Naysayers call for shunning nuke energy

Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by SHASH2K2, Mar 15, 2011.

  1. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India

    NEW DELHI: The crisis in Japan's nuclear power plant has triggered a fresh debate over safety of India's nuclear safety with naysayers claiming vindication of their stand that the country should shun the path of nuclear energy.

    The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) on Monday demanded a complete moratorium on India's civilian nuclear activity and a safety audit of all nuclear facilities. CNDP's Praful Bidwai called for a transparent public safety audit of all nuclear facilities involving members of civil society and independent experts.

    "India must radically review its nuclear power policy for appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance, based on a holistic view of our energy needs and best ways of sustainably meeting them," said Bidwai, describing the nuclear meltdown as a wake-up call for India.

    The statement came on a day when activists from Jaitapur on Maharashtra's Konkan coast – the proposed site of what will be the world's largest nuclear power complex – protested in Mumbai demanding a total scrap of the project.

    Bidwai readily supported the demand. "There should be a moratorium on all further civilian nuclear activity.

    The ministry of environment and forests must revoke all conditional clearances granted to nuclear projects, including Jaitapur and other reactors," he added.

    CNDP activists argued that the Fukushima reactor crisis had proved that despite the best preparations, all nuclear reactors are vulnerable to the risk of a catastrophic accident.

    "India is planning the world's largest nuclear complex in Jaitapur and several other nuclear power parks along the coast and inland. However, India does not even have an independent nuclear regulatory authority that can evaluate and certify reactor designs and set its own safety regulations and standards. Under the circumstances, further nuclear expansion is deeply irrational," Bidwai said.
     
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Good article SHASH2K2 Bhai.

    From the report above:

    If this is true, then Bidwai is correct. We can learn from what we see around us. We should pull all stops to ensure we do not have a similar situations, or else, we might have to deal with hundreds of Prypiats all over the country.
     
  4. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    Location:
    India
    I believe all the new power plants have to be built to specifications that satisfy both NSG and IAEA. That should be a significant safeguard if not an absolute one. With Bidwai the problem is that he's been a self proclaimed anti-nuke activist (among others) for so long that it's hard to distinguish wheat from the chaff in his writings and rantings.

    Of course this goes without saying that nuclear energy must be handled with utmost care and precaution.
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,124
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I agree that it is difficult to discern how credible Mr. Bidwai's comments are. However, the same thing applies to IAEA safeguards as well. Maybe these safeguards were not good enough to deal with situations like the Fukushima incident.

    [​IMG]

    One look at this picture above tells me we need more than IAEA or NSG safeguards. We have had Tsunami and Earthquakes before. Better safe than be sorry.
     
  6. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    Location:
    India
    ^^ You make very good points mate. However, what we must consider is that the pictures may often tell only one side of the story. Tsunami and Earthquakes are natural disasters that we have no control over. The Fukushima No.1 plant was one of the many in that area and was commissioned in 1970s and IS THE ONLY ONE so far to be affected by the disaster. The power plants constructed much later were all safely shut down. This means that the engineering had advanced enough in 10 years to make the power plants more secure and sturdy. Our plants will be constructed in a few years from now, surely we should expect them to closely reflect the standards adopted for the newer plants than the older ones from 1970s.

    Secondly, we have huge hydroelectric and thermal power plants across the land which too are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters. Juts imagine if one of the huge dams is breached, the disaster would be unimaginable. Yet we continue to build more dams in the belief that they will withstand these shocks.
     
  7. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India

    New Delhi, March 14: Sections of the global nuclear science and engineering community are bracing themselves for a possible swing of public opinion away from nuclear power as Japan appears to teeter on the edge of a nuclear disaster.

    Hydrogen explosions have blown the concrete walls and ceilings that made up the outer shells of two reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power station in northern Japan but the primary reactor vessels housing the radioactive cores remain undamaged.

    The impact so far places Fukushima between America’s Three Mile Island in 1979 — no radioactivity release despite a core meltdown — and the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in April 1986 that led to a massive environmental release of radioactivity.

    But since the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan’s reactors, anti-nuclear activists have intensified their campaign for a halt to planned expansion of nuclear energy, saying the incidents in Japan highlight the inherent dangers of nuclear power.

    “Once again, we’re reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to potentially deadly combinations of human error, design failure, and natural disasters,” said Karuna Raina, a campaigner with Greenpeace India.

    The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, a non-government agency in India, today called for a moratorium on all civilian nuclear activity and a transparent public safety audit of all nuclear reactors in the country.

    “We’re told nuclear plants are prepared for emergencies — what’s happened now?” said Wilfred DeCosta, a coalition member. “After Three Mile Island, Russia went ahead with nuclear plans, after Chernobyl, Japan continued, is India going to learn now?”

    Anticipating such attacks, the nuclear science community — in India and elsewhere — has launched an exercise in public reassurance about a technology that has long evoked bitter controversy over safety.

    Nuclear engineers assert it is premature to draw conclusions from the events in Japan. “Many opposed to nuclear power will try to use this to call for changes,” said a nuclear engineer in a US university who requested anonymity.

    The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in the US said that although Japan experienced a “worst case” scenario, even the most seriously damaged of Japan’s reactors had so far not released radiation at levels that would harm the public.

    “These were decades-old reactors — the next generation of reactors are designed with fail-safe cooling systems,” said Swadesh Mahajan, a nuclear physicist at the Institute of Fusion Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.

    Members of the nuclear science community also point out that the annual human health impacts of coal power plants far exceed the casualties associated with the worst of nuclear accidents — Chernobyl. A Clean Air Task Force in the US estimated last year that air pollution from coal power plants may have contributed to some 13,000 premature deaths during 2010, and more than 20,000 heart attacks per year.

    The Chernobyl accident caused 57 direct deaths — and an epidemiological investigation suggested that it may have caused about 4,000 cancer deaths over some years.

    India’s atomic energy department today said the country’s pressurised heavy water reactors had different designs from those of the boiling water reactors (BWRs) in Fukushima and “have multiple redundant and diverse shutdown systems as well as cooling water systems”.

    The Tarapur Atomic Power Station has two US-made BWRs — similar to the ones in Fukushima — but, the atomic energy department said, they had been renovated and upgraded with additional safety features consistent with latest safety standards.

    Sections of the nuclear industry believe a full investigation of the sequence of events in Japan will eventually make nuclear energy even safer.

    “We will incorporate the lessons learned into the design and operation of US nuclear power plants,” the NEI said. “When we fully understand the facts surrounding the event in Japan, we will use those insights to make nuclear energy even safer.”

    Singh seeks review

    Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament today that the country’s atomic energy establishment had been asked to undertake an immediate review of all safety systems of India’s nuclear power plants to ensure that they would be able to withstand the impact of earthquakes and tsunamis.

    India has 20 operating nuclear reactors with an installed capacity of 4,780MW. Eighteen are indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors, and two are boiling water reactors of the type in Fukushima. Singh said Indian nuclear reactors had met safety standards in the past. The Kakrapar atomic power station continued to operate safely during the Bhuj earthquake of January 2002 and the Madras Atomic Power Station was safely shutdown during the tsunami of December 2004.
     
  8. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    As for the concerns of Mr.Bidwai a joint study by NPCIL and Environment Ministry has already declared that the Jaitapur plant is safe for construction - Link.

    Everyday thousands die from road accidents, does this mean we should all stop driving vehicles ? With increasing electricity demand across India nuclear energy is a MUST and the long term effects on the environment are less than the Thermal plants. I dont know about you people but I dont want to be sitting with no fan or AC on a hot summer afternoon just because some tsunami or a earthquake may hit a nuke plant on God-knows-when.

    Naysayers will always remain naysayers - on thermal plants they protest against the coal from being mined, for hydroelectric they protest against forests being submerged and for nuke power they protest against protection. So instead of being a part of the problem these 'naysayers' must come forward and tell a solution to India's energy crisis which will get only worse.

    As for the CNDP itself and Mr.Bidwai these were the same loud-mouth hippies that coondemned the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 and I distinctly remember this moron himself write half a dozen utterly scathing articles on the Indian nuclear program which was purely in self-defence.
     
  9. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Wrong analogy....
    Even if you want to compare nuke accidents with some freaking road accidents then compare the scale of fatalities also.road accidents only kill 1000 if Chernobyl type accident happens in jam-packed india causalities will not be in thousands but in millions.

    will a road accident effect the future generation?answer is -NO but nuke disaster will sure effect the future generation in form genetic deformity etc.

    Learn from Chernobyl,Fukushima,Bhopal gas accidents.
     
  10. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    The True Costs of Nuclear Power

    If the Japanese can't build a completely safe nuclear reactor, who can?
    By Anne Applebaum
    Posted Monday, March 14, 2011, at 8:06 PM ET

    In the aftermath of a disaster, the strengths of any society become immediately visible. The cohesiveness, resilience, technological brilliance, and extraordinary competence of the Japanese are now on full display. One report from Rikuzentakata—a town of 25,000, annihilated by the tsunami—describes volunteer firefighters working to clear rubble and search for survivors; military personnel and police efficiently directing traffic and supplies; survivors not only "calm and pragmatic" but coping "with politeness and sometimes amazingly good cheer."

    Thanks to these strengths, Japan will eventually recover. But at least one Japanese nuclear power complex will not. As I write, three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station appear to have lost their cooling capacity. Engineers are flooding the plant with seawater—effectively destroying it—then letting off radioactive steam. There have been two explosions. By the time you read this article, the situation may be worse.
    Yet Japan's nuclear power stations were designed with the same care and precision as everything else in the country. More to the point, Japan is the only country in the world to have experienced true nuclear catastrophe. They had an incentive to build well, in other words, as well as the capability, the laws, and regulations to do so. Which leads to the unavoidable question: If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese can't build a completely safe reactor, who can?
    It can be argued—and it will be—that the Japanese situation is extraordinary. Few countries are as vulnerable to natural catastrophe as Japan, and the scale of this earthquake is unprecedented. But there are other kinds of extraordinary situations and other unprecedented circumstances. In an attempt to counter the latest worst possible scenarios, a Franco-German company began constructing a supersafe, "next-generation" nuclear reactor in Finland several years ago. The plant was designed to withstand the impact of an airplane—a post-9/11 concern—and includes a chamber allegedly able to contain a core meltdown. But it was also meant to cost $4 billion and to be completed in 2009. Instead, it has had uncounted setbacks, may now cost $6 billion or more, and isn't finished yet.
    Ironically, the Finnish plant was meant to launch the renaissance of the nuclear power industry in Europe—an industry that has lately enjoyed a renaissance around the world, thanks almost entirely to fears about climate change. Nuclear plants emit no carbon. As a result, after a long post-Chernobyl lull, nuclear plants have lately become fashionable again. Some 62 new nuclear reactors are under construction at the moment; a further 158 are being planned, and another 324 have been proposed.
    Increasingly, nuclear power is also promoted because it is safe. Which it is—except, of course, when it is not. The chances of a major disaster are tiny, 1-in-100 million. But in the event of a statistically improbable major disaster, the damage could include, say, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country. The cost of such a potential catastrophe is partly reflected in the price of plant construction and partly explains the cost overruns in Finland: Nobody can risk the tiniest flaw in the concrete or the most minimal reduction in the quality of the steel.
    But as we are about to learn in Japan, the true costs of nuclear power are never reflected even in the very large price of plant construction. Inevitably, the enormous costs of nuclear waste disposal fall to taxpayers, not the nuclear industry. The costs of cleanup, even in the wake of a relatively small accident, are eventually borne by the government. The costs of health care will also be paid by society at large, one way or another. If there is true nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the entire world will pay the price.
    I hope that this never happens. I feel nothing but admiration for the Japanese nuclear engineers who have been battling catastrophe for several days now. If anyone can prevent a disaster, the Japanese can do it. But I also hope that a near-miss causes people around the world to think twice about the true "price" of nuclear energy and stops the nuclear renaissance dead in its tracks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  11. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    This is silly! Every source of energy has some or the other damn risks. This doesn't mean that nuclear energy is a risk. If there is a natural calamity, no matter what we do there will be disaster. Nuclear energy is clean, efficient and completely covers the energy requirements of a billion people around the world especially in the coming few years.

    I am ALL for nuclear Audit but a moratorium is plain stupid.
     
  12. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    I would expect all those Naysayers to come up with alternate solutions to produce electricity . we already have huge demand and supply gap and its necessary to bridge the gap to sustain economic growth. Same naysayers come out against government if there is a load shedding due to overload during summer . there should not be any hydel power as it disturb ecological balance of area. there should not be nuclear power plants as it has danger of radiation.

    Perhaps we should send all those naysayers to remote villages and they should all start doing cattle farming. they will get milk and meat free along with Gobar. Bio gas is best thing for them . no pollution and eco friendly solution . :D
     
  13. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Doesn't make sense to compare with Japan. The Nation of Japan lies on the meeting point of multiple tectonic plates

    [​IMG]

    It's quite a 'high risk' area wrt to earthquakes and Tsunamis. All those those championing 'green' 'clean' 'power' come from developed European countries
     
  14. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Yes....if ones parents die in road accident then surely there children would be affected by it.
     
  15. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Location:
    Bangalore
    And what will be alternate source of energy? The gas these guys produce after eating or what?
     
  16. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Correct Analogy - because I am not arguing about the scale but rather the logic itself. You cannot hold generation of Electricity hostage especially in times when the economy is booming and so is the need for Energy generation to some Earthquake that May/May not happen.

    Leaving ahead doomsday prediction what is the solution ? You cant always be a part of the problem unless you are part of the solution too.

    And as I said I dont want to spend my summer in without AC or a Fan just because some earthquake will strike God-knows-when.
     
  17. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Re-post of my earlier post :

     
  18. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Location:
    Bangalore
    http://www.aerb.gov.in/

    About AERB:

    Atomic Energy Regulatory Board was constituted on November 15, 1983 by the President of India by exercising the powers conferred by the Atomic Energy Act to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions under the Act.
     
  19. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    you logic itself is flawed one.
     
  20. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Ok then lets compare Nuclear power plants with Hydel power plants . Every years hundreds loose their life and thousands of crores worth property is destroyed. Should be stop using Hydel power plants as well. Because if somehow a dam is damaged or breached it will be equally catastrophic in terms of loss of life and property .Also if a dam is breached damage will be in much larger area .
     
  21. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Many oil spills have not stopped usage of oil. So, a few nuclear accidents will not stop the usage of nuclear energy.
     

Share This Page