Indian nuclear power generation and impact on Sri Lanka
WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2012
dailymirror.lk
India with a population of 1.1billion is the fifth largest consumer of energy, and by 2030 it is expected to become the third largest. overtaking Japan and the Russian Federation.
The country’s demand for oil alone is expected to increase at an average rate of 2.9 percent over the next 25 years. Yet, India has only 0 .4 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and domestic production is expected to be constant. It is clear that India will remain a net importer of oil for a long time. If energy consumption follows the present trend it is projected that India will run out of coal, its primary source of energy in 40 years. The domestic gas reserves are also limited and will not be able to meet the demand.
Energy security
In the field of renewable energy, India’s wind, mini hydroelectric and biomass sources have the potential to generate 80 000 MW of electricity.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The country currently produces 4300 MW of wind energy per year making it Asia’s largest and the world’s fifth largest wind energy producer with a projected added capacity of 8000 MW this year. India is the eighth largest consumer of hydroelectricity with a potential to produce 150 000 MW of energy. Further the country is researching on producing bio - fuels from non edible oil seeds.
The eleventh Five Year Plan of India has pledged to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2016-17through improving automobile efficiency expanding public transport,
electrification of railways, encouraging bio- diesel and coal to liquid projects. There are 300 LNG stations and over 300 000 vehicles running on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) in India which is also planning to have all commercial vehicles switch to CNG. Five percent ethanol blend is currently used by the Indian railways.
Despite the above reforms, India still faces numerous challenges in achieving energy security as indicated below.
Electricity demand in India is increasing rapidly, and the 830 billion kilowatt hours produced in 2006 was triple the 1990 output, though still represented only some 700 kWh per capita per year. Leaving for significant transmission losses only 592 billion kWh was consumed in 2006. Coal provides 68 percent of the electricity at present but reserves are limited. Gas provides 8 percent and hydro 14 percent. The per capita electricity consumption is expected to double by 2020 with 6.3 percent annual growth and reach 5000 -6000 kWh by 2050. The12th. Five year Plan for 2012 -17 has targeted the addition of 100 GWe out of which 75 percent would be coal or lignite –fired, and only 3.4 GWe nuclear power .By 2032 a total installed capacity of 700 GWe is planned to meet 7-9 percent GDP growth including 63 GWe of nuclear power.
Nuclear power hopes
India was slow to develop its nuclear power program as it refused to sign the United Nations Nuclear Non –Proliferation Treaty about 34 years back due to its nuclear weapons program and was excluded from world trade in nuclear plant or materials.
However in 2009 this ban was lifted and development of nuclear energy for power generation and other civil purposes commenced. Further due to the above trade ban and the lack of any significant uranium deposits India has been successfully developing a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium contained in monazite in beach sands also present at Beruwela on the west coast of Sri Lanka.
However it is reported that Uranium Corporation of India has commissioned a Uranium processing plant at Tummalpalee in the Andhra Pradesh which could be one of the world’s largest reserves of Uranium deposits further encouraging India to expand its nuclear power generating capabilities utilizing Uranium as the basic fuel.
India has 19 nuclear power plants generating 4560 MW and 4 additional plants are in the pipeline.
India also envisages a significant growth of its nuclear power industry in the near future and according to the Indo-US nuclear agreement signed recently India is allowed to carry out international trade in nuclear power and technologies so as to develop its capacity of power generation During the operational phase of this deal, the country is expected to improve its total nuclear power production to 45 000MW by generating an additional nuclear power of 25 000 MW by 2020.
Drawback
After the tragic tsunami that struck Japan in March 2011 and the triple meltdown suffered by the Fukushima Power Plant, worldwide concerns related to safety of nuclear plants from natural disasters were subject to serious review due to protests from people in many countries especially in Europe such as Germany, Switzerland and Italy.
These countries have now scaled down or abandoned their nuclear power expansion programs and have given serious thought to expand the renewable energy programs such as wind, solar and hydro and bio -fuels.
It must be highlighted that Japan is facing an uncertain future after all its 50 reactors have now been taken offline to carry out stress tests for safety. The last time Japan had a nuclear free day was in 1970 when only two reactors operating at that time were shut down for maintenance.
The shortfall in energy requirements are filled by importing more crude oil and gas and it was reported that for the first time Japan registered a negative growth in exports over its imports. It is uncertain as to how many reactors will be started in the future due to public protests and this will contribute to serious negative economic growth.
Except United States, India and China, the majority of countries in the world are trying to switch to clean energy except nuclear but continue to burn non renewable fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in spite of global warming.
I shall now focus on a nuclear power plant in India which is very close to Sri Lanka’s maritime boundary.
KKNPP impact
The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) was conceived in the mid 1980s and is located in the Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu.
The KKNPP operated by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) consist of two reactors of 1000 MW units and will produce a total of 2000 MW of electricity.
The Government of India has announced that the first reactor will be operational from the beginning of October 2012 and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is expected to give the certification in early May 2012.
However this project costing over US $ 3 billion witnessed 8 month long protests from anti –nuclear power groups who have apprehensions on the safety aspects of the plant. The People’s Movement against Nuclear Energy had stated that the government has not shared with the people or their representatives the EIA, site evaluation study, and the safety analyses report and no public hearings were conducted.
There are reports that coolant water and low grade waste from the KKNPP are to be dumped into the sea which will have a severe impact on fish production and catch. The normal operation of the plant without any accidents will also emit Iodine 131,132,133, Cesium 134,136,137 isotopes, strontium, tritium, tellurium and other radioactive particles into the air, land, crops, cattle, sea food and ground water.
However a former Vice- Chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of India had stated that with his 50 years experience in the nuclear industry that the fears of the people in the area are unfounded and the KKNPP has got a special design to tackle tsunami and other severe accident scenarios as well as abating pollution.
The Central Information Commission of India has now directed the NPCIL to publish safety analyses, site evaluation reports within 30 days under the provisions of the mandatory disclosure clause of the Right of Transparent Information (RIT) Act.
NPCIL has objected to such disclosure under section 8(1) (a) of the RIT Act which allow it to withhold information related to security, strategic and scientific interests of the State and not compromise commercial interests.
Public protests against the KKNPP commenced again on 1 May 2012 an it is not clear whether the plant will be commissioned in early October 2012 in spite of the earlier delays.
Sri Lankan reaction
Sri Lanka according to the Atomic Energy Authority has not brought up the safety factor of the KKNPP plant with the Indian authorities although the Minister of Power and Energy was reported in the local media that the matter will be taken up with the IAEA annual sessions in September this year.
In view of the protests and the concerns of the public around the KKNPP, it is prudent the relevant authorities in Sri Lanka monitor the environmental impact of the KKNPP particularly the discharge of coolant water to the sea and the rise in ambient temperature around our territorial waters. If low grade waste is also discharged it will have serious environmental pollution on our waters and it is recommended that this matter should be taken up through the proper channels with the Government of India and assurances obtained that our seas will be safe.
In the meantime the AEA should work closely with the Marine Pollution Prevention Authority (MPPA) under the Ministry of Environment and closely monitor the pollution levels of our waters in the Gulf of Mannar and the adjoining waters as the KKNPP is at the extreme south of the Indian coast in the Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu.
(The writer is a retired Economic Affairs Officer United Nations ESCAP who was also in charge of Marine Affairs. )
Friday, May 25, 2012
Nuclear power: No consensus in Asia or the West
Nuclear power: No consensus in Asia or the West
By Graham Land May 24, 2012 9
ASIANCORRESPONDENT.COM
The Fukushima disaster put nuclear power under the microscope throughout the world. But in the aftermath of the worst nuclear incident in 25 years, countries acted differently. Some stopped to reconsider their nuclear programs, while others pushed on with vigor.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
A few nations reacted sharply against nuclear, especially Japan, where the disaster occurred. As of just a couple of weeks ago, Japan is nuclear free, having shut off all 54 of its reactors. Whether it will stay that way is unknown, but public opinion is decidedly – and understandably – anti nuclear so a move back to using nuclear power may be a tough sell in the future.
Way over in Central Europe, about as far from Fukushima as you can get, Germany is phasing out its nuclear stations as is neighboring Switzerland. Germany, heavily industrialized and technologically advanced, has long had a strong Green/anti-nuclear lobby. Despite a short-term balk in 2010, there’s been a complete phase-out planned since 2002. They’ve also done well since closing 8 of their reactors following Fukushima. According to the Guardian Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by 2%, their economy has grown by 3%, energy consumption dropped by 5.3% and electricity prices have gone down by 10-15% (after an immediate post-Fukushima spike). All that in just a year and after losing 60% of their capacity for nuclear energy.
Japan’s plans, which I go over here, are equally ambitious as Germany’s, though the East Asian’s industrial and economic powerhouse of course is in different circumstances, despite many historical and contemporary comparisons.
The United States, a huge greenhouse gas emitter, leads the world in the number of nuclear plants by a huge margin – 104 to runner-up France’s 58. These countries, along with Russia, the Ukraine, South Korea, India, Canada and the UK, aren’t showing any concrete signs of turning away from nuclear power. India and Russia are building, and planning to build many more to add to their already substantial numbers.
But the real nuclear power ambition lies in China, which is set to lead the world in nuclear reactors in the coming years. Of course it will take a lot of building to catch up to the US (China currently has 14 compared to the US’s 104) but according to the Financial Times, China has 25 under construction with ‘dozens more in advanced planning’. And if any nation can complete large-scale construction projects in short amounts of time it’s China.
Other nations that are currently without nuclear reactors, but are planning on constructing them, include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Vietnam and the UAE. South Africa, Argentina, Pakistan, Finland and Romania are also planning on increasing their small amount of reactors.
Countries that remain nuclear free include Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Austria.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Rising costs argue against new nuclear: Gerard Wynn
COLUMN-Rising costs argue against new nuclear: Gerard Wynn
Fri May 18, 2012
(The author is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.)
By Gerard Wynn
May 18 (Reuters) - The costs of nuclear power are rising in developed countries, where fossil fuel and renewable energy prices are stable or falling, suggesting present proposals for a major programme of new investment are ill-advised.
Overall, the picture is one of uncertainty about nuclear costs, but a clear upward trajectory is evident in developed countries, urging a re-think on construction plans in Britain, the United States, France, Canada, Finland and Poland.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The picture is different in India and China where vast plans with economies of scale plus cheaper labour may favour the technology.
Capital costs make up the biggest part of nuclear costs and have been rising since lows in the 1970s when massive expansion programmes in the United States, France, Germany, Japan and Britain captured economies of scale.
Costs rises reflect increased regulation, project delays and skill shortages, plus more recently the impact of concerns from the Fukushima crisis.
The problem argues in favour of an alternative, more nimble energy model, at least in the industrialised world.
That could include a bigger focus on energy trading across more intelligent and internationally connected grids, and on efficiency in demand and fossil fuel supply.
Such a transition would have to happen gradually to avoid rises in carbon emissions, rather than precipitously shutting reactors, as planned in Germany in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
The smartest nuclear policy in industrialised economies may therefore be one of nuclear lifetime extensions, in a gradual phase-out with no new construction.
That is already effectively the stance of the United States, where more than half the existing plants have had their lives extended to 60 years from an initial 40 years, and increasingly so in France.
The World Nuclear Association lists 20 countries which have new plans to build reactors beyond those under construction, including nine industrialised countries.
Nuclear reactor starts
.jpg)
U.S. reactor capital cost
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
RISING CAPITAL COST
Capital costs of selected U.S. reactors rose about fourfold (in constant 2010 dollars) from 1975 to 1985, to more than $7,000 per kilowatt (KW), calculated University of California's Lucas Davis in a recent discussion (not peer-reviewed) paper, "Prospects for nuclear power".
When included, the cost of borrowing would raise these so-called overnight costs by about as half as much again.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) gave a bleak outlook in 2010, before Fukushima, raising its capital cost estimate by nearly 40 percent over the previous year.
It attributed the increase to higher commodity prices and an inadequate supply chain for complex engineering projects.
The impact of Fukushima, raising financing and regulation costs, pushed up construction costs by another 5 to 10 percent, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said last November.
The IEA, EIA and various other groups put the overnight capital costs in developed countries at between $3,500 and $5,500 per KW, in present dollars.
EXPERIENCE
But costs are rising in Europe, as shown by two flagship projects in Finland and France.
French utility EDF last year estimated the overnight cost of its new Flamanville 3 reactor, the first to be built in France in 15 years, at 3,600 euros ($4,600) per kilowatt, up from an initial estimated 2,000 euros ($2,500).
Increasing the capital cost by $1,000 per KW raises long-run power generation costs by a quarter, according to the IEA.
The Flamanville reactor would also be over-due by four years.
Delays increase financing costs, as interest payments continue over a longer period. EDF blamed the higher costs and delays partly on stiffer regulation.
In Finland, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor, would be commissioned five years behind schedule and also massively over-budget at about 4,125 euros ($5,200) per KW.
Once financing costs are included, a new nuclear reactor in the United States could cost more than $6,000 per KW, estimated the University of California's Davis.
POWER GENERATION
The trouble is that the lower operating cost of nuclear power and lower carbon emissions no longer compensate for those rising upfront costs.
The financial crisis has led to record low carbon prices in Europe, and helped block a planned cap and trade scheme in the United States, undermining a key potential advantage over fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, U.S. gas prices have fallen precipitously and wind and solar equipment prices have fallen.
Davis calculated the present full generation costs of a new U.S. nuclear reactor at double that of gas.
The U.S. EIA last year estimated that the full generation costs of both gas and wind power would undercut nuclear in future decades, while the IEA projected nuclear power to be more expensive than almost all rival technologies in the United States in 2020, but the cheapest in China.
A better energy model may be a low-cost, modular approach focused more on the grid, demand and fossil fuel efficiency plus renewable power rather than massive centralised nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects. ($1 = 0.7869 euros) ($1 = 0.6324 British pounds) (Editing by Keiron Henderson)
Fri May 18, 2012
(The author is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.)
By Gerard Wynn
May 18 (Reuters) - The costs of nuclear power are rising in developed countries, where fossil fuel and renewable energy prices are stable or falling, suggesting present proposals for a major programme of new investment are ill-advised.
Overall, the picture is one of uncertainty about nuclear costs, but a clear upward trajectory is evident in developed countries, urging a re-think on construction plans in Britain, the United States, France, Canada, Finland and Poland.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The picture is different in India and China where vast plans with economies of scale plus cheaper labour may favour the technology.
Capital costs make up the biggest part of nuclear costs and have been rising since lows in the 1970s when massive expansion programmes in the United States, France, Germany, Japan and Britain captured economies of scale.
Costs rises reflect increased regulation, project delays and skill shortages, plus more recently the impact of concerns from the Fukushima crisis.
The problem argues in favour of an alternative, more nimble energy model, at least in the industrialised world.
That could include a bigger focus on energy trading across more intelligent and internationally connected grids, and on efficiency in demand and fossil fuel supply.
Such a transition would have to happen gradually to avoid rises in carbon emissions, rather than precipitously shutting reactors, as planned in Germany in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
The smartest nuclear policy in industrialised economies may therefore be one of nuclear lifetime extensions, in a gradual phase-out with no new construction.
That is already effectively the stance of the United States, where more than half the existing plants have had their lives extended to 60 years from an initial 40 years, and increasingly so in France.
The World Nuclear Association lists 20 countries which have new plans to build reactors beyond those under construction, including nine industrialised countries.
Nuclear reactor starts
.jpg)
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
RISING CAPITAL COST
Capital costs of selected U.S. reactors rose about fourfold (in constant 2010 dollars) from 1975 to 1985, to more than $7,000 per kilowatt (KW), calculated University of California's Lucas Davis in a recent discussion (not peer-reviewed) paper, "Prospects for nuclear power".
When included, the cost of borrowing would raise these so-called overnight costs by about as half as much again.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) gave a bleak outlook in 2010, before Fukushima, raising its capital cost estimate by nearly 40 percent over the previous year.
It attributed the increase to higher commodity prices and an inadequate supply chain for complex engineering projects.
The impact of Fukushima, raising financing and regulation costs, pushed up construction costs by another 5 to 10 percent, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said last November.
The IEA, EIA and various other groups put the overnight capital costs in developed countries at between $3,500 and $5,500 per KW, in present dollars.
EXPERIENCE
But costs are rising in Europe, as shown by two flagship projects in Finland and France.
French utility EDF last year estimated the overnight cost of its new Flamanville 3 reactor, the first to be built in France in 15 years, at 3,600 euros ($4,600) per kilowatt, up from an initial estimated 2,000 euros ($2,500).
Increasing the capital cost by $1,000 per KW raises long-run power generation costs by a quarter, according to the IEA.
The Flamanville reactor would also be over-due by four years.
Delays increase financing costs, as interest payments continue over a longer period. EDF blamed the higher costs and delays partly on stiffer regulation.
In Finland, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor, would be commissioned five years behind schedule and also massively over-budget at about 4,125 euros ($5,200) per KW.
Once financing costs are included, a new nuclear reactor in the United States could cost more than $6,000 per KW, estimated the University of California's Davis.
POWER GENERATION
The trouble is that the lower operating cost of nuclear power and lower carbon emissions no longer compensate for those rising upfront costs.
The financial crisis has led to record low carbon prices in Europe, and helped block a planned cap and trade scheme in the United States, undermining a key potential advantage over fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, U.S. gas prices have fallen precipitously and wind and solar equipment prices have fallen.
Davis calculated the present full generation costs of a new U.S. nuclear reactor at double that of gas.
The U.S. EIA last year estimated that the full generation costs of both gas and wind power would undercut nuclear in future decades, while the IEA projected nuclear power to be more expensive than almost all rival technologies in the United States in 2020, but the cheapest in China.
A better energy model may be a low-cost, modular approach focused more on the grid, demand and fossil fuel efficiency plus renewable power rather than massive centralised nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects. ($1 = 0.7869 euros) ($1 = 0.6324 British pounds) (Editing by Keiron Henderson)
Friday, May 18, 2012
Veteran nuclear experts regret Fukushima crisis, but still see need for reactors
Veteran nuclear experts regret Fukushima crisis, but still see need for reactors
January 26, 2012 (Mainichi Japan)
Shunichi Tanaka, center, former acting chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan, announces proposals made by 16 veteran nuclear experts on April 1, 2011. At right is Shojiro Matsuura, former head of the Nuclear Safety Commission. (Mainichi)
Veteran nuclear experts who were involved in Japan's atomic energy policy for decades are lamenting the outbreak of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, but maintain that resource-poor Japan needs nuclear power to support its current standard of living in the future.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In late March 2011, soon after the outbreak of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, an email was sent to about 30 leading figures in nuclear circles in Japan. Attached was a file titled: "Urgent proposals in connection with the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant," which began with the sentence: "As figures who have been promoting the peaceful use of nuclear power, we find this accident deeply regrettable, and at the same time we deeply apologize to the public."
The proposals were written mainly by three people -- Shojiro Matsuura, former head of the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC); Kenji Sumita, former acting NSC chief; and Shunichi Tanaka, former acting chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan. Some nuclear experts rejected the proposals, asking why they had to apologize. But the proposals were eventually undersigned by 16 leading nuclear experts.
Frustrated over the slow response to the nuclear crisis by the government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the damaged Fukushima plant, the nuclear experts pointed out that it was essential to gather knowledge and wisdom from society to come up with a comprehensive and strategic response. The rare proposals made by the experts were released at a news conference on April 1 -- the day when many Cabinet ministers shed their disaster working uniforms and once again wore suits to mark the start of full-fledged reconstruction work. In sharp contrast to the Prime Minister's Office, which was trying to appear and sound calm, Tanaka sternly commented: "Reactor cores have melted to a considerable extent. I never predicted that we would cause the public so much trouble. We are responsible for promoting nuclear power."
So, how did the 16 nuclear experts see the Fukushima nuclear crisis?
Sumita, who played a leading role in handling the JCO criticality accident in 1999, commented: "We have not applied the lessons learned from the JCO accident in the space of 10 years." He added impatiently, "We've heard utility companies saying, 'What that backcountry company did has nothing to do with us. If we took measures, we would also be seen as being irresponsible."
Shinzo Saito, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, stated: "There's a lack of communication between the actual site and top executives at the company headquarters. This is what you might call a 'big company disease.'"
Meanwhile, a former member of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan said, "It's a world in which everyone understands each other and if someone says something, everything is understood. There have been no constructive discussions, and criticism has never been reflected in policy."
Nevertheless, none of the experts clearly stated that Japan could do without nuclear power.
Shoji Nagamiya, former chairman of the Physical Society of Japan, commented: "Nuclear technology is a major asset to human beings. It is a waste to renounce what we have obtained." Hideki Nariai, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, added, "Atomic power is so wonderful. The global competition for energy has started, so we can't talk about getting rid of nuclear power plants."
In the wake of the outbreak of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the government set up an advisory council on the prevention of nuclear accidents and appointed Matsuura as head of the council. The advisory council compiled proposals in December aimed at preventing a recurrence of the nuclear disaster, and called for a tentatively titled "Nuclear Regulation Agency" to be set up in April to maintain independence from the nuclear-related companies and break away from Japan's "nuclear village" -- the name given to the nation's pro-nuclear collection of politicians, bureaucrats, academics and utilities.
Looking back over his 76 years, Matsuura said, "As a person who lived through an era of insufficient energy supply, I think that if we were to maintain the current standard of living in Japan with the current population, we would need to secure a source of atomic energy and use it to live while ensuring its safety."
These are the characteristics of the "nuclear village" that the veteran nuclear experts pointed out with deep regret in connection with the Fukushima nuclear crisis. The question remains as to whether these characteristics can be altered in the future.
Nuclear power boosters used climate change to ride to energy supremacy
Nuclear power boosters used climate change to ride to energy supremacy
January 25, 2012 (Mainichi Japan)
In 1997, in the midst of the international negotiations that would eventually result in the Kyoto Protocol, the Japanese delegation was pondering whether it could realistically accept the protocol's main point: a commitment to a 6 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels. They were also grappling with what such a commitment would mean for Japan's energy supplies.
Strangely enough, though the Japanese delegation was grappling with issues of carbon emissions and energy needs, there was not a single representative of the then Environment Agency on hand. Osamu Watanabe, vice minister at the former Ministry of International Trade and Industry at the time of the talks and now president of Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., sums up Japan's thinking like this:
"Taking nuclear power into account was a prerequisite for accepting the 6 percent reduction. Speaking for the industry ministry, we thought that the more nuclear power we had, the more we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Meanwhile, at the Environment Agency -- which became the Environment Ministry in 2001 -- there were many staff who took a more cautious attitude to the promotion of nuclear power. Their skepticism did not, however, often find effective expression.
"The industry ministry put up a lot of resistance to the Environment Agency getting involved in energy policy," a senior agency official from the time says. "We just couldn't get a word in."
The threat of climate change gained traction in the global imagination after the end of the Cold War. And as warming worries grew, nuclear power became an anti-emissions trump card in the eyes of many, fueling a reactor building spree. Another former Environment Ministry official with long experience in climate change policy told the Mainichi, "Government policy came to incorporate promotion of nuclear power. It was taboo for us to even make an issue of it."
Even after the Kyoto Protocol was agreed on, the Environment Agency and its successor ministry had a very rough road trying to defend climate change policies. The agency tried to organize domestic support for the protocol's ratification, but was met with fierce opposition from the governing party and business world figures who worried about the effects on industry and condemned the protocol as an "unequal treaty."
"We thought getting the protocol ratified was the greatest environmental policy measure we could take, but drawing on nuclear power never entered our minds," the former senior Environment Ministry official says. It was, however, on the minds of some people in government. When the government finalized its basic principles for climate change policy in March 2002, the document included a provision for "promotion of nuclear power," and set a goal of increasing nuclear power output by 30 percent by 2010.
The Environment Agency also came under direct pressure to fall in line behind nuclear power even before the rumblings around the Kyoto Protocol. Just after the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, as the agency was undertaking revisions to laws providing capital to environmental NGOs, it was forced by the then ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to insert provisions banning funding to groups that were opposed to nuclear power. Many senior officials were also cornered by governing party lawmakers demanding the agency back nuclear power.
The push for nuclear power deepened when the Democratic Party of Japan came into power in 2009. In September that year, then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama declared to the world that Japan would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2020. Just after that announcement, speaking on the environmental assessment for the construction of a third reactor at Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Sendai nuclear power plant, the environment minister stated that "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to guarantee safety, steady promotion of nuclear power is necessary." This was the first time official pronouncements in favor of nuclear power were made over an environmental assessment.
Even leading Japanese climate scientists were given a part to play in nuclear power promotion. University of Tokyo professor emeritus Ryoichi Yamamoto -- a climate change policy advisor to both the Abe and Fukuda administrations -- put together a 2008 report calling for the expansion of nuclear power as a vital part of global warming strategy when he was chairman of an Atomic Energy Commission panel.
"I thought nuclear power would be a powerful tool," Yamamoto says of the report. "But it can't be controlled when there's an accident, so it can't really be called a 'technology.' I've come to understand that there are ethical considerations with destroying the lives of local residents. I regret that I could not point out those issues when I wrote the report."
Furthermore, "I think the government, which seemed to be blocked and drifting on how to get reactor construction moving and the problems of radioactive waste disposal, just latched onto the global warming issue when climate change countermeasures reached a critical juncture. We thought that the risks of global warming were far greater than those of nuclear power, but in this earthquake-prone nation of Japan, the opposite is true."
Thursday, May 17, 2012
16 Reasons Why India Must Shun Nuclear Energy
16 Reasons Why India Must Shun Nuclear Energy
Anuj Wankhede
5/16/2012
1) Nuclear Energy is the most powerful discovery made by humans – both for peace and war.? The sheer damage that nuclear power can cause is so huge that it will destroy the entire human race and life on earth.
2) Nuclear Energy is NOT a clean source of energy. From uranium mining, processing, cooling the reactors to the disposal of nuclear waste – all are highly polluting.
3) Radiation is a silent killer. The harm caused by a nuclear reactor even without an accident can be judged by the fact that there is an alarmingly high rate of cancer among those working in them. This information is available in the public domain and relates to studies done at Kalpakkam and Tarapur in India. Ironically, the studies are by the same government of India which claims nuclear Energy is safe!
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Children say no to nuclear in Koodankulam
4) The world has seen how nuclear accidents occur out of both design flaws as well as natural disasters. The Three Mile accident in the United States was due to a design flaw in the emergency alarm system and what happened at Fukushima was a culmination of rank bad designing coupled with nature’s fury.
5) The desalination plants will suck in sea water, filter (kill) marine life and convert it into fresh water for cooling the huge reactors. What does not get filtered gets evaporated in steam used to distill the salty sea water. This causes severe marine biodiversity changes as can be seen in the Middle East.
These result in the formation of toxic algae laden “Red Tides” and the fish breeding in these areas are poisonous to humans and declared unfit for consumption. The Kudankulam project will certainly alter the biodiversity of the Bay of Bengal in general, and the Gulf of Mannar in particular. Marine experts agree and emphasize this profoundly rich and bio-diverse ecology needs the stewardship of preservation.
6) Japan, a heavily industrialized technologically advanced nation, shut down all its 54 nuclear reactors and is still getting along without the sort of crippling power cuts across India. More pertinently, the Japanese government agrees the any decision to restart the nuclear facilities should be ratified by the local people.
In India, the Kudankulam and Jaitapur nuclear power projects are coming up despite stiff and open public agitation. The government refuses transparency and does not share necessary information regarding safety and other concerns. The former reactor is being started almost in a military style secret operation. Bear in mind that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has asked the government to make this information available to the public!
7) While a 1000MW power project sounds impressive, nuclear reactors in India average at 40 to 50% utilization levels. Even after this, there are huge energy losses which are simply accounted as “Transmission & Distribution (T&D)” losses. It is nothing but an admission of failure to deliver efficiently whatever power is generated.
8 ) The power sector is facing a huge deficit on account of the losses mentioned above and also because of “under recovery” of dues. This is a euphemism for money written off for providing free power to large industrial units and big farmers – both well connected politically and providing money for election purposes.
9) State governments forever dispute their rightful share of resources with each other. Even before the commissioning of the reactor at Kudankulam, its neighbour Kerala is demanding its share of power. What Tamil Nadu eventually gets out of the 1000 MW will be a minuscule amount after deducting 50% utilization, T&D losses and sharing with other states.
Even assuming an optimistic figure of approximately 300MW of actual usable power for the state, it does not make any logical sense to undertake such a costly and dangerous project. If this project was submitted to a bank for getting a loan, it would probably not even cross over to the bank manager! But here, the government is bankrolling the investment, certifying its environmental safety, its viability and liability – in short, it is just the whim and ego of the stubborn government.
10) Everyone agrees that large industrial accidents can (and do) occur. However, in case of nuclear accidents, the scope of damage done to all kinds of living matter is unlimited. And the most dangerous and sad truth is that all future generations will face fatal consequences. Chernobyl’s children are a tragic testimony of living death. Being handicapped only because your previous generations were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is probably nature’s way of telling mankind that what you sow, you shall reap.
11) Every nation seeks to be self sufficient, and rightly so. However, in its haste to prove its self-reliance, the government is hiding a very crucial point. We simply don’t have the raw material needed for our atomic power plants. Uranium is scarce and a rare element found naturally. Dr. Homi Bhaba had a vision of making India self sufficient in power by building nuclear power projects. Although a man of vision, he envisaged a nuclear India based on thorium, not uranium. Thorium is abundantly available in India while scarce uranium can only be procured from friendly nations at a huge diplomatic and political cost. Although thorium reserves exist in plenty, the first reactor will come up only in 2016 at the earliest. Even this form of atomic energy has its own problems but in the 1950s and 60s thorium was considered absolutely safe.
12) India refuses to change its mindset with regards to atomic energy and equates it to “national pride” when actually the truth is that even at Kudankulam and Jaitapur, foreigners are doing all the work. Russians at the former and the French at the latter. Where is the national pride in doing a copy+paste job?
13) The ‘super secret’ nuclear technology is a thing of the past. And people have realized that the only thing atomic energy achieves is to boil water, nothing more, nothing less, except at the astronomical cost of constructing, running, maintaining and dismantling them.
In the process, the irreversible damage to man, nature, environment and the future is accepted as a “small price to pay for development.” When one looks at it rationally, it is actually a “huge price paid for questionable development.”
14) The western countries are concerned with Iranian and North Korean plans of building nuclear facilities, apparently of “peaceful” purposes. The developed nations are concerned because they know the real reasons! Uranium enrichment done in the name of peaceful activity is clandestinely diverted to developing nuclear weapons. ?Most experts believe both India and Pakistan are doing this and are running scared of the consequences. A tiny suitcase sized atomic bomb can wipe out a country of any meaningful size – many times over.
This is not paranoia. This is believed to have happened when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up. The Russians spent a huge amount on recovering some of these lost/stolen “dirty bombs,” but have certainly not accounted for all of them. Does a nation factor in a situation of anarchy or civil war in which its people throw over a rogue dictator? And what if that rogue decided to “sell” or “barter” this destructive knowledge?
15) The threat of terrorists attacking nuclear installations is a clear and present danger. Just last month, an activist flew a small airplane over a French nuclear reactor and dropped a series of flares to send a message that nuclear safety is a myth. Breaches of this type have been done at various installations across the world. Ironically, leaders of the “most powerful nuclear nations” recently conducted a high level summit where they congratulated themselves on their nuclear safety!
16) The use of atomic energy for energy security has dissolved lately with so many industrialized nations either reducing or shelving nuclear energy programs. At least they have admitted that renewable energy is a workable alternative. While earlier there were cost concerns and problems with dependable supply, newer research in solar and wind power have taken care of them. Additionally, the new “smart grids” ensure reliable power on tap.
Anuj Wankhede
5/16/2012
1) Nuclear Energy is the most powerful discovery made by humans – both for peace and war.? The sheer damage that nuclear power can cause is so huge that it will destroy the entire human race and life on earth.
2) Nuclear Energy is NOT a clean source of energy. From uranium mining, processing, cooling the reactors to the disposal of nuclear waste – all are highly polluting.
3) Radiation is a silent killer. The harm caused by a nuclear reactor even without an accident can be judged by the fact that there is an alarmingly high rate of cancer among those working in them. This information is available in the public domain and relates to studies done at Kalpakkam and Tarapur in India. Ironically, the studies are by the same government of India which claims nuclear Energy is safe!
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Children say no to nuclear in Koodankulam
4) The world has seen how nuclear accidents occur out of both design flaws as well as natural disasters. The Three Mile accident in the United States was due to a design flaw in the emergency alarm system and what happened at Fukushima was a culmination of rank bad designing coupled with nature’s fury.
5) The desalination plants will suck in sea water, filter (kill) marine life and convert it into fresh water for cooling the huge reactors. What does not get filtered gets evaporated in steam used to distill the salty sea water. This causes severe marine biodiversity changes as can be seen in the Middle East.
These result in the formation of toxic algae laden “Red Tides” and the fish breeding in these areas are poisonous to humans and declared unfit for consumption. The Kudankulam project will certainly alter the biodiversity of the Bay of Bengal in general, and the Gulf of Mannar in particular. Marine experts agree and emphasize this profoundly rich and bio-diverse ecology needs the stewardship of preservation.
6) Japan, a heavily industrialized technologically advanced nation, shut down all its 54 nuclear reactors and is still getting along without the sort of crippling power cuts across India. More pertinently, the Japanese government agrees the any decision to restart the nuclear facilities should be ratified by the local people.
In India, the Kudankulam and Jaitapur nuclear power projects are coming up despite stiff and open public agitation. The government refuses transparency and does not share necessary information regarding safety and other concerns. The former reactor is being started almost in a military style secret operation. Bear in mind that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has asked the government to make this information available to the public!
7) While a 1000MW power project sounds impressive, nuclear reactors in India average at 40 to 50% utilization levels. Even after this, there are huge energy losses which are simply accounted as “Transmission & Distribution (T&D)” losses. It is nothing but an admission of failure to deliver efficiently whatever power is generated.
8 ) The power sector is facing a huge deficit on account of the losses mentioned above and also because of “under recovery” of dues. This is a euphemism for money written off for providing free power to large industrial units and big farmers – both well connected politically and providing money for election purposes.
9) State governments forever dispute their rightful share of resources with each other. Even before the commissioning of the reactor at Kudankulam, its neighbour Kerala is demanding its share of power. What Tamil Nadu eventually gets out of the 1000 MW will be a minuscule amount after deducting 50% utilization, T&D losses and sharing with other states.
Even assuming an optimistic figure of approximately 300MW of actual usable power for the state, it does not make any logical sense to undertake such a costly and dangerous project. If this project was submitted to a bank for getting a loan, it would probably not even cross over to the bank manager! But here, the government is bankrolling the investment, certifying its environmental safety, its viability and liability – in short, it is just the whim and ego of the stubborn government.
10) Everyone agrees that large industrial accidents can (and do) occur. However, in case of nuclear accidents, the scope of damage done to all kinds of living matter is unlimited. And the most dangerous and sad truth is that all future generations will face fatal consequences. Chernobyl’s children are a tragic testimony of living death. Being handicapped only because your previous generations were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is probably nature’s way of telling mankind that what you sow, you shall reap.
11) Every nation seeks to be self sufficient, and rightly so. However, in its haste to prove its self-reliance, the government is hiding a very crucial point. We simply don’t have the raw material needed for our atomic power plants. Uranium is scarce and a rare element found naturally. Dr. Homi Bhaba had a vision of making India self sufficient in power by building nuclear power projects. Although a man of vision, he envisaged a nuclear India based on thorium, not uranium. Thorium is abundantly available in India while scarce uranium can only be procured from friendly nations at a huge diplomatic and political cost. Although thorium reserves exist in plenty, the first reactor will come up only in 2016 at the earliest. Even this form of atomic energy has its own problems but in the 1950s and 60s thorium was considered absolutely safe.
12) India refuses to change its mindset with regards to atomic energy and equates it to “national pride” when actually the truth is that even at Kudankulam and Jaitapur, foreigners are doing all the work. Russians at the former and the French at the latter. Where is the national pride in doing a copy+paste job?
13) The ‘super secret’ nuclear technology is a thing of the past. And people have realized that the only thing atomic energy achieves is to boil water, nothing more, nothing less, except at the astronomical cost of constructing, running, maintaining and dismantling them.
In the process, the irreversible damage to man, nature, environment and the future is accepted as a “small price to pay for development.” When one looks at it rationally, it is actually a “huge price paid for questionable development.”
14) The western countries are concerned with Iranian and North Korean plans of building nuclear facilities, apparently of “peaceful” purposes. The developed nations are concerned because they know the real reasons! Uranium enrichment done in the name of peaceful activity is clandestinely diverted to developing nuclear weapons. ?Most experts believe both India and Pakistan are doing this and are running scared of the consequences. A tiny suitcase sized atomic bomb can wipe out a country of any meaningful size – many times over.
This is not paranoia. This is believed to have happened when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up. The Russians spent a huge amount on recovering some of these lost/stolen “dirty bombs,” but have certainly not accounted for all of them. Does a nation factor in a situation of anarchy or civil war in which its people throw over a rogue dictator? And what if that rogue decided to “sell” or “barter” this destructive knowledge?
15) The threat of terrorists attacking nuclear installations is a clear and present danger. Just last month, an activist flew a small airplane over a French nuclear reactor and dropped a series of flares to send a message that nuclear safety is a myth. Breaches of this type have been done at various installations across the world. Ironically, leaders of the “most powerful nuclear nations” recently conducted a high level summit where they congratulated themselves on their nuclear safety!
16) The use of atomic energy for energy security has dissolved lately with so many industrialized nations either reducing or shelving nuclear energy programs. At least they have admitted that renewable energy is a workable alternative. While earlier there were cost concerns and problems with dependable supply, newer research in solar and wind power have taken care of them. Additionally, the new “smart grids” ensure reliable power on tap.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Nuclear Power Myths
Nuclear Power Myths
Time to challenge the myths about nuclear power perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
Myth 1:- If you fly in an airliner you will be exposed to more radiation than standing near Fukushima etc.
Mythbuster:- Solar radiation is different in type, duration and effect on living tissue to Uranium and its isotopes.
The same same is true of radon from granite and other naturally occurring radiations from rock that people live normally with.
The nuclear industry knows this and it is a deliberately dishonest comparison to fool the unwary.
myth 2:- Only nuclear can provide the continuous baseload needed because renewables are too intermittent.
Mythbuster:- Nuclear reactors spend on average more than 30% of their designated working life (DWL) offline, mostly because of safety problems. This is more than even wind or solar and in larger chunks at a time. The only way nuclear can provide continuous baseload is by having a number of reactors, at different locations for safety. Renewables, with a variety of technologies and locations is potentially able to better nuclear for continuous baseload provision.
http://easss.com/nuclear/myths
Can renewables provide baseload power?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm
The Myth of Intermittent Renewable Electricity
http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-myth-of-intermittent-renewable-electricity/
Renewable energy can provide baseload power – here’s how
http://theconversation.edu.au/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221
The Base Load Fallacy
and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers
Dr Mark Diesendorf
Energy Science Coalition
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf
http://www.energyscience.org.au/
Myth 3:- Nuclear power is the solution for CO2 climate change.
Mythbuster :_The rate of building of nuclear reactors is too slow to have a significant impact on climate change, it cannot be speeded up because of shortages of Uranium, cement and reactor vessels and other hardware and expertise.
Nuclear advances are moving slower than other renewable advances, by 2030 current planned nuclear technology will be obsolete.
Nuclear build has serious CO2 implications of it's own.
Nuclear and renewables are incompatible on the same grid. Nuclear baseload with renewables kicking in at high demand is ludicrous. Renewable baseload will need quick build flexible sources to kick in on high demand. Nuclear cannot do this.
Nuclear is draining money from renewable research.
To take over and deliver the electricity anticipated by 2050, there will need to be over 100,000 reactors globally. If they all operate at only 50% of current leaks, discharges and accidents, it would take less than 1 year from switch on to make the planet an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland.
Time to challenge the myths about nuclear power perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
Myth 1:- If you fly in an airliner you will be exposed to more radiation than standing near Fukushima etc.
Mythbuster:- Solar radiation is different in type, duration and effect on living tissue to Uranium and its isotopes.
The same same is true of radon from granite and other naturally occurring radiations from rock that people live normally with.
The nuclear industry knows this and it is a deliberately dishonest comparison to fool the unwary.
myth 2:- Only nuclear can provide the continuous baseload needed because renewables are too intermittent.
Mythbuster:- Nuclear reactors spend on average more than 30% of their designated working life (DWL) offline, mostly because of safety problems. This is more than even wind or solar and in larger chunks at a time. The only way nuclear can provide continuous baseload is by having a number of reactors, at different locations for safety. Renewables, with a variety of technologies and locations is potentially able to better nuclear for continuous baseload provision.
http://easss.com/nuclear/myths
Can renewables provide baseload power?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm
The Myth of Intermittent Renewable Electricity
http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-myth-of-intermittent-renewable-electricity/
Renewable energy can provide baseload power – here’s how
http://theconversation.edu.au/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221
The Base Load Fallacy
and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers
Dr Mark Diesendorf
Energy Science Coalition
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf
http://www.energyscience.org.au/
Myth 3:- Nuclear power is the solution for CO2 climate change.
Mythbuster :_The rate of building of nuclear reactors is too slow to have a significant impact on climate change, it cannot be speeded up because of shortages of Uranium, cement and reactor vessels and other hardware and expertise.
Nuclear advances are moving slower than other renewable advances, by 2030 current planned nuclear technology will be obsolete.
Nuclear build has serious CO2 implications of it's own.
Nuclear and renewables are incompatible on the same grid. Nuclear baseload with renewables kicking in at high demand is ludicrous. Renewable baseload will need quick build flexible sources to kick in on high demand. Nuclear cannot do this.
Nuclear is draining money from renewable research.
To take over and deliver the electricity anticipated by 2050, there will need to be over 100,000 reactors globally. If they all operate at only 50% of current leaks, discharges and accidents, it would take less than 1 year from switch on to make the planet an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)