India Nuclear News And Discussion

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 12 Mar 2011 20:34

^^^The ball starts rolling......First steps on gettting a seat at the nuke high table!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Mar 2011 03:36

^^^ And at the UNSC table too.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 13 Mar 2011 11:55

Japan disaster: Indian reactors safe, says scientist

Economic Times, a sister concern of ToI is carrying this interesting short article today, with view to nuclear disaster that happened recently happened in Japan.

....
....
"Our reactors may not be ready for 8.9 magnitude quake but what is the probability of this happening in India?" he asked.
"This magnitude earthquake may happen only in the Himalayan region and that is one of the reasons we are not going to build any reactor there. Our existing reactors withstood without problem all major tremors like the 7.7 magnitude quake that rocked Bhuj in Gujarat in 2001," he said.
....
....
"The country is divided into five zones from the point of earthquake vulnerability, and We will not allow any reactor to be built in any part of the country that lies above zone 4," he said.
"There is a terrible propaganda going on to stop construction of nuclear plants at Jaitapur in Maharashtra by saying it lies in zone 4," Parthasarathi said.
"It is actully in zone 3, he said, adding the country has to take a decision based on scientific facts and not misinformation. "

It is good to know that the GoI is not planning on building any reactors in Zone 4 and 5, like Bhuj. That is a wise decision.

But this complacency regarding the earth quake magnitude is disturbing to the say the least. When the nuclear reactor was build in TN, the reasoning given was that Karnataka and TN were the only two states in India which were in Zone 1. Zone 1 indicates next to nil, and not nil, possibility of having a severe earth quake. A 3-4 member team was formed to look into the safety and security precautions for the reactor. Only one member pointed out the threat of Tsunami to the reactor, as the Reactor was very very close the coast line. His warning was ignored. Luckily for India when the 9.1 magnitude earthquake happened of the coast of Indonesia, the reactor did not suffer serious damage due to tsunami, as the waves were less than 6 feet in height. In case of Japan it is being reported that the tsunami waves were about 12 feet in height.

Just as our south-eastern coast is vulnerable to tsunami, so is our Western coast vulnerable to tsunami originating at the other end of Arabian sea and African coast. Further yes we have not been hit by a 8+ magnitude earthquake, but like Murphy says, there is first time for everything. I just hope that it does not lead to a Chernobyl or the Third-Mile Island type disaster. We already have faced the 2nd largest industrial disaster after Chernobyl, the Bhopal Gas leak.

This is not a call for abandoning the nuclear power all together or slowing it down significantly. Rather this is a call of not underestimating the perils of natural disaster and moving forward with a ton of caution.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 14 Mar 2011 03:52

How secure are our nuclear plants

B Raman writing that there are unanswered questions about security at Indian plants.

NPCIL, Atomic Board to revisit safety aspects of nuclear plants

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2011 05:45

In case of Japan it is being reported that the tsunami waves were about 12 feet in height.

Should not matter.

Something knocked out, both the main and backup, power generators that supply power to the cooling systems.

I would think the main cooling system housing and the reactor are designed to take a beating. At least I would hope so.

IF Japan has designed buildings in the Tokyo area to withstand 8.0 quakes, their nuclear buildings should withstand more than that.

It seems to me that even their power generation buildings are designed for high intensities - which is why IMHO the other generators have withstood this shake. Why these two did not is the question.

For 40 year old gizmos, they I feel, did very well.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Mar 2011 08:02

Designed to resist, at least probable quakes

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Desig ... es/762101/

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Mar 2011 21:52

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... 15/English

Japan’s Nuclear Morality Tale
Brahma Chellaney

During the record-breaking 2003 heat wave in France, operations at 17 commercial nuclear reactors had to be scaled back or stopped because of rapidly rising temperatures in rivers and lake. Spain’s reactor at Santa María de Garoña was shut for a week in July 2006 after high temperatures were recorded in the Ebro River.

France likes to showcase its nuclear power industry, which supplies 78% of the country’s electricity. But such is the nuclear industry’s water intensity that EDF withdraws up to 19 billion cubic meters of water per year from rivers and lakes, or roughly half of France’s total freshwater consumption

When the Indian Ocean tsunami struck, the Madras reactor’s core could be kept in safe shutdown condition because the electrical systems had been ingeniously installed on higher ground than the plant itself. And, unlike Fukushima, which bore a direct impact, Madras was far away from the epicenter of the earthquake that unleashed the tsunami.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 14 Mar 2011 22:40

But what happens if a Hurricane/cyclone strikes, being over ground does not give much protection in that case. This recent event in Japan will force some thinking on how to handle multiple levels of risk reduction for a calamity induced shut-down, when lot of things can go wrong simultaneously.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Mar 2011 23:01

^^^That's why you use the Thorium fuel cycle.

The tsunami in Japan was much worse than anticipated and far far worse than the physical damage a cyclone would cause.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 07:32

Bade wrote:But what happens if a Hurricane/cyclone strikes, being over ground does not give much protection in that case. This recent event in Japan will force some thinking on how to handle multiple levels of risk reduction for a calamity induced shut-down, when lot of things can go wrong simultaneously.

It is already havin an impact on imediate plans..Just read a "Top" news article on Bloomberg about this - NPCIL Chairman himself is saying that all reactors will need to be examined afresh now..

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 08:19

All Indian n-hubs safe, say experts

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-i ... ts/762510/

Nuclear Power Is Worth the Risk

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... h_the_risk

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Mar 2011 08:20

pgbhat wrote:Safety review ordered in nuclear plants: Manmohan
“The Department of Atomic Energy [DAE] and its agencies including the Nuclear Power Corporation of India have been instructed to undertake an immediate technical review of all safety systems of our nuclear power plants, particularly with a view to ensuring that they would be able to withstand the impact of large natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes.”
Singh's $175 Billion Nuclear Dream Threatened by Japan Quake
“The earthquake is going to reopen the controversial debate over nuclear energy in India,” said Uday Bhaskar, director of the New Delhi-based National Maritime Foundation, a research group. “Democracies are reactive and an accident of this magnitude will raise concerns among the population about the safety of the technology.”
“The government brushed aside the safety concerns at the time,” Yashwant Sinha, a BJP leader and former foreign minister said in an interview. “Our entire policy of getting nuclear energy should be looked at afresh. We should now look at safer options because of the dangers involved.”
“This event may be a big dampener for our program,” Shreyans Kumar Jain, chairman of India’s state-run monopoly producer, said in a telephone interview from Mumbai March 13. “We and the Department of Atomic Energy will definitely revisit the entire thing, including our new reactor plans, after we receive more information from Japan.”

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 15 Mar 2011 09:51

^^^

Irrespective of the events at Fukushima npp, for me, we would be better of without the 1600 MWe Areva EPR PWR, or 1000+ MWe BWR/LWR of GE, Westinghouse or Russia at Jaitapur and other sites in India. As I had written in an earlier post, there are some merits in having reactors (our own versions of PHWRs) with smaller heat generation (MWth and consequently, MWe output) capacity. One of the advantages is that in extreme events relating to the core, one would have less energy dissipation to contend with. In this respect, I would say that the 220 MWe proven model is better than 540 MWe proven model which would, in turn, be better than the 700 MWe yet-to-be-proven model.

-------------------
On another note:

I am just trying to infuse some sense of proportion here; others may have already thought of this point:

The Earthquake and subsequent Tsunami that struck Japan are great natural forces which humans do not have, as of now, the power to resist.

10,000 dead and still counting and billions of dollars lost due to the Earthquake and Tsunami.

On the other hand, after more than 3 days have elapsed, as of now, not a single mortality has been reported due to the events at Fukushima npp; and no lethal or unacceptable radiation exposure to the public either. To me this shows the mettle of the nuclear industry in general and the dedication of the workers at Fukushima npp in particular.

Most of the scare seems to be drummed up by the media, often resorting to half truths, may be even plain untruths. When those in charge of operations and safety in the nuclear industry take precautionary measures such as evacuation of population, or talk aloud about worst case scenarios for purposes of implementing preplanned precautionary steps, these are depicted in the media as indicators of actual defect existing in the npp. These form the basis for stupid talk shows, often with Anchors who seem to be technically-challenged (in domain knowledge) tending to cut off experts half way when they are making points which run contrary to the anti-nuclear views the media bosses want to project. This "out-of-all-proportions" attitude is perhaps India's worst enemy in its efforts to achieve technological independence and become a strong industrially developed nation.

Perhaps if the level of transparency that exists in the nuclear industry had also existed in chemicals industry, with open discussions of worst case scenarios and preplanned disaster management steps, the extent of damage (human and property) as a fallout of the Bhopal Union Carbide incident might have been mitigated.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 09:59

Japan’s Nuclear Morality Tale: Brahma Chellaney

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... 15/English

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 10:01

^^^Santanan-ji completely with you on the issue of nuclear safety and its coverage in the media...However,

Sanatanan wrote:Irrespective of the events at Fukushima npp, for me, we would be better of without the 1600 MWe Areva EPR PWR, or 1000+ MWe BWR/LWR of GE, Westinghouse or Russia at Jaitapur and other sites in India. As I had written in an earlier post, there are some merits in having reactors (our own versions of PHWRs) with smaller heat generation (MWth and consequently, MWe output) capacity. One of the advantages is that in extreme events relating to the core, one would have less energy dissipation to contend with.

I would be interested to know if there is some study that shows that smaller reactors will have less probabiity of a meltdown compared to larger reactors..If that is really the case, then maybe we should say sayonara to nuclear power completely..What is the cost effectiveness, and scalability of 220 MW plants? If 220 MW is the only standard model, nuke power will remain a small part of the energy mix, and get smaller progressively..

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Mar 2011 10:04

Sanatanan wrote: On the other hand, after more than 3 days have elapsed, as of now, not a single mortality has been reported due to the events at Fukushima npp; and no lethal or unacceptable radiation exposure to the public either. To me this shows the mettle of the nuclear industry in general and the dedication of the workers at Fukushima npp in particular.

Bravo. Thanks for saying it like it is. Brahma Chillum-ni et al may smoke what they like, but what you wrote is the plain truth!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 10:18

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 10:54

GuruPrabhu wrote: Bravo. Thanks for saying it like it is. Brahma Chillum-ni et al may smoke what they like, but what you wrote is the plain truth!

All the useless cockiness born out of "I am ostrich and my head is firmly in the sand" is coming undone.

Truth has its own way of settling discussions for good.

Scrap all the new power plants not based on 3-Cycle. For 3 Cycle use only what Sanatan-ji said 220 MWe proven models.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 11:50

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Sanatanan wrote: On the other hand, after more than 3 days have elapsed, as of now, not a single mortality has been reported due to the events at Fukushima npp; and no lethal or unacceptable radiation exposure to the public either. To me this shows the mettle of the nuclear industry in general and the dedication of the workers at Fukushima npp in particular.
Bravo. Thanks for saying it like it is. Brahma Chillum-ni et al may smoke what they like, but what you wrote is the plain truth!

Just to add to this. These plants are, if I'm not mistaken, around 40 year old plants based on old technology. The newer generation plants (which, presumably, India will be getting) have more safety measures built into them.

The problems for Fukushima started not because of the earthquake but because the tsunami knocked out the axillary power generators just when they were needed.

PS: GuruPrabhu, I guess by now you have learned to ignore motherhood statements!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 11:51

Ah damage control is on in full swing I see,

"there is no scam"

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 11:58

A bit of reading material for comprehension-challenged folks:

The earthquake struck at Friday, 14:46 local time, at which point the reactor automatically inserted its control rods (neutron absorbers) into the core and ceased the fission of the nuclear fuel. At this point, reactor power was at 6.5 percent, and full cooling was in effect — a combination that should reduce the temperature of the reactor from its normal operating temperature. At 15:41, the tsunami hit and destroyed the on-site generators that were powering the coolant pumps. Once the generators were destroyed, the pumps switched to battery power. Here, the timeline gets murky — either coolant flow continued until roughly 19:46, at which point a pump failure caused flow to stop or be reduced, or it continued until roughly 23:41, at which point the battery life ran out. In either case, problems with mobile generators that had been brought in to replace the batteries prevented cooling from being immediately re-established. During this time the reactor’s power output continued to fall — at 5–9 hours after shutdown, power should have been 0.8 percent of normal. Coolant flow was re-established on Saturday, around 01:30. It is also likely that there were small coolant leaks due to the earthquake breaking seals in the coolant system, which might have further reduced water levels in the core, but not by much — I would think only 1 percent of core volume could have been lost through small seal breaks, and no larger leaks were reported.

Link

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 12:09

Here's another report which says pretty much the same as the previous report I posted but in more detail.

However, this point is worth noting:

The earthquake that hit Japan was 7 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9 that happened is 7 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese engineering, everything held up.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 12:22

Yes, everything is fine and there is no problem or at least should not be if you take proper perspective to the issues as following.......

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 12:30

There is far too little info and far too much panic speculation right on on Fukushima..Its futile to conclude pretty much anything based on that, certainly not long term policy!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 12:33

I understand that some posters here are people keenly aquanited with Nuclear space as people who work in them -- however I would sincerely request them to remember that they too are humans like rest and the approach on display "We know it all, dont listen to the nay sayers" Elitist stand offish behavior is not conducive.

It is also liable to mis-represented as "Our bread is on line therefore let me massively underplay the risk and massively overplay the benefits"

Just because people are more well versed with Nuclear topics, does not make others views as scare mongering.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 12:33

somnath wrote:There is far too little info and far too much panic speculation right on on Fukushima..Its futile to conclude pretty much anything based on that, certainly not long term policy!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 12:36

Since we are discussing Japan's situation here:

Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world ... clear.html

In Stricken Fuel-Cooling Pools, a Danger for the Longer Term

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world ... 5fuel.html

Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness.

In Tokyo, 170 miles south of the plant, the metropolitan government said Tuesday it had detected radiation levels 20 times above normal over the city, though it stressed that that level posed no immediate health threat. In Ibaraki Prefecture, just south of Fukushima Prefecture where the plant is located, the amount of radiation reached 100 times the usual levels.

“It’s way past Three Mile Island already,” said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. “The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.”

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 12:40

Sanku wrote:Yes, everything is fine and there is no problem or at least should not be if you take proper perspective to the issues as following.......

Dear Sanku,

You've been against the nuclear deal from day One. And subsequently you've been a vociferous supporter of the nuclear liability law, which many other folks - including myself - think may be a potential deal breaker. All this is fine, you are entitled to you POV.

This incident in Japan gives you a very good opportunity to wag your fingers and say, "See I was right!" But sadly you don't seem to have clue on which reports can substantiate you POV (maybe). Well let me help you out a bit.

If I were you I'd go to town with this report for example.

See what it says:

Dray says that any potential GE liability in this incident appears limited by something called “Channelling law.”

Channeling law is the long-standing nuclear industry practice that assigns the liability for damages from a nuclear failure on plant operators, regardless of fault for an incident. Channeling law is applicable in Japan, and protects equipment suppliers and the designers of nuclear facilities from liability. According to Japan’s Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage, power plant operators must provide 120 billion yen ($1.2 billion) of coverage and the government provides coverage beyond this level.

There are a lot of other such nuggets of information that Google mama can fetch for you if you ask him nicely.

So, just a friendly suggestion - please don't take offense - why not dig out these bits and pieces and argue your POV instead of one-liners.

However, your choice and begging you pardon for this post.

PS: Just so that you know I don't work in the nuclear industry so my bread is not at stake.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 12:57

Here's another report which talks about the potential liability burdens that this incident could pose.

The liability costs associated with cleaning up after the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant will ultimately be borne by the Japanese government instead of the private insurance market, according to experts from the insurance industry.

The utility company operating the Fukushima site is required under Japanese law to carry about 120 billion yen, or $1.5 billion, of liability protection to cover costs associated with a radioactive leak, said Dan McGarvey, a nuclear engineer who chairs the U.S. power and utility practice at insurance broker Marsh Inc.

Much of the liability coverage purchased by Tokyo Electric and other Japanese plant operators comes from a group of domestic insurance companies that pool the risk, but the pool doesn't cover major natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. Instead, power companies buy coverage for those perils straight from the government, Mr. McGarvey said.

Such policies typically cover compensation for anyone exposed to substantial amounts of radiation, whether at the plant or offsite, and pays for cleanup of contaminated property not owned by the utility, said Marshall Nadel, a managing director of the global power group for Aon Risk Solutions. It may also cover costs for those forced to evacuate from the area around the plant.

But were costs to go higher than Y120 billion, Japan's legislature, the Diet, would have to approve additional compensation for victims of the radioactive leak, Mr. McGarvey said.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 13:01

amit wrote:This incident in Japan gives you a very good opportunity to wag your fingers and say, "See I was right!" But sadly you don't seem to have clue on which reports can substantiate you POV (maybe). Well let me help you out a bit.

If I were you I'd go to town with this report for example.

Amit-ji, I dont think there is any scope for "I told you so" rhetoric...Most of the deal naysayers were positioning the nuke liability law as some sort of a unique animal, contrary to international best practices that perfidious MMS sprang upon India to please his American masters...Depending on how the liability claims work out (and it will take a VERY long time), a few things will get clearer:

1. What sort of nuke liability does a component supplier incur internationally
2. What sort of liability does the operator incur
3. Ergo, are we better off having the primary design supplier being the operator as well, rather than preserving "operatorship" for PSUs only

All the above are reasonably clear in terms of documentation and legalese - but dont think has been tested for the nuke industry for an accident (and potential liability) of this magnitude...It should answer some of the questions with a live case..

The current soundbytes are conforming to all the known axioms

1. Liability is of the operator
2. supplier liability is limited
3. Operator liability is covered partialy by a insurance pool
4. "Black swan" liabilities like this incident will finally fall upon the govt...

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 13:09

Somnath,

No issues with your post save for one. And that is please don't Ji me.

I also happen to think that in the context of the mandate of this thread, we should focus on how the best practices liabilities laws operate in this case, which tragic as it is, is indeed a live example for us to watch and learn from, IMHO.

Cheers!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 13:10

The True Costs of Nuclear Power: If the Japanese can't build a completely safe nuclear reactor, who can?

http://www.slate.com/id/2288237/

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 13:21

abhishek_sharma wrote:The True Costs of Nuclear Power: If the Japanese can't build a completely safe nuclear reactor, who can?

http://www.slate.com/id/2288237/

Nice article. However one needs to remember that construction on Unit one of the six reactors in the Fukushima complex started in 1967, that is 44 years ago. Nuclear plant technology has advanced quite a bit since then. And as I posted on previous page the plant withstood an earthquake 7 times a powerful as what it's maximum design capacity was supposed to take. The problem was the double whammy of the tsunami taking out the axillary power units just when they were needed the most.

In this case if an argument is to be made it would have to be IMO one between nuclear power and coal-based power. While the former is certainly more expensive to build and can cause major disasters in case of a Black Swan event like this one, coal-based power is not sustainable from an environment POV for the medium to long term.

In many ways I think we've got a Hobson's Choice, at least till such time that new nuclear generation plants can come online which reduce or eliminate the risk of contamination.

The problem is from India's POV, IMO, is that we don't have the luxury of time to see which way technology goes. We need more electricity and that requirement started Yesterday not in the future.

JMT

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 15 Mar 2011 13:24

How a Reactor Shuts Down and What Happens in a Meltdown

NYT is giving out this wonderful graphic on what is going on Fukushima Daiichi power station. A definite must see.

The scary part is this

It is not known if any uranium fuel has melted.

And why is this melting so bad??

The fuel pellets would drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel; they might burn through it. An outer containment vessel with steel and concrete walls may or may not hold the melted fuel and prevent it from escaping the reactor building. Worst case: Molten fuel breaches all structures and releases enormous amounts of radioactive material.

Food for thought, why aren't our media outlets coming up with such a graphic ??

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Mar 2011 13:37

Terreble as events are. The way Nuke Liability will act in this case will be a real learning experience for the Indian Nuke Liability underwriters.

The same will be applicable for the designers of the NPP's globaly. AS to what safety measures can be incorporated in the NPP to make sure that such a contingencey doesnot arise.

The Indian Nuke Power corporation should IMO send a team to the effected NPP, as soon as it practicle for the visit to take place and conduct a vigrous study of what has happned and what can be done to keep the reactor safe, when faced with such a situation.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 13:37

amit wrote:
In this case if an argument is to be made it would have to be IMO one between nuclear power and coal-based power. While the former is certainly more expensive to build and can cause major disasters in case of a Black Swan event like this one, coal-based power is not sustainable from an environment POV for the medium to long term.

Fair point. The views against a tough liability law should be explained analytically:

x = cost of coal-based electricity + cost due to climate-related problems

y= cost of nuclear energy + cost due to nuclear accidents (including 'black swan' events)

If x>y, we should install more nuclear reactors. Moreover, the idea that "Govt will pay for clean up" smacks of "Privatized profits and socialized losses". Other sectors of the economy would also demand similar favors from the government. One could argue that the govt is already paying for the climate-related problems. In that case, why not tax the Oil/Coal sector and use the money for providing better health care?

Air pollution due to coal/oil probably effects all Indians (more or less) uniformly. On the other hand, if there is no nuclear reactor in my town, I am probably safe. Why should some Indians live in more dangerous environment than others (when others too will use the electricity)?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 13:43

abhishek_sharma wrote: If x>y, we should install more nuclear reactors.

Sir as of today, that is not even a question that needs discussion or thought to know what the answer is. (As I am sure you are well aware of)

that is why the tremendous amount of outright lying that is needed to support Nuclear plants, with massive overplaying and underplaying of gains and risks.

BC article that I posted quite clearly lay out the serious issues including long term externalties of nuclear power. Things that are brushed away to obtain a false +ve potential economic gain.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 13:50

abhishek_sharma wrote:y= cost of nuclear energy + cost due to nuclear accidents (including 'black swan' events)

Well by definition, it is impossible to define the costs of "black swan" events - that is precisely why they are called black swans!

To be honest this accident will in all probability push back all nuke power plant programmes globally...India included..Which is fine, even desirable perhaps..

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 13:52

abhishek_sharma wrote:Fair point. The views against a tough liability law should be explained analytically:

x = cost of coal-based electricity + cost due to climate-related problems

y= cost of nuclear energy + cost due to nuclear accidents (including 'black swan' events)

If x>y, we should install more nuclear reactors. Moreover, the idea that "Govt will pay for clean up" smacks of "Privatized profits and socialized losses". Other sectors of the economy would also demand similar favors from the government. One could argue that the govt is already paying for the climate-related problems. In that case, why not tax the Oil/Coal sector and use the money for providing better health care?

Air pollution due to coal/oil probably effects all Indians (more or less) uniformly. On the other hand, if there is no nuclear reactor in my town, I am probably safe. Why should some Indians live in more dangerous environment than others (when others too will use the electricity)?

Abhishek,

I appreciate your point but can you tell me how you would calculate cost due to climate-related problems with any degree of accuracy? For example what timeframe would you use, what tolerance levels (for pollution and potential health related problems etc) would you assign, the cost of long term supply of coal (we'll have to import it due to the high sulpher content of our coal deposits) etc. Unless you can do that doing a comparison between x and y would be subjective because while y can be calculated with a fair bit of accuracy x will fluctuate over a wide band.

Your point about Govt should pay for clean up, however obnoxious it may seem, is the global norm, as this Japan incident is already showing. I personally don't like it either but then there are so many thing that I don't like and yet it's the global norm.

I can't understand your point about other sectors demanding "similar favours". Govt pays for clean-up in the case of Nuclear accident is the global norm, it's not something that is being tried out for the first time in India. Can you cite other sectors asking for "similar favours" globally? What happened in the Gulf of Mexico incident. Compare that with Three Mile for example how much did the nuclear equipment makers pay in relation to the amount BP had to shell out.

Finally your point about taxing oil and coal companies to provide health care, I'm sorry I am totally lost on that point. I hope I'm wrong and please point out if I am, but it seems to me you are saying that we first create a health problem and then assure,say, a guy who might get lung cancer because his house is next to a coal fired plant that he shouldn't worry the coal company has been taxed and they'll partly pay for his hospitalization bills.

Also in the Indian context oil and coal companies are govt owned. A special tax on them means the govt is taxing itself to pay for healthcare costs? How does that work, where is new money going to come from? Only way that can happen is higher electricity costs which again affects x in your equation.

The whole point of this IMO, is there is no black and white solution to the problems. Both coal as well as nuclear have their plus and minus. The only thing that is black and white is that we need more power and we need it now. Which is why IMO we need both coal and nuclear power plants built simultaneously. It can't be an either/or situation.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 13:59

somnath wrote: Well by definition, it is impossible to define the costs of "black swan" events - that is precisely why they are called black swans!

I think there must be some way to find the probabilities of tsunamis and earthquakes, right? (I guess I should not have used the term 'back swan'.)

If there is no way to compute it, then we don't know the true cost of nuclear energy. It follows that we cannot claim that it is cheaper than other sources of energy.

I am not against nuclear power plants. Climate change is a serious problem. People die due to air pollution, floods and famines. If nuclear energy is a better option, then we should consider it.