India Nuclear News And Discussion

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 08 Apr 2011 03:38

Who shares the losses when things go bad?
At least, after many cycles, answer to this one is clearly addressed by overdrive nuclear proponents. (There is no right or wrong answer to this). It just reflects how society distributes risks. A subset of population will be bearing the risks heavily,(let me hasten to add just as other technologies (per nuclear proponents) - questionable but irrelevant to the outcome)).

Issues to consider.
1) US energy mix in year 2050. India energy mix in year 2050.
2) Strategic economic and security interests.
3) Should India be having higher nuclear in its energy mix than say US, given the fact that India doesn't have substantial uranium reserves?
4) Thorium is touted as providing strategic economic and security interests. To enable that India should follow uranium based route for some time. Why should US or others be interested in enhancing and enabling such a route?
5) As seen from Steven Chu's (US energy secretary) proclamation, developing (India) nations to take advantage of all the technological improvements in nuclear industry, while simultaneously not making any substantial investments within advocates' own country?
6) Germany went solar route in 2003, and presently they roughly meet 10% peak energy requirements through that route. US is little late in the game.

Very important for India to invest in:
Smart grid system. Pricing energy to adjust the peak loads. Quite large savings are accomplished.

Frankly, the nuclear technology is old (half century). The concern is, is India being strongly advocated to invest heavily into potentially what could be an obsolete technology in a few years from now? Investing in copper cables for communication will no doubt facilitate communication. But not going heavily will not render people to start using flares for communication. BTW, one should be happy if 50% of what is claimed is achieved by the nuclear energy projections. There will be all sorts of excuses, of fuel not reaching in time, to installation delays etc. A 50% yield on the investment is more realistic.
Are there no other alternate things on the horizon to the nuclear route? only time will tell. But is proportional investment being done so India plays to its natural strength of what is in its control.
The thrust of India's energy mix should be reflection of its strategic resources. Any deviation from that in short or long term is going to diminish strategic economic and security interests accordingly. This nuclear component has bearing on strategic alignment associated with it, as much as addressing energy needs.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 08 Apr 2011 03:48

This may provide hint as to the question why US is not investing into new nuclear plants.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134827595 ... lear-power

LUDDEN: What would - if we had no nuclear power anymore in the U.S., 20 percent of out electricity no longer came from nuclear power, how would that impact carbon emissions?

Dr. ZEMAN: Well, depends what you replace it with. Right now we have a huge excess of natural gas generating capacity. In fact, the capacity factor, which is really how much a natural gas plant is used, on average in the States is somewhere around 22 percent. So that means we have this large amount of excess capacity - more than enough to make up for the current production of nuclear power.

So the emissions would go up somewhere between five to six percent for the U.S. economy as a whole if we replaced all of nuclear with natural gas. So it wouldn't be a big emissions increase. The question is, can you find that gas and how much do you have to pay for it?

LUDDEN: OK. And so would it impact global - I mean, anything that we can say would impact global climate change? Or is that just impossible to really guess?

Dr. ZEMAN: Well, any emission impacts climate change. But when the U.S. is producing roughly six billion metric tons a year, adding, you know, 322 more isn't going to really make a big deal.

LUDDEN: OK, Michael Levi?

Dr. LEVI: If we move along our current course when it comes to greenhouse gas generation, frankly, this change on the margin with nuclear would be quite inconsequential. The bigger question is if we decide to take a serious go at reducing our emissions, will we need to rely on nuclear? And that's an open question right now. The nuclear, like I said before, is the only near-zero carbon source of electricity that's being demonstrated at scale. We have, and at a reasonable price, we have possible alternative options. We have renewables if we can develop the systems for storage and if we can get the costs down. We may have carbon capture and sequestration, where we take the emissions from coal and gas and bury them underground.

LUDDEN: And why - I'm just curious why France does rely on it so much. At what point was that decision made and was there not much opposition to it?

Dr. LEVI: I actually don't have a good answer for you on that. But the reason that France has been able to build that much nuclear is because it's essentially a state-run enterprise. So the risks and costs are socialized. You don't have the same problems of uncertainty and regulatory issues and financial issues that you do in this country.

It's also been part of a broader industrial strategy. France is not into this only for domestic electricity production but also for exports of nuclear technology.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 08 Apr 2011 03:54

And politics of how the location of plants are determined.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =134794862

CHIDEYA: Your research shows that 68 percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. So how can we ensure that power plants are more equitably spread throughout American communities?

Dr. BULLARD: If you look at the location of nuclear power plants and other power plant facilities such as coal-fire power plants or other types of facilities, they are not randomly distributed. As a matter of fact, they are often sighted in poor communities, working class communities and communities of color. And the fact that everybody uses electricity, but everybody does not have to bear the burden of where these facilities are located.

And so it becomes an issue of citing equity, and who gets clean energy versus who gets stuck with the dirty and risky technology energy.

CHIDEYA: Well, President Obama's 2012 budget proposes $36 billion in loans for the building of new power plants. Are you concerned that new nuclear power plants will be built in areas that have a high proportion of communities of color?

Dr. BULLARD: What many communities that have borne the burden for these types of facilities always say: Well, who's going to get the facility? Everybody needs the electricity, but everybody doesn't have to live next to where the electricity is generated. It is not accidental or coincidental that the facilities that were used to jumpstart the (unintelligible) in the nuclear power industry, the two plants that are being proposed - nuclear power plants that are being proposed are being proposed in a predominantly black county in Georgia.

And I think the fact that if you ask people in Burke County, in Shell Bluff community, the black community, if they voted to have those two nuclear power plants that are already there, and if they voted to have two more, which would make four, they would tell you no.

And so we're concerned about who gets the clean industry and who gets the dirty.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 08 Apr 2011 04:00

Another dated story, but shows a glimpse of why US is not building new plants.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112327040

4. "Nuclear Power Is the Cure for Our Addiction to Coal."

Nope. Atomic energy is emissions free, so a slew of politicians and even some environmentalists have embraced it as a clean alternative to coal and natural gas that can generate power when there's no sun or wind. In the United States, which already gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, utilities are thinking about new reactors for the first time since the Three Mile Island meltdown three decades ago — despite global concerns about nuclear proliferation, local concerns about accidents or terrorist attacks, and the lack of a disposal site for the radioactive waste. France gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nukes, and Russia, China, and India are now gearing up for nuclear renaissances of their own.

But nuclear power cannot fix the climate crisis.

The bigger problem is cost. Nuke plants are supposed to be expensive to build but cheap to operate. Unfortunately, they're turning out to be really, really expensive to build; their cost estimates have quadrupled in less than a decade. Energy guru Amory Lovins has calculated that new nukes will cost nearly three times as much as wind — and that was before their construction costs exploded for a variety of reasons, including the global credit crunch, the atrophying of the nuclear labor force, and a supplier squeeze symbolized by a Japanese company's worldwide monopoly on steel-forging for reactors. A new reactor in Finland that was supposed to showcase the global renaissance is already way behind schedule and way, way over budget. This is why plans for new plants were recently shelved in Canada and several U.S. states, why Moody's just warned utilities they'll risk ratings downgrades if they seek new reactors, and why renewables attracted $71 billion in worldwide private capital in 2007 — while nukes attracted zero.

It's also why U.S. nuclear utilities are turning to politicians to supplement their existing loan guarantees, tax breaks, direct subsidies, and other cradle-to-grave government goodies with new public largesse. Reactors don't make much sense to build unless someone else is paying; that's why the strongest push for nukes is coming from countries where power is publicly funded. For all the talk of sanctions, if the world really wants to cripple the Iranian economy, maybe the mullahs should just be allowed to pursue nuclear energy.{ ?}

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 Apr 2011 04:58

The unthinkable may happen on BRF in this new found religious fervor.

Yes, folks, hold on to your seats.

Coming soon.

To a dhagaa near you.

The release Premier.

Of what you ask?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A nanha mujahid on BRF will proudly ask for Cap, Rollback and Eliminate.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 08 Apr 2011 05:05

The biggest push back in developed countries I believe came from local people who had New Cooler power stations in their back yard and had to deal with the radiation and its effect first hand, despite promises from industry insiders that there is negligible risk.

So one way the risk could be minimized is to ask the proponents and sponsors/promoters of this industry to live in the neighborhood of New Cooler plants, lets say within several miles, downstream from any river or coastal area near a plant. If such people are willing to take the risk with the lives of their own and their loved ones then other people should have some confidence that they really believe what they preach and are willing to live by their words.

And then there is the issue of storage of the waste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Moun ... repository

In May 2009, Secretary Steven Chu stated:

"Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. ...
"Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine—again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says—one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, such as salt domes. Once you put it in there, the salt oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore—that's good. It's a very natural containment. ...whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that.
"So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas."[61]

In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 (Roll call vote 591, via Clerk.House.gov) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.[22][62]

No one wants these plants or their waste in their backyard.

Disclaimer, I am no expert, just conveying the public mood here in the US, to the best of my knowledge.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Apr 2011 05:06

JwalaMukhi wrote:Another dated story, but shows a glimpse of why US is not building new plants.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112327040
4. "Nuclear Power Is the Cure for Our Addiction to Coal."

But nuclear power cannot fix the climate crisis.

Strangely enough the primary reason listed for the above is timing - says west needs to reduce emissions by 2020, since enough nuke plants can't be built by 2020. What's the point? This is a funny reason. So if you delay things enough you might as well not do it !!

And 'cost' is another strange argument. How can you measure cost without considering the costs of not doing it or the cost of an 'alternative' like continuing down the coal route, or the costs associated with hoping that a better technology is around the corner?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Apr 2011 05:30

Artificial Leaf Could Be More Efficient Than the Real Thing

By Mark Brown, Wired UK

Speaking at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in California, MIT professor Daniel Nocera claims to have created an artificial leaf made from stable and inexpensive materials that mimics nature’s photosynthesis process.

The device is an advanced solar cell, no bigger than a typical playing card, which is left floating in a pool of water. Then, much like a natural leaf, it uses sunlight to split the water into its two core components, oxygen and hydrogen, which are stored in a fuel cell to be used when producing electricity.

Nocera’s leaf is stable — operating continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity in preliminary tests — and made of widely available, inexpensive materials — like silicon, electronics and chemical catalysts. It’s also powerful, as much as 10 times more efficient at carrying out photosynthesis than a natural leaf.

With a single gallon of water, Nocera says, the chip could produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing country for an entire day. Provide every house on the planet with an artificial leaf and we could satisfy our 14-terrawatt need with just one gallon of water a day. {Seems like a typo here?}

Those are impressive claims, but they’re also not just pie-in-the-sky, conceptual thoughts. Nocera has already signed a contract with a global megafirm to commercialize his groundbreaking idea. The mammoth Indian conglomerate, Tata Group has forged a deal with the MIT professor to build a small power plant, the size of a refrigerator, in about a year and a half.

This isn’t the first ever artificial leaf, of course. The concept of emulating nature’s energy-generating process has been around for decades and many scientists have tried to create leaves in that time. The first, built more than 10 years ago by John Turner of the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, was efficient at faking photosynthesis but was made of rare and hugely expensive materials. It was also highly unstable, and had a lifespan of barely one day.

For now, Nocera is setting his sights on developing countries. “Our goal is to make each home its own power station,” he said. “One can envision villages in India and Africa not long from now purchasing an affordable basic power system based on this technology.”

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 05:43

somnath wrote: You obvioulsy didnt get the message in that post, maybe it was a genuine misinterpretation...

Yes, I didn't get the message. You wrote:

How much are the losses as a result of such nuke "black swans"? And how do the numbers compare with the losses due to enhanced carbon footprint and other industrial disasters on fossil fuels?

taking Chernobyl as an example, cost estimates range from 4 billion dollars to 20-25 billion dollars...And Chernobyl was perhaps the blackest of all black swans..To put things in perspective, the BP payout to the US govt, is estimated to be 30 billion dollars in various forms.

You talked about comparison? hai naa?. You then proposed $25 billion max for Chernobyl and ~$30 billion for BP. Right?

Please explain more.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 06:14

abhishek_sharma wrote:You talked about comparison? hai naa?. You then proposed $25 billion max for Chernobyl and ~$30 billion for BP. Right

I am not proposing anything. The costs of Chernobyl has been varioulsy estimated to be between 4 and 25 bill, BP has paid ~30 bill till now for the oil spill...So the limited point is that "large-value" industrial accidents are not the preserve of the nuclear industry only (which was one of the two core points in Stiglitz's thesis)...dont know what is so difficult to ascertain here..(BTW, if Union Carbide was settled in a manner congruent with international norms, that too would have run into at least high single digit billions)...

Chanakya-ji,

chaanakya wrote:Thermal plants , in India have 18-20 % efficiency. While in Japan and USA it is 35 to 40%. SO if one upgrades existing plants and probably employs better technology it might be more effective.

That depends a whole lot on the quality of the coal being used..Indian coal has high ash content, and therefore cannot generate the same efficiency as plants using (say) Oz coal...On the other hand, cost of thermal power increases progressively for every 100 km added to the distance between the source of coal and power plant...Most of the new large thermal power plants therefore are "coal pithead" plants...The economics of plants using imported coal are very different...You will get an idea of the costs in India from the Planning Commission study I referenced earlier..

No one is "forcing" nuclear on India...But not usre junking a tech that has the greatest base load potential TODAY is sch a great idea..

On the issue of costs..

Theo_Fidel wrote:Amit as far as the supply of Uranium, read the report carefully, it says there is enough Uranium for 1000 reactors for 50 years. In other words there is enough for the existing reactors and the west. India's expansion is not accounted for. Right now Uranium is very cheap, on the order of $70 per pound

Theo-ji, Uranium today costs ~60 dollars, as per my BBG...the issue is this, in a scenario where Uranium prices go up to (say) 120 dollars, what would be the price of oil? I said this before, nuclear starts becoming attractive at the lowest datum level of oil rpices among all the "alternates"....Here is an IAEA study on the various scenarios of Uranium demand-supply mismatch...
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 04_scr.pdf

The point to note is that nuclear will be far cheaper than solar even if the uranium prices double from today's levels...

Finally, to be honest this whole thing on "insurance" is a bit of a bugbear...Will there be any deep sea drlling possible if every drlling well (mind you, exploration, not actual production) is asked to take out a 30 bill insurance cover (datum level being what BP was forced to pay the US govt)?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 06:20

somnath wrote: I am not proposing anything. The costs of Chernobyl has been varioulsy estimated to be between 4 and 25 bill, BP has paid ~30 bill till now for the oil spill...So the limited point is that "large-value" industrial accidents are not the preserve of the nuclear industry only (which was one of the two core points in Stiglitz's thesis)...dont know what is so difficult to ascertain here..

I am asking you to provide links for those estimates. I am very surprised to know that payments due to Chernobyl are less than those due to BP oil spill. I am sure there is madrassa math behind those calculations. Once you understand this, you will realize "what is so difficult to ascertain here..".

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 06:32

Why do I believe those numbers are madrassa math?

Counting the dead: Twenty years after the worst nuclear accident in history, arguments over the death toll of Chernobyl are as politically charged as ever, reports Mark Peplow.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 0982a.html

Nature 440, 982-983 (20 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/440982a; Published online 19 April 2006; Corrected 21 April 2006

Twenty years after the worst nuclear accident in history, arguments over the death toll of Chernobyl are as politically charged as ever, reports Mark Peplow.

No more than 4,000 people are likely to die as a result of Chernobyl. That was the conclusion released by the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in September last year, in the most comprehensive assessment of the accident so far.

But despite promising "definitive" answers the report, based on two decades of research, has done little to resolve the debate over Chernobyl's impact. The estimate drew howls of protest from environmental groups, which accused the UN's Chernobyl Forum of a whitewash. And scientists whose work is cited in the report are concerned about how their figures were presented, pointing out that the true cost of the disaster will not be known for decades to come, if ever.

Chernobyl's runaway nuclear reaction in 1986 was triggered by a faulty safety test, and exacerbated by a design flaw that caused a catastrophic temperature rise in the reactor core. This caused about 6.7 tonnes of radioactive material to spread for hundreds of kilometres around the site. Two of the most significant elements in the chemical cocktail were iodine and caesium, and the most devastating effects were seen within a few tens of kilometres of the reactor, in the region where Ukraine, Belarus and Russia meet.

In the confusion that followed, local families continued to graze and milk their cattle on contaminated land. Many predicted that the accident would cause hundreds of thousands of cancers.

Cooking the books?

The forum reports that the fallout has since caused about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents. But just 15 of these patients have died. Along with highly exposed rescue workers who brought the reactor inferno under control, 62 deaths have been attributed directly to the accident so far.

The report also says that there has been no significant increase so far in the incidence of other cancers. In total, it said, "up to 4,000 people" may ultimately die as a direct result of the disaster — much lower than previous estimates.

That conclusion upsets many. "The report gave a completely misleading view of the health consequences of the accident," says Ed Lyman, a nuclear-power expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC.

The argument stems from uncertainty about the health effects of low doses of radiation. Evidence from survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima has allowed researchers to predict the effects of high doses. But as the exposure drops, so does the understanding of its impact. Last year, a working group of the US National Research Council concluded that even tiny amounts of radiation cannot be considered safe.

In contrast, the forum based its headline figure on just the 600,000 people exposed to the most radiation, predicting that roughly 4,000 of them will die as a result. The full report acknowledges that, of 6.8 million others living further from the explosion who received a much lower dose, Chernobyl will kill another 5,000 — more than doubling the projected death toll. But this is not mentioned in the report's 50-page summary or the accompanying press release.

The figures come from a study published in 1996 by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. "I was very shocked that they were quoting figures we had found ten years ago," says Cardis. "I didn't expect the numbers to be picked up and used in a press release without qualification."

Even the forum's chair, Burton Bennett, former head of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, Japan, says caveats about the figures should have been clearer. But he points out that the extra 6.8 million people were, on average, exposed to a radiation dose of just 7 millisieverts — little more than the natural background delivers in a year in most parts of the world.

Melissa Fleming, a press officer working at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who helped coordinate the report's publicity, says the scientists involved checked the press material. But she admits a decision was made to focus on the lower 4,000 figure, partly as a reaction to the inflated estimates of past decades. "I was sick of seeing wild figures being reported by reputable organizations that were attributed to the UN," she says. "It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom." The figure has been removed from the final summary, however, published this month.

I was sick of seeing wild figures being reported by reputable organizations and attributed to the UN.

Uncertain legacy

Some of the higher death tolls come from those who believe that estimates of those potentially affected should extend to everyone in Europe (see map). In a report commissioned by Green Party members of the European Parliament, radiation scientist Ian Fairlie calculated that of the hundreds of millions of people who could possibly have received any radiation at all from Chernobyl, 30,000–60,000 could die as a result (see http://tinyurl.com/rpzsq).

Cardis is also about to publish a study of the pan-European impact. She concludes that, of 570 million people in Europe at the time, 16,000 will ultimately die as a result of the accident — 0.01% of all cancer deaths. But she says it will be virtually impossible to assess the ultimate death toll. Cancer causes about a quarter of all deaths in Europe, so weeding out those cases triggered by Chernobyl cannot be done with statistical confidence. "We'll never be able to say whether we were right or not," she says.

Some researchers also take issue with the report's conclusion that there are no hereditary effects in children born after the disaster. "The fact that we haven't seen anything doesn't mean there isn't an effect," says Cardis. "It's just too early to see an increase."

The fact that we haven't seen anything doesn't mean that there isn't an effect. It's just too early.

Until Chernobyl survivors' children and grandchildren grow up, the only way to assess such effects is to look for DNA mutations. Yuri Dubrova, a geneticist at the University of Leicester, UK, has found increased genetic changes in the children of irradiated parents — but the fingerprinting technique he used only allowed him to look at non-coding regions, known as junk DNA (Y. E. Dubrova et al. Nature 380, 683–686; 1996).

He argues that coding regions are also likely to be affected. DNA chips currently being developed will allow mass screening of samples from thousands of people, he says, and could pick up effects too small to have been spotted so far. "The real necessity now is to organize proper blood-sample banks," he says.

Many are calling for research to track effects such as cancer or infertility in subsequent generations (see page 993). But although such monitoring is seen as essential, some worry that wrangling over death tolls and radiation risk is hampering survivors' recovery.

Against apathy
"What we'd like people to take away is not the numbers game," says Louisa Vinton, who manages Chernobyl projects at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Rough estimates of death tolls allow governments to set up policies to manage the future health effects. But she says the focus on the figure of 4,000 obscured a more important message of the report: that myths about the threat of radiation have created a "paralysing fatalism" among residents of affected areas.

Instead Vinton hopes that Chernobyl's legacy can be seen as a social problem. The UNDP says that Chernobyl's most serious impact was on the mental health of about 7 million people labelled as victims of the accident. Aid from the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine has created a culture of dependency, it argues, which may have encouraged exaggerated fears of ill-health.

"We go to communities where people have just given up," says Vinton. Poor diet, lack of exercise and smoking are all linked to such apathy. She admits it is hard to separate the stress of Chernobyl from the effects of collapse of the Soviet Union. But Chernobyl aid has drained resources. In 1991, Belarus spent 22.3% of its budget on aid; today that figure is still 6%.

The forum's report recommends that governments reassign the cash towards regenerating the region and developing infrastructure.

The hottest spots will be radioactive for centuries. But the most prevalent isotope, caesium-137, has a half-life of about 30 years and scientists estimate that much of the abandoned area will become habitable over coming decades. The 30-kilometre exclusion zone around Chernobyl is likely to remain off limits. But the report suggests that in other evacuated areas roads should be rebuilt, and people encouraged to start farms and businesses.

Projects to build hospitals and schools are already helping people to help themselves, says Vinton: "I've seen the before and after. People stand up straight and bubble over with excitement about the next plan."

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 06:43

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why do I believe those numbers are madrassa math?

Its very difficult to get any hard numbers on Chernobyl..Why? Becuase the operator was the govt of Soviet Union...And they were obviosuly not terribly keen to get into a detailed cost analysis...there are estimates of upto 200 bill by governments (Belarus), but that includes post facto insurance claims and liabilities, most of which has not gotten either filed or claimed...The costs that are "transparently" available is the cost of the sarophagus, which is estimated to be around 1-1.5 billion...WWW has myriad estimates floating around, from 4 to 25 to the 200 (govt estimates)....

On the other hand, costs of the TMI cleanup are more transparently available...It was estimated to be ~1 bill...
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/15/us/14 ... ludes.html

Going on to costs of industrial accidents, what would be the real estimated cost of Bhopal, if someone were to put a number to it? Does it mean we should dump the chemicals industry as well?

I am with you when you say that the actual numbers are "difficult to ascertain", the only point is that the same goes for other industrial acidents as well, and nuclear isnt Robin son Crusoe here..

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 06:45

somnath wrote: Its very difficult to get any hard numbers on Chernobyl..

Fine. I agree. So we should not use those unreliable numbers. Right? It is common sense.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Apr 2011 06:56

abhishek_sharma wrote: Fine. I agree. So we should not use those unreliable numbers. Right? It is common sense.

I think the confusion arises when one compares the full life cycle cost of Chernobyl (both known and unknown) with only the cost of cleaning up the oil spill of BP. If you add the cost on marine life destruction and opportunies lost by coastal areas in terms of tourism, fishing etc - they will add up to quite high as well.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 07:03

arnab wrote: I think the confusion arises when ...

I don't think that is the source of confusion here. I am pretty sure that marine life is cheaper than the lives of human beings. In the article posted above, there is concern that the UN forum is underestimating human deaths (and cases of cancer). As I said before, I will be very surprised if the cost of BP oil spill comes even close to Chernobyl disaster. The idea is preposterous.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 07:08

abhishek_sharma wrote:As I said before, I will be very surprised if the cost of BP oil spill comes even close to Chernobyl disaster. The idea is preposterous.

No one's saying that...The problem is that different accidents get deal with different templates...Is Chernobyl comparable to Bhopal? At least in terms of deaths, all estimates show that these were FAR higher in Bhopal than in Chernobyl...So purely in terms of compensation, Bhopal should be costing far higher? (mind you, the UC plant site too has not been cleaned up yet)...But the official, transparent record is only 470 million dollars...Should we then estimate Bhopal to be a lesser disaster?

the fundamental point is simpler..Industrial black swan accidents can lead to extraordinary costs...No insurane policy can cover such amounts as par for the course third party insurance...And nuclear isnt the only sector where these things happen...thats all...

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 08 Apr 2011 07:16

Now anti-thermal agitation.
‘Look at rashes on my hands', The Hindu, Friday April 08, 2011.

Santhur (Udupi District):The people of Santhur and neighbouring villages in Udupi district vented their anger and frustration at the pollution allegedly caused by the coal-based thermal power plant of Udupi Power Corporation Ltd (UPCL) during the visit of Minister for Environment J. Krishna Palemar at the ash pond and project site here on Thursday.

. . .

and so on.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 07:24

somnath wrote: No one's saying that...The problem is that different accidents get deal with different templates...Is Chernobyl comparable to Bhopal? At least in terms of deaths, all estimates show that these were FAR higher in Bhopal than in Chernobyl...So purely in terms of compensation, Bhopal should be costing far higher?

Yes. Sounds fair.

somnath wrote: (mind you, the UC plant site too has not been cleaned up yet)...But the official, transparent record is only 470 million dollars...Should we then estimate Bhopal to be a lesser disaster? .

No. That is the main point. We should have appropriate laws to ensure that the guilty party pays for its sins. I am not claiming that the GoI has exemplary record as far as this issue is concerned.

somnath wrote: the fundamental point is simpler..Industrial black swan accidents can lead to extraordinary costs...No insurane policy can cover such amounts as par for the course third party insurance...

Hiding behind lack of information is hardly satisfactory. We can work with estimates. This has been discussed many times here. There is no point in discussing it again. You didn't convince me. It appears that I didn't convince you. Let us move on.

somnath wrote: And nuclear isnt the only sector where these things happen...thats all....

Let us not mix things here. Bhopal disaster was not about energy. It should be compared with other approaches for dealing with chemicals/pesticides etc.

Nuclear issue is about climate change vs. radiation. That is all.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 08 Apr 2011 07:28

Nuclear scientists call for exhaustive safety audit, The Hindu, 08 Apr 2011

Not clear:
"scientists" = AK, and apart from him who else?
To whom or at which forum have they said this?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Apr 2011 07:28

abhishek_sharma wrote:
arnab wrote: I think the confusion arises when ...
I am pretty sure that marine life is cheaper than the lives of human beings.

Why is that sir? Then by extension one can argue an indian life is cheaper than an american life. Infact Union Carbide (Dow) actually did make that argument when they paid $500 per life lost.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 07:31

arnab wrote: Why is that sir? Then by extension one can argue an indian life is cheaper than an american life.

Really? What is the standard of logical arguments here?

Edited: I am hoping it was not a sarcastic statement.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Apr 2011 07:38

JwalaMukhi, Channakya, Abhishek and others,

The Internet is the purveyor of every whim, viewpoint. So by asking Unkil Gogal it's possible to dredge up articles/news that covers all viewpoint. So for every article/report/study that shows nuclear is not the monster that it's made out to be, they'll be ones that are out and out anti-nuclear in POV.

I'm sure you'll agree all these reams and reams of discussion on the fallout from Fukushima holds no meaning unless we can extrapolate what happened there to the Indian context and decide what is the best way forward.

In this context nobody in the so-called pro-nuclear (a nomenclature I don't like but never mind) lobby here have advocated an exclusivist use of nuclear power for power generation in India. The central point has been that we cannot afford to ignore nuclear as a part of the broader mix of different generation methods which should include both fossil, hydel as well as renewables. And nuclear.

I think it's time you guys clearly stated what you think should be the key takeaway from Fukushima for India. Should it abandon the nuclear option? Should it take cognizance of the failures - real and imaginary - at Fukushima and design more robust nuclear reactors?

I've asked this question before but I'll repeat, what do you guys think is the best course of action? If you think that India should not abandon nuclear power generation then it doesn't make sense to do a nod, nod, wink, wink and post reams and reams of articles/interviews with and by avowedly anti-nuclear folks - experts as well as quacks.

It would help if you guys also made your POV clear. We can then get to the next stage in this discussion which can go on till the cows - or maybe the neutrons - come home.

PS: One reason I respect Theo so much is that he thinks nuclear is bad and he's willing to stick his neck and say so plainly.

JMT

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 07:39

abhishek_sharma wrote:Nuclear issue is about climate change vs. radiation. That is all.

Not much to say on the other points, but on this - nuclear energy is NOT JUST about climate change...Emmissions from fossil fuels are responsible for myriad issues relating to health and lifestyles - recorded in many many places - # of Asthma cases among children in Delhi being one anecdotal instance...Mining (and drilling) for fossil fuels have immediate impact on neighbourhoods - ones that last for generations, go no further than Raniganj/Jharia...finally, it is about the cost of energy in 20 years time....So the issue isnt a simple radiation v/s climate change affair..

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 08 Apr 2011 07:39

The Bhopal disaster is the world's worst industrial catastrophe. It occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. A leak of methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals from the plant resulted in the exposure of hundreds of thousands of people. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[1] Others estimate that 3,000 died within weeks and that another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.[2][3] A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

and for Chernobyl

Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A UNSCEAR report places the total deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Just by the numbers directly affected UC Bhopal disaster killed more for sure, and a bigger impact assuming human lives have the same price irrespective of location or nature of the cause for death.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Apr 2011 07:39

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Really? What is the standard of logical arguments here?

Edited: I am hoping it was not a sarcastic statement.

No I'm not being sarcastic at all. Humans are worth more than fish and other bio diversity lost by human action, so we 'value' the marine life less than humans when calculating the cost. Therefore our first duty must be to preserve humans above animals. So by extending this logic to the human race, it must be true that in the event of a calamity an american life must be saved first because they are wealthy and productive as compared to an Indian life

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Apr 2011 07:46

chaanakya wrote:Has he been able to convince USA to build more nuclear reactors for power generation. How many have they build for last ten years? Why USA persistently refused to ratify Kyoto protocol and what did he do to address the carbon concerns in USA?

Can anyone answer that, please?

Rhetoric gives color to a debate. And in the hands of skilled practitioner it's a very powerful tool as we've seen.

I'll just wait for an answer from you to my previous post.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Apr 2011 07:47

arnab wrote: No I'm not being sarcastic at all. Humans are worth more than fish and other bio diversity lost by human action, so we 'value' the marine life less than humans when calculating the cost. Therefore our first duty must be to preserve humans above animals. So by extending this logic to the human race, it must be true that in the event of a calamity an american life must be saved first because they are wealthy and productive as compared to an Indian life

I agree with your broader point that we should care for fish/animals/ etc.

I don't think Americans should be saved first just because they are wealthier than us. An American taxi driver lives a higher standard of living than an Indian taxi driver. So income is not the best way to measure the worth of people.

Most people (including myself) would agree that people like CV Raman or S Ramanujan are more important than common folks. That is a complex ethical question and I can't give a satisfactory answer.

As far as I am concerned: All human lives are equal. Human life is more important than animal life. We should also care for animal/plants/etc. I have nothing more to say.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 08 Apr 2011 07:48

Jairam agrees to free more forest land for coal mining, Indian Express, 08 Apr 2011

Yielding to intense pressure from the coal ministry and end-user ministries of power and steel, the environment ministry today agreed to consider approval of all proposed mining projects that obtained stage-I forest clearance before 2010, and also offered to free up more forest land from ‘no-go’ areas for mining.

.....

The environment ministry wants certain areas under dense forest cover to be out of bounds for coal mining, while the coal ministry argues that this would hurt production and, consequently, India’s energy security.

. . .

I suppose the exact location and amount of flora and fauna existing in the "forest land" under question will determine whether its "release" for coal mining is a good thing or not. For npps, it is required that equal or more number of trees cut while clearing the land area for construction of the plant must be planted elsewhere. I do not know whether it is the case with coal mining also.

I get the feeling that protagonists of coal mining industry are piggy-back riding on the negative sentiments prevailing in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster!

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Apr 2011 08:11

Theo_Fidel wrote:Amit as far as the supply of Uranium, read the report carefully, it says there is enough Uranium for 1000 reactors for 50 years. In other words there is enough for the existing reactors and the west. India's expansion is not accounted for.

Sorry Theo, not correct. As of Jan 11, there are 442 nuclear power plants globally. And 65 are under construction. There are several very reputable sites which will give you these figures. But just to make it simpler see here.

You'll find that a vast majority of the 65 are being built outside the West. And the whole purpose of the nuclear deal that we signed was to make the availability of uranium easier. In fact Indian Express carried a report two days ago saying that, with uranium imports freed, our nuclear plants are running at 100 per cent capacity after a long time.

But the point is in the next 10 years or so we'd be having 500 or so nuclear reactors globally, that would mean, according to the MIT estimate, 100 years of assured supply and this does not take into account new sources that may be found. And it's quite obvious much before that 100 years is up new technology will make it possible to use other stuff like thorium for power generation.

Bottomline nuclear generation is not going stop on account of lack of fuel anytime soon.

Also that decommissioning report assumes plants be safe stored for lengthy periods and most of the low level radioactivity left on site. Most states now will not let this happen and expect the operator to return the site to pre-operational levels.

Boss that report was done by a person who knows his stuff and the study is used in many places as a reference. Now you and I are not experts, so if you think he's wrong in his estimates, I'd like you to back it up with an authoritative source, otherwise it's pointless to discuss. The MIT study I linked after that is broad agreement with the link I first posted.

Yes, I have admitted that Solar is expensive up front. But once you add the insurance and safety risk costs and the danger of being dependent on yet another foreign energy source, Solar Thermal starts becoming more and more attractive. We have the manpower and technical ability now to build/operate these plants at a much lower cost than Spain.

That bolded portion is a big leap of faith. How do you know that? But the main point is you didn't see the fineprint in the report. It says clearly that the high cost of solar was just the building cost. There is no reliable estimates of operating cost of solar - that is the cost incurred in generating one khW of electricity. Can you beatit? Nobody's got an estimate of how costly it is to generate electricity with solar. If you can find a reliable estimate I'd be keen to see it. The cost per kwH of all other types of generation take into account both building and operating cost. In case of nuclear it takes into account decommission cost as well.

Also Nuclear is NOT carbon free, it is operationally low carbon, but in its total life cycle it is not. This is true of all energy sources. Where do you think all those millions of tonnes of concrete comes from. Or that steel.

Sure nuclear is not carbon free. But then coal is not radiation free either - in fact studies have been posted which shows that for every kwH of electricity produced a coal fired plant produces 200 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.

But the point even at 200 times it's not harmful to human health. And whatever carbon a nuclear power plant produces is far less harmful to humans than the amount produced by a coal fired power plant - especially ones which use high sulpher coal that is found in India.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Apr 2011 08:14

Sanatanan wrote:I suppose the exact location and amount of flora and fauna existing in the "forest land" under question will determine whether its "release" for coal mining is a good thing or not. For npps, it is required that equal or more number of trees cut while clearing the land area for construction of the plant must be planted elsewhere. I do not know whether it is the case with coal mining also.

I get the feeling that protagonists of coal mining industry are piggy-back riding on the negative sentiments prevailing in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster!

+1 to that.

And some folks are being taken for a ride due to righteous anger!

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Apr 2011 08:33

abhishek_sharma wrote:As far as I am concerned: All human lives are equal. Human life is more important than animal life.

except a paki's

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 08 Apr 2011 08:40

The clean up costs for Three Mile are artificially low. The $1 Billion was in 1980 dollars and was just the cost of removing the radioactive fuel from the core. Technically the site has not been decommissioned so the costs are not final. Also note the worst of the spent fuel and contaminated material was sent to a government holding facility. So the tax payers now pay for taking care of it essentially for eternity. The site remain in safe storage for probably 50 years or so till the operator thinks radiation is low enough to begin actual decommissioning. Right now it is estimated at $1 Billion +. It is uncertain where this money will come from 50 years from now when the cost will likely be much higher.

The only reason India is looking at Nuclear is because the public agencies and bureaucrats want it. If NPCIL was a private company it would not touch a new nuclear project in India with a barge pole. No one has yet answered the question of who would pay if something went wrong at Kudankulam.

Yesterday I was talking to my dentist cousin from Thiruvananthapuram and he was saying that people don't even want to take x-rays of their teeth now. I told him that someone had suggested that if the people of Kudankulam don't want it the reactors could be moved to Kerala and he just laughed and laughed. There is not a single Keralite he has met recently who does not want Kudankulam shut down. In fact they are organizing to prevent any possible expansion. The opposition is strongest there.

WRT Chernobyl it is still not a stabilized site. The costs continue to mount. The new cover/hanger system is estimated to cost $5 Billion. There are approximately 3000 employees who continue to work on site to keep the plant stable. I keep saying this, the complete costs for decommissioning right now are still not known.

Nuclear is just not the answer. There is not a single coal mine that will be shut down because nuclear started up because nuclear is not scalable. It will never amount to more than 10% of global production. All this risk and aggravation for what. The cost of nuclear fuel should be compared to gas, coal and renewables not oil. Very very little electricity is produced from oil.

And this entire argument of look coal kills this many people so we should be allowed to pollute and kill people as well is very weak IMO. If you want to defend Nuclear defend on its own merits. Not a single operator will come out and say that over the life of the plant we expect so much radiation on average to be released by the plant. Every year so much radiation will be released. Very deceptive.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 08 Apr 2011 08:52

Theo, why have enlightened Keralites not shutdown the Rare earth minerals plant at Chowara and prevented associated mining in the beaches in the southern districts.

Or more importantly, Keralites should move out of the state to prevent all the background radiation from the thorium sands being a health risk to themselves, no ?

In fact they were opposed to dredging in the straits, fearing Tsunami(?) waves getting channeled further and hence wiping out the rich thorium sands away by erosion as I recall from arguments made circa 2004-5 in this very forum.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 09:54

Theo_Fidel wrote: The only reason India is looking at Nuclear is because the public agencies and bureaucrats want it. If NPCIL was a private company it would not touch a new nuclear project in India with a barge pole. No one has yet answered the question of who would pay if something went wrong at Kudankulam.

Just on this point (as the rest have all been discussed to death IMO - not teeth X-rays though

), its simply not true...Lots of Indian engg majors - L&T, Reliance were interested in seting up nuke power plants in the wake of the nuke deal...They all had plans lined up, before the uber nationalist lobby decided that only the govt can operate nuke power plants

Even now, NTPC, which is publicly listed (and therefore has to reply to the minority shareholders) and with absolutely no "pressing" reason to get into nuke power, has planned out its own nuke power foray....

"Something goes wrong in Kudumkulum"? What if something goes "wrong in Paradeep phosphates"? Or in "Phillips CArbon Black" in Durgapur? What if something goes wrong with the blasted RCF factory in Chembur? As it is, it probably kills a few hundred every year with its emmissions.."something goes wrong" there - how many millions will be killed?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 08 Apr 2011 10:08

Bade,

The Thorium itself is not very radioactive. Half life ~ 15 Billion years. Far more than Uranium. Mining and processing Monazite is not a very radiation prone process.

All those private sector companies got excited after their liability was capped at $300 million for any accident. Most recent estimates put Fukushima cleanup at $30 Billion. No private company will be interested at that level. This is why the private companies prefer NPCIL to be the operator. They build it and NPCIL takes the risk. Nice. Again no private company would take those terms.

Again this business of comparing nuclear accidents to RCF, etc must stop. Very unserious.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Apr 2011 10:13

Theo_Fidel wrote: All those private sector companies got excited after their liability was capped at $300 million for any accident. Most recent estimates put Fukushima cleanup at $30 Billion. No private company will be interested at that level. This is why the private companies prefer NPCIL to be the operator. They build it and NPCIL takes the risk. Nice. Again no private company would take those terms.

Again this business of comparing nuclear accidents to RCF, etc must stop. Very unserious.

Not true..Insurance liability is a different question altogether..Even now, it is capped for the operator, ie NPCIL @ 1500 crores, and DOES NOT include incidents of natural disasters!

So the pvt sector wasnt getting any deal better than NPCIL, OR international standards...

About comparisons, is Bhopal an apt comparison? What were the deaths/injuries? How do they compare against Fukushima (0 deaths till now), or TMI or Chernobyl? Should we then dismiss all chemical units - RCF was in that context?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Apr 2011 10:22

The nuclear site cleanup is a cost no one is willing to discuss. In the case of decommissioned Hanford nuclear facility in US, it is costing more than $2 billion per year in clean up costs and clean up has been going on for a decade now, and the site is still not fully cleaned up. It will take another decade or so for cleanup to be complete.

Edited to add link later ...

This link is from 2006.

Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if Congress will pay

It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a facility to safely treat millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste stored in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone underground tanks.

When the project is completed, the bill could total $38 for every man, woman and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3 billion price tag doesn't swell even further. It has nearly tripled in less than six years, making it a massive taxpayer burden.

This is a critical time for the project. An increasingly impatient Congress is now deciding how much money to contribute to the effort -- considered the most important step in the cleanup of the sprawling desert site on the Columbia River. Some fear lawmakers could simply wash their hands of it and walk away.

"The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," said Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group.

The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million gallons of deadly waste left over from decades of plutonium production has caused the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors to stumble repeatedly.
...
...

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Apr 2011 14:31

amit wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Has he been able to convince USA to build more nuclear reactors for power generation. How many have they build for last ten years? Why USA persistently refused to ratify Kyoto protocol and what did he do to address the carbon concerns in USA?

Can anyone answer that, please?
Rhetoric gives color to a debate. And in the hands of skilled practitioner it's a very powerful tool as we've seen.

I'll just wait for an answer from you to my previous post.

In fact I had been waiting for answers even before you asked.
It is being avoided so tellingly that I am unable to reconcile their expert knowledge with their inability to convince their masters in adopted countries after having learnt madarssa maths and fizzyics here.

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 08 Apr 2011 14:34

GuruPrabhu wrote:
A nanha mujahid on BRF will proudly ask for Cap, Rollback and Eliminate.

Exactly why I asked that question about the safety of the reactors that make fissile material for our nukoolar weapons.

If the anti-nuclear lobby is pushing for a move away from nuclear power on the grounds of 'safety' (as is clear from their posts on this thread as well as the tsunami thread), then the same applies to weapons reactors too, no?

What moral right do we have to expose Indian citizens to the danger of a weapons-oriented reactor blowing up and taking half of Mumbai or Chennai with it

?

What if a tsunami/earthquake/volcano/flood disaster leads to a nuclear incident at one of the weapons reactors or where the warheads are stockpiled? Everything goes kaboom, no?

Dismantle all nuclear facilities in india.
Dismantle all nuclear weapons that are located in India.
Let's get nook-nood.
Let's get GUBOd by the packees, cheenis and amirkhan who are merrily holding on to their nukes.

Which is why I find the hysterical anti-nuclear tirades in the two threads quite disturbing/puzzling. If they succeed, the logical next step of this lobby would be to ask for winding down the weapons program on the basis of safety. I wonder what is their real agenda.