Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...

Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...

Hiroshima, Fukushima, Jaitapur...
By: Sudeshna Chowdhury
Date: 2011-07-13

Incidents of contamination and radiation leakage in Japan have raised serious issues related to safety of nuclear power plants. At a recent seminar held in the city, well-known scientists and experts spoke about India's nuclear programme, benefits and risks involved

The recent Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan raised serious concerns about the safety aspect of nuclear power plants. Reports of contamination and radiation leakage in Japan generated fear among people all over the world.



In fact, the Fukushima crisis sparked off violent protests in Jaitapur too, where India's largest nuclear power plant is supposed to come up. While protests in Jaitapur took a political turn, the big question on everybody's mind was are nuclear power plants safe enough?

To dispel myths related to nuclear power plants and to bring awareness on various aspects of nuclear energy amongst youth, a seminar on, 'Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fallacies' was organised by R D National and WA Science College in Bandra (w) recently, where more than 300 students from 30 colleges across the city participated.

Unseen
Scientists suggested that fear of radiation is the main reason why people are opposed to having nuclear power plants in their area. Said Dr S P Dharne, Associate Director, Nuclear Power Corporation India Limited (NPCIL), "Radiation is a demon which cannot be seen or felt.

It just penetrates your body. The recent Fukushima disaster and horror stories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have to a large extent, shaped people's perception on nuclear power plants. Hence, radiation phobia is a huge issue among people.

But this fear is more psychological. In fact, radiation is present everywhere. In places like Narora (in Uttar Pradesh) and Kalpakkam (in Tamil Nadu), where you have nuclear plants for so many years, people are living there for generations and there is no significant damage to health that has come to our notice."

Comparing nuclear energy to thermal and hydropower, which are considered a lot safer, Dharne said, "It is not only nuclear energy, coal too generates a lot of dilute radioactive materials. Hence, total penalty on the environment should be considered while objecting to any technology. Every technology has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. We will have to weigh the risk factors vs the amount of benefit we derive from any technology."

Protection
To ensure safety of nuclear reactors, Dharne emphasised that, "Safe design, quality workmanship and diligent operation will guarantee the safety of nuclear reactors." Stringent quality assurance; early detection and deviation from normal procedure in case of an accident; and immediate safe shutdown as well as containment of the radiation, are various measures which can prevent any nuclear disaster.

It is also important for an independent authority to review the safety standards of a nuclear power plant.
To avert nuclear disasters, well-known nuclear scientist, Dr Anil Kakodkar, who was also the chief guest of the programme suggested that, "Each reactor should be able to stand on its own and too many common site facilities should be avoided. Moreover, India is an intelligent buyer and a stringent regulation system is in place when we buy reactors from outsiders."

France and Germany are the pioneers in the field of nuclear energy and our nuclear power needs to grow, he emphasised.

When somebody from the audience asked about the controversial Jaitapur project and the impact that the nuclear project can have on the marine ecology, Dharne clarified that the impact on the surrounding marine ecosystem will be minimal.

Energy
Talking about various forms of energy, which included thermal, hydro and solar, scientists highlighted the importance of nuclear energy in generating electricity.

Almost 16 percent of electricity generated worldwide is through nuclear power plants, "Whereas in India only three per cent of the total amount of electricity generated is through nuclear power. We are currently looking at increasing it to 10 per cent," said Dr R R Kakde, General Manager (Corporate Communication), NPCIL.

The panel suggested that nuclear energy could be the ultimate solution to the country's growing energy demands. Calling nuclear energy as "a commercially viable domain", Kakodkar highlighted the challenges when it comes to renewable sources of energy.

"Sun doesn't shine round the clock and that is a big challenge when it comes to solar power. Solar energy is very expensive. So, the aim is to reduce the capital cost while generating solar power."

Cheaper
Electricity generated from nuclear power plants is much cheaper compared to thermal or hydropower. Said Kakde, "The first nuclear power plant in the country at Tarapur generates electricity to Maharashtra and Gujarat. The electricity generated here is being charged at the rate of 92 paise/unit, whereas the normal rate is Rs 2.75-3/unit."

The amount of land required to set up nuclear plants is less compared to other alternative sources of energy. Said Kakde, "To set up a hydro power project almost 2000-5000 hectare of land is required.

A thermal power plant would need approximately 70 hectare whereas a nuclear power plant needs just 20 hectare of land." But availability of uranium, raw material for nuclear power plants, is a concern, said Kakodkar.

Jaitapur will be implemented, declares Jairam Ramesh
The controversial 9,900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (JNPP) in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra will be implemented despite all hurdles, declared union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. He said that whatever be the opposition, the government would go ahead with the JNPP, taking into consideration all aspects of environment and security norms.

Safety
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) has initiated a safety review of India's nuclear power stations in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. All the facilities are safe, said AEC chairman Srikumar Banerjee.
In the Indian reactors, Banerjee said, the review carried out has shown that adequate provisions were in place to handle situations like a station blackout. The AEC is also constructing reactors, which can withstand flash floods and cyclones in the coastal zone.

The Other Side
Anti nuclear campaign groups claim that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and the biggest challenge is the disposal of huge amount of radioactive wastes generated from nuclear power plants.

Said Karuna Raina, campaigner at Greenpeace, an international Non-Governmental Environmental Organisation (NGO), "Until a few months ago, the nuclear lobby would claim that if Japan, inspite of being prone to earthquakes, could have nuclear plants, then why can't we? But Fukushima has shown us that nuclear plants can be dangerous. Team of experts working there even found radiation in the sea water."

Dr V Pugazhendhi, who has a clinic in Kalpakkam claims that there has been an increase in the number of people suffering from cancer, in the area.

"My research states that people working in the power plant suffer from myeloma cancer(rare blood cancer) whereas people from neighbouring villages suffer from thyroid cancer and other autoimmune thyroid diseases. The results have statistical significance."

On Jaitapur and Alphonso

Unrest in Alphonso land | GroundReport

Grown
mainly in the narrow strip of land between the Western Ghats and the
Arabian Sea in the scenic Konkan region of India, the Alphonso mangoes
are considered king among the several varieties that flood the market
during the mango season. Known for their delectable flavour, richness of
meaty texture and sweetness they are coveted all over the world. In
2007, the US traded off the restrictions for its imports against export
of Harley Davidsons to the burgeoning Indian market. It is this Alphonso
land that is seemingly is today in a state of war...........................

(http://www.groundreport.com/World/Unrest-in-Alphonso-land/2938894)

Villagers protest Mithi Virdi nuclear project- Jasapara

Villagers protest Mithi Virdi nuclear project, police called

(http://deshgujarat.com/2010/06/11/villagers-protest-mithi-virdi-nuclear-project-police-called/)

Photos by Mukesh Pandit
Bhavnagar, DeshGujarat, 11 June, 2010

Villagers of Jasapara and about five nearby villages in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district today prevented surveyors to carry out survey of the land for proposed Mithi Virdi nuclear power project here . Survey team’s truck, containing a generator set and two iron pipes was gheraoed by protesting villagers. Police was called on to control the locals. The issue was settled soon, but just temporarily. The surveyor team had to go back in view of the local protest. Jasapara’s lady Sarpanch said, “we would give our life, but not allow nuclear plant here.”

Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) which is planning to set up a 6,000 Mw nuclear power project in the area, but facing protests from farmers who are refusing to make way for the Rs 50,000 crore (Rs 500 billion) project, the first major initiative after the civilian nuclear agreement between India and the US. About 30 odd villages have collectively signed a petition and informed the authorities about their stand.About 1,000 hectare of land has been surveyed by government officials in the recent past. Though the name given to the project is Mithi Virdi Atomic Power Project, the area identified is about two km away from Mithi Virdi and is called Jasapara.

Anti-nuclear activists led by local Arun Dave, Damayantiben Modi of Lok Bharati Sanstha have formed a group called the Atomic Energy Study Group and have been distributing pamphlets and showing films about the accidents of nuclear plants in places like Chernobyl.

Local villagers have mainly three problems with the proposed plant project:(1) how destructive the plant can be in case of any leakage, (2) they do not know what will happen to the waste generated from here, (3) they don’t want to lose their land, which is their only source of livelihood.

Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

Cost Overruns at Finland Reactor Hold Lessons - NYTimes.com

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

NewYork Times
By JAMES KANTER

OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.

The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.

But things have not gone as planned.

After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.

While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.

A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.

In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings.

But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.

In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget.

In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.

“A number of U.S. companies have looked with trepidation on the situation in Finland and at the magnitude of the investment there,” said Paul L. Joskow, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author of an influential report on the future of nuclear power in 2003. “The rollout of new nuclear reactors will be a good deal slower than a lot of people were assuming.”

For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives.

And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.

Most of the new construction is underway in countries like China and Russia, where strong central governments have made nuclear energy a national priority. India also has long seen nuclear as part of a national drive for self-sufficiency and now is seeking new nuclear technologies to reduce its reliance on imported uranium.

By comparison, “the state has been all over the place in the United States and Europe on nuclear power,” Mr. Joskow said.

The United States generates about one-fifth of its electricity from a fleet of 104 reactors, most built in the 1960s and 1970s. Coal still provides about half the country’s power.

To streamline construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington has worked with the industry to approve a handful of designs. Even so, the schedule to certify the most advanced model from Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba, has slipped during an ongoing review of its ability to withstand the impact of an airliner.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also not yet approved the so-called EPR design under construction in Finland for the American market.

This month, the United States Energy Department produced a short list of four reactor projects eligible for some loan guarantees. In the 2005 energy bill, Congress provided $18.5 billion, but the industry’s hope of winning an additional $50 billion worth of loan guarantees evaporated when that money was stripped from President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.

The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later.

But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.

Areva, a conglomerate largely owned by the French state, is heir to that nation’s experience in building nuclear plants. France gets about 80 percent of its power from 58 reactors. But even France has not completed a new reactor since 1999.

After designing an updated plant originally called the European Pressurized Reactor with German participation during the 1990s, the French had trouble selling it at home because of a saturated energy market as well as opposition from Green Party members in the then-coalition government.

So Areva turned to Finland, where utilities and energy-hungry industries like pulp and paper had been lobbying for 15 years for more nuclear power. The project was initially budgeted at $4 billion and Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish utility, pledged it would be ready in time to help the Finnish government meet its greenhouse gas targets under the Kyoto climate treaty, which runs through 2012.

Areva promised electricity from the reactor could be generated more cheaply than from natural gas plants. Areva also said its model would deliver 1,600 megawatts, or about 10 percent of Finnish power needs.

In 2001, the Finnish parliament narrowly approved construction of a reactor at Olkiluoto, an island on the Baltic Sea. Construction began four years later.

Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.

In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that “the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons” at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.

Today, the site still teems with 4,000 workmen on round-the-clock shifts. Banners from dozens of subcontractors around Europe flutter in the breeze above temporary offices and makeshift canteens. Some 10,000 people speaking at least eight different languages have worked at the site. About 30 percent of the workforce is Polish, and communication has posed significant challenges.

Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)

Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.

In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.

On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.

“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.

And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.