Naysayers call for shunning nuke energy

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Go for IPI and TAPI.
And who will guarentee the pipelines not being blown up in a war ? Or even in peacetimes ? Look at the areas it passes through for god sakes. :hitwall:

There are sure a large number who would want to meet their 72 virgins to deny oil to kaffir India.

Tell a better plan if you can.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I am also a partial naysayer.

Let the ayesayers have the plant next to their house and then I wonder if anyone who is away from their houses would object.

Even microwave towers that are built on top of building are serious health hazard around the area!!

What is IPI and TAPI?
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
What is IPI and TAPI?
IPI - Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project passing through Balochistan

TAPI - Turkemenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline passing through the Talibunny heartlands, Balochistan to India.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,854
Country flag
I am also a partial naysayer.

Let the ayesayers have the plant next to their house and then I wonder if anyone who is away from their houses would object.

Even microwave towers that are built on top of building are serious health hazard around the area!!

What is IPI and TAPI?
Why should the plant be next to anybody's house? The whole idea is to establish the plants away from populated areas, and incur additional costs of relocation and resettlement. How are dams built - they submerge several villages, and entire villages have to be moved out and relocated, with the associated compensation. There is a reason why nuclear power has a high initial cost.

Instead of thinking about earthquakes, tsunamis and such things which have a one in a million chance of occurring, and thinking about the people who may potentially die, let us first focus on helping the millions who are already suffering and dying due to lack of amenities. Given the present technology available to us, I cannot think of any viable alternative to nuclear energy for India to make progress.

All this TAPI-IPI talk is so much nonsense - of course those plans have been shelved, as expected, but I wonder how the discussion went to the extent that it did! If we do anything as insane as that, a decade from now, we will be whining about the possibility of the Pawkees cutting off our energy supply, just like the Pawkees whine today about the possibility of the Indians cutting off their water supply. And even if the pawkees turn over a new leaf, our nation will forever be susceptible to "tensions in the middle East", and rise/fall in oil prices there. This whole nuclear discussion is to get out of this rut of dependency on a non-renewable and horribly polluting energy source, obtained from the most despotic region on earth.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Scientists brief PM on safety of nuclear installations

In the backdrop of nuclear mishap in Japan due to tsunami, India's top atomic scientists today briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on safety of nuclear installations in the country.
Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Srikumar Banerjee and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman S S Bajaj met the Prime Minister and briefed him about the review they undertook pertaining to various aspects of the nuclear installations in the country.

The meeting comes two days after Singh had announced in Parliament that an immediate technical review of India's atomic plants has been ordered to check if they can withstand the impact of major natural disasters like tsunami and earthquakes in the wake of the catastrophe in Japan threatening a nuclear meltdown.

"The Department of Atomic Energy and its agencies, including the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) have been instructed to undertake an immediate technical review of all safety systems of our nuclear power plants, particularly with a view to ensuring that they would be able to withstand the impact of large natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes," he had said.

He had informed both Houses of Parliament that India was in constant touch with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Japanese Atomic Industrial Forum and the World Association of Nuclear Operators.

The nuclear mishap in Japan was triggered by the tsunami caused by massive earthquake cutting down power to the aging plant and knocking out cooling systems.
The incidents raised many questions about the safety aspects of nuclear installations in case of natural calamity in the country.

Most of the atomic bodies in India have taken a cautious approach towards the whole issue and have refused to conclude either way- whether it will happen to plants in the country or not.
They have maintained that they will revisit all safety aspects of atomic plants in the country and analyse the nuclear crisis arising in Japan after the tsunami as it has offered new lessons to fine tune existing emergency preparedness.



 

shuvo@y2k10

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,709
Country flag
i think it is better to stick to indegeneous reactors like phwr than to import foreign reactors like epr or boiling water reactor from us.also once we perfect the thorium cycle we can build the next generation of reactors.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Why should the plant be next to anybody's house? The whole idea is to establish the plants away from populated areas, and incur additional costs of relocation and resettlement. How are dams built - they submerge several villages, and entire villages have to be moved out and relocated, with the associated compensation. There is a reason why nuclear power has a high initial cost.
Au contraire, the idea does not look like establishing the plants away from populated areas. Look at the map (below) and the proposed locations:

Instead of thinking about earthquakes, tsunamis and such things which have a one in a million chance of occurring, and thinking about the people who may potentially die, let us first focus on helping the millions who are already suffering and dying due to lack of amenities. Given the present technology available to us, I cannot think of any viable alternative to nuclear energy for India to make progress.
Earthquakes happen quite frequently, and strong ones may happen less frequently, but when these strong ones happen, they cause extensive damage. The idea is to build a reactor that can withstand earthquakes well beyond the maximum expected magnitude of an earthquake. This is the reason why I am advocating placing these reactors in the white zones.

All this TAPI-IPI talk is so much nonsense - of course those plans have been shelved, as expected, but I wonder how the discussion went to the extent that it did! If we do anything as insane as that, a decade from now, we will be whining about the possibility of the Pawkees cutting off our energy supply, just like the Pawkees whine today about the possibility of the Indians cutting off their water supply. And even if the pawkees turn over a new leaf, our nation will forever be susceptible to "tensions in the middle East", and rise/fall in oil prices there. This whole nuclear discussion is to get out of this rut of dependency on a non-renewable and horribly polluting energy source, obtained from the most despotic region on earth.
IPI or TAPI does not look like a promising idea.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
The overall economy of running the reactor can be sidelined on one factor alone. A decision has been taken to install the reactors on those zones, it will be foolhardy to assume from our side that all the factors have not been taken in to consideration while reaching to conclusion which includes the quake and tsunami factor. India has a very good record or running the reactors. We have our share of quakes like in Gujarat but our reactors never faced such issues. Even tsunamis have not created any problems for our reactors.


cool :)
Call me a skeptic if you want, but I think more people need to come out and question those people who make these decisions. While I agree it is foolhardy to assume all factors have not been taken into consideration, it is equally foolhardy to assume all factors have been taken into consideration. Those who decide, sometimes, take economics into account and I suspect that played into placing these reactors close to the populated areas (e.g. the proposed plants near Delhi and Kolkata). We have a history of brushing things under the carpet, and we have seen it during the Bhopal Gas Leak. Only when people question, can we ensure every single factor is taken into account. That is why I think it is better to assume the decisions are flawed than to assume they are correct.

I will raise a red flag now; kindly note the text highlighted in red below:


Scientists brief PM on safety of nuclear installations

In the backdrop of nuclear mishap in Japan due to tsunami, India's top atomic scientists today briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on safety of nuclear installations in the country.
Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Srikumar Banerjee and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman S S Bajaj met the Prime Minister and briefed him about the review they undertook pertaining to various aspects of the nuclear installations in the country.

The meeting comes two days after Singh had announced in Parliament that an immediate technical review of India's atomic plants has been ordered to check if they can withstand the impact of major natural disasters like tsunami and earthquakes in the wake of the catastrophe in Japan threatening a nuclear meltdown.

"The Department of Atomic Energy and its agencies, including the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) have been instructed to undertake an immediate technical review of all safety systems of our nuclear power plants, particularly with a view to ensuring that they would be able to withstand the impact of large natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes," he had said.

He had informed both Houses of Parliament that India was in constant touch with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Japanese Atomic Industrial Forum and the World Association of Nuclear Operators.

The nuclear mishap in Japan was triggered by the tsunami caused by massive earthquake cutting down power to the aging plant and knocking out cooling systems.
The incidents raised many questions about the safety aspects of nuclear installations in case of natural calamity in the country.

Most of the atomic bodies in India have taken a cautious approach towards the whole issue and have refused to conclude either way- whether it will happen to plants in the country or not.
They have maintained that they will revisit all safety aspects of atomic plants in the country and analyse the nuclear crisis arising in Japan after the tsunami as it has offered new lessons to fine tune existing emergency preparedness.




 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
IPI - Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project passing through Balochistan

TAPI - Turkemenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline passing through the Talibunny heartlands, Balochistan to India.
Thanks.

I was seeing it quite often but could not fathom what they were.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Go for IPI and TAPI.
Thanks, but no thanks. We do not want anything through the soil of a terrorist country. And in case of war or heightened tensions, we do not want that pipeline to be blown away by terrorist Pakistani Army. We have sea lanes for that in our own backyard to play with - IOR.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Go for IPI and TAPI.
So that you can stifle our energy supplies whenever you want and use it as a political tool, just like Russia did with gas supplies to Georgia? I can see you are trying to be sarcastic and humorous - fail!
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
/\/\/\ We control the IOR mate! People with selective myopia should know :D
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
As long as Pakistan exists in its current form, TAPI ir IPI pipelines must remain a non-starter. If we had managed to recover entire PoK then it would have been useful to consider a TAI pipeline but the logistics would have been a nightmare.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
Call me a skeptic if you want, but I think more people need to come out and question those people who make these decisions. While I agree it is foolhardy to assume all factors have not been taken into consideration, it is equally foolhardy to assume all factors have been taken into consideration. Those who decide, sometimes, take economics into account and I suspect that played into placing these reactors close to the populated areas (e.g. the proposed plants near Delhi and Kolkata). We have a history of brushing things under the carpet, and we have seen it during the Bhopal Gas Leak. Only when people question, can we ensure every single factor is taken into account. That is why I think it is better to assume the decisions are flawed than to assume they are correct.

I will raise a red flag now; kindly note the text highlighted in red below:
Well that is the power of democracy, people have right to question, and I don't think government is brushing the questions under carpet. But alleging with out right lies like "there is no regulatory authority" is also wrong. And the link you posted shows that government is trying to re look in to every possibility so it a cause of cheer up mate :)
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Well that is the power of democracy, people have right to question, and I don't think government is brushing the questions under carpet. But alleging with out right lies like "there is no regulatory authority" is also wrong. And the link you posted shows that government is trying to re look in to every possibility so it a cause of cheer up mate :)
Absolutely. :)

Thanks for pointing that out and Mr. Bidwai should not have done that. To be an activist, whether for or against, what is necessary is to know the details first.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Maybe it's high time to speculate in the stock market on petroleum or gas companies.

China may have to slow down esp. for those planned inland sites for nuclear power plants

China's Nuclear Business Tested by Japan Crisis
Nuclear industry-related shares closed down 3.91 percent in Shanghai exchange, the largest drop among all industries
(Beijing) -- Japan's post-quake nuclear crisis triggered a round of concerns over nuclear power safety in China and dragged down share prices related to the nuclear industry in China's A-share market on March 15.

Nuclear industry-related shares closed down 3.91 percent in Shanghai exchange, the largest drop among all industries. Only three individual shares in the nuclear sector reported a rise.

In the morning, a third explosion in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power complex was reported at the No. 2 reactor, 150 miles north of Tokyo. The incident raised fears on the possibility that the key containment structures to prevent radioactive materials from leaking had been damaged.

The mounting nuclear crisis has triggered concern and disputes about nuclear power safety in China, where large-scale construction of nuclear power plants is underway.

Zhao Bo, an official from China Nuclear Power Engineering Co., told Caixin that the Japanese nuclear crisis will raise an alarm over China's rapidly-expanding nuclear power sector. Zhao said that huge demand for electricity has propelled massive growth in the past two to three years.

Many analysts have predicted that the deadly earthquake in Japan and the following nuclear crisis will have a negative impact on the nuclear industry in the short-term. Other clean energy sectors which have better safety records may benefit, in particular, wind power and solar power.

Xiangcai Securities said in a report that as the nuclear accident in Japan unfolds, the impact on business fundamentals and investment prospects in China's domestic nuclear power industry remain unclear. But profit outlooks for related companies are expected to be lowered.

Yang Fan, energy analyst from CITIC Securities, however, predicted that the accident will not change the positive outlook for major nuclear power companies in China.

Yang said that despite the robust growth in construction of nuclear power facilities, the share of nuclear power will remain as low as 10 percent in China's energy consumption structure, which is far less than up to 30 percent in the U.S., France, Japan and Germany. The long-term perspective for China's nuclear power business will not be significantly affected by the Japanese crisis.

China has set a target to increase its nuclear power installation capacity to 70 million kilowatts by 2020, more than ten times its current level. Currently, a total of 40 million kilowatts of nuclear power generation capacity is under construction in the country.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Absolutely. :)

Thanks for pointing that out and Mr. Bidwai should not have done that. To be an activist, whether for or against, what is necessary is to know the details first.
In today's India, it is more about fashion to be self-proclaimed activist, to reject authorities, to align with yet-to-be unknown victims.

Allegations are based on superficial information.

Verified faith is what we lack.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730

The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster could have been averted had Japan heeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warning about two years ago, WikiLeaks has revealed.

The website cited a December 2008 US diplomatic cable which quotes an IAEA expert who had expressed concerns that the Japanese reactors were only designed to withstand magnitude 7.0 earthquakes on the Richter scale.

The wire states that the IAEA official told a meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo in 2008 that Japan's safety guidelines were outdated. Japan, however, ignored the warning.

A previous cable sent in March 2006 showed that the Japanese government had opposed a court order to close a plant over doubts about its ability to withstand an earthquake. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency had then insisted that the reactor was safe.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
A cross post but relevent to this thread.


Years of procrastination in deciding on long-term disposal of highly radioactive fuel rods from nuclear reactors are now coming back to haunt Japanese authorities as they try to control fires and explosions at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
Some countries have tried to limit the number of spent fuel rods that accumulate at nuclear power plants: Germany stores them in costly casks, for example, while China sends them to a desert storage compound in the western province of Gansu. But Japan, like the United States, has kept ever-larger numbers of spent fuel rods in temporary storage pools at the power plants, where they can be guarded with the same security provided for the plants.

Figures provided by Tokyo Electric Power on Thursday show that most of the dangerous uranium at the power plant is actually in the spent fuel rods, not the reactor cores themselves.

The electric utility said that a total of 11,125 spent fuel rod assemblies were stored at the site. That is about four times as much radioactive material as in the reactor cores combined.

Now those temporary pools are proving the power plant's Achilles' heel, with the water in the pools either boiling away or leaking out of their containments, and efforts to add more water having gone awry. While spent fuel rods generate significantly less heat than newer ones do, there are strong indications that some fuel rods have begun to melt and release extremely high levels of radiation. Japanese workers struggled on Thursday to add more water to the storage pool at Reactor No. 3.

Helicopters dropped water, only to have it scattered by strong breezes. Water cannons mounted on police trucks — equipment designed to disperse rioters — were then deployed to spray water on the pools. It is unclear if that effort worked.

Richard T. Lahey Jr., a retired nuclear engineer who oversaw General Electric's safety research in the early 1970s for the kind of nuclear reactors used in Fukushima, said that the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods could burst into flames if exposed to air for hours when a storage pool lost its water.

Zirconium, once ignited, burns extremely hot and is difficult to extinguish, added Mr. Lahey, who helped write a classified report for the United States government several years ago on the vulnerabilities of storage pools at American nuclear reactors.

Very high levels of radiation above the storage pools suggest that the water has drained in the 39-foot-deep pools to the point that the 13-foot-high fuel rod assemblies have been exposed to air for hours and are starting to melt, said Robert Albrecht, a longtime nuclear engineer who worked as a consultant to the Japanese nuclear reactor manufacturing industry in the 1980s. Under normal conditions, the rods are kept covered with 26 feet of water that is circulated to prevent it from growing too warm.

Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made the startling assertion on Wednesday that there was little or no water left in another storage pool, the one on top of Reactor No. 4, and expressed grave concern about the radiation that would be released as a result.

The 1,479 spent fuel rod assemblies there include 548 that were removed from the reactor only in November and December to prepare the reactor for maintenance, and these may be emitting more heat than the older assemblies in other storage pools.

Even without recirculating water, it should take many days for the water in a storage pool to evaporate, nuclear engineers said. So the rapid evaporation and even boiling of water in the storage pools now is a mystery, raising the question of whether the pools may also be leaking.

Michael Friedlander, a former senior nuclear power plant operator who worked 13 years at three American reactors, said that storage pools typically had a liner of stainless steel three-eighths of an inch thick, and that they rested on reinforced concrete bases. So even if the liner ruptured, "unless the concrete was torn apart, there's no place for the water to go," he said.Mr. Lahey said that much of the water may have sloshed out during the earthquake. Much smaller earthquakes in California have produced heavy water losses from sloshing at storage pools there, partly because the pools are located high in reactor buildings.
"It's like being at the top of a flagpole, and once you start ground motion, you can easily slosh it," he said.

When the water in a storage pool disappears, the fuel rods' uranium continues to heat the rods' zirconium cladding. This causes the zirconium to oxidize, or rust, and even catch fire. The spent fuel rods have little radioactive iodine, which has a half-life of eight days and has mostly disappeared through radioactive decay once fission stopped when the rods left the reactor cores. But the spent fuel rods are still loaded with cesium and strontium that can start to escape if the fuel rods burn.

One factor that might determine how serious the situation becomes is whether the uranium oxide pellets in the rods stay vertical even if the cladding burns off. This is possible because pellets sometimes become fused together while in the reactor. If the pellets stay standing up, then even with the water and zirconium gone, nuclear fission will not take place, Mr. Albrecht said.

But Tokyo Electric said this week that there was a chance of "recriticality" in the storage pools — that is, the uranium in the fuel rods could resume the fission that previously took place inside the reactor, spewing out radioactive byproducts.

Mr. Albrecht said this was very unlikely, but could happen if the stacks of pellets slumped over and became jumbled together on the floor of the storage pool.

Plant workers would then need to add water with lots of boron because the boron absorbs neutrons and interrupts nuclear chain reactions.

If a lot of fission occurs, which may happen only in an extreme case, the uranium would melt through anything underneath it. If it encounters water as it descends, a steam explosion could then scatter the molten uranium.

At Daiichi, each assembly has either 64 large fuel rods or 81 slightly smaller fuel rods. A typical fuel rod assembly has roughly 380 pounds of uranium.

One big worry for Japanese officials is that Reactor No. 3, the main target of the helicopters and water cannons on Thursday, uses a new and different fuel. It uses mixed oxides, or mox, which contains a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and can produce a more dangerous radioactive plume if scattered by fire or explosions. According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.

Japan had hoped to solve the spent fuel buildup with a large-scale plan to recycle the rods into fuel that would go back into its nuclear program. But even before Friday's quake, that plan had hit setbacks.

Central to Japan's plans is a $28 billion reprocessing facility in Rokkasho village, north of the quake zone, which would extract uranium and plutonium from the rods for use in making mox fuel. After countless construction delays, test runs began in 2006, and the plant's operator, Japan Nuclear Fuel, said operations would begin in 2010. But in late 2010, its opening was delayed by two years.

To close the nuclear fuel recycling process, Japan also built the Monju, a fast breeder reactor, which started running in full in 1994. But a year later, a fire caused by a sodium leak shut down the plant.

Despite revelations that the operator, the quasi-governmental Japan Atomic Energy Agency, had covered up the seriousness of the accident, Monju again started operating at a reduced capacity.

Another nuclear reprocessing facility in Tokaimura has been shut down since 1999, when an accident at an experimental fast breeder showered hundreds in the vicinity with radiation, and two workers were killed.

Many of these facilities were hit by Friday's earthquake. A spent fuel pool at Rokkasho spilled over, and power at the plant was lost, triggering backup generators, Japan Nuclear Fuel said.

According to the Citizens Nuclear Information Center, an anti-nuclear group, about 3,000 tons of fuel are stored at Rokkasho. But the plant, about 180 feet above sea level, escaped the tsunami. Grid power was restored on Monday, the company said.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Nice article SHASH2K2, I think its teh spent fuel that is the biggest problem too. The Quake issue is only secondary. What do we do with the spent fuel? Do we just dig and leave it in the ground. Or create a dumping ground or pay some other poor country to store it? Or maybe just put it on a rocket and shoot it out into space towards the sun?

ITs an important question that has to be resolved in the long term
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top