Nuclear power plants for India [2011]

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

1

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTRE VISION : The Environmental Study Centre shall strive to procure and protect the bioDiversity, to meet the futre challenges of deterioration of the surrounding Environment.

MISSION : The Environmental Study Centre is committed to Nurture the Environment by creating awareness among the School and College Students by strenghthening the Eco-Clubs. ✤

Develop and promote knowledge of the Traditional food & Herbal Medicinal Practices.

✤

Promote a platform for participatory learning by organising Eco-friendly life style camps. It helps to know the importance and to live in harmony with the nature.

✤

ESC has developed natural resource management training centre at santhekadur outskirts of Shimoga.

Environmental Study Centre conducts "Value Education for Life and Environmental Education" camps where in students learn and realize the importance of nature and to live in harmony with nature. And apply the same principles while learning Science, Technology, Arts and Commerce etc.

Environmental Study Centre has been conducting "PARISARA MITRA SHAALA AWARD PROGRAMME" in Shivamogga District level. About 1500 HPS & 500 High Schools participate in this programme every year. We initiated this programme since 200708.

"PARISARA MITRA SHAALA AWARD PROGRAMME" is extended to 2 more district in this year 2011-12. Kolar District and Chikkaballapura district is implementing this programme with the support of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) Bangalore. The KSPCB is planning to extend this programme in all the 30 districts of Karnataka.

Environmental Study Centre has initiated the Programme "DHANVANTHARI SCHOOL" in the district every year regularly. The programme intend to develop and promote traditional Food & Home Herbal medicinal practices. The programme was started in the year 2008-09 in the district.

Environmental Study Centre has taken few Research studies on Bio-diversity. For inculcating the spirit of scientific research in Natural Science, 600 students from 12 schools are doing Research activities and learning on Tree Phenology of Forest and Avenue Trees of Shivamogga District for a Scientific understanding of climate change at regional level.

Environmental Study Centre is publishing Bi-monthly magazine "PARISARA PATRIKE" which contains the various activies of the eco-friendly schools and Dhanvantari Schools. This magazine has been circulating to the all Higher Primary and High schools in the district.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

2

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

JNANA SAGARA NAAVE TRUST (R)

KIDS (R) (Kodachadri Integrated Development Society)

(Senior Citizens Knowledge resource Bank) Hon. President : Sri H. ANNAPPA Santhe Kaduru.

Hon. president : Sri H. ANNAPPA Santhekaduru.

President

President

: Prof. T.S. HOOVAIAH GOWDA Principal, Sahyadri Science College, Shivamogga.

Vice President : Sri K.S.PUTTAPPA Retired Manager Vijaya Bank

Vice President : Prof. A. S.CHANDRASHEKAR Retired Principal, Retd. District Governor, Rotary Secretary

Treasurer

Directors

: Sri C.S.CHANDRASHEKAR Retired Deputy Thahshildar

Secretary

: Sri G. L. JANARDHANA Environmentalist, Shivamogga.

: Sri G. L. JANARDHANA Environmentalist, Shivamogga.

Joint Secretary : Sri DINESH H. Hosanagara

: Sri S.CHANDRASHEKAR Civil Engineer, Shivamogga

Treasurer

: Sri S. CHANDRASHEKAR Civil Engineer, Shivamogga

: Sri C. S. CHANDRASHEKAR Retired Deputy Thahshildar

Directors

: Smt. Dr. MYTHILI Ayurveda Practitioner, Shivamogga.

Sri K. S. PUTTAPPA Retired Manager Vijaya Bank

Dr. NANDA A., Bhadravathi Smt. B. Premanath, Hosanagara Sri, Rudresh.M.N. Shivamogga

ADVISORY BOARD Sri PANDURANGA HEGDE Promoter Appiko movement in Karnataka

Prof. C. U.SOMASHEKAR Retired principal Kodachadri College, Hosanagara.

Dr. B.B. HOSETTI Chairman, Dept. of Zoology Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta.

Prof. KAMALAKAR Examination controller Sahyadri Science college, Shivamogga.

Dr. N. B.DESAI Physics lecturer, Sahyadri Science College. Shivamogga.

Prof. B. JAYADEVAPPA Principal Sahyadri Arts College Shivamogga

Sri CHANNABASAVAPPA Auditor Cooperative Department Shivamogga.

Dr. J. NARAYAN Reader, Dept. of Environmental Science,Kuvempu University Shankaraghatta.

Contact

Director, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTRE Annappa Garden, Santhekadur - 577 222 Shivamogga, Karnataka, India Phone : +91 8182 240688, M : 94804 31983 Website : jsntrust.org E-mail : escshimoga@gmail.com

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

3

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR INDIA ARE THEY THE MOST DANGEROUS AND COSTLY SOURCES OF POWER ?

WRITTEN BY

Dr. A. N.Nagaraj, Ph.D &

Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PGDip (Techgy Mgmt)

PUBLISHERS

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CENTRE SANTHEKADUR, Shivamogga - 577 222, Karnataka, India Phone : +91 8182 240688, Email : escshimoga@gmail.com

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

4

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

"Nuclear Power Plants for India Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power ?" A book of Pros & Cons of Nuclear Power Plant on Environment, Written

by A.N. Nagaraj, Ph.D. and Shankar Sharma, B.E.(Elec.) PGDip (Techgy Mgmt) Power Policy Analyst

Pages

:

65

First Publish :

11-11-2011 (National Seminar on Nuclear Energy and Environment at Kumpu University Campus)

Price

:

Rs. 40-00

Copy Right

:

Authors

Copies

:

2000

Publishers

:

Environmental Study Centre KIDS & Jnanasagara Naave Trust Santhekadur, Shivamogga - 577 222 Karnataka, India Phone : +91 8182 240688 Website : jsntrust.org Email : escshimoga@gmail.com

Printers

:

Varma Graphic Arts Maruthi Rice Mill Building B.H. Road, Shivamogga M : 98802 81181

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

5

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Publisher Globally there is a greater concern and awareness about the nuclear energy, reactors, radiations and radiation effects on the biotic factors of the environment and the related issues are being debated in various international forum. The development of nuclear energy have shown that it can provide immense benefit to mankind. The use of nuclear energy in different fields of our routine life is rapidly increasing. Large number of nuclear facilities including nuclear power reactors and accelerators are operating world over and usage of radiation and radio isotopes in medical, agricultural industry are increasing. Also, the conventional energy sector is faced with emission, reduction, shortage of power. Under such situations, nuclear energy as a viable alternate source of energy is being accepted world over.

The radionuclides released into the environment enter into the food chains and biogeo-chemical cycles and bio-concentrate and bio-accumulate into the bodies of living organisms and finally reaching human body causing Carcinogenic problems and radiation related illness. Therefore there is a need for clear and strong strategy to protect the environment and biodiversity from the ill effects of radiation. A lot of debate is also going on to control the disausters effects such as the nuclear mishap at Chernobyl and recently at Fukushima in Japan.

In view of the renewed interest in the nuclear energy and environmental protection, E.S.C. has brought a book in Kannada "Manukula Vinashakke Anusthavara Saaku" it was writte

by Sri. A.N. Nagaraj, Ph.D., Former Consultant, F.A.O., U.N.O. This book has created awareness among the people. We get solidarity by nook & corners of the society in the State.

There were request came from the other states, in the view of this we requested Dr. A.N. Nagaraj and Mr. Shankar Sharma, Power Policy Analyst to write book in English with additional information. Environmental Study Centre is thankful to Dr. A.N. Nagaraj and Mr. Shankar Sharma for documented the essential information. To publish this book Environmental Study Centre collegues had put their effort. I thank Prof. Hoovaiah Gowda, Dr. Nanda, A., Mr. S. Chandrashekar and Mr. Dinesh Hosanagar for their support.

We thank to Mr. Bindu Madhava S.T. and Shashikumar K.S. of Varma Graphic Arts for neat Type setting and Printing.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

6

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Authors' Preface Though there have been a number of books, articles and reports on various aspects of nuclear power, a single source of information on major aspects of interest to common man was found to be missing. This book is intended to be a useful hand book about the science of nuclear energy, the process of producing power from nuclear power plants, and the risks/safety issues involved in the process, costs to the society, and the role of nuclear power in the Indian context. A number of references have been provided to enable the readers to get additional reading material. Certain holistic issues such a the need for a realistic demand forecast, nature's limit in supporting such demand, the socio-environmental impacts of unlimited energy demand, and how the legitimate demand for energy of all sections of our society can be fulfilled with sustainable and non-polluting sources of energy have been discussed. An important decision making tool by the name of Costs & Benefits Analysis (CBA) has been discussed with an example for clarity. Views, statements and articles by few knowledgeable people on nuclear power industry have also been quoted.

We would consider that our efforts are fully rewarded if this book helps in effective participation of the Civil Society in an informed decision making on nuclear power policy for the country.

We are grateful to Sri G. L. Janardhan of the Environmental Study Center and his team for offering to publish this book.

A.N.Nagaraj, Ph.D., Bioilogist, Consultant Expert to Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (Retd.), Environmentalist and Health Consultant, Thirthahalli.

Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PG Dip (Tech. Mgmt.), Power Policy Analyst, Thirthahalli.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

7

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

GLOSSORY PART I : The chemistry and Biological effects of nuclear power

7

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION : Nuclear Power around the World

8

CHAPTER 2 : Production of nuclear power

10

CHAPTER 3 : Problems in managing radioactive waste

17

CHAPTER 4 : Some Nuclear Accidents

22

CHAPTER 5 : Conclusions and suggestions

27

PART II : Nuclear Power Technology Major issues on technology, risks, public safety, economics and credible alternatives

29

CHAPTER 6 : Nuclear Power Technology

30

CHAPTER 7 : Economics & Safety of Nuclear Power

34

CHAPTER 8 : Is Nuclear Power green and relevant to Indian scenario?

41

CHAPTER 9 : Credible alternatives to Nuclear Power from Indian perspective

46

CHAPTER 10 : Holistic view of overall costs to the society: Costs & Benefits Analysis

55

CHAPTER 11 : Conclusions

60

THE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE ORGANISATION

63

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

8

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

PART I The chemistry and Biological effects of nuclear power

A. N. Nagaraj, Ph.D. Former Consultant, F.A.O., U.N.O.

Dr. A.N.Nagaraj Has a Ph.D. degree in Biology from the University of Illinois, Urbana IL, U.S.A. He was an Expert-consultant to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. He has been active in movements for conservation of the environment

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

9

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION : Nuclear Power around the World The most important steps in the production of nuclear power from the fission of uranium and plutonium include mining for the uranium ore, enriching it for producing power, production of power from nuclear power plants and storage of radioactive waste that is produced on a large scale. In many countries around the world, workers in and around uranium and thorium mines, storage sites, uranium enrichment plants, power production plants, and radioactive waste storage plants, have a higher incidence of cancer, several other radiation related diseases, and birth of defective children. During the process of production of nuclear power, thousands of tons of radioactive materials are being produced, that continue to pollute the environment for generations to come. These radioactive substances are extremely dangerous to human health. During minor accidents that are quite common, and even when there are no accidents, radioactive substances are being continuously released into the environment and are polluting the environment around nuclear power plants. That is why the incidence of cancer etc. as mentioned earlier, are much higher among uranium miners, people living around mining areas, populations living near nuclear power plants and waste storage plants. Scientists have yet to discover safe permanent methods for storing high level radioactive waste products that are liable to explode and contaminate the environment if they are not continuously cooled or if cooling devices fail. Radioactive substances have been found in harmful quantities even in human mother's milk in U.S.A. and other countries having nuclear power plants. A scientific study has recorded that 170,000 more people had died during nine years after the Three Mile Accident in the U.S.A. than during a similar period before the accident. The Chernobyl accident in Ukraine of the former Soviet Union resulted in a large increase in incidence of cancers and other diseases of the thyroid gland, blood, alimentary canal, skin, the gonads etc. and the birth of defective children affecting more than two crores of people in countries bordering Chernobyl.

Besides, nuclear power production and disposal of radioactive power plants after 3040 years of use are extremely costly processes; and so are the disposal of intensely radioactive high level and intermediate level waste. If the cost of waste disposal and the costs of research are included in computing the cost of production, nuclear power production is the most expensive among all methods of power generation available to us.

The above considerations, and the powerful opposition from an enlightened public, have persuaded or forced governments of several western countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Germany to abandon nuclear power and gradually shift over to more Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

10

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

environmentally friendly and sustainable sources of power. Australia and New Zealand have opted out of nuclear power. Recently, after the Fukushima accident in Japan, the Japanese government has decided to phase out nuclear power plants and replace them with sustainable eco-friendly sources of power. Nuclear power plants are more liable now than ever, to be targets of terrorists. If terrorists succeed in exploding any nuclear power plant, or radioactive waste storage facility, the resulting pollution of the environment will cause thousands of cancers and birth of thousands of defective children over a long period of time. It is, therefore, extremely important for the public in India to become aware of hazards of nuclear power generation so they could put pressure on the central government to abandon nuclear power and opt for more eco-friendly sources of power.

In the coming chapters, we will discuss various steps in the process of power generation from nuclear power plants and how at every step thousands of people, in this and coming generations, are being adversely affected. Nuclear power generation will only enrich and benefit a small number of industrialists, bureaucrats and scientists, who can make huge profits and become rich, or attain positions of power.

We will consider next, various steps in the generation of power from nuclear power plants, and the risks involved to human life in particular and life in general.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

11

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 2 Production of nuclear power Extraction of uranium ore and its storage : During the process of extraction of uranium or thorium ore, radon-222 a radioactive gas is produced in large quantities 100,000 times more than previously believed. After separating the part of the ore rich in uranium, the waste products left over, called tailings, are also radioactive and are extremely harmful to humans living around the dumping grounds. It has been found that among the workers in the uranium and thorium mines or people living around the mines, the rate of various kinds of cancer and birth of defective children is twenty times more than in general populations farther away. Research studies have established that this is true in Niger (Africa), in U.S.A., Austria, Czech Republic, Kerala and Bihar in India.

Such radioactive waste of uranium had accumulated to 300 million tons in the 1990s in U.S.A., and every year 15 million tons are being added. In Bihar's Singabhoomi every day a thousand tons of uranium ore are being mined.

Uranium-235 in nature is widely and sparsely distributed, and rarely gets into the body of human beings and animals. When it undergoes fission, it releases alpha particles that become harmless within minutes and before it travels 4-5 centimeters. Therefore, natural uranium-235 is harmless to humans. But in the nuclear reactors, tons of uranium-235 is stored in one area. During accidents it is likely to spill out in large quantities into the environment, and may get into the bodies of animals and humans. If uranium-235 atoms undergo fission inside the human body, the alpha particles, neutrons and gamma rays that are released could potentially cause radiation damage to some part of the body.

Also, the new radioactive elements produced during fission of large quantities of uranium235 in the reactors are far more dangerous to humans and animals for generations to come.

Partial purification of uranium ore: Uranium ore in nature contains both uranium235 and uranium-238. of the two isotopes of uranium, only uranium-235 is fissionable. For manufacturing a bomb, uranium-235 needs to be in high concentrations. However, for producing electricity it need not be as pure. To increase the quantity of uranium-235 in the ore, uranium hexafluoride gas is passed through several membranes. This gas is highly radioactive and if it leaks out, it is highly dangerous to people living around the area. There is one such plant in Ratnahalli near Mysore which is a heavily populated area. In such purification plants, radioactive waste materials are temporarily stored in open unprotected

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

12

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

concrete tanks unlike in power plants where they are stored in tanks with protective concrete and lead covers. In times of war, or attacks by terrorists, or during unexpected earthquakes, these storage tanks are liable to spill out in large quantities endangering people living around the area. Dr. Patricia Lindup has calculated that if a small nuclear bomb is exploded on such a storage facility, people living around 18000 square miles would receive a very high amount (50 rads) of radiation. People around 40,000 square miles would receive 10 rads which is still harmful to humans.

Production of Electricity from nuclear power plants:Structure of the atom: The atom is the smallest particle of all elements that preserves all the qualities of the element.

Atoms of all elements have a nucleus that consists of a specific number of positively charged particles called protons and a certain number of electrically neutral neutrons, except the nucleus of hydrogen atom which contains only a single proton and no neutrons. If the nucleus of an element loses or gains a single proton, it becomes another element. One or more negatively charged electrons orbit around the nucleus.

The number of protons in an element is called its atomic number, and the weight of the protons and neutrons together is called its atomic weight. For example, the atomic number of hydrogen is 1 because it has 1 proton in its nucleus. Its atomic weight is also 1. Helium has 2 protons in its nucleus, and its atomic number is 2; it also has 2 neutrons in its nucleus and its atomic weight, therefore, is 2 +2 =4. Atoms are so small that they can not be seen even in a microscope. Ten crores of hydrogen atoms can be arranged in a single line measuring less than 1 centimeter. 5 crores of hydrogen atoms put together is less than 1 gram in weight. Their size and weight cannot be measured directly and are measured indirectly. Electrons are even lighter and weigh about 1850th of a hydrogen atom. The weight of hydrogen atom is assumed to be 1, and the weight of atoms of all other elements is comparative to the weight of the hydrogen atom. For example, Oxygen atom weighs 16 times that of hydrogen atom, because it has 8 protons + 8 neutrons, and its atomic weight is therefore 16.

Isotopes: There are some oxygen atoms the nuclei of which have the usual 8 protons, but have 9 neutrons, and therefore having an atomic weight of 17. Still other oxygen atoms have 8 protons and 10 neutrons and thus having an atomic weight of 18. These two elements are called isotopes of oxygen. All these are still oxygen atoms because they have 8 protons which is the atomic number of oxygen, but only differ in the number of neutrons in the nucleus.

Stable and unstable elements: A stable element is one that does not change into another element without any external force. An unstable element, such as uranium-235 or Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

13

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

plutonium-239, is one with a large number of protons and neutrons, that spontaneously undergoes nuclear fission, and releases radioactive positively charged alpha particles and beta particles, and neutrons that are electrically neutral, and also radioactive gamma rays. When such an unstable or radioactive element undergoes fission, it splits into two unequal halves and produces two different radioactive elements. These, new radioactive elements spontaneously split up several times, each time producing more and more radioactive elements. After several such splits, the process results in the production of a stable element. For example, uranium -235 after splitting about 80 times becomes lead207 which is stable and therefore non-radioactive. Uranium-238 after about 80 fissions becomes lead-206, another stable element.

When alpha particles and beta particles that have a positive electrical charge, hit the nucleus of an element, they are repelled by nuclei which are also positively charged, and therefore cannot enter the nucleus. But when they are expelled at high speeds during artificially induced fission, they can enter the nucleus of elements that they come in contact with. Then, they either displace one or two protons from the nucleus, or add a proton to the nucleus, thus changing the element. For example, Iron, aluminum, silicon, calcium etc. when exposed to such radiation will no longer be the same elements. Neutrons are normally expelled at high speeds during fission of nuclei of any radioactive heavy element such as uranium-235 or plutonium-239. At such speeds, they cannot enter nuclei of other elements and are rebounded. After hitting several nuclei and losing speed they can enter nuclei of other elements, change the number of protons in the nucleus which then becomes a different element.

The radioactive particles released during nuclear fission and the gamma rays interact with elements in the reactor vessel, the concrete walls, cooling liquid, the pipes and machinery they come in contact with and convert them to more and more radioactive elements. Radiation causes mutations in the human genome most of which are harmful and may cause cancers, birth of deformed children, and malfunctioning of many organs in the body Human beings coming in contact with any of these substances develop radiation related diseases in the blood and most organs in the body, such as cancers of thyroid, lungs, alimentary canal and the gonads. Children born to parents exposed to radiation are much more likely to be deformed than those who are not thus exposed.

Nuclear bombs and nuclear power: As mentioned earlier, nuclei of heavy atoms like that of uranium-235 and plutonium-239 spontaneously split into two unequal halves. In nature this reaction is confined to just a few atoms and does not result in a chain reaction. However, Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

14

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

man can create conditions under which the neutrons that come out of fission of one nucleus split other nuclei releasing more neutrons that split more nuclei finally resulting in a chain reaction. Such a chain reaction releases a tremendous amount of power, while creating new radioactive elements and is utilized in creating an atom bomb. Fission of one gram of uranium-235 is equal to the explosion of 176,000 tons of TNT. This kind of chain reaction can not take place with a small amount of uranium-235, but does occur when this element is concentrated in a ball at least 10 centimeters in diameter weighing about 10 kilograms. In the atom bombs that were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, small balls of uranium-235 in one bomb, and plutonium-239 in another were packed separately when they were dropped over the targets. It was so arranged that these little balls would come together to form a large ball at the target area. When this happens, within a split second the chain reaction is completed and all uranium or plutonium atoms are split in a chain reaction. This results in creating high temperatures at the epicenter of explosion enough to melt anything that comes in the way. Even concrete structures and metals are melted and instantly vaporized. Farther away from the center of explosion, a powerful storm is created and it pulverizes anything that comes in the way including concrete buildings.

Production of electricity from nuclear fission: In a nuclear bomb, the fission chain reaction is uncontrolled. However, in a nuclear power reactor, this chain reaction is controlled and regulated. Small balls of partially purified uranium-235 and uranium-238 are kept in graphite bricks. Neutrons released from splitting uranium-235 nuclei hit carbon atoms in graphite and are thus slowed down enabling it to split nuclei of other uranium-235 atoms.

Cadmium is used to control the speed of reaction. Water or liquid sodium is used cool the reactor continuously. Under such conditions the heat released is controlled and is utilized in producing electricity. This method of producing electricity needs very much less material than coal, petrol, or similar fuel, because uranium-235 because one kilogram of uranium235 gives energy equal to 1000 tons of coal. Therefore, we need to transport and store just one gram of uranium as against 1000 tons of coal. Heat from fission of one gram of uranium is enough to heat up 23 crore liters of water to boiling point or the electricity produced can light up 1000 bulbs of 100 watts capacity for 28 years.

Also production of electricity by nuclear reactors does not produce carbon-dioxide and smoke as coal and petroleum do. Therefore many developing countries that need large amounts of electricity and developed countries that consume large amounts of power are opting for nuclear power. However, nuclear power generation releases more harmful byproducts than carbon-dioxide, and is considerably more expensive than other methods

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

15

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

of generation. These facts are ignored by countries adopting nuclear power generation because of the enormous economic power of nuclear industry and the nations that manufacture and sell nuclear reactors. We will elaborate on these aspects later, but let us first consider the harmful byproducts of nuclear power generation.

Products of nuclear power generation : Nuclear fission in the reactors results in the following kinds of products: 1. tremendous power. 2. Large amounts of neutrons and radioactive isotopes of elements and 3. Gamma rays.

Power and Radioactive substances : As mentioned earlier, fission of just one kilogram of uranium-235 produces heat equivalent to that produced by 1000 tons of coal.

When this fission takes place under controlled conditions in a nuclear power reactor, and the heat produced is continuously cooled, it can be used for producing electricity. All these processes require complex machinery, and the more complex the machinery is the more likely it is to fail sometime during its 30-40 years of life. Any failure of machinery, particularly the cooling devices, could cause explosions, spillage of large amounts of radioactive materials to the environment with the attendant catastrophic results. Before the Chernobyl accident in 1986, there were 149 minor and major accidents in nuclear power plants, either due to mechanical or human failures. More details of some of the major accidents will be given later.

Also, the operators of such complex machinery have to be constantly on the alert. The slightest negligence on the part of the operators could cause an explosion and spillage of radioactive materials with harmful effects as mentioned earlier.

Nuclear fission during the generation of nuclear power produces 200 radioactive isotopes of 36 elements some of which remain radioactive and harmful to human beings for thousands of years causing cancers and other diseases and birth defects among children for generations to come. Hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive concrete and machinery will have to be disposed of over thousands of acres of land. These disposal sites have to be carefully monitored and cooled over hundreds of years. More details of the costs and risks involved in such operations will be given later.

Gamma rays: These are electromagnetic waves that travel at 300,000 kilometers per second, and can penetrate through normal walls, metal containers, and the human body, change many elements to radioactive elements, cause mutations in the human genome, leading to cancers of various organs, and the birth of defective children. Concrete walls one meter thick and thick lead containers can slow down the penetration of gamma rays.

Radioactive materials having long half lives have therefore to be stored in special thick concrete containers with thick lining of lead and have to be handled by robots.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

16

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Plutonium: Among the new radioactive elements produced in nuclear reactors, Plutonium is one of the most poisonous substances created by man. Before man created plutonium, there was no plutonium recorded in appreciable amounts anywhere in the world. This element is harmful to humans even in concentrations of one part in trillion parts of air or water. Five grams of plutonium, if distributed equally among all humans in this world and they consume it, are enough to kill them all. Such a killer element has now been produced in thousands of tons by the nuclear reactors all around, and is stored in large concentrations around the reactors. If one kilogram of plutonium is mixed with a bomb and exploded, it can kill thousands of people. According to one estimate humans have produced about 2000-3000 tons of plutonium that are temporarily stored in reactor sites. If it gets into the hands of terrorists and they manufacture a nuclear bomb and use it, they can kill thousands of people.

Quantity, half lives of radioactive elements : Every ton of uranium oxide in the reactor produces 200 tons of radioactive waste. This waste is classified into three categories.

High level waste consists of high concentrations of radioactive elements that have a 'half life' longer than 30 years. 'Half life' is the time taken for half the quantity of the element to decay and get converted to a non-radioactive element.

The half-lives of some radio-active elements are : (1 billion = 100 crores) uranium-238 thorium-232 potassium-40 rubidium-87 lutesium-176

4.1 billion years; 14.1 billion years; 1.3 billion years; 47 billion years; and 20 billion years.

Concrete walls, steel pipes and machinery lose their radioactivity in about 100-200 years and are classified as medium level waste.

Paper and glass that are radioactive are still harmful to humans but only for a few years, are classified as low level waste.

Storing high level radioactive waste presents serious problems because it produces large amount of heat and may explode if it is not kept cooled continuously. At present, it is vitrified in glass and temporarily stored in thick steel and lead cylinders kept in concrete shelters 1000 meters below ground level in the reactor site. This is to prevent them from leaking out into the environment. However, they continue to be reactive and produce high temperatures and need to be cooled continuously. Such a storage facility in a place called Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

17

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Kishthim in Soviet Russia exploded in the 1950's, spilled huge amounts of radioactive material into the soil and the river nearby. Thousands of people had to be evacuated from several villages and towns near the facility. Details of the accident were not published by the U.S.S.R government.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

18

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 3 Problems in managing radioactive waste Radioactive waste in India: Dr. H.N. Sethna had estimated the quantity of different radioactive waste by about 2000 A.D.: Ordinary solid waste

:

107,000 cubic meters,

Low level radioactive waste

:

71,000 cubic meters,

Intermediate level radioactive waste

:

71,000 cubic meters,

High level radioactive waste

:

8000 cubic meters.

Low-level waste: A small reactor, of the type of reactors operating in Kaiga producing 235 megawatts of power, during its lifetime of 30 years is expected to produce 18,000 cubic meters of low level waste. If this waste is spread over a football field, it will be a pile four meters high. From 6 such reactors in Kaiga the low level waste produced will fill six football fields to a height of four meters. Such waste piles will not explode and therefore nuclear scientists are not worried about how to store them. But, according to biologists, the radiation emanating from these wastes will increase the incidence of cancer and radiation related diseases, and birth of deformed children in areas around the storage area.

High level radioactive waste: The high level waste produced in nuclear reactors is chemically highly reactive. If not controlled, such activity produces intense heat which will cause explosions and spread of radioactive materials into the environment. The storage sites have to be kept cooled all the time for hundreds of years to come. If, for some reason the cooling devices fail, explosions of the type that occurred in a storage site of the former U.S.S.R., in the Ural Mountains at a place called Kishthim, the cooling devices did fail in 1957. There was a huge explosion spilling radioactive substances to about 5000 square kilometers of the surrounding area. A river flowing in the area, underground water, the soil, the animals, and the crops were contaminated. All the people and animals from the surrounding thirty populated areas had to be evacuated and resettled in safer areas. The U.S.S.R. government did not give details of the number of people dying from cancers and the number of deformed children born.

In India and all over the world, millions of gallons of high level and medium level radioactive waste has been generated during the last 50-60 years, and is temporarily stored in lead, steel and concrete containers. They are spilling into the environment during minor accidents, or due to leakages in pipes, and storage structures. In many countries, Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

19

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

these leakages have increased the incidence of cancers, birth of defective children and other radiation related diseases around nuclear power plants and waste storage sites.

For example, around the nuclear power plants in Rajasthan, Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, and around Kaiga in Karnataka, radioactive material spilling out into the atmosphere have caused increased incidence of cancers, birth defects and other kinds of radiation related diseases. In U.S.A., 400,000 gallons of radioactive waste had leaked out into the environment around the Hanford storage facility. 27 million gallons of high level radioactive waste had spilled out of Savanna River reactor into an area of about 300 square miles; this included 300 kilograms of plutonium! The workers in this plant are reported to have received 130% more radiation than normal radiation from natural sources increasing the incidence of myeloid leukemia by 200% and rectal cancer by 300%. Similar effects have also recorded among workers in the Hanford facility.

Over several decades, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.A.E.C) has conducted several studies to determine methods and sites for safe storage of high level radioactive waste. Experiments were conducted in five disposal sites deep inside basalt rocks, salt mines and granite rocks. For example, in salt mines of the state of Kansas, 300-1200 deep holes were bored and the high level waste was to be stored in steel and lead canisters.

This area was chosen because it was considered to be geologically stable. But, after the site was prepared, for some unknown reason, there was an earth quake in the surrounding area, and the site got flooded with 175,000 gallons of water. That site was, therefore abandoned. Similar problems surfaced in the other four sites also.

In 1995, the U.S.A.E.C prepared a plan to bury the high level wastes in the yucca mountain ranges of the state of Nevada. The governor of Nevada, the people of the state, and geologists opposed this plan because there was a geological fault in the area which made it risky.

Nuclear scientists of the U.S.S.R., in an experiment, stored high level radioactive waste in deep holes drilled in rocks under the sea, believing that leakage of radiation from the sites was highly unlikely. But, to their surprise, radioactive materials were detected within a few hours of storage in fishes and other aquatic animals around the area. The scientists, therefore, abandoned the idea of storing high level waste in such sites.

Permanent disposal of nuclear waste: As the reactor and the storage containers get older, it becomes more and more difficult to prevent leakages into the environment.

With age, storage tanks of radioactive waste are more likely to leak, and after the reactor is closed down it becomes more difficult to supervise the storage facilities. Also, it is safer to remove the high level nuclear waste for permanent storage to a site far away from Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

20

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

population centers, preferably to a desert or mountainous area, or store them in abandoned mines. Details of a project for disposal of an old reactor on the banks of Ohio River are given next: Concrete walls of the reactor, and pipes 14 kilometers long are to be cut into manageable sizes using remote controlled robots. They have to be loaded into about 120 huge trucks using robots and moved into barges on the river using huge cranes. The barges move along the west coast to the storage site in a desert about 13,640 kilometers away from the reactor site and buried there with remote controlled machines. The whole process is estimated to take about four and half years, and cost an equivalent of 104 crores of rupees.

Cost of disposal of radioactive waste : Since all parts of nuclear reactors including the concrete walls, machinery, pipes etc. also become radioactive, even after removal of radioactive fuel, large quantity of radioactive material still remain in the reactor. In a retired reactor in U.S.A., even after the removal of most of the radioactive fuel, 21 million curies of radioactive materials could not be removed.

One estimate of the department of atomic energy in U.S.A. for the disposal of radioactive material that had accumulated till 1988 was 150 billion dollars (6,45,000 crores of rupees at Rs. 43.00 per dollar).

Radioactive materials released into the environment: It is not possible to concentrate and vitrify all the radioactive substances produced in the reactors. Some part of radioactive waste is mixed with water and released into the river or sea nearby. Nuclear scientists believe that the amount of radioactivity in materials thus released is not harmful to humans. They believe that exposure to 5 rems of radioactivity is safe to humans. But, according Nobel laureate biologist Dr. George Wald, even a very small increase in background radioactivity will increase the incidence of cancer in the population of the area. Experiments have indicated that exposure to radiation of just 0.5 rem increases the incidence of cancer by 0.6% and the incidence of birth of defective children by 0.6%. If pregnant women are exposed to an x ray of 0.25 rem, it increases the incidence leukemia and other cancers by 0.25%.

Dr. Helen Caldecott has measured the level of radioactivity around nuclear power plants and has reported that it is definitely and significantly higher than in areas farther away. This is partly because of radiation from gamma rays penetrating even concrete walls, routine release of radioactive water, and also because of leakages from the reactor. Also, the fish growing in water containing a very small amount of radioactive materials accumulate these materials in their tissues to the extent of 13,000 times the amount of radioactivity found in the water. People consuming such fish will suffer from radiation related problems.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

21

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Possibility of accidents : Nuclear scientists have always claimed that their reactors are fairly safe. Still, by 1986, there had been 152 accidents in nuclear reactors, and the Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the 153rd one. These had occurred in scientifically and technologically well advanced countries like U.S.A., Britain, Switzerland, Germany, France and Japan. In these countries the technical expertise for managing accidents, safety precautions, preparedness for meeting emergencies and quickness of executing a rescue operation are very much better than in India.

All kinds of machines are likely to fail. If the machinery is extremely complex as in nuclear reactors, some part is likely to fail sometime. Defects in machinery, mistakes committed by the operators, mechanical failure of cooling devices, earthquakes, tsunamis, or the willful sabotages committed by terrorists could cause serious accidents. Under such conditions, the worst accident could cause the top of the reactor to blow off liberating a radioactive cloud that travels hundreds of miles raining radioactive materials all over. Or, the bottom of the reactor could melt and release radioactive materials into the soil, underground water sources or rivers causing diseases and death to thousands of people.

Such accidents are not merely hypothetical, but have actually happened. Reputed nuclear scientists of U.S.A., Dr. Alvin Weinberg and Dr. David Lilienthal, and Dr. Hannes Alfven a former member of Swedish Atomic Energy Commission have accepted the possibility of such accidents.

In 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had identified 183 problems in nuclear reactors that could cause serious accidents. Five years later in 1992, scientists had worked out solutions for only five of these problems. The other 178 problems remained unsolved.

According to one estimate, accidents due to operators' mistakes are 33% to 66%.

All over the world, the reactor vessels, steam generators, containment structures etc. are losing strength because of high heat and constant bombardment of neutrons. These developments increase chances of accidents which release radioactive particles and gamma rays causing thousands and millions of deaths over a long period of time.

So far, serious accidents have occurred at Enrico Fermi Reactor, Idaho falls and Three Mile Island reactors in U.S.A., Wind scale reactor in Britain, Luciens reactor in Switzerland, Chernobyl reactors in Ukraine of the former U.S.S.R and recently Fukushima in Japan.

According to Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of U.S.S.R, the possibility of terrorists sabotaging nuclear reactors is now greater than ever. India is extremely likely to be an important target for terrorists.

Estimates of deaths from nuclear accidents: According to an estimate prepared by a committee constituted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a serious nuclear Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

22

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

accident in which there is either a melt down of the reaction vessel, or a rupture of the top of the reactor, 3000 people will die within a few days from radiation sickness; 45,000 people may die in course of time from cancers; 45,000 will suffer from severe radiation related problems; 2,40,000 people will suffer from radiation related thyroid problems; and 5000 children will be born with defective organs.

In Europe and India, in places where the population density is 5 times higher than in the U.S.A., you may expect the figures to be 5 times higher, that is, 15,000 people will die in a few days; 2,25,000 people will die in course of time from cancers; 12,00,000 people will suffer from radiation related thyroid problems, and 25,000 children will be born with defective organs. In a country like India where the administration is uncaring and lacks dedicated administrators, we may expect the fatalities to be even greater. Also, when we consider the deaths and damages from the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the figures given by the U.S. Committee were very much lower than what actually occurred after the accident.

In the next chapter, we will consider details of damages from some accidents that have occurred in nuclear power plants.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

23

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 4 Some Nuclear Accidents As mentioned earlier, in spite of claims by nuclear establishments and nuclear industries that accidents in nuclear power plants are highly unlikely, more than 150 accidents have occurred in nuclear plants all over the world, some of them in most technologically advanced countries. In this chapter we will consider details of some such accidents.

The Wind scale accident: In Britain, a nuclear reactor in a place called Wind scale exploded in 1957 releasing radioactive clouds that spread to Ireland and parts of Europe.

Because of secrecy that surrounds all nuclear research and reactors, very little was known about the damage to humans from this accident up to 1988. Among girls who were 1218years old at the time of the accident, 47 were married by 1977 and had delivered 141 children. Among these children, six had the disease called Down's syndrome, whereas among general population before the accident, just one child in 600 had come down with this disease. The incidence of this disease after the accident was 24 times that before the accident.

The Three Mile Island accident : In the state of Pennsylvania in U.S.A., a nuclear reactor had one of the most serious accidents in 1979 in which the bottom of a nuclear reactor melted down. This happened because of the failure of the cooling system and the alternative cooling system at the same time. The radioactive fuel in the reactor spilled into the soil underneath the reactor, but got caught in a crevice in the rocks and so did not spread into the underground water and the environment as it would have otherwise done.

Therefore, the scientists and the general public in U.S.A. heaved a sigh of relief with the belief that they had just escaped from a major disaster. However, a study conducted 9 years after the accident showed that 130,000 more people had died in the area during the nine years after the accident than during a similar period before the accident. This clearly shows how nuclear radiation kills people over a long period of time almost imperceptibly.

Unless a scientific study is conducted, people would never have attributed the deaths from cancers of various organs and from numerous other diseases to increased radiation from a nuclear accident. The effects of a nuclear accident or of the regular release of radioactive materials from nuclear reactors are rarely immediate and obvious, but occur slowly and imperceptibly over a long period of time.

The Chernobyl accident : In Chernobyl of the state of Ukraine of the former U.S.S.R., the most serious accident in the history of nuclear power generation occurred on April 26, 1986. For some reason, an engineer stopped the supply of steam to the reactor for a split Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

24

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

second. The switch board indicated that an accident could occur. The operator became scared, got confused and in a few seconds made six mistakes that resulted in thirty explosions and fires within seconds. The top of the reactor melted and opened a big hole through which a radioactive cloud spilled out into the atmosphere. This cloud spread and rained radioactive substances on countries around such as Sweden 1280 kilometers away and West Germany 2000 kilometers away.

To reduce the degree of damage done, the concerned authorities acted immediately with great speed. Within hours after the gravity of the situation became apparent, numerous helicopters specially equipped with radiation resistant lead and steel shields, poured 5000 tons of sand, marble pieces, dolomite ore, lead and boron over the top of the reactor to close the hole, and extinguish the fires. They emptied 19 tons of radioactive waste with the help of bulldozers similarly protected with lead and steel shields. They cooled down the bottom of the reactor vessel with liquid nitrogen to prevent a melt down of the bottom of the reactor. In spite of all this, the center of the reactors with 180 tons of radioactive fuel was still burning even after two months.

To prevent the spread of radioactive materials, the authorities buried the reactor in concrete piled 55 meters high, 200 meters long and 100 meters wide. Because of all these precautions and timely action only 4% of the radioactive materials stored in the reactor had spilled out. Still, 100 million curies of radioactive materials had polluted several countries in Europe To clean out the reactor of a large part of the radioactive materials, 7000 workers worked incessantly exposing themselves to radiation damage. Some of them received a very high dose of radiation of 200 rem, 3000 workers received a high dose of 25 rem, and 400 workers received a dose of 75 rem. (An exposure to even 0.25 rem will increase the incidence of cancer.)

The concrete dome built over the reactor deteriorated in about 8-10 years and the government had to build another concrete dome to bury the reactor. After about 5 years another reactor caught fire, was badly damaged and had to be closed down. The government of Ukraine finally decided to close down all the four reactors in Chernobyl.

Within hours after the seriousness of the accident became obvious, the concerned authorities mobilized 2172 buses and 1786 trucks to evacuate 135,000 people from 50 villages and towns around Chernobyl. Even before this could be done, a large number of people had received a high dose of radiation. All women who were pregnant in the area as well as those in other countries had to be aborted to prevent birth of deformed children.

Around Chernobyl 50,000 square kilometers (1 crore and 25 lakhs of acres) of agricultural land was highly polluted with radioactive materials and was declared unfit for cultivation Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

25

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

and human habitation. Even in countries like Sweden, Denmark and West Germany 10002000 kilometers away from Chernobyl, thousands of radiation affected animals had to be slaughtered. Contaminated milk, meat and vegetables had to be destroyed. Radioactive materials had polluted a total of 77,000 square kilometers in U.S.S.R. and Europe.

According to the 'World Health Organization' of the United Nations, 49 lakhs of people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and 2.2 crores of people in Byelorussia were adversely affected by the Chernobyl accident, and many had developed cancers, diseases of the alimentary, respiratory, reproductive, nervous, ductless glands and other systems. Thyroid problems among children had doubled and problems of nose and throat had increased ten fold. 800,000 people were severely affected. 335,000 people from around Chernobyl lost their land, houses and commercial establishments and had to settle down far away from their former homes. It is now 25 years after the accident and still they can not even dream of going back to their homes because the area is still unsafe to live.

The cost of cleaning out the reactor number four was estimated to be 40.4 billion US dollars (1,73,720 crores of rupees). Add to this, the losses incurred by all countries in U.S.S.R and Europe in losses of men and animals, food and other materials that had to be destroyed because of radioactive contamination, the total losses from this accident would be two or three times the cost of cleaning out the reactor number-4 of Chernobyl.

If such an accident occurs in India, do we have lead and steel lined helicopters ready to pour sand, marble pieces, dolomite ore, lead and boron over the reactors to put out the fires in the reactor and seal the hole at the top as they did in Chernobyl ? Can we mobilize thousands of buses and trucks to quickly move people out of the accident area to safer places? Do we have lead and steel lined bulldozers ready to clean out radioactive debris? If the authorities in Chernobyl did not act as quickly as they did, many more lives would have been lost not merely around Chernobyl but also in countries around Ukraine. As an illustration of what could happen if such an accident occurs in India, let us look at how authorities in Bhopal managed the poison gas leak in Bhopal more than twenty five years ago.

At the time of the leakage of the poisonous gas methyl isocyanate from a factory near the town of Bhopal in the state of Madhya Pradesh, on December 4th, 1984, my cousin and his family lived in Bhopal. Some time around midnight his wife and two children suddenly woke up choking with the smell of some kind of gas. Tears poured down from their eyes.

They came out of their house to catch some fresh air and saw hundreds of people in the street running in a certain direction. No officials were in sight to tell people what happened, Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

26

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

where to go and how to protect themselves from the poisonous gas. There were no buses or trucks to help people move. My cousin and family moved in the same direction in which other people were moving. They came to a lake where the density of the poison gas was much less because the water in the lake was absorbing the gas. They stayed there all night until they could no longer smell the gas. Early next morning they walked back home still not knowing what happened. Even 24 hours after the accident the authorities did not provide any help for transportation or medical help. Doctors had no information on what medicine they should give as an antidote for the poisonous gas. If the authorities were so uncaring and unprepared to handle such a minor accident, would they suddenly change for the better if there was a nuclear accident? At the instance of the Prime Minister an emergency evacuation was conducted around the Kalpakkam nuclear reactor in Tamil Nadu. The results clearly indicated that administrative machinery and the people were unprepared to meet an emergency. This is true for a place like Kalpakkam where there are nice roads, the terrain is smooth and the people are somewhat educated. In places like Kaiga and Jaitapur where the terrain around is mountainous and not easily accessible, can we expect a successful emergency evacuation within a short time?

The Fukushima nuclear accident : The recent accident in the nuclear power plants at Fukushima in the Daiichi prefecture of Japan has occurred 25 years after the Chernobyl accident. Because of a severe earthquake and the Psunami that followed, the regular cooling devices as well as the alternative cooling devices failed at the same time. This resulted in explosions in three reactors and melt down of the reactors as indicated by a large increase in radioactivity around the reactor and the sea around. Within a few days the leakage of radioactive substances spread far and wide and a small increase was reported even from San Francisco on the west coast of U.S.A. Because of a tremendous increase in radiation it was not possible to know clearly what happened and extent of damage. We know now that radioactive materials including plutonium have escaped in a big way into the environment, some of which have even reached Tokyo with a population of 13 million people 250 kilometers away from Fukushima. The people in areas around Fukushima, and even in Tokyo have been advised not to drink water from public water supply system, eat fresh vegetables, fruits, meat and dairy products. 190 workers from the nuclear plants have received very high doses of radiation and will soon die from burns, failure various organ systems, radiation damage. Probably thousands of people have already received high doses of radiation and will come down with cancers of various systems in the body. Thousands of children will come down with diseases of the thyroid gland, and thousands children will be born with deformed bodies.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

27

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

70,000 people from around a radius of 20-30 kilometers from the reactor site were evacuated in first phase of evacuation. Later on, another 135,000 people had to be evacuated. Many of these people would have received high doses of radiation before they were evacuated. The level of radiation around the reactor is 100,000 micro sieverts per hour which is 8660 times the normal level. As stated earlier, even minute increases in radiation will increase the incidence of cancers and birth of deformed children. This accident is probably much more serious than the Chernobyl accident because three reactors have been severely damaged and much more radioactive materials have escaped into the atmosphere than in Chernobyl. Japan is much more thickly populated than Ukraine, and therefore we may expect more than 5 crores of people to suffer from the consequences from this accident. During the next ten to twenty years thousands possibly millions will come down with cancers of various systems, thyroid glands, and failure of various systems in the body. Thousands of deformed children will be born and nobody knows how to prevent these adverse effects.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has decided to close down all the four reactors in Fukushima. Some of them were quite old and had developed cracks in the reactor vessel and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N.R.C) of Japan had pointed this out.

The company did nothing to correct these faults. Still, the N.R.C. had permitted the company to run these unsafe reactors for ten years more than the stipulated retiring age of 40 years.

This demonstrates the clout that the company has with the N.R.C. authorities who have ignored safety concerns in favor of the company.

U.S.A., Australia, Canada, Singapore and several other countries have banned the import of food products from the areas around 80 kilometers from Fukushima. The people of Japan seem to have realized that nuclear power generation is dangerous and have put pressure on their government to renounce nuclear power. The Japanese government has announced that they will phase out nuclear power and switch over to eco-friendly sources of power.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

28

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and suggestions 1. People working in the uranium mines of U.S.A., Africa, Europe, Australia and India, and those living in areas around piles of tailings have a much higher incidence of cancers of several organs, birth of deformed children, and many other radiation related diseases.

2. The accidents at Three Mile Island in the U.S., Wind scale in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan, and the minor accidents in more than 150 reactors all over the world, have increased the background radiation around the nuclear power plants. In addition, the routine release of radioactive materials into the rivers, lakes and the sea around more than 300 nuclear power plants have also contributed to the increase in radioactivity. Besides, the fishes and other edible aquatic animals that grow in such radiation infested waters keep storing radioactive materials present in water, and usually have 10,000 to 15000 times more such material than is present in the water in which they grow. People who consume such infested fish and other aquatic animals get a very high dose of radioactive materials. This causes innumerable mutations in the genomes of human beings and animals which in many cases results in increased incidence of cancers, disorders of various organ systems and the birth of deformed children. Since this happens over a long period of time, it is difficult to pin it down to increase in radioactivity. But, innumerable experiments by biologists have clearly indicated that even a small increase in radiation results in increased incidence of cancer, birth of deformed children and of various other kinds of diseases.

3. Since all nuclear reactors have many kinds of complicated machinery some of which are likely to have some defects, they are most likely to break down some time during their life time. The operators of these machines, like all operators of machines, are likely to make mistakes, some of which may result in 33% to 66% of the accidents.

Some accidents in nuclear reactors, however, may result in release of large quantities of radioactive substances which cause serious diseases over several generations among people exposed to these substances.

Serious accidents have occurred in several countries. For example: nine years after the Three Mile Island accident 130,000 more people had died than during nine years before the accident. Because of the Chernobyl accident millions of people have been affected by diseases related to increased radiation such as cancers and birth of deformed children over a period of 25 years. Similar fate awaits the people in Japan during the next 10-20 years because of the Fukushima accident.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

29

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Former president of the U.S.S.R., Mikhail Gorbachev has pointed out that since nuclear power has caused tremendous suffering to millions of people, we should seriously consider replacing it with safer and cleaner methods of power generation. He has also pointed out that terrorists are now more likely to attack nuclear plants than a few years ago.

Therefore nuclear power is potentially much more dangerous than any other source of power.

4. Former President Gorbachev has also pointed out that between 1947 and 1999, the U.S. has subsidized the nuclear industry both directly and indirectly to the tune of 260 billion U.S. dollars equal to 11,44,000 crores of rupees. The cost of cleaning out the nuclear debris in the Chernobyl reactor number 4 was 40.4 billion dollars equal to 1,73,720 crores of rupees. The losses occurred by other nations of the former U.S.S.R and Europe would be much more than the cost of cleaning the Chernobyl reactor. When all these factors are considered, and the potential of nuclear power for causing more losses, nuclear power is the most expensive source of power available to us.

5. Safer and more eco-friendly alternatives than nuclear power are available and should be utilized Details are discussed in detail in part II of this book.

6. In view of the above facts, it is clear that even though nuclear power is the most dangerous and the most expensive source of power, our government is opting for it only because of the financial clout of the companies that manufacture nuclear power generating plants, and the pressure of the countries where such plants are manufactured.

Our governments will scrap nuclear power only if the people of the areas where these plants are to be built are vehemently opposed to them and are likely to vote out governments that support nuclear power.

7. To build up support among the people for the cause of resisting the imposition of nuclear power, we should establish close working relations with students and various organizations interested in environmental protection 8. We have to spread information about the dangers of nuclear power by publishing articles and books on the subject among the people all over the country, and organize conferences and rallies to convince the governments concerned that the people are vehemently opposed to nuclear power. These articles and books should be sent to all the peoples' representatives, both in the state assemblies and the parliament at the centre. Only when the political parties are convinced that they will be defeated at the polls if they support nuclear power, they are likely to scrap nuclear power.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

30

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

PART II Nuclear Power Technology Major issues on technology, risks, public safety, economics and credible alternatives

SHANKAR SHARMA Power Policy Analyst

Shankar Sharma has a bachelor degree (Electrical Engineering) from the University of Mysore, and PG Diploma (Technology Management) from Deakin University, Australia.

He has over 31 years of professional experience in the areas of electricity generation, transmission and distribution in India, New Zealand and Australia. At present he is engaged as a Power Policy Analyst, and lives on the bank of river Tunga in Western Ghats of Karnataka. He is engaged in advocacy and activism on energy usage resposnibility and environmental protection. He can be contacted through his e-mail: shankar.sharma2005@gmail.com

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

31

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 6 Nuclear Power Technology This section aims to cover the major issues associated with producing electricity from nuclear power technology. Nuclear technology used in other areas such as food industry, health care, industries etc. is not included.

Basically a nuclear power plant involves generating steam from the energy released from nuclear fission, and to run a steam turbine and an electric generator. Except for the method of obtaining the steam and all the associated aspects, all other aspects of a nuclear power plant can be compared to that of a coal power plant. Issues on equipment such as generator circuit breakers, transformers, measuring and control instruments/systems, electric sub-station, transmission lines, the control room etc. are similar to that of other conventional technology power plants.

Two most commonly used type of nuclear reactors are: Boiling Water Reactor and Pressurised Water Reactor. Main components of a nuclear power plant are: nuclear reactor, steam turbine, generator, cooling system, safety valves, feed water pumps, and other electrical accessories/ systems.

Nuclear reactor (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : A nuclear reactor initiates and controls sustained nuclear chain reaction. The nuclear reactor is the heart of the plant. In its central part, the reactor core's heat is generated by controlled nuclear fission. With this heat, a coolant is heated as it is pumped through the reactor and thereby removes the energy from the reactor. Heat from nuclear fission is used to raise steam, which runs through turbines, which in turn powers electrical generators.

Since nuclear fission creates radioactivity, the reactor core is surrounded by a protective shield. This containment absorbs radiation and prevents radioactive material from being released into the environment. In addition, many reactors are equipped with a dome of concrete to protect the reactor against external impacts. In nuclear power plants, different types of reactors, nuclear fuels, and cooling circuits and moderators are used.

Steam turbine : The object of the steam turbine is to convert the heat contained in steam into mechanical energy. The engine house with the steam turbine is usually structurally separated from the main reactor building. It is aligned to prevent debris from the destruction of a turbine in operation from flying towards the reactor.

Electric generator : The generator converts kinetic energy supplied by the steam turbine into electrical energy.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

32

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Cooling system : A cooling system removes heat from the reactor core and transports it to another area of the plant, where the thermal energy can be harnessed to produce electricity. It also takes away the excess heat from the system to keep the overall heat transfer process within the manageable limits.

Feed water pump : The Feed water pump controls the transfer of water from the feed water tank to the reactor for steam generation.

Safety valves : Safety valves, as the name indicates, are for the safety of the various equipment and personnel in the power plant, and are designed to release/shut different subsystems when a given parameter exceeds the pre-set safety limit.

Spent fuel storage facility : The large quantities of nuclear waste, which gets accumulated after the nuclear fission process, needs to be stored under stringent conditions of safety for long periods.

Complexity of nuclear power plants (Reference Source: Wikipedia): Nuclear power plants are some of the most sophisticated and complex energy systems ever designed. Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot be deemed failure-proof. The reactors are so enormously complex machines with the possibility of a large number of things that can go wrong. As happened at Three Mile Island in 1979, one malfunction led to another, and then to a series of others, until the core of the reactor itself began to melt, and even the world's most highly trained nuclear engineers did not know how to respond. The accident revealed serious deficiencies in a system that was meant to protect public health and safety. A fundamental issue related to complexity is that nuclear power systems have exceedingly long lifetimes. The timeframe involved from the start of construction of a commercial nuclear power station, through to the safe disposal of its last radioactive waste, may be 100 to 150 years. The fact that no nuclear power plant has completed this timeframe yet gives raise to the concern that there may be many failure modes not experienced so far. It appears almost impossible to ensure adequate levels of safety during such a long period. The type of failure modes experienced in the three major nuclear accidents in the history (at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima) are all known to be different.

Failure modes of nuclear power plants (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : There are concerns that a combination of human and mechanical error at a nuclear facility could result in significant harm to people and the environment. Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of radioactive fission products which, if dispersed, can pose a direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation, and be ingested by humans and animals. Human exposure at high enough levels can cause both short-term illness and death and longerPublishers : Environmental Study Centre

33

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

term death by cancer and other diseases. However, it is said that it is impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to explode like a nuclear bomb since the fuel is never sufficiently enriched for this to occur.

Nuclear reactors can fail in a variety of ways. Should the instability of the nuclear material generate unexpected behavior, it may result in an uncontrolled power excursion. Normally, the cooling system in a reactor is designed to be able to handle the excess heat this causes; however, should the reactor also experience a loss-of-coolant accident, then the fuel may melt or cause the vessel it is contained in to overheat and melt. This event is called a nuclear meltdown.

The most common failure mode in a nuclear power plant of utmost concern is the failure of the cooling system of the reactor. Even after shutting down, for some time the reactor will need external energy to power its cooling systems. Normally this energy is provided by the power grid to that the plant is connected, or by emergency diesel generators, or by a battery bank. Failure to provide power for the cooling systems, as happened in Fukushima, can cause serious accidents. Such a failure of cooling system of the reactor can happen because of many reasons, and it is generally felt that it is impossible to design a nuclear power plant with foolproof cooling system, as can be gauged from the three major accidents which have happened. In Fukushima three independent supply systems to power the cooling systems failed to prevent the damage in a strange coincidence of failures.

Intentional cause of such failures may be the result of nuclear terrorism : The large number of incidents, near accidents, minor accidents and major accidents even in techno-economically advanced countries such as USA, Russia and Japan have established the fact that nuclear power cannot be risk free even in the best of circumstances. The nuclear power plant technology is so complex that any of such incidents, near accidents, minor accidents can escalate quickly into a major accident.

Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns. Hence such credible attacks on nuclear installations are the major sources of concern for security agencies. Some such incidences are: ✤ In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq. ✤ In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility. ✤ Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

34

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

✤ In Iraq in 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot facility. ✤ In 1991, Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant. ✤ In September 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.

Controversy (Reference Source: Wikipedia) : Proponents argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.

Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.

These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, and the amount energy required to keep the nuclear waste safe for thousands of years, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source. If we consider the fact that the spent nuclear fuel needs cooling for thousands of years in order to prevent form nuclear accidents, will clearly reveal that they probably consume more energy than produce in a nuclear power plant.

A high level understanding of various issues associated with nuclear power technology may be considered essential to enable the Civil Society to participate in well-informed decision making process.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

35

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 7 Economics & Safety of Nuclear Power The fact that not many nuclear power plants have been built for over 3 decades since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 can say a lot about the true economics of building them.

Few nuclear power plants are being built in China and India, but one cannot say that the true economics of building them have been objectively considered by the STATE agencies owning them.

The new nuclear power plant being built in Europe is by EDF at Flamanville in France.

It is now at least four years behind time and Euro 2.7 Billion over budget. The only other new nuclear plant being built in Europe is at Olkiluoto in Finland. Areva, the builder of this plant is reported to be four years late and Euro 2.6 Billion over budget. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/20/edf-french-nuclear-reactor-delays] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-power-gas-coal].

It is reported that the effect of the delay and ballooning costs at Flamanville 3 on the ultimate cost of the electricity produced, as per Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at the university of Sussex, is that the cost per kilowatt hour has jumped between 33% and 45% in the last few years. It is estimated that the cost is particularly sensitive to delays, as this widens the gap between the heavy capital outlay and the point at which money starts to flow back in.

When nuclear power was initially propounded as a possible source of electricity, it was touted as so cheap that even metering its consumption was considered unnecessary.

Today it is the seen as the costliest source of electrical power. It is projected that at Jaitapura (Maharastra) the total cost of the proposed power capacity of 9,900 MW with 6 of EPR reactors will be about Rs. 200,000 Crores. This comes to about Rs. 20 Crores per MW. In comparison the cost of a coal power plant is about 7 - 9 Crores/MW, and that of a hydel power plant is about Rs. 8 - 10 Crores/MW. Even the cost of a solar power plant, which was being dismissed as very costly till recently, is known to be about Rs. 18-20 Crores / MW without any of the attendant risks of nuclear power. In view of the continuously dropping costs of solar power technology, there is already a projection that by 2017 the cost of solar power will compare favorably with that of coal power. So, even the cost aspect of nuclear power seems to be against the technology.

Long term storage of nuclear waste is a major issue requiring our attention. Even US, which has over 100 nuclear reactors and which depends upon nuclear power for about Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

36

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

20% of its electricity generation capacity, has not found a satisfactory answer to this problem. The U.S. government is reported to have invested $9 billion developing a storage site for reprocessed nuclear spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada province, which is perhaps the most studied geological structure in the world. Despite this enormous investment in building an underground, secure storage site, Nevada's less than 3 million residents have refused to endorse the project as a result of safety and environmental concerns. If storing spent nuclear fuel deep inside a mountain surrounded on all sides by about 100 miles of empty desert is considered unsafe, it seems certainly odd that in India, where the density of population is very high and where we cannot afford to keep an area of 100 kM radius without habitation, it is not an issue at all.

In a related article Dr. M V Ramana has shown that the cost of a 235 MWe nuclear power unit at Kaiga, Karnataka is much more than that of a comparable size coal power unit at Raichur, both built at about the same time. Dr. M V Ramana has established with reasonable amount of certainty that the real cost of a modern nuclear power station is clearly higher than that of a comparable size coal based power station. If we also take into objective account the long term storage costs, insurance costs, government subsidies and all the associated environmental and health costs, the nuclear power projects will be much costlier than any other conventional power sources. Subsequent to Fukushima disaster, the requirement for additional safety features is expected to be stringent enough to make the cost of nuclear power even higher than the present costs. So, even the cost advantage of nuclear energy is not there anymore.

Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, had expressed his concerns in an article 'Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned'. He has said: " ‌ But it is necessary to realize that nuclear power is not a panacea, as some observers allege, for energy sufficiency or climate change. Its cost-effectiveness is also exaggerated, as its real cost does not account for many hidden expenses. In the United States, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with an additional $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined over this same period totaled only $5.5 billion."

In an article, Dr. Michael I. Niman, a professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Buffalo State College has anlysed the nuclear power cost: "Nuclear power operators creating problems and then foisting them onto the government to fix when they, as we unfortunately put it, go nuclear, is such a norm globally as to be codified in law. The potential risk from a nuclear accident is so huge as to be commercially uninsurable. In fact, if the nuclear power industry were left to fend for itself in the free market, it would instantly collapse,

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

37

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

turning upside-down once risk gets factored into any equation. The risk of catastrophe is so high, and the potential catastrophe so large, that the cost of insurance, assuming hypothetically that it was available, raises the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity off of the charts."

In an article "India's nuclear chimera" Down to Earth magazine ( Issue Aug.15, 2010) has covered the cost and time over runs in nuclear power plants, and has concluded that "Going by the Kudankulan example, India's nuclear power generation target is a pie in the sky."

The exorbitant capital and operating costs, cost and time over runs, subsidies and hidden costs in the Indian context of nuclear power plants have also been quietly ignored by the nuclear establishemnts. International studies have established that if we take into account the true costs associated with disposing nuclear waste, decommissioning the worn out plants, and insuring reactors against catastrophic failures into objective account, building nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market is not simply economical. If the import of technology and fuel are to be relied upon the energy security becomes a major issue which has not been addressed. It is very strange that Integrated Energy Policy has not dedicated much space for the discussion on nuclear power issues.

As stated by Hazel Henderson, a columnist (Deccan Herald of 29.6.2010), "Nuclear energy, heavily subsidized since its inception, is still the most inefficient, expensive and hazardous way that humans have ever devised to boil water."

There is also a considered opinion of the experts that due to exorbitant costs associated and the base load nature, nuclear power can be at best suited to rich societies with high per capita consumption. But for a poor country, like India, can it be a suitable option from a holistic perspective?

Safety concerns for the Public : Since each of the three techno-economic super powers (USA, Russia and Japan) has experienced the nuclear emergency from their power plants, the very wisdom of relying on nuclear power technology is being increasingly questioned. If such resource rich and knowledgeable communities could not avert nuclear emergencies, can our densely populated and ill-prepared society ever hope to avert the possible human catastrophe from a nuclear mishap?

While the country is fortunate that there have been no major accidents in the nuclear establishment, the observers are of the opinion that adequate safety of operation in the nuclear facilities within the country cannot be guaranteed for various reasons. While more and more complex safety systems/redundancies are being designed and built for the overall

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

38

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

safety of nuclear power stations, it should be noted that they are only increasing the number of sub-systems and the complexity. Such complex systems can result in increasing the risk of failure of individual sub-systems/ sub-components (because of unintended/ unexpected interaction between sub-systems), and increasing new accident modes. All these can result in an increase in the number of automatic shutdown of reactors or catastrophic failures. The rapidity at which a minor problem in the complex system of safety can escalate into a major disaster is great in a nuclear power station, as experienced at Chernobyl.

Tall claims have been made about the capability of Indian nuclear establishments, especially the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), to ensure complete safety of nuclear power projects. The fact that the people manning AERB are generally deputed from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) OR Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., which is the operator of the nuclear power plants in the country, cannot assure the complete operational independence of AERB. As far as Chernobyl disaster is concerned Indian nuclear authorities have said that "‌ secrecy was part of the Soviet culture..." How transparent are the issues with our own nuclear establishments? Mr. A Gopalakrishnan, A former Chairman of AERB, has expressed concern about the complete dependence of AERB on DAE for resources.

While the nuclear emergency caused by Tsunami/earthquake recently has thrown up many critical issues even in a safety and quality conscious country like Japan, it is very hard to imagine that the powerful and secretive nuclear power sector in our country (a country generally associated with corrupt and poor quality practices) has taken all the essential and adequate precautions to avoid such nuclear emergencies. It is even more critical to ask ourselves whether a densely populated and resource constrained country like ours can afford to take risk of a nuclear emergency?

It will be pertinent to note that, consequent to the nuclear emergency at Fukushima, Dr. A Gopalakrishnan, Former Chairman, AERB, has expressed serious concerns about the nuclear power park plans (of multiple units of huge capacity in single location), and called for making the AERB very independent of DAE. Dr. A Gopalakrishnan has said: "The people of India face a serious dilemma. The Fukushima incident has clearly brought out the reality that a nation far more technologically capable, better organised, and disciplined than India is today suffering seriously from a nuclear catastrophe. Out of sheer arrogance and ignorance, the government of India and its nuclear agencies do not wish to pause and debate the issues, but would rather move on in a hurry after a sham of a safety audit, which is conducted by a captive regulatory agency, as they have done three times in the past."

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

39

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, a minister himself, is reported to have written to PM seeking review of nuclear power park plan at Jaitapura, Maharastra.

Dr P Balaram, director of the prestigious Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and part of prime minister Manmohan Singh's scientific advisory council, described the events in Japan as "a wake-up call" for India. In an open letter, signed by more than 50 prominent figures, Dr. Balaram has stated: "In the light of what has happened in Japan.... we strongly believe that India must radically review its nuclear power policy for appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance, and undertake an independent, transparent safety audit of all its nuclear facilities, which involves non-DAE experts and civil society organisations.

Pending the review, there should be a moratorium on all further nuclear activity, and revocation of recent clearances for nuclear projects," said Dr Balaram. He said he agreed to be a co-signatory to a key petition seeking a nuclear moratorium because many of India's proposed nuclear plants were likely to come up in populated and ecologically sensitive areas.

The proponents of nuclear power in India project it as a very safe technology. But the reality in Indian conditions seems to be vastly different. In an article by rediff NEWS at rediff.com on 4th October 2010 under the title "197 suicides and 1,733 deaths at India's nuclear establishments in last 15 yrs", it was mentioned that "197 employees belonging to a number of nuclear establishments and related institutes in India have committed suicide and 1,733 scientists and employees belonging to these centres have died of illnesses like multiple organ failure, lung cancer, cirrhosis of liver etc, as per a report compiled by Mumbaibased RTI activist Chetan Kothari."

As per Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the author of "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer": "Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels- in fact, does it add substantially to global warming. Solar power, wind energy and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs. At the beginning, we had no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie Curie and her daughter didn't know that the radioactive materials they handled would kill them. But it didn't take long for the early nuclear physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of radioactive elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it."

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

40

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

On safe practices in nuclear industry in India, the ex-chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has the following to say: " The Japanese are the world's best experts in earthquake-resistant designs. They are also most knowledgeable in protective designs against tsunami impact. Japan is a country that has a superb disaster management organisation throughout their nation, and an often-rehearsed working team to handle such emergencies." "In contrast, in India, we are most disorganised and unprepared for the handling of emergencies of any kind of even much less severity.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's (AERB's) disaster preparedness oversight is mostly on paper and the drills they once in a while conduct are half-hearted efforts which amount more to a sham."

A new dimension to the public safety is the 'nuclear terrorism'. In this regard Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, had expressed his concern in an article "Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned". He says: " ‌. I also remain concerned over the dangers of terrorist attacks on power reactors and terrorist groups' acquisition of fissile material. After the heavy damage wrought by terrorist groups in New York, Moscow, Madrid, Tokyo, Bali, and elsewhere over the past 15 years, we must very carefully consider the vulnerability of reactor fuel, spent fuel pools, dry storage casks, and related fissile materials and facilities to sabotage, attack, and theft. While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional." His caution of wisdom also included : " First of all, it is vitally important to prevent any possibility of a repetition of the Chernobyl accident. This was a horrendous disaster because of the direct human cost, the large tracts of land poisoned, the scale of population displacement, the great loss of livelihoods, and the long-term trauma suffered by individuals yanked from their homeland and heritage. Victims of the tragedy were confronted by a crisis which they could scarcely understand and against which they had no defense. The material damage inflicted by Chernobyl, although enormous, pales in significance when compared to the ongoing human costs. The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat. It is also a striking symbol of modern technological risk."

Major issues for the society with Nuclear power technology Economic Issues

Demands large tracts of forests and fertile land; huge Capital costs; long term waste management costs; serious shortages of nuclear fuels in India; impact on food availability subsequent to accidents; true costs to society can be huge

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

41

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Social Issues

Peoples' displacement and health; long term health implications; inter generational implications of nuclear waste;

Environmental

Mining related pollution; radiation emission during operations and from nuclear wastes for centuries ; radiation contamination of air, water and land; contamination of food products

In a presentation with the title "Why A Future For The Nuclear Industry Is Risky" Peter Bradford, Former Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists many concerns as below: ✤ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE STATED TERRORIST TARGETS : A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK COULD HALT NEW CONSTRUCTION EVEN AFTER SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURE ✤ USED NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE REMAINS UNRESOLVED ✤ ON GLOBAL WARMING: THERE ARE MUCH BETTER SOLUTIONS There have been suggestions from Indian nuclear authorities that the safe storage of nuclear waste is technically feasible during its active life time. Is it really so, and even if it is so, what about the huge costs involved? Are the efforts/costs to keep nuclear waste safe for thousands of years worthy of all the risks involved? In this regard there are credible and serious concerns that whereas the present generation may get the benefit of electricity from nuclear power, the future generations have to deal with all the risks and costs associated with the spent fuel. Is this fair or socially responsible?

In the case of a complex technology such as nuclear power the true value and the credible risks to the stakeholders should be determined objectively.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

42

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 8 Is Nuclear Power green and relevant to Indian scenario?

The debate as to whether nuclear power is a safe, suitable and essential option for India has been going on for many decades. While the proponents of the nuclear power have been offering many arguments in favour of the option, there have been any numbers of issues raised by those who consider it to be not the best solution to meet the legitimate energy requirements of our society on a sustainable basis.

Observers of nuclear power industry have been of the opinion that whereas the nuclear establishment in the country has been making tall claims on the increased role of nuclear energy, the reality has been much less in successive decades after independence. On the basis of many plans and assuming optimistic development times, Dr. Homi Bhabha had announced that there would be 8,000 MW of nuclear power in the country by 1980. As the years progressed, these predictions increased. By 1962, the prediction was that nuclear energy would generate 20,000 -25,000 MW by 1987 and by 1969 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) predicted that by 2000 there would be 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity. All of this was before a single unit of nuclear electricity was produced in the country – India’s first reactor, Tarapur, was only commissioned in 1969! {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

The reality has been quite different. Installed capacity of nuclear power generation in 1979-80 was about 600 MW; about 950 MW in 1987; 2,720 MW in 2000; and 4,780 MW in mid-2011. Despite the huge increase in the total power generation capacity in India, from a meager 1,800 MW in 1950 to 177,000 MW in 2011, the total contribution of nuclear power to the total power generation capacity is about 2.7% only.

The observers are also of the opinion that this utter failure has not been because of a paucity of resources or the encouragement. Practically all governments have favored nuclear energy and the Department of Atomic Energy’s (DAE) budgets have always been high. The high allocations for the DAE have come at the cost of promoting other, more sustainable, sources of power. In 2002-03, for example, the DAE was allocated Rs. 33.5 billion, dwarfing in comparison the Rs. 4.7 billion allocated to the Ministry of Nonconventional Energy Sources (MNES), which is in charge of developing solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass based power. Despite the smaller allocations, installed capacity of these renewable energy sources was 18,455 MW in 2011 (as compared to 4.780 MW of nuclear power). {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

43

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Integrated Energy Policy (IEP) admits that India is poorly endowed with Uranium, and that the known sources within the country can supply only about 10,000 MW of power capacity based on Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR). It also say that because of low grade Uranium ore available in the country, Indian nuclear fuel costs at least 3 times that of international supplies (IEP: Page 74). It adds that the substantial Thorium reserve in the country should be harnessed by converting it into fissile material through three stage development: PHWRs, fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), and reactors based on Uranium 233 and Thorium -232 cycle, which is still reported to be far away from reality. Yet IEP advocates a large and unrealistic addition to nuclear power capacity by 2031-32; increase from present level of about 3,700 MW to 63,000. In this context can we say that nuclear power can play a major role in bringing energy self sufficiency to our masses?

Nuclear power is a sector on which the govt. is known to be spending large amounts of national resources, because of which much more discussion of all the related issues must be held before building future nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the views of Dept. of Atomic Energy and the personal views of nuclear power proponents seem to have been simply accepted by IEP. The fact that not a single a nuclear reactor has been approved in USA or UK after the Chernobyl disaster; the difficulties faced in 1-2-3 agreement with USA; and public opposition to Nuclear Damages Civil Liability Bill etc. have not been taken into objective account in IEP. Pro-nuclear advocates have started to argue that nuclear power is a good option against Global Warming. Observers are of the opinion that “flailing nuclear establishments around the world, including India’s, have grabbed this second opportunity and 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”. Two assumptions made by such pro-nuclear advocates are fundamentally flawed. One is that Global Warming can be contained without fundamentally changing the Western pattern of energy consumption, because nuclear energy is tiny contributor to energy mix world wide. It is generally considered to be impossible to contain Global Warming without significantly reducing the energy consumption levels of Western/ developed countries.

The second flawed assumption is that adoption of nuclear power can make sense as a strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions. In this regard an example of Japan, a pronuclear energy country until the Fukushima disaster, is given. As Jinzaburo Takagi, a Japanese nuclear Chemist, has showed, from 1965 to 1995 Japan’s nuclear power plant capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period its CO2 emissions increased from about 400 million tons to about 1,200 million tons. Increased use of nuclear

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

44

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

power did not really reduce Japan’s emission levels. {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

In an article “Too hot to handle? The future of Civil Nuclear Power” Frank Barnaby and James Kemp of Oxford Research Group have discussed why the nuclear power cannot be an acceptable option in the future, even from the Global Warming considerations. They point out that if nuclear power were to play more than a marginal role in combating global warming then some nuclear-power reactors would have to be operated even in these countries, where there is no nuclear power as of now. They have estimated that about 2,500 Nuclear reactors of average capacity 1,000 MWe would be required, and nearly four new reactors would have to begin construction each month from now until 2075. Looking at the past experience of slow growth, the increasing public opposition, the safety issues, the threat of nuclear terrorism etc. such a huge addition of installed capacity is impossible.

Additionally, the amount of energy consumed in the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining stage till its radio active emission gets reduced to safe levels after hundreds of years is estimated to be colossal. The contribution to atmospheric pollution at the stages of mining and processing, and radiation leaks to atmosphere are not inconsiderable. Taking all these facts into objective account it seems futile to argue that the nuclear power can make considerable contribution to mitigating the threat of Global Warming.

As a part of long term power policy all the related issues w.r.t a technology must be considered. But in the case of nuclear power technology the issues relating to the environmental impacts of nuclear ore mining, radiation risks involved in the entire cycle, popular local opposition for locating a nuclear reactor in a given area, difficulties experienced in land acquisition, the threat of nuclear terrorism, the huge costs to the society, and the crucial issue of long term storage of spent fuel are not even referred to by the proponents of nuclear power. The huge opposition to Kaiga Nuclear power project, the ongoing massive opposition to Kundamkulam Project, Tamil Nadu CM’s letter to the centre to stop the construction work at Kundamkulam, the strong opposition to Jaitapur Project proposal, the cancellation of approval by West Bengal govt. to Haripur project proposal are all unambiguous signs that people of the country have not been convinced about the safety and usefulness of nuclear power. The unfortunate nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan in Mach 2011 has brought about a paradigm shift in the way people are looking at the relevance of nuclear power.

The nuclear emergency at Fukushima subsequent to a strong earth quake and tsunami has rightly focused on the question whether the nuclear power technology is a safe way to obtain electricity. There has been a groundswell of concern on the safety of nuclear power Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

45

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

technology in various parts of the world including Switzerland, Germany, Japan, US and China. Japan, which was planning to increase the nuclear power capacity to about 50% (from the level of about 30%) in next few decades, has shut down many reactors as safety precaution, and is reported to have taken a very conscious decision to reduce the reliance on nuclear power in the short term, and to eliminate the nuclear power from its energy basket in the long term. Germany, which had relied on nuclear power for about 26% of its power generating capacity, has taken a clear decision through a referendum to eliminate all its nuclear power plants. It is pertinent to note that since year 2000 the power sector in USA had proposed more than 150 coal power plants and seen them cancelled due to opposition from environmentalists. But not a single nuclear power project has come anywhere close to being approved during last 3 decades. Australia and New Zealand are the two countries who have steadfastly maintained a ‘no nuclear power’ policy. It is relevant to mention here that Australia has one of the largest reserves of nuclear fissile material and is refusing to sell the same to India in view of the NPT obligations. We need to appreciate as to why nuclear power has not been pursued in these countries, if the technology is safe, reliable, green, renewable, and of acceptable costs. The huge issues of capital costs and safety concerns were the primary reasons for this scenario.

As per IEP’s projection even with about 13 times increases in capacity by 2031-32 (from present level of about 4,700 MW to 63,000 MW), nuclear contribution can only be about 8 % of the total capacity (IEP: Page 48). As compared to this huge capacity addition projection many countries are planning to raise the percentage of renewables to about 20% of their energy mix. Being a tropical country India is endowed with much more renewable energy potential such as solar power than many other countries which have shown determination to increase their renewable energy share to 20-25%. Israel is reported to be planning for about 50% share of renewable energy. As per a simulation by Greenpeace International, by 2050 India can meet around 65% of electricity and 50% of the Primary Energy demands from renewable energy sources.

A less known DAE document of 2008 is “A Strategy for the Growth of Electricity in India” (http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/doc10/index.htm ). Dr. Anil Kakodkar, AEC, delivered a public lecture at Indian Academy of sciences, Bangalore on 4 July 2008 referring to this document.

A cursory look at this document can put even a nuclear power advocate to deep concern.

This report indicates that DAE has a nuclear energy plan not covered fully in IEP 2006.

According to it about 275,000 MW is to be generated through nuclear power by 2050, and it may mean a 6,000 MW nuclear park every 100 kM of the Indian Coastline. Though this stupendously ambitious plan (may mean adding on an average 16,400 MW of nuclear power capacity every year during next 40 years) looks hilarious to say the least, looking at Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

46

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

what has happened so far in the last 50 years, it should be a matter of grave concern to our society because it indicates the determination of DAE to expand nuclear power capacity exponentially, and the scope for the denial of adequate financial resources to develop renewable energy sources.

The recent decision by the govt. to import large capacity nuclear reactors, such as the proposed 1650 MWe French evolutionary pressurised reactors (EPR) for Jaitapur, Maharstra has come under strong criticism by even the former nuclear industry people.

‘The decision taken by the government to import about 40,000 MWe of light water reactors within the next two decades has no justifiable technical or economic basis,’ ex-chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in a statement. “…The first objection is that the Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) to be built in Jaitapur, having not been commissioned anywhere in the world, is a non-existent reactor whose potential problems are totally unknown even to Areva, its developer, let alone India’s Nuclear Power Corporation” Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in a statement. Appealing to the government to ‘immediately and permanently’ cancel all plans to import foreign nuclear reactors irrespective of promises given by the prime minister to foreign governments, Gopalakrishnan also wanted the nuclear power policy of the Manmohan Singh government thoroughly debated in parliament and openly discussed with energy specialists in the country.

‘It should be preceded by a re-look of the overall energy policy of our country to assess whether all viable non-nuclear electricity generation schemes have been given their due priority, before we jump-start an extensive nuclear power programme,’ Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan added.

Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan has said in another statement: “ … but most important, the PM must realise that there is absolutely no clarity or public confidence in the opaque nuclear power policy he is presently following. The PM has not provided any detailed justification for the unilateral promises he had made to import about 40,000 MWe foreign nuclear reactors by 2020, which appears to be at the heart of this baseless revised policy.”

In view of the multifarious problems associated with nuclear power plants and its small contribution to overall power scenario in India even by 2031-32, and in view of credible concerns by very responsible leaders, our society should thoroughly review whether the resources made available for nuclear power sector is well spent on developing the new & renewable energy sources, which can eliminate all the thorny issues associated with nuclear power sector.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

47

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 9 Credible alternatives to Nuclear Power from Indian perspective Keeping in proper perspective the fact that the contribution of nuclear power to the total power generation capacity is only 2.7% even after massive budgetary support since 1950s should raise the very pertinent question as to how important is nuclear power in the context of overall power sector in India.

India's Total Installed Power Capacity (MOP website as on 30.6.2011) Fuel Total Thermal Coal Gas Oil Hydro Nuclear Renewable Total

MW 115,650 96,744 17,706 1,200 38,106 4,780 18,455 1,76,990

Percentage of total capacity 65.4 54.7 10.0 0.7 21.5 2.7 10.4

The power sector in the country is characterised by the gross inefficiency prevailing in the system; whether it is in generation, transmission, distribution or utilization. From the perspective of the transmission & distribution losses alone in the country, it becomes strikingly evident that bringing it to 10% from the present level of 25% can provide more virtual additional power capacity than the total projected nuclear power capacity of 12,000 MW by 2020. The international best practice in T&D losses is below 5%, and many electricity supply companies in the country have already registered T&D losses below 15%. Hence it should not be an impossible task.

No objective study of the demand/supply of electricity in the country can be undertaken without effectively considering the gross efficiency prevailing in the sector, as also acknowledged by various official agencies.

The average Plant Load Factor (PLF) of the coal power plants in the country is about 73%, which if taken to 90% can provide about 15,000 MW of virtual additional capacity in

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

48

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

the existing infrastructure. The potential for efficiency gains from hydel power plants is not inconsiderable either.

T&D losses (2009 - 10) (CEA, 18th APS Report) Region Northern Region Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region N E Region All India

Losses (%) 27 (Range from 20 to 64) 26 (Range from 13 to 35) 19 (Range from 14 to 20) 27 (Range from 21 to 42) 34 (Range from 29 to 64) 25

Typical T&D losses (Source: CEA/power Ministry) Country

T&D Losses (%)

India Russia UK China USA Japan Germany

25 12 8 7 6 4 4

As per a study by Himamshu Thakkar of South Asian Network for Dams, Rivers, and People (SANDRP), out of 228 operational hydel projects in India as on 31.3.2007, which were surveyed by him, 82% were underperforming with actual generation of electricity which was less than 50% of the design capacity The National Electricity Policy states: "It would have to be clearly recognized that Power Sector will remain unviable until T&D losses are brought down significantly and rapidly. A large number of States have been reporting losses of over 40% in the recent years. By any standards, these are unsustainable and imply a steady decline of power sector operations. Continuation of the present level of losses would not only pose a threat to the power sector operations but also jeopardize the growth prospects of the economy as a whole. No reforms can succeed in the midst of such large pilferages on a continuing basis."

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

49

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Urgent measures such as improving the generating plant performance; reducing the T&D losses; minimizing the wastage in end usage; optimising the demand side management (DSM); and maximising energy conservation will be able not only to eliminate the existing deficits, but also will be able to meet a good portion of the future electricity demand.

"India's power sector is a leaking bucket; the holes deliberately crafted and the leaks carefully collected as economic rents by various stake holders that control the system.

The logical thing to do would be to fix the bucket rather than to persistently emphasise shortages of power and forever make exaggerated estimates of future demand for power.

Most initiatives in the power sector (IPPs and mega power projects) are nothing but ways of pouring more water into the bucket so that consistency and quantity of leaks are assured ‌."

Deepak S Parekh, Chairman, Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation, September 2004.

The perceived need for any additional power plants in the country needs to be considered in the context of many other blunders within the power sector: the unscientifically targeted subsidies which have become unsustainable; huge losses incurred by the electricity supply companies; corrupt political interference in the affairs of these companies; lack of social and environmental responsibility for these companies; and poor work practices in these companies. Such deficiencies for decades have resulted in serious problems for the society as a whole. Without addressing these serious deficiencies to invest massively in additional power capacity will be a huge drain on the society.

As per a recent study report by Prayas Energy Group, Pune ("Energy Savings Potential In Indian Households From Improved Appliance Efficiency") usage of energy efficient models of common house hold appliances such as lamps, refrigerators, fans, TVs, radios etc. can result in about 30% energy savings annually by 2013. This corresponds to an avoided additional generating capacity of 25,000 MW.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

50

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

Power Sector Efficiency in India (Source: Compiled on the basis of many reports/article on Indian Power Sector) Power Sector Area

Prevailing level of efficiency / loss in India

Potential for improvement/savings (percentage of total annual energy)

Generating capacity utilisation

50 - 60%

5-10 %

Aggregate Technical & Commercial losses (AT&C)

35 - 40 %

15 -20%

End use efficiency in agriculture

45 - 50 %

15-20%

End use efficiency in industries and commerce

50 - 60 %

5 -10 %

End use efficiency in other areas (domestic, street lights and others)

40 - 50 %

5 -10 %

Demand Side Management

Potential to reduce the effective demand on the grid by more than 20%

A rational analysis of the gross inefficiency prevailing in various segments of the power sector will reveal that about 30 - 40% of the present demand can be met by the efficiency improvement measures, which would make the existing scenario to be surplus by a considerable margin.

Blatantly inefficient practices have been going on for decades despite clear warning from the power sector observers since 1980s. The questionable need for additional capacity and dire need for rationalization of the available electrical energy distribution becomes evidently clear from the statistics on the actual growth of Indian power sector as in the box below.

The total installed generating capacity in the country has gone up from about 1,000 MW in 1947 to 1,77,000 MW in 2011, a whopping 177 times increase.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

51

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

National per capita electricity consumption has gone up from 283 kWH in 1992-93 to about 700 kWH in 2010-11, an increase of 250%.

But 40% of the households, mostly in rural areas, have no access to electricity even in 2009. {Source: as per Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) & Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India.} As per 13th Finance Commission the national level financial loss of electricity supply companies (ESCOMs) could be more than Rs. 69,000 Crores in 2010-11 and could reach Rs. 116,000 Crores in 2014-15. It would be sacrilegious to continue to incur such huge losses, and also to commit more resources to build nuclear power plants, which have so many questions against them. As the Bureau of Energy Efficiency has estimated, at the prevailing cost of additional energy generation, it costs a unit of energy about one fourth the cost to save than to produce it with new capacity.

A press release on 31st March 2011 by Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Power refers to a study on potential savings in the states, and indicates that the total consumption assessed in all States is 501,003 MU of electricity; there is a deficit of 73,093 MU and the total energy saving potential is 75,364.08 MU. This is about 15 % of the total consumption. This clearly indicates that in reality there is no need for the crippling power cuts we are facing today.

Should the country not be putting all its efforts within power sector in bringing the efficiency to the international best practice levels as a top priority before investing money in questionable technology such as nuclear power? This alone can reduce the need not only for many additional generation capacity of any type, but certainly for nuclear power plants, which can come only at huge costs to our society.

IEP itself says: "India's conventional energy reserves are limited and we must develop all available and economic alternatives. ‌ Clearly over the next 25 years energy efficiency and conservation are the most important virtual energy supply sources that India possesses."

IEP also estimates that CO2 generated from energy use can be reduced by 35% through effective deployment of efficiency, DSM measures and renewables. IEP's main action recommendation for energy security is: "‌ relentlessly pursue energy efficiency and energy conservation as the most important virtual source of domestic energy".

Being a tropical country, India is also endowed with huge potential in new and renewable energy resources as mentioned in the table below. In this regard what Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, has said should be of huge importance. In the article Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

52

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

"Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned" he has said: " To end the vicious cycle of "poverty versus safe environment," the world must quickly transition to efficient, safe, and renewable energy, which will bring enormous economic, social, and environmental benefits.

As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy-wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives as safer, more efficient, and more affordable avenues for meeting both energy demands and conserving our fragile planet."

N&RE Potential in India (Source: MNRE) Potential: (Grid interactive power only)

Remarks

1. Wind energy

> 45,000 MW

100,000 MW as per World Institute of Sustainable Energy

2. Small hydro

15,000 MW

3. Solar

over 5,000 trillion kWH/year

Potential estimated to be many times more than the total energy needs of the country; As per World Institute of Sustainable Energy CSP based solar power - 200,000 MW Solar PV based power - 200,000 MW

4. Bio-mass

>> 25,000

Not known

5. Geo-thermal and Ocean energy

Huge

Estimates not known

Huge emphasis is needed on decentralized energy options in the future energy policy.

Major options which have been considered as techno-economically viable are:

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

53

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

✤

Roof top solar Photo Voltaic systems, which can meet most of the domestic and smaller loads, such as lighting, TV, computers etc. These are being increasingly used in countries like Germany and USA not only to meet the domestic necessities, but for even exporting the excess power to the grid through a mechanism known as Feed-in- tariff.

✤

Solar water heaters have established themselves as very effective tools to provide hot water for houses, nursing homes, hotels etc. at very economical prices. They are found to be very popular in Towns and cities, but can find good use in rural areas also.

✤

Community based bio-mass systems are highly suited for rural areas, which generally have very good supply of bio-mass.

✤

At places where there is good average wind speed throughout the year, wind turbines can provide very cheap power either at the community level or at the individual house holds level.

Such decentralised power systems have the potential to meet most of the rural loads when they are used in hybrid mode of one or more individual systems, and can provide many other sustainable benefits:

✤

Will greatly reduce the burden on the grid based power supply system; drastically reduce the T&D losses; and vastly improve the power supply to those consumers essentially needing the grid supply;

✤

Will drastically reduce the need for conventional technology power plants and the associated transmission & distribution network;

✤

Will assist in drastically reducing the GHG emissions;

✤

Provide a sustainable, environmental and people friendly energy supply model;

✤

Will accelerate the rural electrification due to shorter gestation period of individual projects;

✤

Will lead to increase in rural employment opportunities, and hence in minimizing urban migration.

The proponents of nuclear power keep raising few concerns w.r.t new & renewable energy sources. Two most common issues raised in this regard are:

✤

they are not firm power and

✤

their comparable cost with conventional energy sources is high

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

54

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

The reality is: ✤

Many applications such as lighting or water pumping do not require 24 hours supply - can be backed up by battery banks where needed

✤

Cost from the conventional energy sources is increasing while that of renewables is decreasing. Commercially available roof top solar PV panel cost has come down by more than 50% between 2008 and 2011.

✤

The projected cost of conventional energy sources is unreal - many hidden costs (such as health, environment and other societal costs) and subsidies; many externalities are not taken into account.

In this context a Greenpeace report deserves special attention. This report titled "energy

{R}evolution, A SUSTAINABLE INDIA ENERGY OUTLOOK" with international authorship has dealt with the Indian energy scenario in good amount of detail, and has come up with a credible set of solutions. An important point highlighted in this report is the huge potential available in reducing the demand for energy without adversely affecting the legitimate needs of our society. This projection indicates the feasibility in reduction of about 38% in demand by 2050 as compared to the reference scenario of IEA. The study report is confident that by adopting suitable measures " by 2030 about 35% of India's electricity could come from renewable energies" AND " by 2050, 54% of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources". The report states: "A more radical scenario - which takes the advanced projections of renewables industry into account - could even phase out coal by 2050. Dangerous Climate Change might force us to accelerate the development of renewables faster." This projection has huge relevance for nuclear power sector too.

Keeping in view the overall welfare of our communities, and the sustainability of energy supply scenario, huge emphasis is essential to develop and harness renewable energy sources as the first option of energy source for each MW of additional demand. A substantial percentage of the renewable energy sources can be distributed type such as roof top solar and community based bio-mass plants in order to minimise the additional land requirements and to reduce the T&D losses. Such distributed type energy sources will assist in accelerated rural electrification and reduce overall investment in power transmission and distribution network. Assuming about 3 crore house holds in the country (10% of the total) to be suitable and economically able to support roof-top solar photo voltaic systems of 2 kW each, 60,000 MW installed capacity of solar power in distributed mode is feasible. If we also take the huge potential available to effectively use the roof

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

55

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

tops available on schools, colleges, offices, industrial houses, govt. buildings, commercial establishments etc. for converting the plenty of sun light to electricity, the generating capacity will be astounding, and the insignificance of nuclear power plants become obvious.

Such roof top solar PV installations can not only meet much of the local electricity demand, but can also export the excess electricity generated to the integrated grid under a mechanism called "Feed-in Tariff" which will be of win-win situation for all the concerned.

Similarly, solar and/or bio-mass plants at village/community levels developed/implemented with care can transform the energy scenario in the country. Such holistic considerations can provide many times more power capacity than the 275,000 MW nuclear power capacity as planned by DAE by 2050, and can come at much less overall cost to the society, and without the threat of nuclear holocaust.

It will tantamount to letting down the public if nuclear power policy is to be pursued without objectively considering various options available to meet our electricity demand.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

56

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 10 Holistic view of overall costs to the society: Costs & Benefits Analysis In deliberating as to how much and what technology to be adopted in adding to the electricity generating capacity, there is a dire need to keep the overall costs and benefits to our society of such a policy in proper perspective. Any course of action we may take in order to meet the growing power demand in future will have deleterious impacts on our natural resources and environment, as also on the vulnerable sections of our society. Hence there is an imminent need to take utmost care in minimizing such impacts.

A good decision making mechanism in this regard is Costs & Benefits Analysis, which will take into account all possible costs and benefits (direct and indirect, tangible and intangible) to our society in an objective way, and deliberate in detail on the best course of action in the overall benefit of the society. Any decision to build a nuclear facility (or for that matter any technology we may like to adapt) should be preceded by such a diligent process.

In projecting the future electricity demand due care is needed to take into account the importance of a realistic figure, the limit of the nature to support such a demand, and the huge cost to the society of unlimited energy demand. Hence a realistic power demand projection itself is the first step in our electricity demand/supply analysis. In this regard the power demand projection methodology by the concerned planning agencies, as exemplified

by IEP and the report of the 17th Electric Power Survey Committee (under Central Electricity Authority), deserves drastic changes.

In view of the fact that that there is a steep decline in Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of electricity consumption from 6.87% in the 30-year period (between 1974-5 and 2004-05) to 4.30% in last 5-years (between 1999-2000 and 2004-05), and taking into account the changed consumption profile (the increased contribution of services sector to the GDP, the scope available for efficiency increase etc.), it is prudent to project only a 4 5% CAGR of electricity consumption for next 20-25 years. Assuming that the total installed capacity has to grow at the same rate, the total installed capacity in the country can be projected to be in the range of about 388,000 MW (for 4% CAGR) to 497,000 MW (5% CAGR) by 2031-32. This is in stark contrast to 778,000 MW (at 8% CAGR) as projected

by IEP. With adequate emphasis on transferring most of the smaller loads such as lighting in domestic, commercial and streetlights etc. and appliances such as TV, computers, small water pumps etc. on to distributed renewable energy sources such as roof top solar PV panels, roof top solar/wind hybrids, community based bio-mass systems etc. the demand Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

57

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

growth of the integrated grid can largely be contained within manageable limits in future without having to add many conventional power plants. Hence the real need for a huge growth for nuclear power, as projected by the nuclear establishment can be credibly questioned.

In view of the serious implications of unlimited energy demand, there is rather an inevitable requirement to estimate objectively what is the least amount of energy needed to wipe out poverty, and how best to meet it in a sustainable manner. This is in stark contrast to the faulty prevailing policy of projecting power capacity based on 8-9% GDP growth.

One example of how an objective consideration of Costs & Benefits Analysis (CBA) can be crucial for the power sector is in the case of the proposed Jaitapura Nuclear Power Project in Maharastra. The essential aspect of an objectively considered CBA is to consider various credible options available to meet a given objective. In the present case assuming that generating electricity alone is the objective, a decent understanding of the Indian power sector indicates that there are many benign options available to get an equivalent of 9,990 MW of generating capacity. ✤

Since the nuclear power plants consume about 10% of generated power in station auxiliary systems, we may not expect more than 9,000 MW export from Jaitapura nuclear power plant at any given time. Assuming that the plant is dedicated for the Western Region alone, 30% of T&D losses prevailing in the region (during 2006-07 as per CEA annual report) will mean that a maximum of about 6,300 MW of this project can be available for end consumers in the business as usual scenario.

Because of past experience of an availability factor of 80% for the Indian nuclear power plants, this also corresponds to about 44,000 Million Units of annual energy for the end use.

T&D losses in Western Region alone, if reduced to 15% (as per the National Electricity Policy target of 15% T&D losses by 2012), Western Region can get additionally about 4,800 MW (in Western Region the peak demand met was 32,100 MW in 2009-10 as per CEA website) from the existing facilities itself.

Additionally, even if only 50% of the inefficient incandescent lamps in the Western Region (in the states of Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Gujarath, and Goa) are replaced by much more efficient CFLs the additional virtual capacity available can be more than 1,500 MW. From these two simple efficiency improvement measures alone the region can get more than 6,300 MW additional virtual capacity, which is what the net benefit could

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

58

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

be from the proposed power plant. These two efficiency improvement benefits can come at a cost which is likely to be less than 25% of the direct financial cost of the proposed nuclear power project. Not a single tree needs to be cut; nor a single family will be displaced; not single ton of GHG emission will be added, no radiation risk is involved. On the contrary, the two efficiency improvement measures will lead to reduced total GHG emissions in the country. ✤

At the national level on an average, about 34% of the electricity consumption is for the irrigation pump sets (IP sets), which are reported to be wasting about 40 - 50% of that energy due to technical reasons. It is also known that this loss can be reduced to less than 10% by simple technical measures at a small cost. The Western Region, with heavy usage of IP sets in Maharastra and Gujarat, can be assumed to be consuming at least 34% of electricity in IP sets alone.

Electricity consumed in Western Region during 2009-10 was about 223,000 Million Units (as per CEA website) out of which about 76,000 Million Units (34% of the total consumption) can be assumed for IP sets. Out of 38,000 Million Units, which is being lost in technical losses, about 34,000 Million Units can be recovered by efficiency improvement measures. This measure along with a modest efficiency savings from domestic consumption (which itself is about 19% of the total energy consumption, and which has about 30% savings potential as per Prayas Energy Group survey) can easily match the possible energy benefits from the proposed nuclear power plant.

✤

Of the total thermal power capacity of about 37,000 MW in Western Region, if the average PLF is improved from the present level of about 65% is taken to about 80% (as compared to more than 85% in case of NTPC power plants), the resultant improvement can provide about 5,500 MW virtual additional capacity to the existing system. This can come at an additional cost which will be a very small fraction of the capital cost of proposed nuclear power plant.

Many other benign alternatives could become evident if the concerned authorities care to look for them. It is very pertinent to state that the benefits from these alternatives can come at much less overall cost to the society and with least impact on the environment and the population. In this context it is very unfortunate that no ministry/agency in our country is taking such a holistic look to the energy needs of our society. Without considering various alternatives it may be considered as scandalous to consider that a nuclear power park at horrendous cost should be acceptable to the society. The Ministry of Environment & Forests, which is mandated to protect the forests, bio-diversity and the general environment of the Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

59

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

country should raise these issues before giving its final consent for any nuclear power project.

"Many 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's 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 CO2 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's 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". From the report "TOO HOT TO HANDLE - The Future of Civil Nuclear Power" by Oxford Research Group "A transparent assessment of all the costs and risks associated with India's ambitious nuclear plans must be made before any ground is broken at Jaitapur or elsewhere." Says Siddharth Varadarajan , a respected columnist in The Hindu.

Constitutional Obligations It is very pertinent to note that there are unambiguous requirements under our Constitution to protect the environment. Article 48A says: "Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.-The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." Article 51A says: "Fundamental duties.-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures."

There are many other Acts of our parliament such as Environmental Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act and the Wild Life Protection Act, Indian Electricity Act etc. whose letter and spirit are being violated not only by nuclear power plants but also by other large size conventional power plants.

If we consider the letter and spirit of these provisions of our Constitution, the continuance of our policy on nuclear power becomes untenable, especially when we take into objective account of how large chunks of lands have become uninhabitable; how many people were evacuated, and how nearby oceans were nuclear contaminated because of the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There are considered views also that there are many international conventions, such the ones listed below, and which are more likely to be violated if we embark on the nuclear power programme.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

60

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

✤

Cocoyoc declaration of 1974, at Mexico, as part of UN Conference

✤

World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by consensus by UN General Assembly in 1982

✤

Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by 156 states in 1992.

The seriousness of the opposition to the country's nuclear plans is a writ petition filed in India's Supreme Court on Oct. 14 2011 by some of India's most eminent citizens and organizations. The petition calls on the court to order a hold on nuclear construction until safety reviews and cost-benefit analyses are carried out for all proposed or existing facilities.

The petitioners include E.A.S. Sarma, former power secretary; T.S.R. Subramanian, former cabinet secretary; N. Gopalaswami, former chief election commissioner; K.R. Venugopal, former secretary in the prime minister's office, P.M. Bhargava, former member of the National Knowledge Commission and founder fo the Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology; and Admiral Laxminarayan Ramdas, former chief of naval staff.

In its appeal the group said India's nuclear program goes against the "fundamental right to life" guaranteed by the Constitution, which the Supreme Court is bound to protect. Praful Bidwai, one of the petitioners, told InsideClimate News that India has a "poor culture of safety" and cited the 1984 gas disaster in the state of Bhopal, which killed thousands in its aftermath and from related diseases since.

A society can ill-afford to ignore the concerns of so many informed individuals as happening in the case of nuclear power policy in India.

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

61

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

CHAPTER 11 Conclusions As they say "War is too important to be left to the Generals", the decision on Nuclear Power is too critical from the perspective of the overall welfare of our communities to be decided by a handful of people in the nuclear establishment. The necessity for the active participation of all the stake holders within our society in informed decision making has become inviolable.

In any such discussion on nuclear power in India adequate focus on the following issues will be of critical importance.

1. Despite huge investment in the nuclear industry since 1950s why the nuclear power capacity has not lived upto the tall claims of its Captains?

2. In the background of the fact that USA, USSR and Japan, which are all known to be the leaders in technological issues, and which are also generally associated with quality and safety issues, have failed to avert nuclear accidents, can India hope to have safe/ accident free operation of all the existing/proposed reactors?

3. Can we say the decision by Germany and Japan to move away from the reliance on nuclear power is ill-conceived? Have, Australia and New Zealand which have shunned nuclear power from the beginning, suffered from lack of quality electricity supply?

4. With the projected cost at Jaitapur nuclear power park (Maharastra) of about Rs 20 crore per MW, can nuclear power compare favorably with coal power (about Rs. 7 Crore/MW), OR hydro power (about Rs. 8 crores/MW) OR solar power (about Rs. 20 /MW and which is coming down steeply)?

5. Are there better options to bridge the gap between demand and supply of electricity in a densely populated country such as India? Shall we not consider all the much benign options before we consider the nuclear power option, which has not gained popular acceptance even after 50 years of massive support to nuclear power in India?

6. Can we afford to accept the high risks (where 'risk' = 'probability of nuclear accident occurring' X 'consequences of such an accident') associated? How many of us are ready to live near a nuclear power plant/ nuclear facility knowing well the credible threat of radiation leakage?

7. In the background of three major nuclear accidents, and many near misses, can we afford to ignore the "precautionary principle" as enunciated by the international convention on bio-diversity?

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

62

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

8. Can we afford to ignore the caution by many reports/articles which have appeared in the media, and by leading personalities such as Michail Gorbachev, UN Secretary General, Physician for Social Responsibility, Dr. A Gopala Krishnan, Dr. Balram etc. ?

9. Whether the costs, which we need to pass on to the future generations (in safeguarding the nuclear waste for thousands of years), justifiable since there will be no benefits to these generations? How many times more electricity will the nuclear fuel cycle consume as compared to the electricity it can generate in its economic life cycle of about 40 years?

10. What are all the direct and indirect costs to the society of nuclear power as compared to the benefits in a poor country such as India? Are such benefits unquestionably higher than the costs? Through an objective study of Costs & Benefits Analysis, as a decision making tool, can we establish beyond reasonable doubts that every nuclear power plant in the country has more benefits than costs to the society?

11. Can the nuclear establishment in the country take the public at large for complete confidence by sharing all the relevant information?

12. How to ensure that all the stake holders are party to the carefully considered decisions on setting up nuclear power plants?

13. Can we convincingly say that none of the provisions of our Constitution and various Acts of our Parliament will be violated by persisting with the nuclear power policy?

14. How have we taken the bitter experiences of nuclear establishment around the world into objective account while planning our own nuclear power policy?

The impact of a wrong nuclear power policy will be much more severe on our densely populated and ill-prepared communities than that in developed countries. Hence there is an inescapable requirement that various sections of our society should be taken into objective confidence before making any commitment to build additional power plants.

Additional Reading Materials ✤ "Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned" by Mikhail Gorbachev, former President USSR (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/2/77.full) ✤ "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer" by Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.helencaldicott.com/books/nuclear-power-is-not-theanswer/) ✤ "Why should Jaitapur be made a guinea pig for untested reactor?" by Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Government of Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

63

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

India (http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/comment_why-should-jaitapur-be-made-aguinea-pig-for-untested-reactor_1520843-all) ✤ "The missing safety audits" by Dr A Gopalakrishnan (http://epaper.dnaindia.com/ epapermain.aspx?edorsup=Main&queryed=9&querypage=8 &boxid=30499718&parentid=139282&eddate=04/26/2011 ✤

"Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future", by Dr. M. V. Ramana {http:// www.isn.ethz.ch}.

✤ "Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" by ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Volume 1181 ✤ "Why A Future For The Nuclear Industry Is Risky" by Peter Bradford, Former Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory commissionhttp://www.iccr.org/publications/ risky_Jan07.pdf ✤ "Too hot to handle? The future of Civil Nuclear Power" by Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, Oxford Research Group (http://www.hindu.com/nic/toohottohandle.pdf) ✤ "Rush in now, repent later" by Siddharth Varadarajan (http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/ 25/stories/2011042552931000.htm) ✤ "For nuclear sanity" by PRAFUL BIDWAI (http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/ 20111021282110100.htm) ✤ "Reactors, residents and risk" by Declan Butler (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/ 110421/full/472400a.html) ✤ "Nuclear fault lines run deep" Down to Earth (Issue: Apr 15, 2011) (http:// www.downtoearth.org.in/content/nuclear-fault-lines-run-deep)

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

64

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power?

THE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE ORGANISATION 2010 :

Karunada Hakkigalu Written by : Dr. B.B. Hosetti & Dr. G.Y. Dayananda

2010 :

Ka Ka Ki Ki Kagunitha Hadutha Aadutha Kaliyona Written by : Smt. S.N. Srilakshmi

2011 :

Manukula Vinashakke Anusthavara Saaku Written by : Dr. A. N. Nagaraj

2011 :

Dhanvatari Shaale : Guide 1 Written by : Dr. C. Mythili

2011 :

Nuclear Power Plants for India : Are they the most dangerous and costly sources of power ?

Written by : Dr. A. N.Nagaraj, Ph.D and Shankar Sharma, B.E. (Elec), PGDip (Techgy Mgmt)

Publishers : Environmental Study Centre

65

Santhekadur - 577 222, Shivamogga