Nuclear Energy to India\'s Rescue?

[seeking]

So now that Obama has cleared the way for US nuclear industry to do business wit India, is this really the right thing for India? Is it really "clean" energy?

Running a nuclear plant to make cheap power available to the "power" hungry masses is easier said than done.

1. Is it really affordable?

2. What is the source of procuring the raw material?

3. How shall we dispose the spent fuel in a safe manner?

4. Have we learned anything from the recent Japanese experience? Can we manage plant safety better than they did?

5. Our record in the areas of industrial safety and disaster management is not really world class. It is no comfort to me that there is or will be an insurance pool for covering the risks associated with the nuclear industry. What about some preventive and safety measures?

6. Is there a master "energy plan" that shows India's energy needs for the next 20 years that includes the needs of the industry, cities, villages and farms and how these can be met, and the ideal mix of various types of energy?

[boca]

2. What is the source of procuring the raw material?

It has been a challenge procuring the raw materials. Of late, it is getting sorted out for the better. India signed a deal with Australia. It has deals with many countries including Kazakhstan, Argentina, Russia, Mongolia, Namibia, etc.

Homi Bhabha's vision is to use Thorium (which is present in India).

Indian nuclear research and knowledge is world-class and well recognized world over. It could be considered an innovation leader, on par with US and Russia in some aspects of nuclear research.

As a result of shortage of fuel, Indian plants run at reduced capacity. Hopefully, with US-India deal, the hurdles for procurement becomes history.

[boca]

1. Is it really affordable?

When there is a wide gap between the demand and supply, taking all forms of energy generation into consideration, the issue is with getting to capacity using all available resources.

As for economics of nuclear power, it is not the cheapest, but I don't think that it is way too much costly either to talk about affordability.

[boca]

3. How shall we dispose the spent fuel in a safe manner?

An issue that many brains work on every day, be it in the US or India or France or China or Russia or elsewhere. :) Good thing is that they all share their knowledge (except maybe China?)

India does re-use spent fuel by reprocessing. The frugal Indians? Not necessarily. It is out of necessity that India is innovative. It is due to the lack of fuel supply.

[boca]

4. Have we learned anything from the recent Japanese experience? Can we manage plant safety better than they did?

Ever heard the term, Force Majeure?

Japanese are good at what they do. The event was beyond what was reasonable, just like Katrina or Sandy for the US. There is a cost-benefit line beyond which, one hopes that it will withstand some major natural catastrophe.

Of course, the nuclear community is tight knit and share their experiences. They have to be, as the impact in one may have ramification across the world.

[seeking]

So what exactly is so great about the nuclear deal reached with the US? It seems like the main thing is that Indian insurance companies can insure Indians against any losses resulting from nuclear accidents. Who would buy this insurance? Indian operating companies? What about the US companies that sell the technology and the material? Does this insurance apply to the whole supply chain? In the backdrop of the Bhopal gas leak, which is still languishing in the courts, with more victims dying and fewer survivors getting any compensation, is it fair to let only Indian companies (read tax payers) bear the cost of this insurance? See what I found here:

Sneak peak from one chapter of a yet to be published DIY book called
"Nuclear Deals for Dummies" (thanks to my buddy Shyam for sharing).
QUOTE:
Nuclear Deal "Break Through",...
AAm AAdmi breaks through and through. And here is a break down ...
A deal was stopped earlier because the ability to cover the cost of recovery and liability when there is a nuclear disaster (like Chernobyl, Fukushima) has to be borne by all responsible parties. Which is Supplier and Operator. As much as possible the cost should not be borne by tax payers. The opposition was vociferous, thumped its back in getting stringent laws that kept the deal from getting anywhere. (The then) Ruling party could do nothing.

Then with the election mandate the opposition and ruling party switched places to the extent that now there is no visible opposition of any sort. The ex-opposition which is now the ruling government comes in with an idea.

National funded insurance provider - yeah the tax payers own money funding an insurance company that the Suppliers can buy insurance from to cover liability. Suppliers are all primarily foreign, Operators are all Indian. Insurance company funded by public money is all Indian.

Operators HAVE to buy insurance, Suppliers are "encouraged" to buy National funded insurance.
And Lo the deal is done... Aaam Aadmi in India is empowered now for suppliers and operators to make merry and if there is a disaster, Aam Aadmi can cover it.
What a deal Sir ji !!!!
UNQUOTE:

[BackToPavilion]

So what exactly is so great about the nuclear deal reached with the US? It seems like the main thing is that Indian insurance companies can insure Indians against any losses resulting from nuclear accidents. Who would buy this insurance? Indian operating companies? What about the US companies that sell the technology and the material? Does this insurance apply to the whole supply chain? In the backdrop of the Bhopal gas leak, which is still languishing in the courts, with more victims dying and fewer survivors getting any compensation, is it fair to let only Indian companies (read tax payers) bear the cost of this insurance? See what I found here:

Sneak peak from one chapter of a yet to be published DIY book called
"Nuclear Deals for Dummies" (thanks to my buddy Shyam for sharing).
QUOTE:
Nuclear Deal "Break Through",...
AAm AAdmi breaks through and through. And here is a break down ...
A deal was stopped earlier because the ability to cover the cost of recovery and liability when there is a nuclear disaster (like Chernobyl, Fukushima) has to be borne by all responsible parties. Which is Supplier and Operator. As much as possible the cost should not be borne by tax payers. The opposition was vociferous, thumped its back in getting stringent laws that kept the deal from getting anywhere. (The then) Ruling party could do nothing.

Then with the election mandate the opposition and ruling party switched places to the extent that now there is no visible opposition of any sort. The ex-opposition which is now the ruling government comes in with an idea.

National funded insurance provider - yeah the tax payers own money funding an insurance company that the Suppliers can buy insurance from to cover liability. Suppliers are all primarily foreign, Operators are all Indian. Insurance company funded by public money is all Indian.

Operators HAVE to buy insurance, Suppliers are "encouraged" to buy National funded insurance.
And Lo the deal is done... Aaam Aadmi in India is empowered now for suppliers and operators to make merry and if there is a disaster, Aam Aadmi can cover it.
What a deal Sir ji !!!!
UNQUOTE:

Well said. Completely agree. Though an ardent supporter of Modi and BJP, I am really disappointed with this deal

[seeking]

Though an ardent supporter of Modi and BJP, I am really disappointed with this deal

Exactly my sentiment. I fully realize the importance of meeting India's insatiable energy needs and the lure of nuclear energy. But what scares me off is the complexity of dealing with nuclear energy, especially in a "third world" country. Compare that with the simplicity of solar and wind energy options. I do realize that neither surya nor vayu may meet all our energy needs but the high risk of nuclear accidents, and the fallout from such accidents in a densely populated country may make nuclear power unsuited to the Indian context. Insurance has more to do with handling the costs of the fallout, not so much with prevention (well, may be a little).

Is it too farfetched to imagine that, even in the normal course (without an "incident") contamination of soil and rivers can plague generations to come? Are the lands surrounding Hiroshima, Chernobyl etc. the most fertile with thriving crops, green hills etc.? How are the lakes and other water bodies there? Would you eat fish from a can labled "extremely organic - grown with tender love - in Fukushima"?

[BackToPavilion]

Another problem will be that Hulk(s) will grab the manual labor from the multitudes and increase unemployment :wink . But seriously I pray to god that the government get to senses and we do not go on relying heavily on nuclear energy.

[boca]

Is it too farfetched to imagine that, even in the normal course (without an "incident") contamination of soil and rivers can plague generations to come?

No. Studies don't indicate that. India does regular study of radiation levels all over India. The findings indicate that some places in India get more naturally occurring radiation levels than near the vicinity of nuclear power plants. There is some emission of radiation near the plants, but they are kept to insignificant levels.

If you walk on the beaches of Madras, you are more likely to get radiated naturally (thanks to Thorium and Potassium-40 in sediments) than from any radiation from Kalpakkam plant. The worst part is that such natural radiation exposure in certain places in India is many times higher than the world average.

As people of science (most of us are), it is best to go by facts than on non-facts.