{"id":3020,"date":"2013-11-28T14:12:25","date_gmt":"2013-11-28T08:12:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mitramaadhyama.co.in\/?p=3020"},"modified":"2026-03-26T00:00:32","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T18:30:32","slug":"shankar-sharma-environmentalists-to-support-the-development-of-safer-nuclear-power-as-one-way-to-cut-fossil-fuel-pollution-some-serious-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.xn--4scekqbpyn4fbh2dwe.xn--2scrj9c\/?p=3020","title":{"rendered":"Shankar Sharma: Environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution? Some serious concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"

At a time when the true relevance of nuclear power is being questioned increasingly around the world due to the concerns on safety, security and economics, a news item from the Associated Press indicates that f<\/span><\/span>our scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change have asked environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution. <\/span><\/span>Such a letter is signed by<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Kenneth Caldeira<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0of the Carnegie Institution, <\/span>Kerry Emanuel<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>James E. Hansen<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0of Columbia University and<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Tom Wigley<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide <\/span>(<\/span>http:\/\/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com\/2013\/11\/03\/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power\/?_r=0#more-50930<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Two major fallacies seem to have been associated with nuclear power\u2019s projected role in containing the global warming phenomenon. One such fallacy is that the huge number of nuclear power reactors required in place of the fossil fuel power plants to have considerable impact on global warming phenomenon can be commissioned in the short time frame identified to contain the GHG emissions. The other fallacy is that addressing the energy sector\u2019s GHG contribution alone will be able to mitigate the impacts of global warming.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The first fallacy<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an article with the title <\/span><\/span><\/span>“TOO HOT TO HANDLE? THE FUTURE OF CIVIL NUCLEAR POWER”<\/span><\/span> by\u00a0Frank Barnaby and James Kemp of\u00a0Oxford Research Group, such relevance has been discussed. This article states that on the assumption that about 33% of the total electricity production capacity at the global level by Year 2075 (for a population of 10 Billion) needs to be from nuclear power (in order to really have an impact on global warming) about <\/span><\/span><\/span>3,000 reactors (assuming average capacity of 1,000 MW) may be required. <\/span><\/span> The article estimates that such a scenario would mean <\/span><\/span><\/span>over 48 new reactor builds a year from now on, compared to 3.4 per year which is the highest historic rate (in France between 1977 to 1993).<\/span><\/span> It would require even those countries, which have no nuclear power as of now, to construct nuclear reactors. The same authors have also said: <\/span><\/span><\/span>\u201cMany of the risks associated with civil nuclear power are well known and have, to some extent, been managed… just: recall Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Iraq, Dr. A Q Khan and reports of al Qaida\u2019s plans. For the nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks to be worth taking, nuclear must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global CO<\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/span><\/sub> emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power\u2019s efficacy is clear. Society should consider whether or not the risk that terrorists will acquire plutonium and make and detonate a nuclear weapon is unacceptably high\u201d. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Since Uranium reserve is available to only few countries, it would need a massive transfer of nuclear fuel and nuclear power technology across the globe to be able to provide an important role for nuclear power in the global electricity basket. Under such a scenario it is not difficult to imagine the massive financial benefits accruing to very few countries and corporations from such gigantic transactions, while the huge costs and risks will have to be borne by the communities.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The latest experience at Fukushima, Japan has indicated that the real cost to the global community of a nuclear accident can be horrendous, inevitably leading to questions on the net benefit to the society from such reactors if the costs of compensation, radiation containment measures, loss of revenue from the lands around, safe decommissioning etc. are objectively taken into account. Whatever may be the technology and fuel deployed in producing the nuclear power, the risk associated (where \u2018RISK\u2019 = \u2018Probability of a nuclear accident\u2019 X \u2018Consequences of such an accident\u2019) is generally acknowledged as very high so as to dissuade the communities to accept the location of nuclear reactors in their backyard.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the Indian context the prospect of a much higher percentage of nuclear power looks highly improbable. A Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) document of 2008 has projected a nuclear power capacity of 275,000 MW by 2050. Assuming an average power capacity of 500 MW each this means about 550 reactors. In view of the need for a large quantity of water to run these plants, it is natural to expect that they are located close to the coast. With the main land coast line of about 6,000 kM this works out to approximately 11 kM between two reactors. Even assuming that 2 or 4 reactors are placed in a straight line perpendicular to the coast, the distance between two nuclear power projects can only between 22 to 44 kM. <\/span><\/span>Assuming a circular safe zone with a radius of 2 km around each reactor, 550 reactors would require a total of approximately 7,000 Sq. kM. <\/span><\/span>Can such a situation be feasible in a densely populated country? The very projection of nuclear power capacity of 275,000 MW for India is unrealistic, given the fact that the Integrated Energy Policy of the Planning Commission of India has estimated that the Uranium reserve in the country can support only 10,000 MW of nuclear power. Import of nuclear fuel and technology to support 275,000 MW of projected capacity is fraught with unacceptable levels of economic cost and energy security risks.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Considering long gestation period of about 10 years and the cost and time over run as experienced in recent years {at Flamanville in France (4 year late) and at Olkiluoto in Finland (4 years late), and Kudankulam in India (5 years late?) } one may clearly see the improbability of such hectic construction activities for next few decades, as would be needed if nuclear power is to make a considerable contribution to the global electricity basket.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In view of the additional safety measures considered essential after the Fukushima accident, the capital cost of nuclear power plants will be much higher as compared to coal based or dam based or even the solar\/wind based power installations. A high level estimate of the proposed nuclear power park at Jaitapura, India indicates that per MW capital cost can be as high as Rs. 21 Crore per MW as against Rs. 8 \u2013 10 Crore per MW of other sources.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The second fallacy<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The other fallacy, that addressing the energy sector\u2019s GHG contribution alone will be able to mitigate the impacts of global warming, will become glaring in the context that energy sector is contributing to only about 35% of the total GHG emissions. So, even if it is possible to bring down the GHG emissions associated with energy sector considerably by shifting the reliance from fossil fuels to nuclear power, the remaining 70 to 80% of GHG emissions due to other sectors, if not managed adequately, has the potential to negate such an effort. Hence it is being increasingly acknowledged as impossible to contain the global warming unless the energy and material consumption at global level is be brought down considerably. Even if we are able to replace all the fossil fuels by nuclear and renewable energy sources by 2050, the embedded energy in the processes and materials employed in doing so would be so great that GHG emission can still go beyond the limits. Also, the total energy consumed in the entire life cycle of a nuclear power plant involving the nuclear fuel mining, transportation, processing, using, storing and safe disposal of spent fuel after hundreds of years is also estimated to be huge, and is estimated to be more than the total electricity generated by a nuclear power plant in its economic life time. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Pro-nuclear advocates have started arguing that nuclear power is a good option against Global Warming since they do not contribute much to GHGs during the operation of a reactor. Observers (such as Dr. MV Ramana) are of the view that floundering nuclear establishments around the world have grabbed this second opportunity (of arguments w.r.t Global Warming), and have made claims for massive state investments in the hope of resurrecting an industry that has largely collapsed due to its inability to provide clean, safe or cheap electricity. It is generally considered to be impossible to contain Global Warming, through a particular power generation technology alone, without significantly reducing the overall energy consumption levels at the global scale. The assumption that adoption of nuclear power can make sense as a strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions can also be termed as flawed. In this regard an example of Japan, a pro-nuclear energy country till the Fukushima accident can be cited. Jinzaburo Takagi, a Japanese nuclear Chemist, has showed that between 1965 and 1995 Japan\u2019s nuclear power plant capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period its CO<\/span><\/span>2 <\/span><\/span><\/sub>emissions increased from about 400 million tons to about 1,200 million tons. Increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan\u2019s emission levels.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Peter Bradford, Former Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists many concerns as below in a presentation with the title \u201cWhy a Future for the Nuclear Industry Is Risky\u201d. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n