Nuclear Energy in India- A boon or bane?

Points to be known:-
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity
in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.
There are 442 nuclear reactors in the world. And some more nuclear plants are in
construction.
As of 2010, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power
plants, generating 4,780 MW, while 5 other plants are under construction and are
expected to generate an additional 2,720 MW.
India plans to increase nuclear power output to 64,000 MW by 2032. It aims to
supply 25% of electricity from nuclear power by 2050.
Six nuclear power plants in India are located in Kaiga in Karnataka, Kakrapar
in Gujarat, Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, Narora in Uttar Pradesh, Rawatbhata in
Rajasthan, Tarapur in Maharashtra.
India involved in ITER ( International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ),
which consists European Union, United States, Japan, China, South Korea,
Russia as other members.
Indo - US nuclear deal was done on July 18th, 2005, under which India agreed
to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in
exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation
with India.

In Favor:-
Nuclear fission produces energy equal to 10 million times of the energy produced
by burning of an atom of fossil fuel or hydro or wind power.
Through Nuclear plants, we can save our planet from Global warming as there is
no release of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone,
chlorofluorocarbon) during nuclear reaction.
By burning fossil fuels, poisonous CO2 releases.
Uranium is obtained from open-cut mines, which is not expensive. And Currently,
the high reserves of uranium found on Earth, are expected to last for another 100
years.
Nuclear fuel is inexpensive and easier to transport.
Nuclear Energy can be produced in large quantities over short periods of time.
 When compared to the fossil fuel waste, the nuclear waste which occurs due to
the production of nuclear power is small in quantity.
We can save oil reserves which are going to be run out at some point.

In Against:-
Nuclear plants are dangerous if it explodes. Thousands of people suffered in the
nuclear accident happened in Chernobyl in 1986. Recently, on march 11th, 2011,
four nuclear reactors exploded in Japan due to earth quake. And there are 17
nuclear plant explosions happened in the world till now.
Nuclear power releases radiation, which causes severe health problems to the
people in it's surroundings. The radiation released by this, lasts for tens of
thousands of years in the environment.
In Japan, at the place of nuclear reactors which are exploded, high radio activity
was found in water, leafy vegetables, sea food, and in the people, who are
working for reconstruction those power plants now.
Nuclear reactors last for about 40 to 50 years.
Terrorists may take advantage of this and may produce nuclear weapons, which
is a great risk for entire world.
Even though it produces small amount of waste, it is highly hazardous. And the
long-term storage of this waste is too difficult.
Nuclear plant is highly expensive.
Uranium is not renewable. If the resources of uranium are completely used, there
isn't any more.

Discussion:

Gorky :

Nice post! Nuclear energy is a controversial topic. I feel that if handled with very strict
regulatory measures regarding safety and maintainance, then nuclear energy can be a good
alternative to the conventional means of energy.

Bhumika Ghimire :
i dont think india is in position to handle all the risks associated with nuclear energy. first, the
countrys political and regulatory system has to be updated to deal with nuclear enegry-it is not
a simple energy project.

Gorky :

Well Bhumika its questionable whether we are in a position or not, but I know India is targeting
to scale up the nuclear capacity by 5 times till 2020. For that India has struck nuclear deals with
9 different countries, with the Indo-U.S. deal being the most potential contributor. If safety is
assured, then I dont think there is any harm with this clean energy source.

Komalirani Yennet :

Thanks gorky and Bhumika for your comments!! I would not be biased whether to go for
nuclear or no. For me I accept that nuclear can be a potential source of energy, but as Bhumika
mentioned India with its high priorities of development and lack of capacities to handle this
technology - these aspects would be a big backlogs for the nuclear development. Also when we
are aiming for energy through solar and wind which are far means of cheaper and safer, I think
nuclear is not only the option. What do you say guys????

Pabitra :

Pursuing a nationwide grid of nuclear powered grid in India will be a mistake for its own people
and world at large.

Gorky Tyagi :

Nuclear is not the only option, youre right. But if India is gearing up for such large scale
expansion, then surely it would know its capabilites and risks involved. Nuclear energy would
contribute 10% of entire energy production in 2020 compared to 3% now. It should be taken up
as another form of clean energy and should not be differentiated, unless the risks involved and
the scope are not well researched.

Pabitra :

@Gorky: Nuclear is clean? I think Nuclear is a clean evening dress with dirty underwear. What is
the technology you expect in India? Thermo-nuclear, right? The usual nuclear fission plants
generate plutonium isotopes as radioactive waste in the order of tons. Does anyone gurantee a
fail-safe disposal of it? A few miligrams of it can wipe out a whole city in a single day. The half
life period is 500,000 years. That means it remains potent for such risk for thousands of
generations! What moral right does anybody have to take that decision of nuclear power in a
country that has 15% of world population?
Large scale expansion is alright. But such expansion following the dirty models of waste is
seriously questionable. If we dream to be the super power, let the path be original, innovative
and unique. India is possibly the first in the ancient history to have the concept of welfare state
(Asoka) with peaceful co-existence, first to have a finacial and economic stalwart (Chanakya),
India is worlds largest democracy (despite everything), do we have to be rich and affluent oil-
mafia style?
Can someone tell me what is the research funding of India for alternative energy? Geo-thermal.
wave, ocean, solar and wind? Can someone tell me why BARC has to stop research on cold
fusion (LENR)?

Gorky :

Well Pabitra despite all these disadvantages, at present around 14% of the worlds energy and
3% of Indias energy is produced by it. India is setting up 4 more power plants and is in talks for
more. If France is producing 76% of its total energy safely by it, India can produce at least 10%
of its own. We are doing it for ourselves. If India develops enough solar, wind and geo-thermal
energies to sustain then its celebration time for us. But at the present rate it would take some
time. So while we work on it, we can take some load off coal and oil and move on with nuclear
energy. Im with all forms of clean energies and if planned well by the scientists, as it is being
now, then even disposing it off is not a big deal. It provides huge power, so it would come with
some problems. But if we focus on working it, ensuring we would not be harmed in any way,
then it is good for us. And countries around the world, India included, are realising it and are
moving forward. And if that is mafia-style my friend, then are all the major economies in the
world mafias! And regarding the BARC research, then around 1990 if Im not wrong, the topic
was not as developed as it is now, and so under public pressure, the research had to be
stopped. Now when Congress went ahead with the nuclear deal, though some opposition was
there, still it managed to move ahead. It shows the change that has come in. I still feel that
regarding this topic every person will have different views and every view is correct in his or her
own opinion. Its complicated you know!

Joshi Gaurav :

Komali you have given a nice view on nuclear energy. Very few research are available in Indian
region. what about nuclear waste management which has not talked about much in the market
at present in India??!!

Komalirani Yennet :

Dear Guys!! Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I think the Nuclear issue on a
whole raise several other important issues which are added to it.
@ gaurav: yes, it is very true that India still do not have the capacity for nuclear waste
management. Infact, when India do not have the full capacities for solid waste management
itself, I dont think we are in a position to develop management systems for nuclear waste.

@pabitra: funding for alternatives forms of energy are many. For ex, especially for RE there are
several multilateral organisation like International Finance corporation, KfW, ADB, REEEP etc.
There are also MNRE small scale funds for solar and wind energy research. Please go through
my other posts for finance for RETs

Pabitra :

I am not for copy-paste technology. I have general reservation against any nuke-power, except
possibly nuclear medicine. Reasons are multifarious. First off, in the long term nuclear energy is
not clean and way more dangerous than fosil-fuel based energy. Secondly, as you said, nuclear
waste disposal framework in India is non-existant. Third, Indias population density is added risk
for a screw-up. Fourth, large-scale production of nuclear power for commercial purpose in India
is questionable, its costlier, so less market-friendly.
I am fully aware about Indias energy demands. Problem is: the country that you are presently in
has wasted a huge and unfair chunk of carbon-spacealready and now that suspended carbon is
around 392 ppm, we are in a fix.
Back home in India, we should have enough innovation and management skills to prevent
wastage of energy first and invest heavily on alternative sources of energy. I feel frustrated
about stoppage of BARCs research on cold fusion.

Pabitra :

correction:
Sorry, I thought you are in US. Since you are not, please forgive me and read accordingly.

Komalirani Yennet :

@ Pabitra than you for your valuable comments and I entirely first the issues you have raised.
Though I am not in US, and in UK I think all these developed countries are in the same boat. I do
understand your frustration about it and completely agree with you.

Anushka :

I have a different point of view. Saying no to nuclear energy is as good as saying no to

development of the economy in order to protect some trees, flora and fauna. Its like one has to
trade off between growth and business as is. Looking at the 3-stage nuclear program that India
is following, I believe well be better off by adopting nuclear technology for power. This is
beneficial for the energy security for our future generations too.
I appreciate your number work.

Komalirani Yennet :

@Anushka: Thank you!! Though you rightly mentioned, that we need to have development, I
dont see development as a replacement for environment. I think both should go hand in hand
that is where the concept of sustainable development would peep in. As u mentioned, through
we could address our long term energy issues through nuclear energy, dont you see the logn
term effects also? Do we need to see one more chernobyl case?

Pabitra :

@Anushka: I am not rigid in my position. I shall reveiew if you let me know the following:
1. What is this 3-stage nuclear program?
2. What about nuclear waste management plans?
3. What is developement? More money in pockets of select few with no or endangered long
time future of a vast population?

I have no reservation against Indias poor aspiring for a better life. Thats their right. What about
talent, ingenuity and innovation to do it Indian way?

By the way, I am one of Indias middle income group. I am NOT rich and I can put up a list of
luxeries of life I can cliam as my right. I just find that seriously foolish when I look at Climate
Change.

Joshi Gaurav :

But there are unresolved challenges in long-term management of radioactive wastes and
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated. Closed Fuel
Cycle may minimize waste problem but is presently more expensive. The current reprocessing
system involving separation and recycling of
plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks especially as nuclear power spreads around
the world. While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the worlds known and
economically viable thorium, it possesses a meager 1% of global uranium reserves. There are
estimate for 275,000 MWe in 2050 for India through Nuclear power plants. For 1000 MWe 25
tonnes UO2 require, which generate 1 tone high level waste i.e. 275 tonne waste is highly
radioactive waste will generate in India.

Anushka :
..In stage is PHWR, stage-II is FBR and stage-III is called AHWR. Indias has worlds 25% thorium
resources. Globally used technology is fast breed reactors. But Indias unique process is Thorium
based reactors, which uses U233 and thorium as fuel, which is economically available in India.
Through this process we are able to achieve more energy output through the use of same
quantity of Uranium which we would buy from outer world.About waste management, I think
Mr Gauravs calculations are correct and definitely we need to plan for that before we install it
through policy and technology interventions. And off-course Nuclear power plant are less
emitting than traditional coal fired plants.

Pabitra :

Climate Change controversy taught us few things apart from anthopogenic CO2 emissions
leading to increase in GHGs and thereby causing global warming. These are:
1. Climate is a far too sensitive system than we previously thought it to be.
2. Climate Change can be caused by human activity.
3. Rate of Climate Change is way faster than statistically predicted.

Logically the lesson is implementation of a technology whose long term effects have not been
evaluated with extreme caution can lead us to astrey.

I have no idea what are PHWR, FBR and AHWR, I guess most do not. What I understand and
hope many do fairly easily is that the substance of your and Gouravs comments hardly make
nuclear power in India any better choice than coal, unless one fevors a sudden catastrophic
radiation death to slow inundation of land mass under rising sea and choking to death.

And that too for a growth model which is already crumbling in the West.

Phani :

Thank You very much for your updates on the current on goings in the field of nuclear
development in India. But I think India do not have the capacities for tackling the issues that
would arise from the nuclear energy. What is your opinion on this?

Komalirani Yennet :

@Phani: You have truly mentioned that India has no capacities for tackling the future issues that
would arise from nuclear energy development. This gives the picture of offside of nuclear
energy. I hope the discussion that others have mentioned is very true and supports the
sentence that India lack the know-how, knowledge and expertise in this field.
Ramaswami Kumar :

My dynamic energy analysis of 24000 MW Indian Nuclear Programme shows that even after 28
years of the programme, the net energy output to society other than for n-construction is
negative at 67% plant factor and 24 % tand D losses. The net capacity similarly available to
society is zero. This therefore represents a waste of resources resulting in pauperisation of India
and the World.

Komalirani Yennet :

Dear Ramaswami, that was a very informative blog!! I was just wondering where could you get
these numbers? I was also wondering when India is heading with solar energy which is a safest
and cheapest form of energy in a great deal, why it is investing in Nuclear energy which has
much murky side than better sides?

Ramaswami Kumar :

Re Yenettis comment: Please be specific on which numbers you are wanting to know about. Yet
the moment I may say that you may find the nuclear topics in my complete profile useful. There
are many exercises in World making but Indisa and the world would do well in cahnaging life
style, not climate.