Latest News
In this Issue
Most Popular on DTE Site
- 57 people die as heat wave sweeps Andhra Pradesh
- Health ministry sets timeframe for keeping animals treated with antibiotics out of food chain
- Gujarat pollution board gets a makeover in efficiency 33
- CSE volunteer barred from filming public hearing for Ultratech cement plant
- India's genome saviours
- Illegal GM cotton spreads across India 1
- Become iron woman, eat veggies 1
- Auroville’s alternative galaxy 2
- UPA's development report card
- Vitamin C could be panacea for drug-resistant TB 1
- Environment ministry wants to restore night traffic through Bandipur tiger reserve 52
- A green facade 45
- Diesel: when bad policy makes for toxic hell 38
- Gujarat pollution board gets a makeover in efficiency 33
- What’s good insulation? 30
- How vulnerable are India's nuclear power plants to disaster 28
- Grand distraction called river interlinking 28
- Eat at your own risk 27
- Green energy takes toll on green cover 26
- Temporary solution, permanent jam 25
On Facebook
it is good to eat as many as vegetables and fruits (totally vegetarian), but my aurvedic doctor asked me to stop eating every...
Anonymous
Standard texts mention perepheral role of nutrition in therapy of tuberculosis.Perhaps this is done to emphasise the role of...
Cover Story
Fukushima's shadow
What the disaster did to nuclear ambitions
A year ago, the triple meltdown at the Daiichi power plant in Fukushima sent a chilling reminder of Chernobyl. No matter how pro-nuclear a country was, Fukushima could not be ignored. The immediate reaction was public protests followed by safety reviews of nuclear plants. Nuclear energy came under a serious threat of being sidetracked, albeit for a short period.
Japan, where nuclear power accounts for a fourth of the total energy production and which planned to increase this share to a half by 2030, altered the future energy roadmap. It now plans to supplant its nuclear programme with renewables and has also displayed intentions of using cheap imported gas for producing power.
Elsewhere, the impact of Fukushima varied from negligible to noticeable.
M V Ramana, professor working on nuclear energy and global security at Princeton University in the US, says countries can be categorised into three groups based on their government’s reaction. The first group includes those countries that have reiterated commitment to their nuclear plans with very little change. Their plans may be downscaled because of delays resulting from safety reviews. Good examples are the US and China, Ramana says. The second group consists of countries that have turned away from nuclear power. In many cases, Fukushima only sealed an ongoing process of gradual nuclear phase-out. This group includes Germany, Switzerland and Venezuela. The third group includes those that have temporarily shelved their plans to “continue with, expand, or enter into nuclear power”, Ramana says. “They are being held back by public opinion.” France and Uruguay fall in this category.
|
|||||||
Most of the 50-odd countries with nuclear power have adopted the logic that a massive earthquake followed by tsunami is an unlikely calamity to befall most of the 453 reactors on the planet, argues Mark Hibbs, senior associate with Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program, based in Germany, in a paper published earlier this year. These governments had deployed nuclear reactors for strategic reasons and have not veered off their plans. “Political leaders in these countries, despite populations suddenly insecure and restive about nuclear safety, won’t hastily foreclose future energy-generating options,” Hibbs reports. But he does notice that since March 2011 governments and industry favouring nuclear power have not succeeded in returning to business as usual.
‘World Energy Outlook 2011’, published by Paris-based International Energy Agency, estimates a more severe impact. It says new regulatory measures, especially to safeguard nuclear reactors from natural catastrophes, would delay capacity addition and renewal of old reactors. Nuclear power capacity could fall from 393 gigawatt (GW) in 2010 to 335 GW in 2035. At 2010 levels nuclear commanded 13 per cent share of the total energy market. By 2035 this could reduce to 7 per cent, the report says.
Europe slows down
After Japan announced withdrawal from nuclear energy, Germany, which sourced 23 per cent of its energy from domestic nuclear plants, decided to abandon nuclear energy. Earlier, Germany was to become nuclear-free by 2021, but in May last year it decided to bring the phase-out dates forward. It will, thus, become the largest bloc in nuclear-friendly Europe to do away with nuclear energy. Following Germany are Belgium, Switzerland and Italy. Switzerland has set 2034 as the year it will be free of nuclear power, while Italy in a referendum held in June 2011 said no to using nuclear energy.
The remaining nuclear powers in Europe intend to split atoms to produce energy, but the way forward could be arduous. France has been the biggest nuclear evangelist extracting 75-80 per cent of its energy from nuclear fusion. But post Fukushima pressure from the political opposition and the public is beginning to show. The Socialist Party and the Green Party have vowed to close down 24 of the 58 reactors in France by 2024 if voted to power in the April 2012 elections. Opinion polls conducted in November show 40 per cent of the French are hesitant about nuclear energy, while 17 per cent are against it. If France crumbles, the repercussions will be felt in the rest of Europe. French companies Areva and Electricite de France are major providers of nuclear equipment and technology. Britain, Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands have strong nuclear links with France and are pursuing plans of increasing their share of nuclear energy despite Fukushima.
Asia stays the course
While Europe is slowing down, Asia is racing ahead. China always stands out from the pack no matter what form of energy one talks about. In terms of installed capacity, it has more wind power, coal-based power and more hydro electricity than any other country. Now it plans to do the same with nuclear. China was reportedly aiming to produce 200 GW by 2030. This is 20 times more than its current capacity and about the same amount of energy that India consumes. But after Fukushima, it temporarily suspended approval of new reactors. These new reactors needed to meet the target are besides the 26 under construction and 51 approved. Given the size of the Chinese power industry, nuclear share will remain tiny even after this capacity is added. China is trying a cocktail of technologies; nuclear energy is not crucial for it.
Other Asian countries like South Korea and India will enter the next round of nuclear expansion. South Korea currently generates 31 per cent of its power from 21 reactors and stands firm to push this to 59 per cent by 2030. Vietnam has ordered two Russian reactors. Thailand, which was in advance stages of planning a reactor, has postponed it temporarily after Fukushima.
There is another reason—bigger than Fukushima—countries are shying away from nuclear power. It is the cost.
Tags: Cover Story, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), Chernobyl, China, Climate change, Conflicts, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Earthquakes, Energy, Europe, Finance, Fishworkers, France, Fukushima, Geology, Germany, Global, Groundwater pollution, India, Japan, Kanyakumari, Kudankulam, Marine Fisheries, Marine Life, Methane, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Natural Disasters, Nuclear Accidents, Nuclear energy, Nuclear power, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India (NPCIL), Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Safety, PMANE, Shale Gas, South Korea, Tamil Nadu, Tirunelveli (D), Tsunami
O
P
E
N
DTE Must Read
Among the major unresolved problems of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) is water. KKNPP requires fresh water as moderator and as coolants and its entire requirement are met through desalination plants. Strangely, the Expert Group set up the Central Government on the safety aspects of KKNPP is silent on two critical issues. One is the question of drinking water requirement of the campus. The reserve water available in two tanks meant to store potable water is 1425 m3, whereas the daily requirement is 1272 m3. Even if the consumption is reduced when the supply chain breaks down, the reserve may not last more than 2-3 days.
The other issue is the possibility of failure of the desalination plants due to causes other than grid failure. The expert committee considered grid failure alone as the only probable event. If the grid fails, the reactors will shut down automatically and hence the coolant requirement will be about 800 m3 for two reactors. (All reactors rely on grid power for maintaining their safety related pumps and instrumentations as the grid is more reliable than the reactors.) A desalination plant is a complicated machine for cleaning and sterilizing a chemically and biologically complex medium. That machine can also fail due to wear, tear and corrosion or due to an attack of marine organisms like jellyfish, called fouling agents by the industry. With global warming, jellyfish are poised to recapture the empire they lost some 600 million years ago. Their intrusion in desalination plants, ships and power plants has been on the increase during the last couple of years. In July-August 2011, nuclear power plants in Japan, Scotland and Israel were shut down due to their ingress, a feat that half a century of anti-nuclear activism could not achieve!
KKNPP with a capacity of 2,000 Mwe does not have pipes drawn from off-site locations or elevated water towers unlike other campuses. For instance, the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) has 28,400 m3 of fresh water for its reactors of with an installed capacity of just 440 MW(e) and the campus is augmenting its water reserve with an additional reserve of 750 m3 as recommended by the Fukushima Task Force.
Despite the stringent conditions laid down by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, it has not pulled up NPCIL for its inaction on fresh water at KKNPP. It is clear that NPCIL did not do its homework before signing the contract with the Russians. They constructed the KKNPP campus in violation of the terms and conditions laid down by the AERB. Since the backup for coolant water is insufficient, the commissioning of the reactor will be a dangerous gamble.
VT Padmanabhan
We are scared of nuclear power and yes we have a reason for that. The reason is that we are scared...! When Thomas Edison invented his generator and began producing and providing electricity many people were so scared that they stopped opening their doors. They preferred dark nights to light.
Similar kind of fear has take over us.
We forget that energy in any form is hazardous. Look at that tiny match-stick-it can cause havoc if misused or used by an innocent child.
Question is that should we go back to caves?
V.K. Joshi
A question for you is if you can take a risk A, does it mean you can take risk B too when A and B are not related at all.?
By saying yes to nuclear plant, you vouch for the children to be born. A electric generator can be switched off within one's life. A nuclear reactor creates demons that outlive with a great danger for several hundred years that covers your generation and a few more to be born. It lives even when it is not operational.
There is huge difference between A and B. People are scared of the differences here.
Some one below has clearly answered if we should go back to caves.
Vel
A nuclear accident, unlike other accidents, can ruin our habitats and us for years to come. To protect our Earth, we should be prepared to even go back to caves should we fail in other sources of energy. NO TO NUCLEAR MONSTER. Jai Hind!
Ignatius Fernando
While Rajiv Gandhi was linked with the Bofors deal, he also signed an agreement with USSR for importing the unusual type of reactors from Russia. The Janata Dal Government also followed the same ethics to re-enter into another agreement with Russia to import the light water reactors of VVER type which are considered unsafe even at that time. Moreover, nuclear power was three times more costly than hydro-power and twice more costly than thermal power and yet inspite of its negligible contribution to national power, yet for the benefit of contractors and politicians while being simultaneously harmful to public health and welfare, the deal was struck inspite of objections from the public since 1988 itself. Prof.Shivaji Rao the International Environmental expert who published a book with title “Nuclear Plants are Silent Killers” in 1989 and also published a paper on Environmental Impacts of Kudankulam Nuclear Plant 1990 in the magazine Religion and Society, Vol.XXXVII, No.2 June 1990 by highlighting the Risks involved.
The nuclear industry continued to mislead the Tamil Nadu Chief Minster, the Prime Minister and the members of the state legislature and Parliament and went ahead with the construction of the project by violating all the rules and regulations under different laws. Recently, the nuclear plant authorities again misled the Chief Minister and Prime Minister who are unknowingly proclaiming that nuclear power is absolutely safe while the heads of Germany and Japan have confirmed that nuclear safety is a myth and also decided to phase out all the nuclear plants in their country by 2022 and by 2030. It is said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, which means that inexperienced and rash people will attempt to do things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Since the state and central governments are not interested in the safety of the common people the public have to protect themselves as per sec 51 A(g) of the Indian constitution in the interests of their future generations as well. Even God cannot help those who refuse to help themselves by discharging their duties as responsible citizens of India.
US PROVIDES SCIENTIFIC SAFETY STANDARDS TO EVACUATE AMERICANS IN JAPAN
Under the guidelines for public safety that would be used in the United States under similar circumstances, the NRC believes it is appropriate for U.S. residents within 50 miles of the Fukushima reactors to evacuate.
Among other things, in the United States protective actions recommendations are implemented when projected doses could exceed 1 rem to the body or 5 rem to the thyroid. A rem is a measure of radiation dose. The average American is exposed to approximately 620 millirems, or 0.62 rem, of radiation each year from natural and manmade sources.
In making protective action recommendations,the NRC takes into account a variety of factors that include weather, wind direction and speed, and the status of the problem at the reactors.
Attached are the results of two sets of computer calculations used to support the NRC recommendations.
In response to nuclear emergencies, the NRC works with other U.S. agencies to monitor radioactive releases and predict their path. All the available information continues to indicate Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity.
With regard to evacuation of Americans living in Japan in the neighbourhood of Fukushima nuclear plant the US Government calculated the impacts of radioactive pollutants from the Fukushima reactor accident and took into consideration the disaster management zones which were limited to about 20km and found the underestimated values for disaster management which in USA extend up to 80km from the nuclear plant. Having found that Japanese standards for evacuation of potential victims is too inadequate Americans calculated the distances up to which excessive radiation dose will extend and found that the risky zone extends upto 80km and so US advised their nationals in Japan to evacuate upto 80km from the Fukushima site to ensure public health and safety and the following air pollution modeling studies were done for this purpose. Inspite of these values Japanese Government applied safety measures for evacuation upto 30km compulsory zone and upto 40km voluntary evacuation zone although the excessive radiation was found in locations upto about 60km from Fukushima reactors.
In the case of Kudankulam plant the plant authorities failed to follow these safety standards. Moreover NPCIL and AERB told the Supreme Court that they are not concerned to implement all the levels of safety because the key component relating to the 5th level of safety pertaining to the off-site disaster management plan is the total responsibility of the state Government and the local District Collector who is not duly qualified to implement total safety measures. Thus the Prime Minister and Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu are totally misleading the public by stating that the nuclear plant is completely safe without really knowing the total aspects of safety of nuclear power.
T.V.Rama Rao,M.Com
Anonymous
Post new comment