Nuclear Energy

Recommendations

Info

Finland and France are the two clear cut exceptions as far as nuclear energy policy goes in Western Europe. Finland currently operates four units. In December 2003, Finland became the first country to order a new nuclear reactor in Western Europe after 15 years (the last one being the Civaux <strong>Nuclear</strong> Plant in France in ordered in 1988). The 1600 MW EPR being built by Areva under a turnkey contract was supposed to be constructed in four years, but is already more than four years behind schedule, and its cost has escalated to at least double the contract price. Despite these troubles, the Finnish Parliament approved in July 2010 a government proposal to construct two new nuclear power plants in the country. cccxlviii France is probably the most pro-nuclear country in the world. In 2008, the 59 French reactors accounted for a little more than half of West Europe’s nuclear capacity (63.2 GW). France also accounts for one of the two reactors presently under construction in Western Europe. French nuclear reactors produce over 75% of the country’s electricity, although only about 55% of its installed electricity generating capacity is nuclear. In other words, France has a huge overcapacity that has led to dumping electricity on neighbouring countries. It also means that France does not need to build any new units for a long time; the only reason why the French government and EDF have decided to go ahead with the construction of a new unit, Flamanville-3, is because the nuclear industry desperately needs new orders to survive. cccxlix Construction of the new reactor started in December 2007; as discussed later in this chapter, the construction of this reactor has also encountered numerous problems of quality control and cost escalation. Part III: Reviewing the Renaissance in Real Life: Olkiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 The flagships of the ‘<strong>Nuclear</strong> Renaissance’ being proclaimed by the global nuclear industry are the two Generation III+ EPR reactors being constructed in Finland and France, Olkiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 (respectively). However, both of them have got holed below the water line... Olkiluoto-3 Areva, the largest nuclear builder in the world, in its marketing of EPR worldwide, has promoted it as a nuclear power plant that is safer, cheaper, more mature and more reliable than any other. Its promotional material states: “The EPR is the direct descendant of the well proven N4 and KONVOI reactors, guaranteeing a fully mastered technology. As a result, risks linked to design, licensing, construction and operation of the EPR are minimised, providing a unique certainty to EPR customers.” cccl However, what is certain about its Olkiluoto-3 project is that none of these promises are being delivered. Till November 2009, the Finnish nuclear safety authority STUK had detected about 3000 safety and quality problems in the OL3 project! cccli Alarmingly, these include problems with several key components: • Control and Instrumentation System: This is the nerve centre of the reactor and controls every aspect of reactor operation as well as emergency systems. In November 2009, Finnish, 88
UK and French nuclear safety authorities raised questions about its design, saying it was at odds with basic principles of nuclear safety. ccclii • Primary Circuit: This is probably the most crucial part of the reactor, as it contains the water coolant which is responsible for safety of the reactor. The primary circuit is subject to extreme heat, pressure and radiation for decades. Its components are hard to replace, some actually impossible to replace, once the reactor is in use. There have been quality problems with almost all the components of the primary circuit: all eight primary coolant pipes had to be recast, and STUK found the refabricated pipes to be inferior too; most of the components of the reactor pressure vessel and the pressuriser had to be remanufactured as they did not meet safety standards; and repairs had to be made in the steam generator too! cccliii • Containment Steel Liner: There were serious defects in the welding of the Containment Steel Liner, which constitutes the last barrier against leaks of radioactive substances into the environment in case of an accident. While STUK has acted to get these defects rectified, it has been forced to lower quality standards while doing so. cccliv • Concrete Base Slab: STUK found that even the concrete base slab of the reactor was of inferior quality: the water content of the concrete was too high, because of which its compressive strength as well as chemical resistance are below requirements, and may cause the base to crack in the long run. Even this defect cannot be fully rectified! ccclv TVO and Areva failed to spot many of these failures, and only timely detection by STUK enabled them to be corrected. However, STUK itself has admitted that the number of problems is so large that it is possible that it will not be able to detect all of them. The problem of detection has become more difficult because contractors are known to have on several occasions attempted to hide their mistakes by fabricating measurements, covering up defective structures, failing to record shoddy repair work, etc. ccclvi According to a study done for Greenpeace by renowned nuclear expert Dr. Helmut Hirsch, ccclvii while STUK has acted to get these defects rectified, there are many issues on which STUK has not provided satisfactory answers, including: the extent of problems during manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel, the procedure for re-manufacturing the primary piping, the overall state of the containment liner after repairs, the effectiveness of the counter-measures planned because of the higher water content of the base slab concrete. He also points out that there are several instances where STUK has relaxed safety requirements and allowed installation of faulty components. ccclviii These are scary facts! Because, the EPR being of 1650 MW capacity is the largest reactor ever built, and so its core contains more radioactive elements than any other reactor. In addition, for reasons of economy, it is designed to burn fuel longer, leading to increased radioactivity and greater production of dangerous nuclear isotopes. This will obviously mean greater thinning of the fuel cladding and more dangerous radioactive releases from the reactor. A high burn-up will also lead to much higher toxicity of the radioactive waste; according to an EDF study, EPR waste will have about four times as much radioactive bromine, iodine, cesium, etc. as compared to ordinary 89
Page 1 and 2:
NUCLEAR ENERGY Technology From Hell
Page 3 and 4:
Introduction Part I: Government Pla
Page 5 and 6:
yet to find solution to the problem
Page 7 and 8:
Mithivirdi: A powerful movement of
Page 9 and 10:
eing proposed to be set up in the c
Page 11 and 12:
nuclear power plant accident, in ou
Page 13 and 14:
was subsequently endorsed by the he
Page 15 and 16:
Atoms are so small that they can’
Page 17 and 18:
called enriched uranium. [Note that
Page 19 and 20:
of a nuclear power reactor. A typic
Page 21 and 22:
Coolant: A liquid or gas circulatin
Page 23 and 24:
Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor Hea
Page 25 and 26:
Is Nuclear Energy Safe? Chapter 3 A
Page 27 and 28:
iii. Gamma radiation: This is akin
Page 29 and 30:
haematopoietic system). Radiation c
Page 31 and 32:
Part III: Radiation Emission in Nuc
Page 33 and 34:
The radioactivity from the tailing
Page 35 and 36:
power plant contains an amount of l
Page 37 and 38: Tritium is a particularly scary mat
Page 39 and 40: Plutonium cxi Named after Pluto, th
Page 41 and 42: Firstly, reprocessing does not redu
Page 43 and 44: sports and fishing were also banned
Page 45 and 46: detail the impact of these 'once th
Page 47 and 48: We today know for a fact that the n
Page 49 and 50: Till 2005, there were at least 10,0
Page 51 and 52: The report mentions 16 “events”
Page 53 and 54: In an article published in The Nati
Page 55 and 56: Even asssuming that there will not
Page 57 and 58: fossil fuels. It has now come up wi
Page 59 and 60: Opinion of Credit Ratings Agencies
Page 61 and 62: it acknowledged that the expected c
Page 63 and 64: plant owners to use much more of th
Page 65 and 66: was the Vice-President of the USA):
Page 67 and 68: 6. Blithely Ignoring Health Costs S
Page 69 and 70: Is Nuclear Power Green? Chapter 5 S
Page 71 and 72: Energy Balance attempts to make an
Page 73 and 74: nuclear energy as compared to elect
Page 75 and 76: Table 1: Estimates of Total and Nuc
Page 77 and 78: � At the end of 2009, there were
Page 79 and 80: Therefore, despite all the optimism
Page 81 and 82: 1. Reviewing the Nuclear Renaissanc
Page 83 and 84: certification also runs out in 2012
Page 85 and 86: nuclear phase-out plans which are n
Page 87: lower house (Bundestag) to pass a b
Page 91 and 92: The second and more important reaso
Page 93 and 94: eactor or two, but considering that
Page 95 and 96: Pre-Independence Period India’s N
Page 97 and 98: Secretary to the DAE. The 1958 Reso
Page 99 and 100: The reality has been quite differen
Page 101 and 102: Narora Uttar Pradesh PHWR 220 x 2 4
Page 103 and 104: Background Part III: US-India Agree
Page 105 and 106: 2. New Reactors Even before the Ind
Page 107 and 108: clearance, indicative of the fact t
Page 109 and 110: producing electricity from these re
Page 111 and 112: matters of negotiations”. cdxliii
Page 113 and 114: arm of Indian big industry, had ext
Page 115 and 116: India’s Nuclear Installations: Sa
Page 117 and 118: extremely sensitive material used i
Page 119 and 120: area due to uranium mining. cdlxxxi
Page 121 and 122: women complained of fatigue, weakne
Page 123 and 124: India: World’s most unsafe, most
Page 125 and 126: the AEC has not instituted an award
Page 127 and 128: The biggest deficiency in the Rajas
Page 129 and 130: The bed of the Thane creek, which i
Page 131 and 132: Fires have also occurred repeatedly
Page 133 and 134: workers are exposed to radiation, a
Page 135 and 136: can't catch anything else, and ther
Page 137 and 138: up in 1971 at Kalpakkam to lead the
Page 139 and 140:
Tulsunde (population 800), Janshipa
Page 141 and 142:
are going to be correspondingly hig
Page 143 and 144:
governing the computers and systems
Page 145 and 146:
guidelines.” It’s unbelievable
Page 147 and 148:
The Sustainable Alternative to Nucl
Page 149 and 150:
especially bad in the rural areas,
Page 151 and 152:
of the human body. In particular, t
Page 153 and 154:
While the costs of large dams are h
Page 155 and 156:
Demand Side Management Potential to
Page 157 and 158:
such absolutely non-essential uses?
Page 159 and 160:
The US has the highest installed wi
Page 161 and 162:
Solar water heaters are a very simp
Page 163 and 164:
Renewable Energies: Poised for a Le
Page 165 and 166:
(iii) Small Hydro Power The governm
Page 167 and 168:
Indian villages are spread over wid
Page 169 and 170:
Energy about the huge potential of
Page 171 and 172:
anticipating a change in NSG rules,
Page 173 and 174:
� Privatise the public sector, in
Page 175 and 176:
countries - recycling rubbish in th
Page 177 and 178:
inflows of foreign capital (also kn
Page 179 and 180:
analyse. We must develop our politi
Page 181 and 182:
xxvii I. Semendeferi, “Legitimati
Page 183 and 184:
lxxxvii Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jam
Page 185 and 186:
cliii The IAEA maintains an interna
Page 187 and 188:
cciv Mycle Schneider, et al., “Th
Page 189 and 190:
cclxxi “Nuclear power: a dangerou
Page 191 and 192:
cccxxxv “The postponement of the
Page 193 and 194:
cdi “Uranium imports boost Indian
Page 195 and 196:
cdlxix Dhirendra Sharma, India’s
Page 197 and 198:
dxxxviii “Nuclear power in India
Page 199 and 200:
dxciii M. V. Ramana, ibid. dxciv Mu
Page 201 and 202:
dclix Union of Concerned Scientists
show all

Nuclear Energy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?