Nuclear Energy Myths and Realities by Soumya Dutta

2,833 views

Published on

Nuclear Energy Myths and Realities by Soumya Dutta at Sambhaavnaa Institute

www.sambhaavnaa.org

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,833
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
232
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
57
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • FOUR (4) FUNDAMENTAL SOURCES OF ENERGY ON EARTH
  • INDIA FIGURE 2006, WORLD – 2004-5, FOSSIL FUEL PERCENTAGE GONE DOWN A LITTLE NOW-2010
  • Nuclear Energy Myths and Realities by Soumya Dutta

    1. 1. Nuclear (Fission) Energy Myths & Realities <ul><li>Taking Advantage Of The Climate Change Threat, Nuclear Industry Is Projecting Itself As A ‘Clean Energy’ ! </li></ul><ul><li>Let’s Look at The Facts And The Many Myths Of Nuclear (Fission) Energy </li></ul><ul><li> Chernobyl – After </li></ul><ul><li>26 April 1986 </li></ul><ul><li>Lakhs of Human Deaths – Long Term </li></ul><ul><li>Soumya Dutta, </li></ul><ul><li>Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha </li></ul>Let’s Not Forget So Easily
    2. 2. FUNDAMENTAL SOURCES OF ENERGY ONLY FOUR BASIC SOURCES ON THE EARTH <ul><li>SUN’s RADIATION – CURRENT SOLAR – SOLAR HEAT </li></ul><ul><li>( SOURCE - - WIND </li></ul><ul><li>NUCLEAR FUSION ) - SOLAR PHOTO-VOLTAIC </li></ul><ul><li>- STORED SOLAR – SHORT TERM - HYDRO /WIND ENERGY </li></ul><ul><li>( DAYS to YEARS) - BIO MASS, FOOD </li></ul><ul><li>- ANIMAL/HUMAN ENERGY </li></ul><ul><li>- OTHERS (lightning, amb. atm) </li></ul><ul><li>LONG TERM - GAS HYDRATES, …. </li></ul><ul><li>( 1000’s of YEARS) - OCEAN THERMAL/CURRENT </li></ul><ul><li>VERY LONG TERM (fossil) – COAL, OIL, GAS, SHALE </li></ul><ul><li>(MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS) </li></ul><ul><li>NUCLEAR (Cosmic) - FISSION – URANIUM, THORIUM </li></ul><ul><li>FUSION (future ) – DEUTERIUM /TRITIUM </li></ul><ul><li>MOON - SUN (Gravity) – TIDAL ENERGY </li></ul><ul><li>EARTH (Heat) – GEOTHERMAL ENERGY </li></ul>SOUMYA DUTTA
    3. 3. THE MANY CLAIMS OF NUCLEAR LOBBY <ul><li>For the Last 50 Years, Nuclear Fission Has Been Projected To Provide a Major Part of the World’s Energy Requirements ! </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear Energy Is Going To Be So Cheap, That Other Forms of Energy Will Be Out-priced !! </li></ul><ul><li>There Is Enough Nuclear Fuel Available to Supply Large Parts of World’s Energy Demand ! </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear (Fission) Energy Is a Very Safe Route & Very Few Actual Accidents Ever Took Place !! </li></ul><ul><li>It Requires Very Little Material Handling, As Uranium Is a Very Energy Dense ‘Fuel’ ! </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear Energy Is a Low-Carbon, Climate-Friendly Energy !! </li></ul><ul><li>Let’s Examine If These Are True Or Propaganda /Myths </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    4. 4. HOW MUCH ENERGY DO WE GET FROM WHAT Myth 1 – 0f Being Major Energy Source -> Busted INDIA WORLD SOUMYA DUTTA TOTAL COMMERCIAL ENRGY AFTER 60 YEARS OF NUCLEAR FISSION ENERGY, ITS FOSSIL-CARBON THAT DOMINATES OVERWHELMINGLY!! >90% fossil-carbon ~85% fossil-carbon
    5. 5. Nuclear Capacity Addition Has Sharply Gone Down Since 1987 – Despite Huge Energy Demand Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development, IAEA, April 2006 Soumya Dutta
    6. 6. IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY AS % OF TOTAL ELECTRICITY, HAS GONE DOWN. Many Operating Reactors Are Facing ‘Retirement’ Soumya Dutta
    7. 7. Nuclear Power-Plants - Neither ‘Cheap’ to Build, Nor Gives Low Cost Electricity -> Myth 2 <ul><li>‘ Nuclear power is a cheap option to meet future energy demand’ - that claim is contradicted by government and academic analysts. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy's cost estimate to build and operate a nuclear plant is 45 percent higher than Progress Energy's (a utility) -- a difference that comes out to roughly $150 million annually. </li></ul><ul><li>The question of cost is not academic. The price of any new power plant -- whether it's for coal, natural gas or uranium -- will be passed on to customers via rate increases. Progress Energy's Shearon Harris reactor, completed 20 years ago, resulted in a 16 percent rate increase and a 60-year payment plan for customers . </li></ul><ul><li>But the Fortune 500 company and its shareholders will face some risk. If the company's cost estimates are off, it could get stuck with excessive costs it can't justify to state regulators. That is what happened in the 1980s when the Shearon Harris plant came in at nearly $3 billion over budget, in part because of delays that put it a decade behind schedule. </li></ul><ul><li>Shearon Harris was among 75 nuclear plants built in this country that blew their budgets to the collective tune of $80 billion, or about $1 billion per reactor on average, according to the Department of Energy. </li></ul><ul><li>Adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2005 dollars, the total is $147 billion, or nearly $2 billion per reactor, according to the Department of Energy. Those cost overruns in the 1980s led to the cancellation of more than 40 reactors. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Nuclear Energy Is One Of The Costliest <ul><li>“ Independent analysts use more conservative assumptions about construction costs, the length of construction time and how efficiently the nuclear plant would operate over its life. According to the DOE's Energy Information Administration, a nuclear plant would generate electricity for 5.71 cents per kilowatt hour, which is 45 percent more than Progress Energy's estimate . Using industry assumptions, the cost would be 4.93 cents a kilowatt hour, which is 25 percent more than Progress Energy's projection. </li></ul><ul><li>The DOE study concludes that nuclear power is costlier than natural gas & coal plants. The construction and equipment costs of a nuclear plant don't compensate for the low price of uranium, the DOE concluded. </li></ul><ul><li>Other studies have reached similar conclusions. A University of Chicago study in 2004 concluded that the first new nuclear plants would be more expensive than gas or coal plants, generating electricity at a cost as high as 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour (81 percent more than Progress Energy's estimate), depending on what assumptions are plugged in. Using assumptions similar to Progress Energy's, the most optimistic estimate would be 5.1 cents per kilowatt hour, or 30 percent higher than Progress Energy's estimate, according to their calculations. </li></ul><ul><li>A study by MIT in 2003 estimated 5.2 cents per kilowatt hour for a nuclear plant” </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    9. 9. The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power <ul><li>A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple thecurrent U.S. electricity rates! </li></ul><ul><li>This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “ Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW? ” </li></ul><ul><li>The new study, “ Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, ” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance . A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission. </li></ul><ul><li>This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    10. 10. ‘ External Costs’ for various Electricity Generating Technologies Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development, IAEA, April 2006 From 2006, Nuclear Power Cost has Gone Up, Whereas Solar, Wind –> Gone Down Soumya Dutta
    11. 11. HOW LONG WILL URANIUM LAST ? <ul><li>As of the beginning of 2003 World Uranium reserves were -Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) [4] = 3.10 - 3.28 million tU [2,5]. </li></ul><ul><li>As of the beginning of 2005 World Uranium reserves were - Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) = 4.7 million tU [6]. </li></ul><ul><li>As of the beginning of 2009 identified World Uranium reserves were Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US300/kg = 6.3 million tU [7] </li></ul><ul><li>ALL THESE ARE U3O8, NOT METALLIC URANIUM, </li></ul><ul><li>AT THE PRESENT RATE OF CONSUMPTION OF ~68,000 t/Year, THESE WILL BE OVER IN LESS THAN 80 Years. </li></ul><ul><li>IF CONSUMPTION INCREASES 2-4 TIMES AS PROJECTED ?? </li></ul><ul><li>WHAT WILL ALL THE COSTLY REACTORS DO THEN ?? </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    12. 12. Indian Nuclear Power Promises & Realities <ul><li>In the late 1960’s – it was projected that Indian Nuclear Power generation will be >40,000 MW ; </li></ul><ul><li>The Actual installed nuclear power capacity in 2010 ~ 4,780 MW !! </li></ul>
    13. 13. Nuclear Power Generation in India <ul><li>Year Installed capacity, MW Generation, Million Units(KWHr) Generation, MU/MW </li></ul><ul><li>2009-10 4340 18636.44 4.29 </li></ul><ul><li>2008-09 4120 14712.59 3.57 </li></ul><ul><li>2007-08 4120 16776.91 4.04 </li></ul><ul><li>2006-07 3900 18606.75 4.77 </li></ul><ul><li>2005-06 3310 17238.89 5.21 </li></ul><ul><li>2004-05 2720 16845.29 6.19 </li></ul><ul><li>2003-04 2720 17737 6.52 </li></ul><ul><li>2002-03 2720 19235 7.07 </li></ul><ul><li>2001-02 2720 19475 7.16 </li></ul><ul><li>1999-2000 1840 9936 (upto Jan 2000) 6.48 </li></ul><ul><li>1998-99 1840* 9899 (upto Jan 1999) 6.46 </li></ul><ul><li>1997-98 2225 10042 4.51 </li></ul><ul><li>1996-97 2225 9071 4.08 </li></ul><ul><li>1995-96 2225 7965 3.58 </li></ul><ul><li>1994-95 2225 5648 2.54 </li></ul><ul><li>1993-94 2005 5396 2.69 </li></ul><ul><li>1992-93 2005 6727 3.36 </li></ul><ul><li>1991-92 1785 5524 3.09 </li></ul><ul><li>1989-90 1565 4625 2.96 </li></ul><ul><li>Source: 1. www.cea.nic.in, various monthly reports; 2. All India Electricity Statistics General Review 2002-03, CEA </li></ul><ul><li>3. Annual Report 1998-99, 1999-2000, Ministry of Power </li></ul>
    14. 14. The Myth Of ‘DEVELOPING” Un-limited Nuclear (Fission) Energy <ul><li>Nuclear Fission Has Been Touted As a ‘Solution’ to CC; </li></ul><ul><li>Most Uranium Ores Contain Only Fractional % of U (India < 0.1) </li></ul><ul><li>Out of all U, The Fissionable ‘Fuel’ U-235 is Only 0.7%, The Rest is Mostly Non-Fuel U-238, </li></ul><ul><li>Total Global Uranium Reserves are Only About 5.5 Million Tons, </li></ul><ul><li>Even At Present Rate of Use, All Of It Will Run Out In ~80 Years !! </li></ul><ul><li>Forget About Increasing Fission Power Much Beyond Today’s, </li></ul><ul><li>Even After 60+ years, No Country Succeded In Continous Operation of ‘Breeder Reactors’ – France, Japan, USA !! </li></ul><ul><li>India’s is ‘being built’ for >15 Years ! </li></ul>Core Of A Nuclear Fission Reactor Soumya Dutta
    15. 15. SAFE ENERGY ? 3-MILE ISLAND & CHERNOBYL ! WHOLE PRIPYAT TOWN ABANDONED – CHERNOBYL NPP AT BACKGROUND THREE-MILE ISLAND REACTOR
    16. 16. THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR (FISSION) POWER <ul><li>At every stage of (a) the nuclear fuel cycle, and (b) reactor operation, there are large releases of radio-active materials which cause cancers, birth defects, and other cell damages. </li></ul><ul><li>The nuclear-fuel in all conventional reactors is Uranium235, and the natural decay product is Radon, which is a highly radioactive inert gas. This will be released in large quantities from the tens of thousands of tons of mine-tailings, from fuel fabrication, and even when the nuclear reactor is operating “normally” , ie, even without any accident. In fact, nuclear reactors regularly vent built-up gases into the atmosphere, and this will cause high radiation exposure to the local population, on animals, on plants. </li></ul><ul><li>The released / leaked radiation finds its way into water & food chains, thus getting directly into human & animal bodies, causing very long term radiation damage to these people and animals, including genetic damage, abnormal mutations etc. (radioactive radiation is infact used in radio-biolgy labotratories to induce genetic changes). </li></ul><ul><li>The ‘possible’ scenario of an accident will cause un-imaginable losses to human lives, and total ecology. Authentic and long term studies have shown that total human lives lost – from radiation exposure over a long time, from the Chernobyl reactor acident – is over 900,000. This is far above the loss from Bhopal gas disater – accepted as the worst industrial disaster in history ! And Fatehabd is far more densely populated than Ukraine (where Chernobyl is) areas. </li></ul>
    17. 17. Nuclear Power -- Multiple Dangers <ul><li>The natural Radioactive decay product is Radon, which is a highly radioactive inert gas. This will be released in large quantities from the tens of thousands of tons of mine-tailings, from fuel fabrication, and even when the nuclear reactor is operating “normally” , ie, even without any accident. </li></ul><ul><li>Amongst the fission-products , several are highly radioactive gases like Iodine-131, Cesium-134, Cesium-137 etc, with half-lives of days to 30 years. </li></ul><ul><li>In fact, nuclear reactors regularly vent built-up radioactive gases into the atmosphere, and these cause high radiation exposure to the population in a fairly large area, on animals, on plants. Some get into food chain also. </li></ul><ul><li>Some will get inhaled and cause stronger cell damage inside the human body, causing thyroid cancers, Leukemia, abnormal mutation/ Birth-Defects etc. </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    18. 18. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-1950s <ul><li>December 12, 1952 — INES Level 5 - Chalk River, Ontario , Canada - Reactor core damaged </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL 's NRX reactor . The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River . Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter , then a Lieutenant in the US Navy , was among the cleanup crew. [1] [2] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>May 24, 1958 — INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario , Canada - Fuel damaged </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up. [3] [4] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>October 25, 1958 - INES Level needed - Vinča , Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel </li></ul><ul><ul><li>During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Vinca Nuclear Institute 's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor. [5] Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher detected from the smell of ozone. [6] Six scientists received radiation doses between 200 to 400 rems [7] (p. 96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA . [8] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>July 26, 1959 — INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California , United States - Partial meltdown </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A partial core meltdown took place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases. [9] </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-1960s <ul><li>July 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island , United States - Criticality Accident </li></ul><ul><li>An error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality . Robert Peabody, believing he was using a diluted uranium solution accidentally put concentrated solution into an agitation tank containing sodium carbonate. Peabody was exposed to 10,000rad (100 Gy ) of radiation and died two days later. Ninety minutes after the criticality, a plant manager and another administrator returned to the building and were exposed to 100rad (1Gy), but suffered no ill effects. [10] [11] </li></ul><ul><li>October 5, 1966 — INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan , United States - Partial meltdown </li></ul><ul><li>A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel. [12] </li></ul><ul><li>Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) – INES Level needed – location unknown – loss of coolant accide nt </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Soviet icebreaker Lenin , the USSR ’s first nuclear-powered surface ship , suffered a major accident (possibly a meltdown — exactly what happened remains a matter of controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea , along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>May 1967 — INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway , Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown </li></ul><ul><li>Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station . Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004. [13] [14] </li></ul><ul><li>January 21, 1969 — INES Level needed - Lucens , Canton of Vaud , Switzerland - Explosion </li></ul><ul><li>A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No injuries or fatalities resulted. [15] [16] </li></ul>
    20. 20. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-1970s <ul><li>February 22, 1977 — INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice , Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged </li></ul><ul><li>Operators neglected to remove moisture absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1 . The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident. [17] </li></ul><ul><li>March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania , United States - Partial meltdown </li></ul><ul><li>Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg . While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality. [18] [19] [20] </li></ul><ul><li>See also: Three Mile Island accident </li></ul>
    21. 21. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-1980s <ul><li>March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans , France - Nuclear materials leak </li></ul><ul><li>A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 10 10 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant . The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992. [21] </li></ul><ul><li>March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga , Japan - Overexposure of workers </li></ul><ul><li>More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv ) per day. [22] </li></ul><ul><li>September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires , Argentina - Accidental criticality </li></ul><ul><li>An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×10 17 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad </li></ul><ul><li>April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat , Ukraine (then USSR ) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown -- CHERNOBYL </li></ul><ul><li>A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev . Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An &quot;Exclusion Zone&quot; was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy. </li></ul><ul><li>May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop , Germany (then West Germany ) - Fuel damaged </li></ul><ul><li>A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR . Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor. [25] </li></ul><ul><li>November 24, 1989 — INES Level needed - Greifswald , Germany (then East Germany ) - Fuel damaged </li></ul><ul><li>Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor. [26] </li></ul>
    22. 22. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-1990s <ul><li>April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk , Russia - Explosion </li></ul><ul><li>A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid , uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 y </li></ul><ul><li>June, 1999 — INES Level 2 [30] - Ishikawa Prefecture , Japan - Control rod malfunction </li></ul><ul><li>Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant . The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007. [31] </li></ul><ul><li>September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture , Japan - Accidental criticality </li></ul><ul><li>Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium , which exceeded the critical mass , into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan . The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit. [32] </li></ul>
    23. 23. MANY NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-2000s <ul><li>April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks , Hungary - Fuel damaged </li></ul><ul><li>Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant . It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131. </li></ul><ul><li>April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield , England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak </li></ul><ul><li>20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant . The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [36] [37] </li></ul><ul><li>November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois , United States - Nuclear material leak </li></ul><ul><li>Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon 's Braidwood station . Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release. [38] </li></ul><ul><li>March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2 [39] - Erwin, Tennessee , United States - Nuclear material leak </li></ul><ul><li>Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification </li></ul>
    24. 24. WHAT ABOUT THE HIGH RISKS TO PEOPLE ? All INDIAN NPPs Are In Densely Populated Areas ! EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANT SITES WITH ONLY ~4200 MW INSTALLED, WE HAVE PROBLEMS OF NUCLEAR WASTE – UNTREATABL E WITH ANY KNOWN TECHNOLOGY. WHAT IF THAT BECOMES 40,000-60,000 MW AS PROJECTED? THE ‘NEW SITES’ WITH EXISTING ONES, WILL MAKE ALL HIGH-POPULATION DENSITY AREAS – HIGHLY VULNERABLE TO ROUTINE AND ACCIDENTAL RADIATION AND ACCIDENTS. SOUMYA DUTTA FATEHABAD HARIPUR JAITAPUR
    25. 25. Myth Of Low-Carbon/ Climate Friendly Nuclear <ul><li>The building of nuclear reactors need enormous embedded energy, requiring very high amounts of energy-intensive materials like steel, cement etc, </li></ul><ul><li>  in a world that gets ~ 80% of its total commercial energy from fossil carbon fuels, this means the nuclear reactors have enormous embedded carbon emissions.  This nails the  lie of zero-emission. </li></ul><ul><li>Studies show (one rigorous study – “The CO2 emission of the nuclear life-cycle”, by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, and Phillip Smith), that any conventional nuclear fission power plant needs to generate power for about Seven-years just to equal the CO2-emission saving of gas-powered power plants, with all of the attendant risks of the nuclear fuel mining, processing and reactor operation & gas leakage ! </li></ul><ul><li>The poorer is the Uranium ores, the higher is the energy needed to mine, refine, process etc. It has been calculated that for ores below 0.1 % U, Nuclear Power Plants emit more Carbon than Natural Gas based plants over their life-time ! </li></ul><ul><li>And Indian ores are below 0.1% (~0.06%). </li></ul>Soumya Dutta
    26. 26. Myth of Small Amount of Radioactive Mining <ul><li>The other favorite argument of the nuclear industry -- that it require very little mining compared to coal, as the energy density is so much higher.   While the energy density argument part is true (coal or carbon has few eV per molecular /chemical reaction, while  Uranium 235/233 (out of Th232) releases over 100 MeV per fission) ' , the hidden truth is that globally the Uranium resources are less than 0.1 % uranium metal in the ore, and then the actual fuel - U235 - is only 0.7 % of that total Uranium metal; So for each gram of U235 fuel, the ore processed is 140,000-150,000 gms at least (in reality – a few times more). And for mining. milling, refining, making yellow cake, fabricating fuel rods, whole chain consumes quite a lot of – again - fossil carbon energy. </li></ul><ul><li>All the rest of the rejected mass / tailings etc are still radioactive, which have been brought out to the surface and dumped !  This still contains U238 whose half-life is about 4.5 Billion years, almost as large as the age of the Earth itself.  All the living world will be getting exposed to these radioactivity for at least 10 half lives -- imagining is a little tough. And all the living world will be exposed to these great dangers, for an energy source, that is equally limited in its presently known 'reserves' ! </li></ul>
    27. 27. RISKS & PROBLEMS GALORE – ABANDON IT <ul><li>Nuclear Power Plants Generate High-Level, Medium Radioactive & Low-Radioactive Wastes in large Quantities. </li></ul><ul><li>Some of These Are Highly Radioactive (Plutonium, half-life 24,100 Years – Will Remain Dangerously Radioactive for Tens of Thousands of Years; </li></ul><ul><li>Uranium 238 Brought Out & Left With Tailings Has half-life of >4.4 Billion Years, almost as long as The Earth’s Present Age ! </li></ul><ul><li>Uranium 235 has a lalf-life of Over 500 Million Years ! </li></ul><ul><li>These Will Continue To Emit the Dangerously Radioactive Inert Gas – Radon, Which is known to Cause Large Nos of Cancers, Genetic Defects, …. </li></ul><ul><li>At the Present Time – There Is No Known Viable Method of ‘Nutralising’ These Highly Radioactive Wastes, Notwithstanding Fancy Proposals Like ‘Accelerator-Driven Transmutation’ </li></ul><ul><li>HOW MANY THOUSAND DEATHS, DISEASES, DEFORMATIONS FOR HUMANS, ANIMALS ETC ARE EQUAL </li></ul><ul><li>TO HOW MANY THOUSAND MEGAWATTS ? </li></ul><ul><li>HOW MANY THOUSAND DEATHS, DEFORMATIONS ETC FOR HUMANS, ANIMALS ETC ARE EQUAL TO HOW MANY THOUSAND MEGAWATTS ?&quot;. </li></ul>WAKE UP TO THE GRAVE DANGERS THANK YOU Soumya Dutta

    ×