Nuclear Energy

Recommendations

Info

Future of EPR in Doubt This is a damning diagnosis. One of the selling points of the new generation plants is that they have incorporated the lessons of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island designed into them from the start. This is supposed to reduce complexity by rationalising the layers of safety systems that had been added to the old designs to take account of these accidents. Now, one of the lessons from Three Mile Island accident was that if a safety system fails, there should be an independent – redundant – back-up system available. But the Roussely report says that the complexity of the EPR is because of its extra back-up safety system. This criticism therefore raises questions on one of the most important advancements in design that is supposed to be incorporated in the EPR – that even while having an independent back-up safety system, the complexity of the design is reduced. ccclxxiv (Ironically, the UK and US safety regulators are raising questions about the very independence of this back-up safety system.) Stephen Thomas, professor of Energy Studies at the University of Greenwich and a researcher in the area of energy policy, especially nuclear policy, for over 30 years, says that reducing this complexity in design is not going to be easy, it would require major modifications in design, which means that Areva would have to seek authorisation of its new design from nuclear regulators all over again. This whole process would probably take a decade! ccclxxv To add to the EPR's woes, at both Olkiluoto and Flamanville, the cost of construction has sharply escalated. With all the design and other problems, there is no knowing what the final cost is going to be. Even if they ignore the design problems, no European country nor the USA is going to order another EPR at such an astronomical cost. Clearly, the EPR is in trouble... Part IV: Conclusion From the detailed discussion above, it is obvious that despite intense lobbying and propaganda campaign by the nuclear industry, the “nuclear renaissance” is turning out to be a damp squib. Even though the US administration has expressed its willingness to dole out billions of dollars in new subsidies for new reactors, and the first loan guarantees for construction of 2 reactors in Georgia have been announced, all the proposals for construction of new reactors have run into trouble. Eventually, after all the huffing and puffing by the nuclear industry and their spokespersons in the administration, at the most one or two reactors might start getting constructed. It is indisputable that there is no nuclear renaissance in the US. This is also true of Western Europe, where the construction of two new reactors after nearly two decades has become such a fiasco that it is doubtful if any more reactors are going to be built there in the near future. All proposals for constructing new reactors in Canada, one of the first countries in the world to invest in nuclear power, have been cancelled. Russia has announced plans to build a few nuclear reactors, but given its huge gas and oil resources, it is unlikely that it will invest huge amounts in nuclear power. China and India are likely to build a few reactors; Korea, Japan and Eastern Europe might also add a 92
eactor or two, but considering that dozens of nuclear plants are scheduled to shut down in the next two decades, it is obvious that the overall worldwide trend for nuclear power is going to be downwards. In all likelihood, the sun is setting for nuclear power globally. The reasons for this dismal future are the colossal problems with nuclear energy: apart from skyrocketing costs, difficulty in raising loans due to high financial risks, construction delays, and design problems, mankind has yet to find answers to the terrible safety issues with nuclear energy – the deathly radioactive pollution of the environment caused by leakage of radiation from the nuclear reactor, the as yet intractable problem of safe storage of high level wastes, and the potential for catastrophic accidents. Because of these problems, public opposition to construction of nuclear plants in their neighbourhoods is intense, and so even if governments have been willing to support the construction of new nuclear plants, they have been forced to scuttle their plans due to powerful people's protests. Paying the huge costs associated with nuclear energy, especially because mankind will continue to pay these costs for centuries for power from plants whose life will at the most be 60 years, becomes even more meaningless when we contrast this with the potential of energy from renewable sources like sun, wind and biomass to meet all our future energy needs. As we see in Chapter 10, the cost of energy from renewable sources is rapidly falling, some technologies have already become competitive with electricity from conventional sources, and their economies will further improve as they develop technically. Other Independent Assessments of “Nuclear Renaissance” i) Prognos Institute Report ccclxxvi The Swiss “Prognos” institute, based in Basel, was commissioned by Germany’s Federal Agency for Radiation Protection in Salzgitter to carry out a realistic estimate of the future development of nuclear energy world-wide till the year 2030. In its report submitted in November 2009, it has also come to the same conclusion: The world-wide renaissance of nuclear power that has so often been predicted will not take place in the next few decades. Nuclear energy will be on the decline till the year 2030, and will continue to decline in importance globally. The study finds that although the number of announcements of new nuclear power stations is on the increase, and everything seems to have been prepared for the big renaissance of nuclear power, but it is so only in theory. Many nuclear projects world-wide are already at a standstill. In view of the growing financing problems and political instability, at best only a third of the planned new projects will be realized world-wide. Even if construction begins, there are going to be many problems. The study concludes: 93
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 and 88: lower house (Bundestag) to pass a b
Page 89 and 90: UK and French nuclear safety author
Page 91: The second and more important reaso
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?