Nuclear Power Today: The Reality

A critical analysis

Peoples Committee for Safe Energy (PECOSE)

A critical analysis of the claims on nuclear energy for civilian use, political-economic perspectives and examination of alternative energy sources PECOSE

First print: 4 Feb 2013, 2000 Copies

Printed by: S Ganesan (for PECOSE), New No 16, Rotler Street, Choolai, Chennai - 600112

Printed at: Print Factory, Nagappa Street Palace Guttalli, Bangalore-3 Price: Rs. 25

Foreword
The debate on the pros and cons of the civilian use of nuclear energy in India has gripped the intelligentsia as well as the common public. The pro-nuclear advocates claim that nuclear energy is indispensable for addressing the existing power shortage and for overall energy security. They opine that the safety concerns are often exaggerated and that adequate safety measures can minimize the risk of hazards and even accidents. They argue that India possesses enormous quantities of nuclear fuel yet to be explored and hence, India cannot afford to drop the nuclear power initiative. On the contrary, anti-nuclear protagonists hinge their arguments on the long-term effects of nuclear radiation and in particular, nuclear waste, and the destructive nature of nuclear accidents all these despite taking safety precautions. They question the need as well as the potential of nuclear energy in tackling the nations electricity deficit. They point out that the nuclear energy programme in India has been secretive since its inception. They argue that the manner in which nuclear policy decisions are made and implemented - even when the lives and livelihood of thousands of people are at stake is undemocratic and often, repressive. This debate has often excited fiery passions, especially after the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan. Despite the assurances given by the nuclear establishment, the Central and various state governments on safety, the mass agitations against nuclear power in Koodankulam, Jaitapur, Gorakhpur and a few other places show no signs of abating. At the same time, there is an urgent need to resolve the acute power scarcity which is recognised by both the camps. Given this context, we, Peoples Committee for Safe Energy (PECOSE), feel that there should be an effort to promote a rational discourse and not a heated desk-thumping. As a first step, we have
3

brought out this booklet. It aims to examine scientifically the various claims on the civilian use of nuclear energy in India. It attempts to evolve a consensus from relevant facts and evidences through scientific analysis. It explores the economic and political perspectives of nuclear energy which is essential for a comprehensive grasp of the issue. It takes stock of the available options to resolve the power crisis in the country in a safe, clean, viable and sustainable way and puts forth a few suggestions. We hope that the discerning reader is persuaded into an open and reasoned dialogue. Your views are welcome. Please write to us at pecose.india@gmail.com. Also, you can contact any of the persons given below for further information: State Delhi Tamilnadu Karnataka West Bengal Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Kerala Gujarat Haryana Rajasthan Orissa Bihar Assam Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Punjab Tripura 31 Jan 2013 Contact Name Pran Sharma S Ganesan Rajani KS Prof Dhruba Mukherjee Mayur Thakre Ch. Murahari Jaison Joseph Mukesh Semwal Jai Karan Rajmal Sharma Dr Siddharth Bharadwaj Suryakar Jitendra Pintu Debnath Dr Manavendra Bera Lokesh Sharma Inderjeet Singh Asit Das Mobile No 099683 50503 094445 51930 095352 46513 094330 92581 077384 17825 094412 73684 093888 67492 094285 83155 099925 38828 094609 38555 088952 67202 094706 58604 098627 98551 080041 19668 098936 87089 098156 18580 073998 88605 Prof Dhruba Mukherjee Convenor, PECOSE
4

Table of Contents
1. 2.
2.1.

Early warnings? ............................................................. 6 A bit of history .............................................................. 8

A brief on ongoing peoples agitations ............................................10

3.
3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

The claims on nuclear energy in the Indian context ..... 15

Claim 1: Nuclear energy is a must to meet Indias energy needs .....16 Claim 2: Nuclear energy is comparatively cheap and plentiful ........18 Claim 3: Nuclear technology is relatively safe .................................22 Claim 4: Nuclear technology is environment friendly ......................39

4. 5. 6.
6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5.

Corruption and the Nuclear Establishment .................. 40 Cleanup & compensation who bears the cost? .......... 41 Non-nuclear sources: Potential vs. Performance .......... 43
Solar energy ....................................................................................43 Wind energy ...................................................................................45 Hydro, waste-to-energy and other sources .....................................47 Clean Coal Technology ....................................................................47 Power saved is power produced! ....................................................48

7. 8. 9. 10.
10.1. 10.2.

The rural poor and nuclear energy............................... 49 Is anti-nuclear stand same as anti-technology? ............ 50 Nuclear power phase-out a policy rethink................. 51 Why is the government so bent upon going ahead? ..... 51
Nuclear energy and Indias status as regional super power ...........52 Nuclear business a mine of opportunities for the corporates .......55

11. 12. 13. 14.

Nuclear policy decisions democratic or autocratic? ... 58 Experts and intellectuals on which side? ................... 59 The last word .............................................................. 60 References .................................................................. 62

1. Early warnings?
Two incidents in the not-so-distant past had come very close to disaster in India. The way these potential disasters were averted is especially noteworthy. One occurred at the Narora nuclear reactor in UP on 31 March, 1993. Early that morning, two blades of the turbine of the first unit at Narora broke off. They sliced through other blades, destabilizing the turbine and making it vibrate excessively. The vibrations caused the pipes which carried hydrogen gas that cool the turbine - to break, releasing hydrogen, which soon caught fire. Around the same time, lubricant oil too leaked. The fire spread to the oil and throughout the entire turbine building. Among the systems burnt by the fire were four cables that carried electricity. This led to a general blackout in the plant. One set of cables supplied power to the secondary cooling systems. When it got burnt, those cooling systems were rendered inoperable. To make things worse, the control room was filled with smoke and the operators were forced to leave it about ten minutes after the blades broke off. Prior to leaving, however, the operators manually actuated the primary shutdown system of the reactor. Fortunately, the reactor shutdown systems worked and control rods were inserted to stop the chain reaction. The problem then was something similar to what happened at Fukushima: the reactor went on generating heat because the fuel rods in a reactor accumulate fission products which continue to undergo radioactive decay. The situation was saved by some workers who climbed on to the top of the reactor building, with the aid of battery-operated torches, and manually opened valves to release liquid boron into the core, further absorbing neutrons. Had these workers not acted as they did there could have been a local core-melt and explosive fuel-coolant
6

interaction. The names of those heroic workers have never been made public![1] Another major disaster would have occurred at the Kakrapar nuclear plant in Gujarat but for a stroke of luck. On 15 and 16 June 1994, there were heavy rains in South Gujarat and the water level of the lake began to rise. That resulted in the ducts that were meant to let out water becoming conduits for water to come in. Water began entering the turbine building on the night of 15 June. There were no arrangements for sealing cable trenches and valve pits, both of which also allowed water to enter the reactor building. By the morning of 16 June, there was water not only in the turbine building but also in other parts of the reactor complex. The workers in the morning shift had to swim in chest-high water, and the control room was reportedly inaccessible for some time. A site emergency was declared and workers were evacuated. The gates of the Moticher Lake could not be opened, even after the management requested help from the district and state authorities. Finally, villagers from the area, who were worried about the security of their own homes, made a breach in the embankment of the lake which allowed the waters to drain out. Fortunately, the reactor had been shut down for over four months at the time of the flooding and there was no great danger of an accident. Had it been functioning and had there been a reason to issue an off-site emergency, the situation would have been disastrous.[1] It is important to note that common people and workers, who remain unnamed, came to the rescue of the plants in both incidents one caused by fire and the other by water. No wonder, then, that people elsewhere are deeply worried. The ongoing mass agitations against the proposed Rs.17,000 crore 2000 MW nuclear power plant at Koodankulam, Tamilnadu or the
7

proposed Rs.1,12,000 crore 9900 MW nuclear power plant at Jaitapur, Maharashtra or the proposed Rs.23,000 crore 2800 MW nuclear plant at Gorakhpur, Haryana are the latest manifestations of a long series of protests against nuclear technology. These protests have brought the focus of the nation on these important questions: Is nuclear technology really safe? Is nuclear energy really indispensible to meet the power crisis in India? Most importantly, why is the government so bent upon going ahead at any cost?

2. A bit of history
Before we delve into these questions, lets look back to get the historical perspective of whats going on today. A particularly interesting chapter in the history of nuclear energy in India is the titanic clash between two foremost physicists, Dr Homi Bhabha and Prof Meghnad Saha on the future of the Indian Nuclear Programme. Saha and Bhabha differed in their notions about the goals of science and technology, and the means for achieving these goals. Saha emphasised large-scale industrialisation, development of competent manpower, judicious and equitable distribution before embarking on a nuclear programme. He advocated participatory democracy even in such highly technical engineering projects. On the contrary, Bhabha argued that nuclear energy is an immediate necessity for India and he preferred an elitist approach even if it meant being secretive[65] - over Sahas open and democratically disposed approach.[1] A memorandum sent by Dr Bhabha to Nehru argued that in order to keep activities secret, a small, high-powered centralised body controlling atomic energy research had to be set up rapidly reporting only to the Prime Minister.[65] In contrast, Saha wanted to

see universities do research in nuclear physics and engineering, and be supported (by the government) in their efforts.[67]

Dr.Homi Bhabha with Nehru

Prof. Megnad Saha

Sahas argument did not find favour with the ruling establishment under Nehru and it was Bhabhas argument which prevailed. Thus, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) founded in 1948 just one year after independence is as historian Ramachandra Guha puts it the most secretive institution in India! The power plants run by AEC do not have to report to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings. In fact, they have been made exempt from the scrutiny of even the Parliament by an Act of Parliament - Atomic Energy Act of 1948.[3] This Act clamped secrecy on the entire atomic energy programme of the country.[68] During the early 50s, as an elected Member of Parliament, Saha repeatedly raised this issue on the floor of the Lok Sabha. In the debate in the Lok Sabha on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy on 10 May 1954, he made an impassioned appeal: If you read our Atomic Energy Act, you find that it does not tell us what to do but it simply tells us what is not to be done. (But) the Atomic Energy Acts of England and Americadeal with how the efforts of the scientific talents of the country have to be harnessed in one scientific effort.[68] He continued to be opposed to the secrecy and the exclusivity of the Atomic Energy Commission.[67] But, the nuclear
9

energy programme went ahead on the chosen path of secrecy. The compulsions behind this secrecy and exclusivity are dealt with in section 10.

2.1.

A brief on ongoing peoples agitations

Lets take a brief look at the origin and nature of the agitations currently going on in Koodankulam (Tamilnadu), Jaitapur (Maharashtra), Gorakhpur (Haryana) and other places.

Koodankulam agitation long but strong

The proposal for installing two nuclear power plants of 1000 MW capacity each at Koodankulam in Tirunelveli district of Tamilnadu was made in the late eighties. An Inter-Governmental agreement on the project was signed on November 20, 1988 between India and the former USSR. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the project remained uncertain. The project was revived with the signing of a new agreement between the governments of Russia and India in 1997 and the construction work started. Under an agreement signed in December 2008, Russia is to supply four more reactors of 1170 MW capacity each. These reactors are VVER reactors which are water-cooled, water-moderated power reactors (VVER means Vodo-Vodyanoi Energetichesky Reactor or Water-Water Power Reactor). The working mechanism of these reactors is beyond the scope of this booklet. The agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plan (KKNPP) is not a recent one. At the time of proposal of the project itself in 1987, the local people started protesting against it. On May 1, 1989, six people were badly injured in police firing in Kanyakumari in the agitation against Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. The protests continued in different forms till 1991 till the project was shelved due to the collapse of the then Soviet Union.[134]
10

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant The opposition resurfaced soon after the project was revived in 1998. In November 2001, Dr S P Udayakumar and a few activists founded a broad umbrella organisation called Peoples Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) with focus on public education. PMANE organisers visited numerous villages and towns in Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi districts and talked to thousands of concerned citizens, womens associations, fishermens associations, farmers associations, student groups, teachers and religious leaders. Numerous public meetings, hall meetings, college seminars, group meetings and street-side gatherings were also conducted and the protest movement started to gain in strength. After the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011, larger sections of the people felt that the danger was real and that the protest movement was justified. Since then, tens of thousands of men, women and children have been engaged in different forms of protest including fasting, continuous relay fast at ground zero in
11

Idinthakarai braving starvation, loss of livelihood, and police action that was often brutal. The principal reasons cited by PMANE to demand closure of the nuclear plant[44] are: The project is imposed on the people without following the due democratic process of obtaining public approval through extensive public hearing and without allaying the legitimate fears of the local people about the possible hazards. More than 10 lakh people live within the 30 km radius of the Koodankulam Plant which far exceeds the limit stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). It is quite impossible to evacuate so many people quickly and efficiently in case of a nuclear disaster at Koodankulam. It is impossible to rule out nuclear accidents completely. They can happen due to operational errors (Chernobyl disaster), mechanical failures (Three Mile Island accident) or Natural disasters (Fukushima disaster). The spent fuel will accumulate over the years and the hazard posed by it for hundreds of years is not addressed by the government. The safe disposal of nuclear waste is an unresolved problem in the world. The Tamilnadu Government establishes clearly that area between 2 to 5 km radius around the plant site, (would be) called the sterilization zone. People living in this area fear that they could be displaced and that fishing will be affected since fishing will not be permitted in the vicinity of the plant. The coolant water and low-grade waste from the plant are going to be dumped into the sea which will have severe impact on fish production and catch. The important issue of liability on the part of the Russian supplier of the plants is not addressed by the government. The Vendor is protected from litigations in case of accidents.

12

In October 2011, the Central Government set up a 15-member Experts Group for interaction with the people as part of an exercise to allay their apprehensions about the project. The group conducted discussions with a state level committee including PMANE members. However, several questions related to the safety of the project, nuclear waste management, liability agreements etc. remained unresolved. Subsequently, the government resorted to repressive measures such as filing false cases like Waging war against the country against the organisers of the movement (PMANE members) and also the agitating public to intimidate the protesters. The organisers were also charged with receiving funds from abroad. On 24 February, 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed American and Scandinavian NGOs for fuelling protests at the power plant. But Dr S.P. Udayakumar denied the charge and sent a legal notice to the PM for his comments.[112] The home ministry raided his house and institute but so far, it is not known to have yielded anything incriminating.[113] On March 18, 2012, immediately after the Sankarankoil by-election, a massive force of police and para-military numbering several thousands were deployed in the Idinthakarai area. On March 19, the Tamilnadu Government gave clearance for the commissioning of the plant. And the crackdown on the people began. Mass arrests in hundreds followed. Poor, unarmed villagers were charged with sedition, waging war against the nation and other serious charges. In September 2012, when the fuel loading was planned, people came out in large numbers in protest. Police unleashed brutal lathicharge and tear gas shelling on the people. In a protest demonstration in nearby town Tuticorin, one fisherman was killed in police firing on September 10, 2012. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the
13

governments civil nuclear programme at the Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies. Gopalkrishna Gandhi, grandson of Gandhiji and former West Bengal governor has said that an Indian Fukushima cannot be ruled out and government needs to convince people about safety aspects of the project. Thousands of protesters from around the plant, have used various means to protest such as Jal Satyagraha, Human Chain, Fasting etc. On 29 October 2012, more than 2000 anti-nuclear activists were arrested when they tried to lay siege to Tamilnadu assembly demanding scrapping of the project. M G Devasahayam, former chairman of Haryana State Electricity Board who is actively involved with the anti-nuclear agitation has deplored that in Koodankulam, over 8000 ordinary people have been charged with draconian offences under IPC Sections 121 (Waging war against the state) and 124 A (Sedition). Out of them 54 persons including 7 women continue to rot in jail.[114] The struggle has crossed 500 days and is still going strong.

Jaitapur is the technology proven?

The 9900 MW nuclear power park at Jaitapur in Maharashtra, if built, is said to become the largest nuclear power generating station in the world. On December 6, 2010, an agreement was signed between France and India for the construction of two Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors (EPR) and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years. French nuclear firm Areva is the supplier of the reactors. The proposal is to construct six EPRs, each of 1650 MW, thus totaling 9900 MW.

14

Ever since the time of land acquisition for the 768-hectare plant, the project has faced stiff resistance from the affected villagers. In December 2010, nearly 6,000 protesters had marched across the villages calling for a total halt to the Jaitapur project. Over 1500 people were detained. They included environmentalists, leaders of Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and Janahit Seva Samiti - organisations that are leading the opposition to the project. Shiv Sena has tried to cash in on the raging public sentiment which even resulted in one death in police firing. But Justice B.G. Kolse Patil, former judge of the Bombay High Court, who led the December march and was held for five days, has stressed: We completely disagree with the kind of agitation the Sena is spearheading.[117] The fact that EPRs have not been tried anywhere in the world earlier has added fuel to the fire. Dr.A.Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of AERB, says, its potential problems are totally unknown even to Areva, its French developer, let alone Indias NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited). Two EPRs being built in Finland by the same French vendor are facing serious problems apart from delay. Another key concern is that the nuclear waste from EPRs is about four times more radioactive than the waste from the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) used in the other operating nuclear plants in India.[116] Similarly, people nurture a deep sense of insecurity and even, distrust on the governments assurances at other locations where nuclear plants are proposed - Gorakhpur (Haryana), Mithi-Virdi (Gujarat), Kovvada (Andhra Pradesh), Chutka (Madhya Pradesh) or Banswada (Rajasthan), For instance, at Gorakhpur, there has been a daily dharna against four proposed reactors for two years.[142]

3. The claims on nuclear energy in the Indian context

15

The most important claims of the nuclear programme in India are: (a) Nuclear energy is a must to meet Indias expanding energy needs (b) In comparison with other sources, nuclear energy is cheap and plentiful (c) Nuclear energy is relatively safe (d) Nuclear energy is more environment friendly than the energy produced from fossil fuels Lets examine each of these claims in the light of experiences of nuclear programmes in India and around the globe.

3.1. Claim 1: Nuclear energy is a must to meet Indias energy needs

In 1954, Bhabha predicted that India would produce 8,000 MW by 1980. Later in 1969, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) pompously predicted that 43,500 MW of nuclear energy would pulsate the country by 2000. These grand words have failed to materialise. By 2000, India was only able to produce 2,720 MW.[1] An empirical analysis shows that the nuclear establishment has consistently overstated the amount of electricity it can feasibly generate in the near future. Here, the term nuclear establishment refers to the pro-nuclear bigwigs in politics (including the PM), bureaucracy, media, science & technology, the Department of Atomic Energy and various bodies under it namely AEC, AERB, NPCIL, UCIL and others, and most importantly, the domestic and international corporate houses who pull the invisible strings. In 1984, DAE drew up a new atomic energy plan that envisioned setting up 10,000 MW of nuclear power by the year 2000. But an audit in 1998 found that the actual additional generation of power under the plan as on March 1998, after having incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,292 crore, was NIL.[1]
16

As of today, India has 19 nuclear reactors with a total electricity production capacity of 4,680 MW. The total installed capacity in India including coal, hydro and other energy sources is 2,07,900 MW. This means, nuclear capacity accounts for a mere 2.3% of the total installed capacity. While thermal and hydroelectric plants together constitute 85% of this capacity, wind-based capacity is more than 3 times the nuclear capacity.[17] If all the 7 planned nuclear plants including Koodankulam begin operations, nuclear capacity will go up to about 10,100 MW. Add to this, the proposed 9900 MW Jaitapur plant claimed to be the largest nuclear plant in the world - the total nuclear capacity can reach 20,000 MW. However, the projected electricity demand in 2017 i.e., end of 12th Five Year Plan, as per a McKinsey report would be about 3,30,000 MW.[121] So, how can nuclear technology that creates such a trifle in relation to the total demand for electricity really cater to it?

Will Koodankulam solve Tamilnadu power crisis?

Indeed, Tamilnadu is going through an acute power crisis with only two thirds of its daily demand being met, leaving a power shortage of about 4000 MW. Several parts of the state are suffering from power cuts upto 16 hours in a day.[127] But, can the commissioning of the Koodankulam plant resolve the crisis? Lets look at the fine print. As per the Gadgil formula for Koodankulam power sharing decided in February 2004, Tamilnadu is allotted 925 MW out of the 2000 MW Koodankulam capacity. Karnataka, Pondicherry & Kerala are the other allotees.[77] Power experts including a member of the erstwhile Tamilnadu Electricity Board - point out that the Koodankulam power may not
17

make a huge difference to the State, since only about 463 MW is expected if and when the first reactor goes live. Out of this, quotas for other states need to be honoured. Even by the most optimistic estimate, an official says the allotted quantum to Tamilnadu is likely to reduce load shedding only by about an hour or so. They also point out that the pace of generation in nuclear plants unlike other thermal plants - will be gradual and it will take months before the rated capacity can be reached.[79] What would happen even if both reactors go live and rated capacity is reached in course of time? As per the Ministry of Science & Technology, the plant load factor of the nuclear power plants i.e., the actual capacity achieved was 61% in 2009-10.[78] So, at this rate, Tamilnadu will really get about 565 MW power from Koodankulam if both reactors become operational. If you account for the transmission & distribution losses, this means, only about 10% of Tamilnadus existing deficit can be met and load shedding can be reduced only by about 1-2 hours a far cry from the promises! In general, DAE continues to make extraordinary claims such as nuclear power would be 63,000 MW by 2032 and an astounding 2,75,000 MW by 2050[70] which was later jacked up to - hold your breath - 4,70,000 MW by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh following the Indo-US nuclear deal! But, going by history, one has to be incredibly gullible to feel excited about this no matter what his or her stand on nuclear energy is.

3.2. Claim 2: Nuclear energy is comparatively cheap and plentiful

On the economic side, distinguished energy scientist Prof. Amulya Reddy and others have shown that nuclear power in India is costlier per unit than coal.[2] Based on this work, a study at IIT Kanpur shows that realistically, the cost of one Unit (KWh) of electricity in 2007 was Rs. 2.68 for Kaiga nuclear plant and Rs. 1.90 for Raichur coal
18

plant.[72] A separate study has found that the unit cost of hydro power in India is 35% less than coal (and hence, cheaper than nuclear power as well).[75] The United States is a close ally of India in her nuclear quest. But, even in the US, Energy Information Administration (EIA) in December, 2010 suggested that Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro and Wind options are cheaper than Nuclear option as given below[74] (assuming $1 = Rs. 55 for currency conversion): Plant Type Natural Gas Hydro Wind Coal Nuclear Avg Cost per Unit (Rs/KWh) Rs. 3.60 Rs. 4.75 Rs. 4.95 Rs. 5.20 Rs. 6.25

A prestigious publication like The Tech (MITs oldest and largest technology newspaper) agreed in November, 2011 that the cost of nuclear power is likely to be about twice the cost of natural gas power in the US.[41] Indian Nuclear sector has garnered more than 60% of the total budget on energy research despite contributing a mere 2.3% of the countrys total power generation capacity. Dr MV Ramana, nuclear physicist with Princeton University and Senior Fellow at CISED, Bangalore feels that if these priorities are reversed, with clean technologies like solar and wind power getting the kind of support nuclear energy currently enjoys, the energy demands will be better served.[3] One of the big problems with nuclear power is the enormous upfront cost. These reactors are extremely expensive to build says Daniel Indiviglio, Washington-based columnist with Reuters. The work of Dr MV Ramana demonstrates that a nuclear plant two times
19

the size of a coal plant costs about four times to build[73] as follows:
Plant Kaiga I & II (nuclear) Raichur VII (coal) Total Capacity 2x200 MW 210 MW Year of Operation 2000 2002 Construction Cost Rs.1,816 crore Rs.491 Crore

Dr Ramana goes a step further: This illusion (that nuclear energy is cheap) is conjured up by hugely underestimating costs, by hiding subsidies, and most significantly, by limiting liabilities in the event of catastrophic accidents. The nuclear establishment tries to substantiate it through calculations based on estimated costs of future facilities rather than actual costs of existing facilities. Given the huge cost overruns at most facilities when compared to initial estimates, the distortion is significant. For instance, the actual capital cost of Kaiga plant (reactors I & II) which includes the construction cost mentioned above was 4 times the initial estimated cost.[2] Dr Surendra Gadekar, physicist with a focus on nuclear affairs, adds: The huge subsidies paid to the nuclear power plants are in the form of heavy water subsidy, the fuel fabrication subsidy, the insurance and liability subsidy, the security subsidy, the research subsidy, the waste management subsidy, and other hidden and unknown subsidies.[48] There is no clear idea of how much it costs to decommission a reactor i.e., make a reactor inoperative, dismantle and decontaminate it keeping the environment absolutely safe. The few examples in other countries show that the decommissioning of the reactors has invariably cost much more than expected. Similarly, the cost of radioactive waste management is completely arbitrary (typically, 5 paise per unit of electricity produced).[1] India relies on costly uranium imports for its nuclear power industry, since domestic uranium is used up in about half of its operating
20

reactors. Last year, NPCIL claimed to have found natural uranium deposits of about 49,000 tons in Andhra Pradesh but mining and milling it would be an expensive and hazardous process if we are to go by the experiences of Jaduguda Uranium mines (discussed in section 3.3) apart from the well-known issues of impact on environment and rehabilitation of the poorest of the poor.

But, Thorium is plenty in India!

India has the largest reserves of Thorium touted as a nuclear fuel in the world. Dr Bhabha formulated the 3-stage nuclear programme to use Thorium as the fuel, more than 5 decades ago (the working mechanism of the 3-stage process is beyond the scope of this booklet). But it is a dream yet to come true, if at all. No reactor which exists today is equipped with Thorium-based power generation technology as there are several serious technical problems. Consider this. Dr V S Arunachalam, former Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister of India and his colleague at Carnegie Mellon University, Dr Rahul Tongia, said way back in 1997 that the generation of fissile Uranium 233 from Thorium to be used as fuel in Bhabhas model does not appear attractive and the three-stage plan is unviable.[62] Other experts point out that Thorium based power generation will be both expensive and unsafe.[40][42] Even though India has indigenously built nuclear reactors (Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors or PHWRs) based on Canadas CANDU Reactor in Rajasthan and further innovations, some of the nuclear reactors are imported. In conclusion, lets listen to this farsighted remark made by noted economist I M D Little way back in 1958: As Dr Bhabha says, electricity is in short supply in India. It is likely to go on being in short supply if one uses twice as much capital as is needed to get
21

more (electricity). This remarkable prediction - that an expensive nuclear energy cannot meet the electricity shortage in India - is as true today as it was 5 decades ago. So, cheap nuclear power as evidence suggests - is as true as flat earth.

3.3.

Claim 3: Nuclear technology is relatively safe

The safety concerns primarily arise from human and environmental damage caused due to or expected from nuclear accidents and radiation emission in the nuclear life cycle (from mining till decommissioning) most notably, from nuclear waste. Lets deal with both of them starting with nuclear accidents. World Nuclear Association (WNA) is an international lobby group that promotes nuclear power with support from global nuclear industry accounting for 85% of the world nuclear power generation. WNA claims that the risks from (western) nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.[32] Lets look at the top three incidents considered by WNA to be worlds worst civilian nuclear disasters to verify this claim.

Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine 1986

The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April, 1986 in Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine. An explosion caused by a sudden power surge and consequent fire released large quantities of radioactive materials that spread even to Russia, Belarus and Europe. World Health Organisation (WHO) in its April, 2006 report on Chernobyl noted that the massive clean-up operation undertaken
22

after the accident involved an estimated 3,50,000 clean-up workers from the army, power plant staff, local police and fire services. In 2006, the Chernobyl forum a group consisting of UN agencies and interestingly, governments of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus estimated the eventual death toll to be 9,000 from among the worst affected workers, residents, evacuees as well as neighbouring nations due to leukemia, thyroid cancer and other radiation-induced cancers as well as acute radiation sickness (ARS). The United Nations considers this report to be the most comprehensive report on Chernobyl. The accident resulted in a massive relocation of the population as radiation made human life impossible over 5000 sq. km area.[31] More than 3.3 lakh people had to be relocated.[34]

Three Mile Island Accident, the USA 1979

The Three Mile Island (TMI) accident - a partial nuclear meltdown in the US occurred on March 28, 1979 resulting in the release of radioactive iodine into the environment. While the actual amount of radioactive Iodine released is disputed, Radiation and Public Health Project suggests that infant mortality in the local area increased by 47% in the two years after the accident. It also says that, 25 years on, cancer-related deaths among children under 10 are 30% higher than the national average. Joseph Mangano, in his study Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown revealed that the number of cancers within 10 miles of TMI rose by 64% in the 5-year period after the accident when compared to 5-year period before the accident.[29] In 1997, the National Cancer Institute of the US calculated that radioactive iodine not limited to TMI but including Nevada nuclear
23

bomb tests may have caused thyroid cancer in more than 2 lakh Americans.[33]

Fukushima disaster, Japan 2011

It is now well known that the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan occurred due to an earthquake and consequent tsunami in March 2011. It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.[80] The plant had 6 reactors with 3 of them active when the earthquake struck. Immediately after the earthquake, these reactors shut down automatically but the tsunami flooded the emergency generator room cutting power to the critical pumps that circulate coolant water through a nuclear reactor. So, the reactors overheated due to the high radioactive decay heat and the 3 reactors started to completely melt down. In the intense heat and pressure of the melting reactors, several hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred even as the workers struggled to cool the reactors.[81] Significant amounts of radioactive substances were released into air, soil as well as ground and ocean waters. The government had to ban the sale of food grown in the area 3050 km around the plant. Radioactive material was detected in a range of produce, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 320 km from the nuclear plant. Residents were advised not to use tap water to prepare food for infants. Even a millionth gram of some of these substances, if ingested or breathed in, could seriously raise the cancer risk for individuals, especially in children and infants. Within a few days, radiation was observed by monitoring stations around the world including the US, Canada, Austria, Russia, Australia and Malaysia. Large amounts of radioactive materials have also been released into the Pacific Ocean and the long-term effect on marine life is not fully understood. A total of 573 deaths have been certified as disaster-related by 13 municipalities affected by the
24

crisis. 300 workers were confirmed to have received high radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths go up to 1000. Newer evidence is unfolding and the final impact is yet to be fully understood. The 40-year-old plant was built on the assumption that the biggest tsunami that could be expected on the Fukushima coast would be 5.7 metres high. The tsunami that crippled backup power supplies at the plant, leading to the meltdown of three reactors, was more than 14 metres high.[64] Benjamin K Sovacool, Director of Energy Security & Justice Program at Vermont Law School, points out that there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants worldwide.[105] An interdisciplinary team from MIT estimated in 2003 that given the expected growth scenario for nuclear power from 2005 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents will occur in that period.[93] And, Fukushima has already happened. In these circumstances, is it tenable to argue that nuclear energy is 100% safe?

Lack of safety culture is India different?

The Japanese government panel that investigated the Fukushima accident pointed to a lack of a safety culture at both the levels of central government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) which operates the plant. Astoundingly, in October 2012, TEPCO admitted for the first time that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[7] TEPCO reportedly has a dubious history of falsifying safety records and changing piping layouts without approval.[8] South Korea derives 32% of its electricity from nuclear energy. In November 2012, it was found that in two of its reactors,
25

components with fake quality certificates had been used for replacement. They were forced to shut down following public protests. Lets now ask a question: Can anybody claim such a malpractice will not happen in India especially when the affairs of its nuclear agencies are shrouded in secrecy? Take for example, the Jaitapur plant. In April, 2011, DAE and its protg NPCIL claimed that Jaitapur plant site is not earthquake prone since the nearest tectonic fault - an area where one underground earth plate meets another - is at least 30 km away.[82] Lets look at how these claims are made. As we know, AERB - which reports to DAE - oversees nuclear safety management in India. Lets hear from Dr A Gopalakrishnan, himself a former chairman of AERB: Disaster preparedness oversight of AERB is mostly on paper and the drills they once-in-a-while conduct are half-hearted efforts which amount more to a sham. NPCIL strategy is to have their favourite consultants cook up the kind of seismic data which suits them, and there is practically no independent verification of their data or design methodologies. AERB has become a lap dog of DAE and PMO. A captive AERB makes the overall nuclear safety management worthless.[27] An impact assessment report by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in December, 2010 came down heavily on the proposed plant stating that the project will have a huge negative impact on social and environment development as it is sitting on a high to moderate severity earthquake zone.[14][115] While NPCIL claims that Jaitapur falls under Seismic Zone 3 i.e., moderate risk zone, data provided by the Geological Survey of India under RTI have shown that it is located in seismic zone 4 i.e., high risk zone.[120]

26

An independent study by the team of Prof.Roger Bilham of University of Colarado and Prof.Vinod K. Gaur of CSIR suggests that the site may be vulnerable to an earthquake with a magnitude of 6 or more on the Richter scale in close vicinity. They say that there is insufficient data to conclude that the site is seismically inactive.[11] It is important to recall that Latur earthquake in 1993 which killed at least 9000 people had its epicenter in Killari which was likewise considered to be seismically inactive![128] In such a situation, what is the basis on which DAE declares that Jaitapur is free from earthquakes? It is ironic that AERB is setup by DAE to review safety measures at its own plants. Dr Gopalakrishnan lays bare the ridiculous situation: About 95% of the technical personnel in AERB safety committees are officials of the DAE, whose services are made available on a case-to-case basis for conducting the reviews of their own installations![73] No wonder then, that, in August, 2012, AERB was severely criticised by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on numerous grounds: not preparing a nuclear safety policy, failing to prepare the complete list of safety documents, not having a detailed inventory of all radiation sources and failure to adopt international practices.[57] The two instances quoted at the beginning of this article serve to open the eyes of unsuspecting citizens and perhaps, even some protagonists of nuclear energy. On the Gujarat incident mentioned above where flood inundated the turbine building, Dr Surendra Gadekar and Dr Sanghamitra Gadekar say this: The scene was one of utter devastation. A thousand houses were demolished in Bardoli alone, and many more elsewhere were damaged. Whole sections of roads, railway lines and bridges vanished into oblivion. Trees were laid low and farms turned into ponds. We were caught 100 km from
27

home and had to trudge back through rivers and streams and making long detours. There was simply no way that people could have been evacuated on time. While NPCIL boasts of zero nuclear accidents in India, Dr A.Gopalakrishnan says AERB had prepared a list of 130 incidents in Indian installations and has charged that the DAE had uniquely failed in meeting its responsibilities. In 1999, Outlook magazine listed 9 major accidents some of which had the potential to lead to a partial or total meltdown.[104] But the real causes behind these incidents the soft word used by DAE for accidents - may never be known. For example, in November 2009, more than 55 workers fell sick after consuming water contaminated with radioactive Tritium in Kaiga power plant in Karnataka. NPCIL attributed it to an insiders mischief. Dr M R Srinivasan, former AEC chairman, promised an investigation but nobody knows the outcome till date. Interestingly, the same gentleman headed the expert panel which declared in February, 2012 Koodankulam plant to be safe. As the Department of Atomic Energy is not obliged to reveal the details of goings-on at these nuclear plants to the public and as it reports directly to the Prime Minister, there are likely to be many other incidents that we do not know about. In the case of Koodankulam, the fisherfolk have been asking to see the disaster management plan which, till date, remains a secret, even under the RTI Act. Questions about preparedness to mitigate impact of high magnitude tsunami, adequacy of fresh water reserve for cooling and back up electricity have been raised by the PMANEs expert committee. NPCIL is yet to respond satisfactorily, if at all.

Dr Abdul Kalams views and experts counterviews

In the mean time, former president Dr Abdul Kalam presented a rosy picture on nuclear energy in his article Nuclear power is our
28

gateway to a prosperous future in The Hindu on 6 November, 2011. He also gave a clean chit to the KKNPP saying he is completely satisfied and happy with the sophisticated safety features of the reactors. However, the question that went unanswered is that while he met the nuclear plant supporters before addressing the press, why he did not bother to listen to the villagers who were on protest and fast for more than 150 days at the time of his visit? Former union power secretary, Dr EAS Sarma, himself a nuclear energy expert, has given a stinging response to Dr Kalam. Here are the key excerpts: When you brushed aside the safety concerns, did you ask whether NCPIL had ever carried out a reliable engineering study of each existing nuclear plant and estimate the probability of an accident due to a mechanical failure? If this is not done, can you jump to the conclusion that the probability of an accident is negligible? You have underplayed the possible long-term adverse impact of radioactivity on human health. Can you confidently deny the wide gaps in scientific knowledge on the likely impact of both low-intensity and high-intensity radiation on the human health, including the genetic effects? Did you find out the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant? Did you also make an effort to estimate the cost of managing the accumulating radioactive waste in the long run? Are you aware that these costs are difficult to quantify? The cost of decommissioning Chernobyl or Fukushima is not known, till date. (In response to Dr Kalams view that energy drives economic growth and more energy implies better economy) Are you aware of the (positive) impact of efficiency improvements, demand management and other measures on economic

29

growth? Dr Surendra Gadekar applauds the Koodankulam movement for forcing the nuclear establishment to bring out its big guns (read, Dr Abdul Kalam). Based on his well-researched views, we summarise the counter points as follows: Dr Kalam says economy can grow only if we have more energy. But, nuclear technology is not the solution for Indias energy needs. Nuclear energy is used to produce electricity and electricity is only one of energy sources, with petrol, diesel, LPG, Kerosene, firewood, dung cakes etc.. being other energy sources. In this context, International Energy Agency estimates that nuclear energy meets only about 1% of Indias energy needs today.[124] It is unlikely to be any better in the next couple of decades despite the ambitious claims by the nuclear establishment.[137] Dr Kalam says Germany decided to close down its nuclear reactors since its uranium production is much smaller than required and hence, this decision goes beyond the concerns of nuclear risks. This is not tenable since Germany could have imported Uranium if they wished to. However, the Angela Merkel government was forced to commission new studies, to agree that nuclear safety is a myth and to phase out the reactors following large public protests. Remember that a few months ago, the same German government had actually extended the life of these very reactors! Even though India has the worlds largest deposits of Thorium, thorium-based electricity costs are likely to be even greater (due to the high cost of production in a 3-stage reactor) than those based on uranium which are already uncompetitive in the marketplace. Contrary to what Dr Kalam claims, there is no correlation between nuclear energy and prosperity of a nation. In the data
30

provided by Dr Kalam, only 2 countries - France and South Korea - produce more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear energy and can be termed prosperous. There are a bigger number of developed countries such as Australia, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, and Norway which remain firmly opposed to nuclear power. Dr Kalam says solar and wind energy are not dependable because of excessive dependence on weather conditions. This is wrong. Germany and Denmark find solar and wind sources dependable enough despite their intermittent nature and produce around 20% of their electricity. India has a surfeit of sunshine and still the establishment thinks its not viable . Think about this: a 35,000 sq.km area of the Thar Desert alone is sufficient to generate 7,00,000 MW to 21,00,000 MW, more than enough to meet all of Indias energy needs[138] but tragically, National Solar Mission plans to reach only 20,000 MW by 2020. It is not true that people are afraid of nuclear energy because of nuclear bomb. On the contrary, the radiation contained within most nuclear reactors is hundreds of times larger than that within a bomb. So the radiation contamination of surrounding countryside in case of an accident is hundreds of times larger than that produced by a bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today but the area surrounding Chernobyl and Fukushima will not permit human habitation for centuries. The radioactive fall-out affecting future generations is not at all a myth as Dr Kalam claims. The radioactive elements Caesium137 and Strontium-90 released in Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes have effects that last for generations.

Dr MV Ramana and Dr Suvrat Raju (physicist with HCRC, Allahabad) asked a simple but very important question in The Hindu on 12 November, 2011: If there was really a 0% chance of an accident,
31

why would nuclear vendors work so hard to indemnify themselves? For instance, Russia had recently requested that India waive its Nuclear Liability Act for the two Russian reactors being built at the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. Consequently, the Russian vendor of the Koodankulam plant, Rosatom, is protected by a special agreement, which prevents the victims from suing it in the event of an accident and the entire liability is borne by NPCIL.[98] Companies like Westinghouse, General Electric, more recently, SNC Lavalin from Canada[97] are holding back on reactor sales to India, since they are still not happy with the new liability law.[42] Why? Because, the law stipulates a portion of reparation in case of an accident be borne by the vendor. They are wary even when there is a cap on what they have to bear at a mere Rs.1,500 crore a trifle when compared with the vast damages caused by nuclear accidents that can run into thousands or even, lakhs of crores of rupees (discussed in section 5). What about insurance coverage from nuclear accidents? Insurance Information Institute which is providing definitive insurance information for 50 years in the US - clearly states that Standard property/casualty insurance policies issued in the United States exclude coverage for property damage and personal injury caused by such accidents.[100] Dr John W. Gofman, American Scientist and winner of Right Livelihood Award, 1992, sums up the view of the insurance companies: We don't know the safety of nuclear power plants, so we won't insure them.[101] Insurance policies in India too do not cover nuclear and radioactive contaminations. This is listed as a standard exclusion in all the policies.[102] When nuclear companies and hence, insurance companies are unwilling to risk their finances on these 100% safety claims, how can the government ask local residents to risk their lives?
32

One of the few areas where both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear advocates agree is that the safety aspects of nuclear plants are technical in nature and require technical expertise to conduct a reliable safety audit. Mr. S.Venkataraman, a pro-nuclear writer, remarked - rather disdainfully - in Deccan Herald in December, 2011: Certainly, these protestors (the low income group fishermen from Koodankulam) do not have the capacity to grasp the intricacies of the safety issues relating to installation and operation of nuclear power plants. If so, lets take a closer look at the credentials of those who are supporting nuclear technology. With due regards to the technological and managerial accomplishments of Dr Kalam, his expertise in the field of nuclear safety - to comment that Koodankulam is 100% safe in a rhetoric way - is debatable. It is worth recalling that Dr Homi Sethna, former AEC chairman, had publicly questioned Dr Kalams background in nuclear science. Dr Kalam holds a post graduate diploma in Aeronautical Engineering (and not, Nuclear Engineering) with an honorary doctorate. As the head of DRDO, he managed the projects to create Agni, Prithvi, Trishul missiles while as he has himself mentioned in his autobiography Wings of Fire, the real tech brains were the others. If you look at the worlds three worst nuclear disasters, two of them were caused by human error and the third one, though caused by a natural calamity was aggravated by human error. The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation.[92] How is this factored in, when Dr Kalam gave an all is well certificate to Koodankulam? Finally, Dr Gadekar summarises the 3-stage process of misinformation as we call it - of the nuclear establishment to handle public concerns on nuclear safety. First, say nothing. Next, if forced to say something, give out a very low figure which can be
33

termed a mistake if caught. Finally, if the lies are detected, apologise and keep repeating a variation of the lie such as increase safe radiation limits twenty times. The whole plan is to keep the people in ignorance through misinformation. So, can we safely rest assured on the official claims that nuclear energy is safe?

Nuclear waste and radiation perpetual threat

Nuclear disasters and accidents constitute a sudden spurt in the damage to life and environment that are unexpected, unguarded and largely uncontrolled. However, radiation emitted during various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle namely mining, milling, enrichment, transportation, processing, reprocessing, waste disposal, and decommissioning constitute perhaps, a bigger threat to health and environment. Exposure to radiation leads to ailments, deformities, birth defects, life threatening diseases and in some cases, deaths, and the effects extend across generations. Hence, this is no less a concern than nuclear accidents. In France, around 30,000 workers dubbed as nuclear nomads are subcontracted annually in the 58 nuclear reactors operated by Electricity of France (EDF) group, the largest energy company in France. EDF subcontracts over 1,000 companies, who employ the nuclear nomads, sometimes of foreign origin, to do the dangerous maintenance, repair and clean-up work in these plants.[84] French Sociologist Dr Annie Thbaud-Mony is the author of Nuclear Servitude: Subcontracting and Health in the French Civil Nuclear Industry. The book investigates the practices of the nuclear industry which expose these nomads to large amounts of radiation and the effects of the radiation on their health. It is worth noting that she refused to accept her country's highest civil award, the Legion of Honour, in protest against as she says - the lax attitude of the
34

government towards those responsible for industrial crimes. She found that subcontracting has 3 clear benefits: (a) it is cheaper; (b) it makes it hard for the nomads to get organised; and, most importantly, (c) these nomads are temporary staff who are made to work in high radiation zones for brief periods only to be discarded after they reach their radiation limit. So, these nomads move around from plant to plant, often staying at campsites, with the constant threat of job loss hanging on their head like the Damocles sword. [83] Since the 1970s, Japan has had a dubious track record of subcontracting maintenance work of reactors to outside companies which hire workers on a short-term basis. These workers remain employed till they reach their radiation exposure limit. In that sense, they become the part of nuclear waste![35] 88% of the workers in Japans nuclear power plants are contract workers who handle the bulk of the dangerous maintenance work for less pay, less job security and fewer benefits. These temporary workers were exposed to levels of radiation about 16 times higher than the levels faced by TEPCO permanent employees. But they work under the constant fear of getting fired, trying to hide injuries to avoid trouble from their employers, carrying skin-colored adhesive bandages to cover up cuts and bruises.[85] Prof. Gabrielle Hecht from the University of Michigan brings up an extremely important point while dealing with nuclear waste. Uranium producing African countries which supplied between 2550% of the West's uranium - remain contaminated from uranium mine debris. Today, regional poverty is so extreme that, in Niger, the largest producer of uranium, people modify radioactive trash barrels into basins for collecting water. Such instances, though large in number, never make into any of the official statistics on the risks of nuclear waste.[35]
35

Dr Surendra Gadekar and Dr Sanghamitra Gadekar extensively studied the adverse health impact of Jaduguda Uranium mines in Jharkhand, Rawatbhata Nuclear Plant in Rajasthan, and Kakrapar Nuclear Plant in Gujarat among others. Here is what they have to say: Contract workers do the dangerous and most dirty jobs but are not entitled to any benefits. They do not (even) get admission to the plant hospital. Tarapur Annual Performance Report in 1985 says the radiation levels in various parts of the reactor were 10 to 500 times higher than what was expected during design. Emergency evacuation plan is to transport 15,000 residents of Mandvi into a primary school in Mangrol that cant take more than 200 people. They also conclude that Rawatbhata atomic plant neighbourhood is no different with increased number of cases of congenital deformities, tumours, miscarriages, stillbirths and life expectancy falling by a staggering 11 years. They show workers carrying nuclear waste on their bare hands and feet into lorries. In Jaduguda Uranium mines area, the cases of congenital deformities have increased by over 5 times when compared to nearby villages.[110] U.S. reactors have generated about 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel, of which 75 percent is stored in pools, according to Nuclear Energy Institute. Spent fuel rods give off about 10,000 sieverts of radiation per hour at a distance of one foot (sievert is the unit to measure biological effects of nuclear radiation) says Robert Alvarez, who served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary for US National Security and Environment. To get the point across, he adds that this is enough radiation to kill people in a matter of seconds. There are more than 30 million such rods in U.S. spent fuel pools. No other nation has generated this much radioactivity from either nuclear power or nuclear weapons production.[47]

36

In France, Greenpeace says that since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has been largely neglected. In 2006, Champagne, home to France's iconic sparkling wine, was threatened by radioactive contamination leaking from a nuclear waste dumpsite in the region. Low levels of radioactivity have already been found in underground water less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards. In another incident, French laboratory ACRO said that radioactive waste from a storage facility in Normandy, France was leaking into groundwater and was being used by local farmers for their dairy cattle.[107] The French Nuclear establishment touted reprocessing as the way to reduce nuclear waste but Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) busted the myth. In a study released in March, 2011, USC found that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel would increase, not decrease, the total volume of nuclear waste. The study concluded that reprocessing is not a sensible answer to the nuclear waste problem.[108] Advocates D.Nagasila and V.Suresh disclosed a chilling point in The Hindu on 5 November, 2012: As per the 1988 agreement between India and the erstwhile Soviet Union on Koodankulam plant, the highly dangerous and toxic Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) would be shipped back to the Soviet Union. However, in 1997 India signed another agreement this time with Russia - contrary to the original proposal to ship out the SNF to Russia, the highly radioactive SNF from the nuclear power plant was to be stored, transported and reprocessed within India. NPCIL announced in Nov, 2012 that Kolar in Karnataka would be the nuclear dump yard but following the large scale mass protests, the move was rescinded. Right now, the fate of the radioactive spent fuel, its reprocessing and transportation in Koodankulam is not yet decided.

37

Do we have a safe way to dispose nuclear waste?

The fundamental problem is that there is absolutely no known way to dispose nuclear waste in a manner that ensures permanent safety. A March 2006 report by the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) identified that no safe long-term solution to the problem of radioactive waste from nuclear plants is available, let alone acceptable to the general public.[86] According to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a 1000 MW nuclear power station produces approximately 30 tons of high level solid waste per year. High level waste consists of spent fuel rods which can no longer be used for power production as well as waste materials after processing. High-level waste contains highly radioactive fission products, and so, must be handled and stored with extreme care. Since the only way radioactive waste finally becomes harmless is through decay, which can take lakhs of years for high-level wastes, the waste must be stored and finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the public for a very long time.[89] But, a group of physicists at the School of Physics, University of Melbourne have pointed out that currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently though many have plans to do so in the next 10 years.[88] Even the available technologies such as storing in deep rocks by vitrification (converting to glass) or destroying the spent fuel using high energy incinerators which can mitigate the risk if not eliminate it completely - are very costly affairs. Hence, they are very unlikely to be included as part of safety measures in the upcoming nuclear plants in India. How should any sensible man, whether a poor fisherman or an educated urbanite, react when he is forced to live under the constant threat of an evidently unsafe technology?
38

3.4. Claim 4: Nuclear technology is environment friendly

This is, indeed, a hotly debated topic because most experts agree that the routine health risks and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power are small relative to those associated with coal. Pronuclear advocates have offered nuclear power as a solution to global warming. Lets examine this claim. Firstly, it is true that nuclear power plant operation emits no or negligible amounts of carbon dioxide during fuel processing. However, all other stages of the nuclear fuel chain mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management use fossil fuels and hence emit greenhouse gases notably, carbon dioxide. Dr Benjamin K Sovacool says that the largest part of the greenhouse emission (nearly 40%) in the nuclear fuel cycle comes from mining, milling and enrichment. He concludes that the total carbon emission in the nuclear life cycle is twice as much as solar and six times as much as wind farms. So, nuclear energy is really not as clean as other clean energy sources. Secondly, there are incidents of commercial nuclear power plants releasing gaseous and liquid radiological effluents into the environment. A leak of radioactive tritium at Vermont Yankee in 2010 which contaminated ground water, along with similar incidents at more than 20 other US nuclear plants in recent years, has kindled doubts about the reliability, durability, and maintenance of aging nuclear installations. In France too, in July 2008, 18,000 litres of Uranium solution containing natural uranium were accidentally released at the Tricastin plant forcing the authorities to ban drinking well-water, and swimming or fishing in two local rivers.[106] Thirdly, pro-nuclear advocates assume that the adoption of nuclear
39

power is a sound strategy to lessen aggregate carbon emissions. This is not true. As Japanese nuclear chemist and winner of the 1997 Right Livelihood Award, Jinzaburo Takagi showed, from 1965 to 1995, Japan's nuclear plant capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period, carbon dioxide emissions went up from about 400 million tonnes to about 1,200 million tonnes. This is not to say that nuclear power production is the primary cause but the point is that increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan's emission levels. This is because nuclear energy is best-suited to produce electricity while the much larger carbon emission sources include transportation and industrial production. So, even mainstream environmentalists recognise that building new nuclear plants is not an answer to tackling climate change.[73] Thus, seen in the context of the catastrophic risks involved with nuclear accidents, waste and radiation hazards in the nuclear fuel cycle, the overall risks to environment far exceed the marginal contribution in terms of limited green house emission in one specific stage - namely fuel processing - of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

4. Corruption and the Nuclear Establishment

It would be absurd to think that corruption so endemic in the system has not cast its dark shadow on the nuclear establishment. The cash-for-votes scam erupted in July 2008 when the UPA government was trying to get through the vote of confidence in Parliament against the background of the Indo-US nuclear deal. On 17 July 2008, WikiLeaks revealed a cable sent from the US Embassy in New Delhi to the US State Department which said that, out of a total amount of Rs.50-60 crore set aside for pay-offs, four MPs belonging to Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) had been paid Rs. 10 crore each to support the government.[130] Even the process of selecting the foreign vendors for building nuclear plants is beset with anomalies. Prof Brahma Chellaney, a leading strategic thinker and analyst, has criticised the nuclear
40

establishment for pampering foreign companies such as General Electric & Westinghouse (the USA), Areva (France) and Atomstroyexport (the engineering firm under Russias state corporation Rosatom). He has identified the following irregularities which as he says - is no way to meet energy needs, or to reduce carbon emissions, or to help Indias poor[131]: Foreign reactor builders need not worry about producing electricity at marketable rates since the Government will run the reactors through the state operator, NPCIL, and will have to subsidise the high-priced electricity generated, Exclusive reservation of a nuclear park for each foreign vendor even before the deal is negotiated, Land acquisition by the government on behalf of foreign firms, The deals signed with select foreign companies without open bidding and transparency, Skewed accident liability that shields the foreign reactor builders in case of an accident. Such corrupt practices coupled with the manifest lack of safety culture render any assurances by the nuclear establishment on the safety or viability of nuclear power, completely hollow.

5. Cleanup & compensation who bears the cost?

When the estimates are made, the accident costs are not factored in. While the Nuclear Safety Commission in Japan is grappling to come up with the enormous economic cost of the Fukushima disaster, Jan Haverkamp - a Greenpeace nuclear energy expert puts the total cost of the Fukushima catastrophe, including compensation and clean up, at over Rs.5 lakh crores. Kazumasa Iwata, president of the Japan Center for Economic Research, thinks the estimate ranges from Rs.3.5 lakh crores to Rs.12.5 lakh crores (however, the cost of compensation to affected people is less than 10% of the total cost).
41

India appears to have learnt a clever lesson from the big brother, the USA, when it comes to indemnifying the nuclear reactor vendors against accidents. The US government enacted a cap on the damages that could be passed on to private operators as early as in 1957 through Price-Anderson Act. Thus, today in the USA, while the cap is at $12 Billion, the actual cost of a nuclear meltdown as shown by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission study (adjusted to current inflation level) would be about $720 Billion 60 times more than the cap.[99] On similar lines, as part of the Indo-US Nuclear deal, followed by similar bilateral deals with the other nuclear equipment manufacturing countries, the Indian Central Government enacted a law on capping the liability that could be passed on to the reactor suppliers in the event of an accident. The cap so fixed is a mere Rs.1,500 crores! If you look at the massive liability incurred in a nuclear mishap as in Fukushima, this only means that if a disaster were to occur in India, an exceedingly large part of the cost would be borne by the ordinary Indian tax payers. Prof Brahma Chellaney minces no words: By seeking to shield foreign-reactor builders from the weight of the financial consequences of severe accidents, the bill actually shifts the main burden for accident liability from the foreign supplier to the Indian taxpayer.[131] This point has been conveniently covered up by the nuclear establishment. The meager value of the cap raises another disturbing question. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed at the Supreme Court in March, 2012, represented by anti-corruption activist Mr. Prashant Bhushan, has argued that the low cap on liability would make nuclear plants more unsafe as operators would prefer to bear the burden of an accident rather than going for expensive safety installations.[103]

42

6. Non-nuclear sources: Potential vs. Performance

Lets look at the available alternatives to nuclear energy and check how safe, plenty, cheap or clean they are.

6.1.

Solar energy

A study by two professors at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore, Hiremath Mitavachan and Jayaraman Srinivasan, published in the journal Current Science in July, 2012 shows that India's energy needs can be met entirely by solar and other renewable sources. The analysis overturns the argument that nuclear power is essential for India because the country does not have enough land to exploit the potential of solar energy. According to their study, just 4.1% of the total uncultivable and waste land area in India is enough to meet the projected annual demand of 3,400 terawatt-hour (TWh) by 2070 using solar energy alone (1 TWh per year requires 114 MW capacity). The land area required will be further reduced to 3.1% if we bring the other potential renewable energy sources like wind and biomass into the picture. Thus they conclude that land availability is not a limiting constraint for harnessing solar energy. Their calculations are based on present-day solar photovoltaic (PV) technology and do not include higher efficiencies achieved by new solar cells. Neither have they considered roof-top PV systems that can be established without any need for additional land. The IISc researchers' conclusion is in conformity with that of a report prepared in 2011 by the Australian government which said: There is more than enough suitable land in India, with high direct beam solar, to meet the entire nation's electricity needs in principle.[133]
43

The researchers compared the land-use pattern of three energy sources - coal, hydro and nuclear - with solar energy. They found that solar land requirement is comparable with that of coal and nuclear power when it includes the area for setting up the plant, fuel mining, transportation and waste disposal across the lifetime of the power plant. While nuclear and fossil fuel-based technologies must continuously transform some land to extract the fuels or dispose of the waste, this is not the case with solar plants. In fact, the same land used for PV solar power plants can be utilised for other purposes like grazing. The roof-top solar power technology, along with that proposed by the IISc professors, will be able to meet most of the electricity demand, and has the potential to transform the power sector, says Shankar Sarma, a power policy analyst and author of a forthcoming book Integrated Power Policy.

Sheep grazing at a 15MW solar plant at Anglesey, Wales Atul Chokshi of the IISc Department of Materials Engineering and an expert on solar energy agrees. He reported recently that a three kilowatt rooftop solar panel system on the 425 million households
44

can generate a total energy per year of 1900 TWh - half of the projected energy demand by 2070.[133] Germany installed a record 4,300 MW of solar power capacity in the first half of 2012. Tunisia is working on a 2000 MW solar plant to open in 2016. Dubai is building a 1000 MW solar park to be completed in 2013. California has approved nine solar power projects including a 1000 MW plant with a total potential to generate a massive 4300 MW capacity once completed. Projects with an additional 1500 MW capacity are under review.[129] Is it unreasonable to expect solar power exploration to set the direction for further research and investment in energy in our country?

6.2.

Wind energy

Wind energy is another renewable energy source which as Indian Wind Energy Association says is affordable, clean and helps provide energy security. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has released its estimate of the potential wind resources at a massive 1,02,300 MW - at 80m hub heights - which is more than six times the currently installed wind capacity. Hub height is the distance between the platform and the rotor of a wind turbine i.e., the distance from the ground to the center of the turbine and it does not include the length of the turbine blades. Normally, more the hub height, better the power generation. The wind resources at higher hub heights are possibly even more. A new assessment of wind energy in India in March, 2012 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has found that the potential for wind energy in India is between a gigantic 20-30 times higher than the government estimates given above! Dr Amol Phadke, the lead author of the report, says wind energy is one of the most cost effective and mature renewable energy sources available in India.
45

In fact, the cost of wind power has actually dropped below the coalbased energy in parts of India such as Maharashtra thanks to advanced wind turbines which produce more wind power from lower wind speeds. A major EU funded research study undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the environmental and health costs are the least for wind energy among all energy sources. Incidentally, not far from the Koodankulam nuclear power plant, thousands of windmills around Koodankulam are rotating to produce power. This corridor - with its ideal geography between sea and hills with winds from advancing and receding monsoons - is the hub of wind energy forming the countrys highest concentration of windmills. As per estimates, the wind capacity in this region is nearly twice the nuclear capacity of Koodankulam nuclear plant. Whats more, eight wind turbines are installed at the Koodankulam nuclear power plant itself with a total capacity of 10MW![90]

Why solar and wind are not common? Obviously, harnessing wind energy is another area for further research and investment.
46

6.3.

Hydro, waste-to-energy and other sources

Coming to yet another important renewable, safe, reliable and clean source of electricity namely water, a study published in International Journal of Arts and Science in 2010 finds that the hydro power potential in India is about 1,49,000 MW out of which only about 38,000 MW has been so far harnessed. This means about 75% of the total hydro potential is yet to be exploited[75] but in a manner that properly addresses the environmental concerns associated with large hydro-electric projects. Waste-to-energy is a neglected domain in India. There are new technologies such as plasma gasification where both organic and inorganic waste (plastic, glass, sewage, industrial waste, oil sludge) will be heated to high temperature (4000 oC - 5000 oC) to produce syngas which is used as fuel to produce electricity. Already, Pune Municipal Corporation has set up a gasification plant which is successfully treating 650 tons of waste every day generating 2.2 lakh units of electricity.[76] If Bangalore had adopted this treasure out of trash model, the recent crisis surrounding garbage disposal could, perhaps, have been avoided. Overall, renewable energy in India including other sources such as biomass, biofuel (Jetropha), geothermal - is a sector that is still underdeveloped and underexplored in relation to in its enormous potential to fulfil the energy needs of the country in an affordable, clean, safe and sustainable way.

6.4.

Clean Coal Technology

It is true that fossil fuel-based power generation produces greenhouse gas emissions that have been linked to climate change. But, there are clean coal technologies available to improve efficiency of the conversion cycle and to reduce emission. Clean coal technologies include: Advanced pulverized coal-supercritical steam generation Coal
47

is ground into fine particles and blown into the furnace. Combustion of coal is used to produce superheated steam (i.e., steam at a temperature higher than waters boiling point) without boiling. Two experts from Harvard University, Ananth Chikkatur and Ambuj Sagar believe that this is the best option for the short-to-medium term future of coal in India.[95] Fluidized-bed combustion (bubbling, circulating, pressurized) - A fluid (air, pure oxygen or liquid) is passed through suspended solid fuels at high velocity resulting in more effective chemical reactions and heat transfer. Flue gas desulphurization - Technology used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of a power plant. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) - Technology that turns coal and other carbon based fuels into gassynthesis gas (syngas). It then removes impurities from the syngas before it is combusted. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally underground.

Millions of tons of CO2 are already captured and stored hundreds of meters below ground at the 8 large-scale CCS plants in the US, Norway, Canada and Algeria. Norway opened an R&D centre for CCS technologies in May, 2012. However, India is yet to make any real headway in this regard and CCS should be taken as a research & investment area in the short term given Indias heavy dependence on electricity production from fossil fuels.

6.5.

Power saved is power produced!

Union power ministry proclaims that Power saved is power produced. However, the ministry statistics reveal that the Aggregate Technical and Commercial losses (AT&C losses) which include transmission & distribution losses, power theft and billing
48

deficiencies account for 27% of the total power generated in 200910.[135] An International Energy Agency study shows that the power losses in India are among the highest in the world.[139] In most of the developed countries, the loss levels do not exceed a single-digit figure. In South Korea, the losses are 9%, in Singapore 3% and in the USA 6%.[136] Even if the power losses are reduced by a mere 1% in 2013, it would make more than 2000MW available for consumption more than what KKNPP is expected to produce even at its most optimal load factor! While better technology can certainly help reduce losses, a Joint Secretary with the power ministry says that even measures such as proper energy audit and metering, fixing responsibility and accountability, and displaying political will can help reduce the AT&C losses by 10%.[136] Is the government listening?

7. The rural poor and nuclear energy

The Planning Commission estimates that 60 crore Indians do not have access to electricity and about 70 crore Indians use biomass (read dung cakes or firewood) as their primary energy resource for cooking. The UPA government launched Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) in April, 2005 with the slogan of achieving 100% rural electrification by 2012. But here comes the cruel twist: under the scheme, a village is declared electrified if the number of electrified households is just 10% of the total number of households in the village! Clearly, there is a lot to be done. The renewable energy sources namely solar, wind and biomass are known to be best suited for rural electrification. The Alliance for Rural Electrification (ARE) believes that renewable energy technologies, utilised in off-grid and mini-grid power systems, can sustainably meet the energy needs of rural communities at an affordable price rather than extending the electricity grid.[123] When viewed from the perspective of the rural poor, the overzealous thrust on nuclear energy is clearly a skewed
49

outlook meant to support big business and corporate houses and not the common masses. No wonder that Dr S.P.Udayakumar feels that nuclear power benefits only industrial India and not the common man.[44]

8. Is anti-nuclear stand same as anti-technology?

The nuclear protagonists try to brand anyone who has concerns against nuclear technology concerns that have been substantiated to considerable depth in the above sections - as being antitechnology. Of course, this is not true. It needs to be emphasised that the principal demand from the nuclear skeptics which includes nuclear energy experts is that technology must have the goal of bettering the life of the common man and not to serve the interests of profit-greedy domestic and foreign monopolies. In fact, as this article has strived to show, further research in technologies for tapping renewable energy sources more efficiently can better serve the interests of the common people including the rural poor, provided the government seriously and sincerely worries about them. Accordingly, priorities should be set right by channelising the funds doled out to R&D in nuclear sector into these technology areas as well as by augmenting these research grants. While absolute opposition to nuclear technology under all conditions is not a tenable stand, todays reality is that firstly, there is a lack of fool-proof mechanism of radioactive waste disposal and of preventing or even, adequately handling radioactive hazards including accidents. Secondly, there are other cleaner, safer, more plentiful and even cheaper alternatives available that are sustainable in the long run and are yet to be explored fully as this article has attempted to show. Thus, today, nuclear energy has to be necessarily ruled out as an option.

50

9. Nuclear power phase-out a policy rethink

Nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear energy for electricity production. Austria was the first country to complete a nuclear phase-out in 1978 based on a popular vote becoming a nuclear free zone. It is followed by Sweden (1980), Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany (2000). Germany has already shut down eight reactors and plans to close the rest by 2022. Switzerland and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations. The United States has not built any new nuclear plants since the TMI accident in 1979. On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy.[144] Japan has 55 reactors and following the Fukushima disaster, all nuclear reactors have been shut down by May 2012. Interestingly, CNN Japan reported that the trains ran exactly on time, the elevators in thousands of Tokyo high-rises efficiently moved between floors, and the lights turned on across cities without a glitch even though none of the energy is derived from a nuclear reactor for the first time in 4 decades. So, obviously, the skys dont fall if there is no nuclear power! Two reactors have restarted in Japan since July 2012. Tens of thousands of people have protested against the decision and recent polls showed that the majority of people favoured abandoning nuclear power entirely. Thanks to the bigger-than-nuclear explosion of public anger, the Japanese government has announced a plan to completely phase-out nuclear plants by 2040.[94]

10. Why is the government so bent upon going ahead?

Now, to the billion dollar question: why is the government so adamant to go forward with the Koodankulam and other nuclear energy projects despite facing ceaseless and massive mass protests
51

and objections from experts? Lets investigate further to arrive at a conclusion.

10.1. Nuclear energy and Indias status as regional super power

Lets quote from a pro-nuclear voice, Prof. Rahul Siddharthan (IMS, Chennai): Unfortunately, for most of its history in India, civilian nuclear power has been deeply intertwined with the nuclear weapons project.[57] Why? Because, while nuclear energy can be used for electricity generation, the same process is also necessary for making nuclear bombs. Lets see how this works. In 1954, under the US-sponsored Atoms for Peace program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MW research reactor from Canada. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in developing the nuclear bomb that was tested on May 18, 1974 at Pokhran.[63] This is how the civilian and military uses of nuclear energy in India are intertwined and this is how, India joined the select club of nine nuclear weapon states.[127] Significantly, in the debate on nuclear energy in the Constituent Assembly in 1948, Nehru himself stated: I do not know how you are to distinguish between the two [peaceful and military] uses of atomic energy.[65] Prof.John Hariss from London School of Economics concludes that right from the time of Independence, India has entertained the possibility of developing nuclear weapons.[66] Prof. Amulya KN Reddy was absolutely unequivocal when he said that India's nuclear power programme can be justified only by the fact that it enabled the nuclear weapons programme.[71]

52

Does this not adequately explain the need for secrecy in the Indias nuclear energy pursuit? India signed a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) an international agency with a stated purpose to prevent nuclear proliferation - in 2008. As part of the agreement, a total of 14 Indian reactors would be open to Agency inspections by 2014 while 8 reactors 4 in Kaiga, 2 in Kalpakkam, 2 in Tarapur - and associated facilities would not be subject to any international examination. In other words, they can be used for military purposes. But, make no mistake. These safeguards are mainly concerned with checking nuclear proliferation, not with the safety of the plant itself.[57] Ashley J. Tellis, a key US adviser to the Indo-US nuclear agreement, estimates that these eight unsafeguarded reactors in India can produce sufficient Weapon Grade Plutonium for more than 2000
53

nuclear weapons to add to the existing arsenal of 50 to 100 nuclear weapons.[118] The imported reactors at Koodankulam and Jaitapur plants are reported to be incapable of producing weapon grade plutonium. But, they can still help the weapons program in an indirect manner. How? Joseph Cirincione, former director at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace asserts that the Indo-US nuclear deal (and other deals with France, Russia etc..) frees up Indias limited uranium reserves to make nuclear weapons[118] while the imported uranium would be used in the civilian reactors. K. Subramanyam, former head of the National Security Advisory Board, provides ample proof for this line of thinking. In December 2005, he advised: Given India's uranium ore crunch it is to India's advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production.[119] One month after signing the Safeguards Agreement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 45-nation group led by the US to oversee global nuclear trade, allowed India to be part of global nuclear commerce. Thus India became the only nuclear weapons state to be part of nuclear trade without signing either the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The US lobbied heavily to get this proposal through, supported by France and Russia among other countries. In the subsequent months, nuclear firms from these three countries such as Areva (France), Westinghouse & GE-Hitachi (US), Rosatom (Russia) - were in talks with NPCIL to sell reactors, supply raw materials and technical know-how. India signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several NSG member countries including the US, France, UK, Canada, Kazakhstan, and South Korea.
54

Lets listen to a telling remark from Dr A.Gopalakrishnan: The ethical standards of DAE, NPCIL and AERB have fallen considerably, especially since 2004, perhaps because of the current prime ministers direct interference with these institutions to meet the political ends of getting the Indo-US nuclear deal passed through parliament. In summary, India agrees to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities and continue its nuclear weapons ambitions to sustain and enhance its regional super power status. In return, foreign companies get a large share of the Indian nuclear market pie! So, you see, this is how the principle of give-and-take operates in the exclusive nuclear club! Is this not a reason why the government is so aggressive on its nuclear plans?

10.2. Nuclear business a mine of opportunities for the corporates

Currently, Uranium and Thorium exploration, mining and nuclear power generation are in the public sector domain in India. However, in 2010, a DAE communiqu to the Lok Sabha says Private sector in India is in a position to participate in setting up nuclear power plants through supply of components, equipment and works contracts . But, having limited their role to erection, procurement and construction of nuclear plants and supply of infrastructure equipment so long, the corporate bigwigs have started their foray into the nuclear sector in India in a bigger way. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) the apex industry body in India has a nuclear sub group. Significantly, the chairman of this sub group is an ex-vice chairman of AERB. As part of the Indo-US nuclear agreement in December,
55

2009, this sub group recommended that 100% privatisation in nuclear sector should be achieved in a cautious, stepwise and smooth manner to make it sustainable and irreversible. The initial steps could be Public Private Partnership (PPP) or Joint Venture (JV) with NPCIL leading to 100% privatisation.[132] So, does this not mean the die has already been cast? US-based investment guide, iStockAnalyst estimates the size of Indias nuclear power sector to be a mammoth Rs.7.5 lakh crores! As many as 400 Indian and foreign firms are seen as the beneficiaries of the far-reaching NSG verdict. We have (in India) at least a dozen technologically-competent players who can rope in strategic alliances and joint ventures with reactor manufacturers. Eventually, these players can go on to become reactor manufacturers themselves said V K Chaturvedi, former CMD, NPCIL and interestingly, a Director on the Board of Reliance Power. To name a few, L&T, Indias biggest engineering company is tied with NPCIL for the erection, procurement and construction of nuclear plants including Koodankulam. Reliance Infrastructure (formerly Reliance Energy) reportedly plans to invest Rs.12,000 crore to install 2000 MW of nuclear power capacity. Tata Power tied up with some major nuclear equipment suppliers like Areva and Toshiba (which has acquired Westinghouse). Gammon India, Indias largest civil engineering company which built the nuclear plants in Rajasthan and Tarapur along with L&T are now involved in building Indias first Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor plant at Kalpakkam, Rolta India, in association with Stone and Webster offers reactorbuilding technology. Hindustan Construction Company has so far constructed four nuclear power projects in India and is well-placed to get turnkey construction contracts in nuclear projects. Crompton Greaves completed a switchyard project for NPCIL.[53] L&T and Tata
56

Power were also involved in the construction of Indias first-ever indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant. Significantly, former DAE head, Dr Anil Kakodkar, admitted in an article published in a Marathi daily earlier this year that India must import reactors worth billions of dollars because we also have to keep in mind the commercial interests of foreign countries and of the companies there.[42] One is tempted to ask the Prime Minister whether the foreign hand operates in the anti-nuclear protests or in the nuclear establishment! Dr A.Gopalakrishnan, in an article in DNA on 17 March, 2011, steps up his fierce attack and drops the bombshell: All along, these nuclear agencies of the government have also colluded with, and were assisted by, large Indian and foreign corporate houses and their federations interested in the sizeable nuclear power market they are helping to create in India. Even in the evaluations and negotiations of cost, the safety and liability of imported reactors, the official nuclear agencies today are operating hand-in-glove with their friends in the corporate houses and federations. Indian corporates are not limiting their nuclear ambitions only to India. Last December, Times of India carried a significant piece of news that said Reliance Industries Limited an Indian monopoly corporate house with global investments - acquired a stake in the US-based nuclear design & engineering firm, Terra Power. RIL already has a 49% stake in Australia-based UXA resources. This clearly indicates the aspirations of RIL in nuclear power generation. In 2010, Indian mining company, Dharni Sampda, acquired Uranium mining licenses in 3000 sq. km area in Niger. Now, its an open secret that the political parties are funded by the corporates only to reap the policy fruits when governments are formed. So, the governments are destined to implement what the corporates demand.
57

Is this not another reason why the government is so aggressive on its nuclear plans?

11. Nuclear policy decisions democratic or autocratic?

In a democracy, it is expected that the government involves and consults the people, and addresses their concerns in policy decisions that have direct impact on their lives and livelihoods, that the process should be democratic instead of forcing the decisions down peoples throats. However, it is evident that this basic principle of democracy is bypassed in the decision making process concerning nuclear power projects in India. This article has aimed to establish that a nuclear disaster can by no means be compared with any other disaster or calamity in its terrible magnitude and long-term pernicious effects. So, it can be well understood that those who are protesting against nuclear plants are doing it not only for their own sake but for the sake of the future generations and in the larger interest of the people of the country as well. If the term Nation includes the people and the environment in the national territory, then the protesters are fighting to protect the national interest. If so, framing false charges or slandering them or branding them traitors and anti-nationals, or letting loose state repression on them can any of these be regarded as proper or democratic? Rather, the government and the nuclear establishment should address the genuine concerns of the people, and be as prepared to be convinced as they are out to convince, and be prepared to concede to the peoples demands including that of a No to nuclear plants if the demands are found to be just and legitimate - all these with an open mind and total transparency.
58

To set the ground for such a free and fair discussion, all false cases filed against the protesting people and their leaders must be immediately withdrawn, all arrested people rotting in jails should be released forthwith, prohibitory orders in the affected areas should be lifted without further delay, and those who have suffered from injuries and loss of life and property should be adequately compensated. Finally, steps must be taken to ensure peoples participation in making all policy decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods and to protect their right to protest against what they feel is not just and not in their common interest.

12.

Experts and intellectuals on which side?

As we have seen, the nuclear establishment has leveraged its heavyweights in its campaign for nuclear power. At the same time, the movements at Koodankulam, Jaitapur, Gorakhpur and other places have stirred the conscience of pro-people intellectuals and experts across the globe. Support is still pouring in. Noam Chomsky, internationally acclaimed intellectual who was voted Worlds top public intellectual in 2005 has cautioned that Koodankulam could be another Bhopal disaster waiting to happen. In a letter of solidarity, he said: `Nuclear energy is a very dangerous initiative, particularly in countries like India, which has had more than its share of industrial disasters. I would like to express my support for the courageous peoples movement protesting the opening of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Other prominent intellectuals, nuclear energy experts, scientists, jurists, artists, writers, journalists who have either actively taken part in the struggle or lent their support include: Eminent Jurists like Justice VR Krishna Iyer (former judge,
59

Supreme Court of India), Justice A P Shah (former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court), Justice B.G. Kolse Patil (former judge of the Bombay High Court) Former West Bengal Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Former navy chief Admiral L Ramdas, former Army Chief General V.K.Singh Former Union Power Secretary , Dr EAS Sarma (India Today magazine says a testimony to his honesty is the fact that he was transferred 26 times in his 35-year tenure), Former Chairman of Haryana State Electricity Board, MG Devasahayam Social activists and environmentalists like Medha Patkar, Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Lalita Ramdas Scientists, energy experts and physicists like Prof. Ram Puniyani, Dr Surendra Gadekar, Dr Sangamitra Gadekar, Prof P M Bhargava, Dr Suvrat Raju, Sankar Sharma, Dr Partho Sarothi Ray, Economists like Dr. Sulabha Brahme Noted writers, columnists, film makers and journalists like Praful Bidwai, Vandana Shiva, Anand Patwardhan, Nagesh Hegde, Anti-corruption activists like Prashant Bhushan, Aruna Roy, Political scientists like Prof.Achin Vanaik, Human rights activists like Dr Binayak Sen, And hundreds of eminent citizens in various fields

13.

The last word

Due to the well-orchestrated and relentless campaign by the nuclear establishment, a section of the people has become confused on the issue. This article is meant to distinguish facts from fiction and thus, to establish the correctness of the anti-nuclear line on the intellectual front to clear the confusions and dispel the wrong notions. Finally, a question that keeps popping up is that since thousands of crores of rupees have been already spent on the KKNPP, would it
60

not be unwise to pull the plug now? PMANE Expert Team headed by M G Devasahayam has suggested fuel-switching and to make KKNPP a liquefied gas-based power plant and that this can be supplemented with wind, solar and tidal power for which there is huge potential in Koodankulam and adjoining areas.[109] There are precedents elsewhere. For instance, Shoreham nuclear power plant in the USA was decommissioned following protests by the local residents even before it started commercial operations. As of July 2012, there is a proposal to build a natural gas-fired power plant at the nuclear site. There is another proposal to build a wind farm. Both taken together have a combined capacity which is about 300 MW more than the capacity of the shuttered nuclear facility. The existing substation and transmission & distribution system is planned to be reused by both power plants.[143] In January 2013, Japan announced plans to build the largest wind farm in the world with 1000 MW capacity just 15 km off the coast of Fukushima![140] The Japan government has also instituted a Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) incentive program for solar energy producers under which the producers are assured of a stable income for 20 years. Thanks to the scheme, solar projects with a capacity of more than 1000MW have taken off since the Fukushima accident.[141] It means that, since the plans on Jaitapur, Gorakhpur and other nuclear plants are not yet in advanced stages, it is completely feasible to correct the course if the government acts NOW without any delay. Thus, the money already spent can - at last - be put to some good use!

61

14.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

References
The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India - M.V. Ramana, Viking , 15 Dec, 2012 Economics of Nuclear Power from Heavy Water Reactors, Amulya KN Reddy, MV Raman, Antonette Dsa, Economic & Political Weekly, 23 Apr 2005 Our Atom State, Ramchandra Guha, The Telegraph, 9 Dec 2009 Accidents at nuclear power plants in India - Green Peace Japan mulls Fukushima food ban: IAEA, Reuters, 19 March 2011 Government panel blasts lack of 'safety culture' in nuclear accident - The Asahi Shimbun, July, 2012 Japan Power Company Admits Failings on Plant Precautions - The New York Times, 12 Oct, 2012 TEPCO ordered to report on change in piping layout at Fukushima plant- The Mainichi Shimbun (28 February 2012) Environment: The Struggle over Nuclear Power, TIME Magazine, 8 March 1976 dianuke.org Historical and future seismicity near Jaitapur, India, Roger Bilham and Vinod K. Guar, Current Science, Nov, 2011 Japan N-blasts trigger Jaitapur Safety worries, Business Today, 15 March, 2011 Atomic Allies?: India and Australia Explore Uranium Sales, Anthony Fensom, The Diplomat, Nov, 2012 Jaitapur N-project sitting on high severity quake zone, TISS, Dec, 2010 Clarification on the article in Outlook, Nalinish Nagaich, Associate Director, NPCIL, Dec, 2012 JAITAPURS own Fukushima, Hard News, Saeed Naqvi, April 2011 Power sector at a glance: All India data, Ministry of Power, Government of India. June 2012. Report of The Working Group on Power for 12th Plan (2012-17), Ministry of Power, Govt of India, Jan 2012 India eyeing 63,000 MW nuclear power capacity by 2032: NPCIL, Economic Times, Oct, 2010 The Nuclear Illusion, India Future of Change, Gabriel Weinstein, Ohio Univ, USA Power and Energy, Planning Commission, Govt of India Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), Ministry of Power Is land really a constraint for the utilization of solar energy in India? H. Mitavachan and J. Srinivasan, Current Science Vol. 103, No. 2, July 2012 What Happened and What Didn't in the TMI-2 Accident". American Nuclear Society. Three Mile Island: The People's Testament, Katagiri Mitsuru and Aileen M. Smith Nuclear Power Plants for India, Are they most dangerous & costly sources of power? A.N.Nagaraj & Shankar Sharma, Nov, 2011 Why should Jaitapur be made a guinea pig for untested reactor? DNA, Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, AERB, March, 2011 Wikipedia Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Mangano, Joseph (September/October 2004) 573 deaths 'related to nuclear crisis', The Yomiuri Shimbun, 5 Feb, 2012 Good Process Control Could have prevented Chernobyl Historic Meltdown, Bela Liptak, July, 2009 Safety of Nuclear reactors, World Nuclear Association, updated 10 Oct, 2012 Iodine-131 Fallout From the Nevada Test Site, National Geographic Magazine, 2002 Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview - WHO, April 2006 Nuclear Nomads: A look at the Sub-contracted Heroes by Gabrielle Hecht in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 9, 2012 Nuclear Servitude: Subcontracting and Health in the French Civil Nuclear Industry, Annie Thbaud-Mony Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion, News On Japan

62

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Nuclear power is our gateway to a prosperous future, Dr Abdul Kalam, SP Singh The Hindu on 6 Nov, 2011 Dr Kalam, your article raises more questions than answers, Dr EAS Sarma, Nov, 2011 The nuclear energy debate in India: Response to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, Dr Surendra Gadekar, Kafila, 10 Nov, 2011 Opinion: Did Fukushima kill the nuclear renaissance No, that renaissance died right here at home, Keith Yost, The Tech, Nov, 2011 Why Koodankulam is untenable, MV Ramana & Suvrat Raju, The Hindu, 11 Nov, 2011 Wings of fire, an autobiography, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, 1999 Thirteen Reasons Why We Do Not Want the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project, Dr S. P. Udayakumar, dianuke.org, 29 May 2012 The Darker Reality of Indias Nuclear Power Goals, John Daly, oilprice.com, 26 Feb 2012 Chernobyl Disaster's Agricultural and Environmental Impact, Roberta C. Barbalace, EnvironmentalChemistry.com. 1999 Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage, Robert Alvarez, Institute for Policy Studies(IPS), 24 Mar 2011 Gamblers with other peoples lives: A Rejoinder to Dr M R Srinivasan, Dr Surendra Gadekar, dianuke.org, Oct, 2011 RIL gears up for mega play in nuclear sector, ToI, 23, Dec, 2011 Indian companies likely to benefit from nuclear deal, StockInvest.in, Undated, Ref:15 Dec, 2012 NSG clears nuclear waiver to India, CNN-IBN. September 6, 2008. Don't change N-liability law to suit MNCs, Jim Riccio, ToI, 23 Sep, 2012 Indian Government to Allow Private-Sector Participation in Nuclear Sector, an Industrial Info News Alert, iStockAnalyst, 30 Sep, 2010 Fukushima Daiichi: ANS Committee Report, Mar, 2012 Largest uranium reserves found in India, The Telegraph, 19 Jul, 2011 FMCT facts and fiction, Tariq Osman Hyder, 28 Mar, 2012 The real questions from Koodankulam, Rahul Siddharthan, The Hindu, 14 Sep, 2012 Indian Nuclear Reactors, IDP Sentinel (idp.justthe80.com) Far higher potential for wind energy in India than previously estimated, Science Daily, 21 Mar, 2012 In parts of India, wind energy proving cheaper than coal, Renewable Energy, 18 Jul, 2012 Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions, Kurt Kleiner, Nature reports, Oct, 2008 India's Nuclear Breeders: Technology, Viability, and Options, Rahul Tongia & VS Arunachalam, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Jan 1997 Nuclear Weapons , FAS, Nov, 2002 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant operator 'ignored tsunami warning', The Guardian, 29 Nov, 2011 The making of the Indian Atom Bomb, Itty Abraham, South Asia Books, Jan 1999 India: The bitter fruits of grandiose ambition, Prof.John Harris, July 2003 Nehru, Science and Secrecy, MV Ramana, Geocities.ws (also Anumukti, Aug 1998) Current Science, Vol. 77, Haridas Banerjee, Dec 1999 The Future of Nuclear Power in India, MV Ramana, April, 2010 Nuclear Power An alternative, Dr S.K.Jain, 2009 From Fission to Fusion (M.R. Srinivasan), Viking, New Delhi (2002) review by Prof. Amulya Reddy 2002 Economic Aspects of Nuclear Power in India: A Study, IITK, April, 2010 Flaws in the pro-nuclear argument, MV Ramana & Suchitra JY, Infochange, Jun, 2006 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, EIA Hydro Power Vs Thermal Power: A Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis, Adesh Sharma, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 2010 Punes waste-to-energy project pays rich dividends, The Hindu, 15 Sep, 2012

63

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120.

Karnataka to get power from Koodankulam, NBS News, 15 Dec, 2012 PLF of Nuclear Power Generation, Dept of S&T, Ministry of S & T, 5 May 2010 Koodankulam power unlikely to offer immediate relief, The Hindu, Nov 21, 2012 Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring, IBN, 9 April, 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, IAEA, 15 Mar 2011 Facts about Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant, DAE, 26 April, 2011 Inadequate health checks for French "nuclear nomads", WISE, 26 Jan 2011 Desirability of nuclear power is the real question, Madhumita Dutta, The Hindu, 27 Sep 2012 Japanese workers braved radiation for a temp job. New York Times, 9 April, 2011 Is Nuclear the answer? Jonathan Porritt, Sustainable Development Commission, 3 May 2006 Managing Radioactive Waste, Factsheets & FAQs, IAEA Waste from Nuclear Power, Nuclear Info, School of Physics at the University of Melbourne, Undated, ref: 15 Dec 2012 High-Level Waste, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 April, 2006 Koodankulams windmills produce more than N-plant, Hindustan Times, 30 Sep, 2012 Investigation into Tritium Contamination at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Dept of Health, US, till Oct, 2012 Nuclear Engineering and Design, Papin and Quellien, 2006 The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003 Japan to restart nuclear reactors, phase them out by 2030s, Stars & Stripes, 14 Sep, 2012 Cleaner Power in India: Towards a Clean-Coal-Technology Roadmap, Clean Energy Solutions Center, Chikkatur & Sagar, Dec 2007 Time to bury the clean coal myth, Fred Pearce, The Guardian, 30 Oct, 2008 Indian nuclear liability rules make SNC Lavalin wary, Reuters, 8 Nov, 2012 Who pays in case of accident at Koodankulam, asks PM, The Hindu, 3 Aug, 2012 Nuclear Industry shielded from Big disaster costs, CNN Money, 25 Mar, 2011 Insurance Coverage for Nuclear Accidents, Insurance Information Institute, 25 Mar, 2011 The Top 10 Pronuclear Arguments...Answered, Dr John Gofman, Committee For Nuclear Responsibility Crisis in Japan awakens need for Nuclear Insurance in India, MyInsuranceClub, 24 Mar 2011 Supreme Court scanner on nuclear liability Act, India Today, 17 Mar, 2011 India, Facts & Figures, M. Mohan Mathews, 2001 A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Benjamin K. Sovacool, 15 Jun, 2010 River use banned after French Uranium leak, The Guardian, 10 Jul, 2008 The nuclear waste crisis in France, 30 May, 2006, Greenpeace Reprocessing and Nuclear waste, Union of Concerned Scientists, 21 Mar, 2011 Koodankulam, a way out of the nuclear mess, MG Devasahayam, 19 Sep, 2012 Nuclear Weapons: The Final Pandemic Preventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition, Shakeel Ur Rahman, National Secretary, Indian Doctors for Peace and Development Tamilnadu Government G.O. 828, 29.4.1991, Public Works Department Koodankulam activist sends legal notice to PM for foreign funding remark, India Today, 28 Feb, 2012 Home minister team raids N-activists house in Nagercoil, Times of India, 30, Mar, 2012 Nuke power or Freedom, MG Devasahayam, Nov, 2012, gfiles.com Plate Tectonics, Earthquake And Tsunami, Geological Survey of India, 2002 Reject French Reactors for Jaitapur, Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, 19 Mar, 2011, Mainstream Jaitapur, Level 7, Smruti Koppikar, 2 May, 2011 Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal, Ashley Tellis, 2006 India and the Nuclear Deal, K Subramanyam, Times of India, 12 December 2005. Jaitapur N-plant project on hold for now?, 23 Mar, 2011, Times of India

64

121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144.

Powering India, The road to 2017, McKinsey & Company, Jun, 2008 Indias Atomic Energy Programme: Claims and Reality, Suvrat Raju, RUPE, Jan, 2010 Best practices of the Alliance for Rural Electrification, ARE, 2011 Country Analysis Briefs - India, Energy Information Administration, Nov, 2011 Energy Statistics, 2012, Central Statistical Organisation, Mar, 2012 The 16-hour power cuts in Tamil Nadu, NDTV, 31 Oct, 2012 The Myth of Nuclear Necessity, Ward Wilson, New York Times, 13 Jan, 2013 The September 29, 1993, M6.4 Killari, Maharashtra Earthquake in Central India. EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1994 Large Solar Energy Projects, California Energy Commission, 14 Sep, 2012 162458: Cash-for-votes ahead of confidence motion, The Hindu, 17 Mar, 2011 India pampers foreign vendors, reserves a nuke park for each, Brahma Chellaney, The Sunday Guardian, 8 Aug, 2010 Civil nuclear opportunities in India -review of current status, G R Srinivasan, FICCI Nuclear Sub Group on Utilities, 8 Dec, 2009 India can meet energy needs sans N-power: Study, IANS, The Hindu, 4 Oct, 2012 The Koodankulam timeline: 24 years of struggle - Full Story Newzfirst, 12 Sep, 2012 27% of power goes waste: Moily, Times of India, 11 Aug, 2012 A strategy to cut mounting power losses, Devinder Singh, Financial Express, 16 Dec, 2009 National Energy Map for India: Technology Vision 2030, TERI. Mar, 2006 Solar Energy Usage in the world, Shailendra Nehare, CEEAMA, Vol. 4, 2012 Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output), The World Bank, 2010 Japan to replace nuclear plant with world's largest wind farm, phys.org, 18 Jan, 2013 Solar Energy System approvals surge following launch of Japans FIT, CleanTechnica, 12 Oct, 2012 India: The march of folly, Praful Bidwai, South Asia Citizens Web, 14 Sep, 2012 Companies pitch gas and wind plans involving Shoreham, The Suffolk Times, 6 Jul 2012 Anti-nuclear resolution of the Austrian Parliament, WISE News, 26 Sep, 1997

Photo & Image Courtesy:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/NehruBhabha640c20.jpg http://eceblasts.blogspot.in/2011_09_01_archive.html http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01215/IN21_KUDANKULAM_1215217f.jpg http://www.inkcinct.com.au/web-pages/cartoons/past/2006/2006-319-nuclear-power.jpg http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icwales2/jan2013/3/2/sheep-will-graze-the-land-at-the-15mw-solar-power-station-planned-for-anglesey-246376151.jpg http://www.techienation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/solarwindcartoon.gif http://cdn.graphicsfactory.com/clip-art/image_files/image/7/1363047-Nuclear-Power-Plants7.gif

65