed for IP sets. Out of 38,000 Million Units, which is

being lost in technical losses, about 34,000 Million Units can be recovered by

efficiency improvement measures. This measure along with a modest efficiency

savings from domestic consumption (which itself is about 19% of the total energy

consumption, and which has about 30% savings potential as per Prayas Energy

Group survey) can easily match the possible energy benefits from the proposed

nuclear power plant.

✤ Of the total thermal power capacity of about 37,000 MW in Western Region, if the

average PLF is improved from the present level of about 65% is taken to about

80% (as compared to more than 85% in case of NTPC power plants), the resultant

improvement can provide about 5,500 MW virtual additional capacity to the existing

system. This can come at an additional cost which will be a very small fraction of the

capital cost of proposed nuclear power plant.

Many other benign alternatives could become evident if the concerned authorities care

to look for them. It is very pertinent to state that the benefits from these alternatives can

come at much less overall cost to the society and with least impact on the environment and

the population. In this context it is very unfortunate that no ministry/agency in our country is

taking such a holistic look to the energy needs of our society. Without considering various

alternatives it may be considered as scandalous to consider that a nuclear power park at

horrendous cost should be acceptable to the society. The Ministry of Environment & Forests,

which is mandated to protect the forests, bio-diversity and the general environment of the



country should raise these issues before giving its final consent for any nuclear power

project.

"Many of the risks associated with civil nuclear power are well known and have ,to

some extent, been managed... just: recall Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, theCuban Missile Crisis, Iraq, Dr. A Q Khan and reports of al Qaida's plans. For the nuclearweapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks to be worth taking, nuclear must be able

to achieve energy security and a reduction in global CO2 emissions more effectively,efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidenceto support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power's efficacyis clear. Society should consider whether or not the risk that terrorists will acquire plutoniumand make and detonate a nuclear weapon is unacceptably high". From the report "TOOHOT TO HANDLE - The Future of Civil Nuclear Power" by Oxford Research Group

"A transparent assessment of all the costs and risks associated with India's ambitiousnuclear plans must be made before any ground is broken at Jaitapur or elsewhere." SaysSiddharth Varadarajan , a respected columnist in The Hindu.

Constitutional Obligations

It is very pertinent to note that there are unambiguous requirements under our Constitution

to protect the environment. Article 48A says: "Protection and improvement of environmentand safeguarding of forests and wild life.-The State shall endeavour to protect and improvethe environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." Article 51A says:"Fundamental duties.-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India -

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers andwild life, and to have compassion for living creatures."

There are many other Acts of our parliament such as Environmental Protection Act, theForest Conservation Act and the Wild Life Protection Act, Indian Electricity Act etc. whoseletter and spirit are being violated not only by nuclear power plants but also by other largesize conventional power plants.

If we consider the letter and spirit of these provisions of our Constitution, the continuance

of our policy on nuclear power becomes untenable, especially when we take into objectiveaccount of how large chunks of lands have become uninhabitable; how many people wereevacuated, and how nearby oceans were nuclear contaminated because of the nuclear

accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There are considered views also that there are many international conventions, such

the ones listed below, and which are more likely to be violated if we embark on the nuclear

power programme.



✤ Cocoyoc declaration of 1974, at Mexico, as part of UN Conference

✤ World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by consensus by UN General Assembly

in 1982

✤ Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by 156 states in 1992.

The seriousness of the opposition to the country's nuclear plans is a writ petition filed in

India's Supreme Court on Oct. 14 2011 by some of India's most eminent citizens and

organizations. The petition calls on the court to order a hold on nuclear construction until

safety reviews and cost-benefit analyses are carried out for all proposed or existing facilities.

The petitioners include E.A.S. Sarma, former power secretary; T.S.R. Subramanian,

former cabinet secretary; N. Gopalaswami, former chief election commissioner; K.R.

Venugopal, former secretary in the prime minister's office, P.M. Bhargava, former member

of the National Knowledge Commission and founder fo the Center for Cellular and Molecular

Biology; and Admiral Laxminarayan Ramdas, former chief of naval staff.

In its appeal the group said India's nuclear program goes against the "fundamental right

to life" guaranteed by the Constitution, which the Supreme Court is bound to protect. Praful

Bidwai, one of the petitioners, told InsideClimate News that India has a "poor culture of

safety" and cited the 1984 gas disaster in the state of Bhopal, which killed thousands in its

aftermath and from related diseases since.

A society can ill-afford to ignore the concerns of so many informed individuals as

happening in the case of nuclear power policy in India.



CHAPTER 11

Conclusions

As they say "War is too important to be left to the Generals", the decision on Nuclear

Power is too critical from the perspective of the overall welfare of our communities to be

decided by a handful of people in the nuclear establishment. The necessity for the active

participation of all the stake holders within our society in informed decision making has

become inviolable.

In any such discussion on nuclear power in India adequate focus on the following issues

will be of critical importance.

1. Despite huge investment in the nuclear industry since 1950s why the nuclear power

capacity has not lived upto the tall claims of its Captains?

2. In the background of the fact that USA, USSR and Japan, which are all known to be the

leaders in technological issues, and which are also generally associated with quality

and safety issues, have failed to avert nuclear accidents, can India hope to have safe/

accident free operation of all the existing/proposed reactors?

3. Can we say the decision by Germany and Japan to move away from the reliance on

nuclear power is ill-conceived? Have, Australia and New Zealand which have shunned

nuclear power from the beginning, suffered from lack of quality electricity supply?

4. With the projected cost at Jaitapur nuclear power park (Maharastra) of about Rs 20

crore per MW, can nuclear power compare favorably with coal power (about Rs. 7

Crore/MW), OR hydro power (about Rs. 8 crores/MW) OR solar power (about Rs. 20

/MW and which is coming down steeply)?

5. Are there better options to bridge the gap between demand and supply of electricity in

a densely populated country such as India? Shall we not consider all the much benign

options before we consider the nuclear power option, which has not gained popular

acceptance even after 50 years of massive support to nuclear power in India?

6. Can we afford to accept the high risks (where 'risk' = 'probability of nuclear accident

occurring' X 'consequences of such an accident') associated? How many of us are

ready to live near a nuclear power plant/ nuclear facility knowing well the credible threat

of radiation leakage?

7. In the background of three major nuclear accidents, and many near misses, can we

afford to ignore the "precautionary principle" as enunciated by the international

convention on bio-diversity?



8. Can we afford to ignore the caution by many reports/articles which have appeared in

the media, and by leading personalities such as Michail Gorbachev, UN Secretary

General, Physician for Social Responsibility, Dr. A Gopala Krishnan, Dr. Balram etc. ?

9. Whether the costs, which we need to pass on to the future generations (in safeguarding

the nuclear waste for thousands of years), justifiable since there will be no benefits to

these generations? How many times more electricity will the nuclear fuel cycle consume

as compared to the electricity it can generate in its economic life cycle of about 40

years?

10. What are all the direct and indirect costs to the society of nuclear power as compared

to the benefits in a poor country such as India? Are such benefits unquestionably

higher than the costs? Through an objective study of Costs & Benefits Analysis, as a

decision making tool, can we establish beyond reasonable doubts that every nuclear

power plant in the country has more benefits than costs to the society?

11. Can the nuclear establishment in the country take the public at large for complete

confidence by sharing all the relevant information?

12. How to ensure that all the stake holders are party to the carefully considered decisions

on setting up nuclear power plants?

13. Can we convincingly say that none of the provisions of our Constitution and various

Acts of our Parliament will be violated by persisting with the nuclear power policy?

14. How have we taken the bitter experiences of nuclear establishment around the world

into objective account while planning our own nuclear power policy?

The impact of a wrong nuclear power policy will be much more severe on our densely

populated and ill-prepared communities than that in developed countries. Hence there is

an inescapable requirement that various sections of our society should be taken into

objective confidence before making any commitment to build additional power plants.

Additional Reading Materials

✤ "Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned" by Mikhail Gorbachev, former

President USSR (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/2/77.full)

✤ "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer" by Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for

Social Responsibility (http://www.helencaldicott.com/books/nuclear-power-is-not-the-

answer/)

✤ "Why should Jaitapur be made a guinea pig for untested reactor?" by Dr A

Gopalakrishnan, former chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Government of



India (http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/comment_why-should-jaitapur-be-made-a-

guinea-pig-for-untested-reactor_1520843-all)

✤ "The missing safety audits" by Dr A Gopalakrishnan (http://epaper.dnaindia.com/

e p a p e r m a i n . a s p x ? e d o r s u p = M a i n & q u e r y e d = 9 & q u e r y p a g e = 8

&boxid=30499718&parentid=139282&eddate=04/26/2011

✤ "Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future", by Dr. M. V. Ramana {http://

www.isn.ethz.ch}.

✤ "Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" by

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Volume 1181

✤ "Why A Future For The Nuclear Industry Is Risky" by Peter Bradford, Former

Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory commissionhttp://www.iccr.org/publications/

risky_Jan07.pdf

✤ "Too hot to handle? The future of Civil Nuclear Power" by Frank Barnaby and James

Kemp, Oxford Research Group (http://www.hindu.com/nic/toohottohandle.pdf)

✤ "Rush in now, repent later" by Siddharth Varadarajan (http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/

25/stories/2011042552931000.htm)

✤ "For nuclear sanity" by PRAFUL BIDWAI (http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/

20111021282110100.htm)

✤ "Reactors, residents and risk" by Declan Butler (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/

110421/full/472400a.html)

✤ "Nuclear fault lines run deep" Down to Earth (Issue: Apr 15, 2011) (http://

www.downtoearth.org.in/content/nuclear-fault-lines-run-deep)



THE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE ORGANISATION

2010 : Karunada HakkigaluWritten by : Dr. B.B. Hosetti & Dr. G.Y. Dayananda

2010 : Ka Ka Ki Ki Kagunitha Hadutha Aadutha KaliyonaWritten by : Smt. S.N. Srilakshmi

2011 : Manukula Vinashakke Anusthavara SaakuWritten by : Dr. A. N. Nagaraj

2011 : Dhanvatari Shaale : Guide 1Written by : Dr. C. Mythili

2011 : Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costlysources of power ?Written by : Dr. A. N.Nagaraj, Ph.D and

Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PGDip (Techgy Mgmt)

nuclear power plants for india [2011]

Documents

shivamogga district

chikkaballapura district

district governor

kolar district

programme dhanvantharischool

shivamogganuclear power

costly sources of power

importance of nature