CHAPTER – 1

Introduction

Nuclear power is an energy source that has proved itself over decades to be safe, clean and
economic yet it is perceived as being dangerous, dirty and expensive. Nuclear power technology is
well understood and information is so easy to obtain yet it is the subject of wild ignorance.

As the Indian economy continues to surge ahead, its power sector has been expanding concurrently
to support the growth rate. The demand for power is growing exponentially and the scope for the
growth of this sector is immense.

Every age has its business paradigm, its own growth and its own fortune hunters. Every age also
has one idea, which clicks and gives maximum returns to investors. And if you happen to speak in
the same breathe, you can say that India has entered into an age of maximizing its infrastructure
and giving highest benefits to those linked with it. Power sector is one such area which, by its
sheer magnitude, holds a significant potential.

The power sector has registered significant progress since the process of planned development of
the economy began in 1950. Hydro -power and coal based thermal power have been the main
sources of generating electricity. Nuclear power development is at slower pace, which was
introduced, in late sixties. The concept of operating power systems on a regional basis crossing the
political boundaries of states was introduced in the early sixties. In spite of the overall
development that has taken place, the power supply industry has been under constant pressure to
bridge the gap between supply and demand. India’s energy requirement during the year 2008–09
was 774,324 million units (MU), while its energy availability was 689,021 MU. An energy
shortage of 11 per cent was recorded in 2008–09, as compared to 9.9 per cent in 2007–08. The
peak demand for energy in 2008–09 was 109,809 MW, while the peak demand met was 96,685
MW. The consequent peak shortage in 2008–09 was 12 per cent, as compared to 16.6 per cent in
2007–08.

1
From 2007 to 2035, world renewable energy use for electricity generation grows by an average of
3.0 percent per year and the renewable share of world electricity generation increases from 18
percent in 2007 to 23 percent in 2035. Coal-fired generation increases by an annual average of 2.3
percent, making coal the second fastest-growing source for electricity generation in the projection.
The outlook for coal could be altered substantially, however, by any future legislation that would
reduce or limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Generation from natural gas and nuclear
power—which produce relatively low levels of greenhouse gas emissions (natural gas) or none
(nuclear)—increase by 2.1 and 2.0 percent per year, respectively.

1.1 Introduction To Indian Power Sector

India's total installed capacity as on March 31, 2010 is 1,59,648.49 mega watt (MW).

Thermal Power 102703.98 MW 64.2%

Hydro Power 36863.4 MW 23.1%

Renewable energy 15521.11 MW 9.7%

Nuclear energy 4560 MW 2.8%

Total 159648.49 MW

2
Within the thermal power plants

Coal-Based Power Plant 84448.38 MW

Gas-Based Power Plant 17055.85 MW

Diesel-Based Power Plant 1199.75 MW

Thermal Power Total 102703.98 MW

Renewable energy sources include

Small Hydro Project 2604.92 MW

Biomass Gasifier 2167.73 MW

Urban And Industrial Water Power And Solar 101.01 MW

Wind Energy 10647.45 MW

Renewable Energy Total 15521.11 MW

A total of 34 projects were commissioned during 2009-10 with a total capacity of 9,585 MW.
These include 31 thermal power plants with a total capacity of 9,106 MW, one hydro power plant
with a capacity 39 MW, and two nuclear power plants with a combined capacity of 440 MW. 18
power plants were commissioned in 2008-09 with a total capacity of 3,453.7 MW which included
10 thermal power plants with a capacity of 2,484.7 MW and eight hydro power plants with a
capacity of 969 MW.At present, over a hundred commercial nuclear power reactors operate in 33
states. Still, no new nuclear power reactors have been ordered in over two decades.

Total Installed Capacity:

Sector MW %

State Sector 79,391.85 49.73%

Central Sector 50,992.63 31.94%

Private Sector 29,264.01 18.33%

Total 159,648.49 100.00%

3
1.2 Operating Units and Units under Construction

The operating nuclear power units are Tarapur Atomic Power Station Units-1&2 (2x160 MWe
BWRs), Tarapur Atomic Power Station Units-3&4 (2x540 MWe PHWRs), Rajasthan Atomic
Power Station Units 1- 6 (100 MWe, 200 MWe and 4x220 MWe PHWRs), Madras Atomic Power
Station Units-1&2 (2x220 MWe PHWRs), Narora Atomic Power Station Units-1&2 (2x220 MWe
PHWRs), Kakrapar Atomic Station Units-1&2 (2x220 MWe PHWRs) and Kaiga Generating
Station Unit-1 to 3 (3x220 MWe PHWRs). The Units under construction are Unit-4 (220 MWe
PHWR) of Kaiga Atomic Power Project, Unit-1&2 (2x1000 MWe PWRs) of Kudankulam Nuclear
Power Project, Units-7&8 (2x700 MWe PHWRs) of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project and Unit-
3&4 (2x700 MWe PHWRs) of Kakrapar Atomic Power Project. In addition , NPCIL has also 10
MWe Wind Farm operating at Kudankulam site.

Plants Under Construction

Year of
Nuclear Power No. of Capacity
Location Type commercial
Plant Units (Mwe)
operation

Rawatbhata, 7 PHWR 700 2016

RAPS
Rajasthan 8 PHWR 700 2016

KGS Kaiga, Karnataka 4 PHWR 220 2010

Kudankulam, 1 LWR 1000 2010

KKNPP
Tamilnadu 2 LWR 1000 2011

3 PHWR 700 2015

KAPS Kakrapar, Gujarat
4 PHWR 700 2015

Total Nuclear Power Plant Capacity 5020

4
Plants In Operation

Nuclear Capacity Year of commercial

Location No. of Units Type
Power Plant (Mwe) operation

1 BWR 160 1969

Tarapur, 2 BWR 160 1969

TAPS
Maharashtra 3 PHWR 540 2006

4 PHWR 540 2005

1 PHWR 100 1973

2 PHWR 200 1981

Rawatbhata, 3 PHWR 220 2000

RAPS
Rajasthan 4 PHWR 220 2000

5 PHWR 220 2010

6 PHWR 220 2010

Kalpakkam, 1 PHWR 220 1984

MAPS
Tamil Nadu 2 PHWR 220 1986

1 PHWR 220 2000

KGS Kaiga, Karnataka 2 PHWR 220 2000

3 PHWR 220 2007

Narora,Uttar 1 PHWR 220 1991

NAPS
Pradesh 2 PHWR 220 1992

1 PHWR 220 1993

KAPS Kakrapar, Gujarat
2 PHWR 220 1995

Total Nuclear Power Plant Capacity 4560

5
Nuclear Infrastructure

6
1.3 How is Nuclear power produced?

7
1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power is economic. During the last few years the IEA has found nuclear power to be
cheaper than coal. Only hydro power is cheaper to produce.

Nuclear reactions release a million times more energy, as compared to hydro or wind energy.
Nuclear reactors make use of uranium as fuel. Fission reaction of a small amount of uranium
generates large amount of energy..

Nuclear power is sustainable. Uranium is massively abundant in the earth's crust and in the sea.
Furthermore there is at least three times a much thorium as uranium, and thorium can be used as a
nuclear fuel. Currently, the high reserves of uranium found on Earth, are expected to last for
another 100 years. Hence, a large amount of electricity can be generated. Uranium is found
everywhere in the crust of the Earth – it is more abundant than tin, for example. Major deposits are
found in Canada and Australia. It is estimated that increasing the market price by a factor ten
would result in 100 times more uranium coming to market. Eventually we will be able to recover
uranium from sea water where 4 billion tons are dissolved.

Our industrial civilization runs on energy and 85% of the world’s energy is provided by the fossil
fuels, coal, oil and gas. More than half the world’s oil production today is located in the fragile and
politically unstable area of the Persian Gulf, as is an even greater fraction of our future reserves. At
the present rate of consumption, reserves are estimated to last a few decades, but consumption is
growing rapidly. By 2100, oil and natural gas reserves will likely be exhausted .The burning of
fossil fuels result in emission of the poisonous carbon dioxide. 23 billion tons of carbon dioxide
every year into the atmosphere – 730 tons per second. Half of it is absorbed in the seas and
vegetation, but half remains in the atmosphere. It is a menace to the environment as well as human
life. There is no release of carbon d-oxide at the time of nuclear reaction.

Renewable sources have important niche roles to play – in remote locations and under special
circumstances. But they can make only a marginal contribution to the energy needs of a growing
industrial civilization. To replace just one nuclear reactor, such as the new EPR reactor which
France is now building in Normandy, with the most modern wind turbines (twice as high as Notre-
Dame, the Cathedral of Paris), they would have to be lined up all the way from Genoa in Italy to
Barcelona in Spain (about 700 kilometers/400miles). And, even so, they generate electricity only
when the wind blows (their average yield is about 25% of their rated capacity).There is much talk
about biofuels, ethanol from sugar cane, for example. The entire arable surface of the Earth could
not produce enough biofuel to replace present oil consumption.

Nuclear power is clean and has the least waste problem. One pound of uranium contains as much
energy as three million pounds of coal. It is the famous “factor of a million”. One pound of coal

8
produces three pounds or CO2, therefore fissioning one pound of uranium in place of burning coal
saves nine million pounds of CO2 from entering the environment. Today over 400 nuclear reactors
provide base-load electric power in 30 countries. Fifty years old, it is a relatively mature
technology with the assurance of great improvement in the next generation.(Hundreds of nuclear
reactors furnish reliable and flexible shipboard power: military ships of course. But the technology
is adaptable to civilian maritime transport.) Nuclear energy produces almost no carbon dioxide,
and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides whatsoever. These gases are produced in vast quantities
when fossil fuels are burned. The biggest advantage of nuclear energy is that there is no release of
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbon) during nuclear
reaction. The greenhouse gases are a major threat in the current scenario, as they cause global
warming and climate change. Nuclear power reduces greenhouse emissions. Over the full energy
cycle, including fuel processing, operation and decommissioning, nuclear has among the least,
emissions per unit of electricity produced of any energy source

Nuclear waste is correspondingly about a million times smaller than fossil fuel waste, and it is
totally confined. In the USA and Sweden, spent fuel is simply stored away. Elsewhere, spent fuel
is reprocessed to separate out the 3% of radioactive fission products and heavy elements to be
vitrified (cast in glass) for safe and permanent storage. The remaining 97% – plutonium and
uranium – is recovered and recycled into new fuel elements to produce more energy. The volume
of nuclear waste produced is very small. A typical French family’s use of nuclear energy over a
whole lifetime produces vitrified waste the size of a golf ball. Nuclear waste is to be deposited in
deep geological storage sites; it does not enter the biosphere. Its impact on the ecosystems is
minimal. Nuclear waste spontaneously decays over time while stable chemical waste, such as
arsenic or mercury, lasts forever. Most fossil fuel waste is in the form of gas that goes up the
smokestack. We don’t see it, but it is not without effect, causing global warming, acid rain, smog
and other atmospheric pollution.

Nuclear power is safe, as proven by the record of half a century of commercial operation, with the
accumulated experience of more than 12,000 reactor-years.

Nuclear reactors provide base-load power and are available over 90% of the time; intervals
between refuelings have been extended and down time for refueling have been reduced. In the
USA, these improvements over the years have been the equivalent of adding one reactor a year to
the existing fleet. Most reactors are designed for a life of 40 years; many are reaching that age in
good condition and extensions of 20 years have usually been granted.

The cost of nuclear power is competitive and stable. The cost of nuclear fuel is a small part of the
price of a nuclear kiloWatt-hour, whereas fossil fueled power, especially oil and gas, is at the
mercy of the market.

9
A nuclear power station is very compact, occupying typically the area of a football stadium and its
surrounding parking lots. Solar cells, wind turbine farms and growing biomass, all require large
areas of land.

Fear of the unknown is the merchandise of anti-nuclear “greens”. They preach fear of radiation in
general, fear of radioactive waste in particular. fear of another major accident such as Three Mile
Island or Chernobyl, and fear of nuclear weapons proliferation. Their campaign has been
successful only because radiation is a mystery to most people, and very few are aware of the fact
that radiation is present everywhere in the environment. The anti-nuclear organizations also exploit
the widespread but mistaken interpretation of the studies of the health of the survivors of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing: that even a small amount of radiation is deleterious to health
(the LNT hypothesis), and the related concept of collective dose. In fact a moderate amount of
radiation is natural and beneficial, if not essential, to life. Radiation has been bathing our
environment since the earliest history of our planet, and it is present everywhere in nature. In fact,
our sun and its planets including the Earth are the remnants of the giant explosion of a supernova.
Everything is radioactive around us in nature and already was even before radioactivity was
discovered. This radiation spontaneously decreases with time. When life first appeared on Earth,
the natural radiation levels were about twice as high as today. Most people are totally unaware of
the fact that the human body itself is naturally radioactive. Our bodies contain about 8000
becquerels (8000 atoms disintegrating every second), about half of which is potassium-40, a
chemical element essential for health, as well as carbon-14.

Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, compact, competitive and practically inexhaustible.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Though large amount of energy can be produced from a nuclear power plant, it requires large
capital cost. Around 15-20 years are required to develop a single plant. Hence, it is not very
feasible to build a nuclear power plant. The nuclear reactors will work only as long as uranium is
available. Its extinction can again result in a grave problem.

The waste produced after fission reactions contains unstable elements and is highly radioactive. It
is very dangerous to the environment as well as human health, and remains so, for thousands of
years. It needs professional handling and should be kept isolated from the living environments.
The radioactivity of these elements reduces over a period of time, after decaying. Hence, they have
to be carefully stored. It is very difficult to store radioactive elements for a long period.

10
 CHAPTER – 2
Issues

2.1 Accidents

There have been 2 serious accidents in commercial exploitation nuclear power.

Three Mile Island in 1979 (in Pennsylvania, USA)

Chernobyl in 1986 (in the Soviet Union, now in Ukraine)

In TMI the core of the reactor melted down and much of it fell to the bottom of the reactor vessel.
The radioactivity released was almost entirely confined within the reinforced concrete containment
structure, the air-tight silo-like building which houses the reactor – it was designed for that
purpose. The small amount of radioactivity which escaped was quite innocuous. As a result, no
one at TMI was seriously irradiated nor did anyone die. In fact, Three Mile Island was a real
success story for nuclear safety. The worst possible accident occurred, a core meltdown, and yet no
one died or was even injured.

Chernobyl was different nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions that occurred on 26 April

1986, in Ukraine (then in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union). It is
considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and is the only level 7 event on
the International Nuclear Event Scale.

The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, 01:23, at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near
the town of Pripyat, during an unauthorized systems test. A sudden power output surge took place,
and when an attempt was made at an emergency shutdown, a more extreme spike in power output
occurred which led to the rupture of a reactor vessel as well as a series of explosions. This event
exposed the graphite moderator components of the reactor to air and they ignited; the resulting fire
sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive area, including
Pripyat. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, and also much of Europe.
As of December 2000, 350,400 people had been evacuated and resettled from the most severely
contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. According to official post-Soviet data, up to
70% of the fallout landed in Belarus.

Following the accident, Ukraine continued to operate the remaining reactors at Chernobyl for
many years. The last reactor at the site was closed down in 2000.

The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry as well as
nuclear power in general, slowing its expansion for a number of years while forcing the Soviet
government to become less secretive about its procedures. Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been

11
burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the
Chernobyl accident. Fifty deaths, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers, are directly
attributed to the accident. It is estimated that there may ultimately be a total of 4,000 deaths
attributable to the accident, due to increased cancer risk.

The risk of this type of catastrophic accident, and the subsequent release of massive quantities
of radioactive materials, carries severe consequences for all forms of life.

2.2 Dabhol Power Corporation Blow out

Dabhol Power Company (DPC) was promoted in March 1993 as a 100 per cent foreign owned
private unlimited liability company incorporated in India by Enron Corp., USA (Enron), Bechtel
Enterprises Inc., USA (Bechtel) and General Electric Co., USA, (GE) at Dabhol, Guhagar taluka,
Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra. The project is 2,184 megawatts, which Enron says is the largest
gas-fired power plant in the world .The power generated by the plant will be sold to the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). The cost of the project is estimated at Rs. 3029 crore
(US$ 946.55 million).

The election of a new government that was not supportive of theproject led to renegotiation of
tariff rates that reduced the profitability of the private firm .

Private sector consortium had signed a memorandum of understanding with the local government.
However when a new government was reelected, the conditions of the pre-

existing agreement were unilaterally revised, resulting in the private sector consortium–theDabhol
Power Corporation (DPC) stopping the project The plant closed in June 2001, due to a payment
and contract dispute between the Maharashtra state government and the plant owners.Enron says it
incurred over $1 billion in costs for the plant

By early 2002, Enron was variously termed “radioactive,” “contaminated,” and “obstructionist”.
The Congress government in Maharashtra was defeated in the state polls in March 1995 and a new
government of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena came to power. A committee lead
by the Deputy-Chief Minister recommended scrapping of the project. Finally, the government
scrapped the project on August 03, 1995

The other reasons that had an effect on the Closure Failure of the GOI, Failure of the GOM, MSEB
owed DPC almost $ 110 in Jan 2001. Land resettlement, compensation to affected fishermen,
pollution control measures Enron paid $20 million as "educational gifts“. Project's promoters had
not obtained the CEA's statutory clearance as required under the Electricity Supply Act.

12
2.3 123 Agreement-The Nuclear Deal

Highlights of Nuclear Deal

Following are the key aspects of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal:
 The agreement not to hinder or interfere with India's nuclear programme for military
purposes.
 US will help India negotiate with the IAEA for an India-specific fuel supply agreement.

 Washington will support New Delhi develop strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to guard
against future disruption of supply.
 In case of disruption, US and India will jointly convene a group of friendly supplier
countries to include nations like Russia, France and the UK to pursue such measures to
restore fuel supply.
 Both the countries agree to facilitate nuclear trade between themselves in the interest of
respective industries and consumers.
 India and the US agree to transfer nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment and
components.
 Any special fissionable material transferred under the agreement shall be low enriched
uranium.
 Low enriched uranium can be transferred for use as fuel in reactor experiments and in...
Reactors for conversion or fabrication.
 The ambit of the deal include research, development, design, construction, operation,
maintenance and use of nuclear reactors, reactor experiments and decommissioning.
 The US will have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and technology but it will
compensate for the costs incurred as a consequence of such removal.
 India can develop strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply
over the lifetime of its reactors.
 Agreement provides for consultations on the circumstances, including changed security
environment, before termination of the nuclear cooperation.
 Provision for one-year notice period before termination of the agreement.

 The US to engage Nuclear Suppliers Group to help India obtain full access to the
international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel
supplies from firms in several nations.
 The US will have the right to seek return of nuclear fuel and technology.

13
  In case...of return, Washington will compensate New Delhi promptly for the "fair market
value thereof" and the costs incurred as a consequence of such removal.

 Both the countries to set up a Joint Committee for implementation of the civil nuclear
agreement and development of further cooperation in this field.

 The agreement grants prior consent to reprocess spent fuel.

 Sensitive nuclear technology, nuclear facilities and major critical components can be
transferred after amendment to the agreement.

 India will establish a new national facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear
material under IAEA safeguards.

 Nuclear material and equipment transferred to India by the US would be subject to

safeguards in perpetuity.

2.4 Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project

It is a new proposed 9900 MW power project of Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) at
Madban village of Ratnagiri district in Maharashtra India. It will be the largest nuclear power
generating station in the world by net electrical power rating once completed. It is proposed to
construct 6 European Pressurized Reactor designed and developed by Areva of France, each of
1650 megawatts, thus totaling 9900 megawatts. These are the third generation pressurized water
reactors (PWR).

Estimated cost of this project is around 100,000 crore (US$21.7 billion). This type of reactor is
not operational anywhere in the world. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission have
expressed concerns about safety of the computer system in this reactor, but Finland has ordered
one such reactor. China has signed the agreement with Areva for three such reactors. French
nuclear regulatory authorities have denied clearance for these reactors despite Areva being a public
sector company in France.

On December 6, 2010 agreement was signed for the construction of first set of two third-
generation reactors Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years
in the presence of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh.French nuclear engineering firm Areva S.A. and Indian state-owned nuclear operator
Nuclear Power Corporation of India signed this multi billion valued agreement of about $9.3
billion. This is a general framework agreement along with agreement on 'Protection of
Confidentiality of Technical Data and Information Relating to Nuclear Power Corporation in the
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy' was also signed. The general framework agreement is a list of
the scope of work, terms and conditions of plant life, guarantees and warrantees, guaranteed plant

14
load factor. This agreement is quite important since life of the reactors is anticipated at 60 years.
This general framework agreement will also include financial aspect of the project including the
terms and conditions of funding, debt funding etc. The cost of electricity from this power plant will
be below 4 Kilowatt hour. It is one of several nuclear power projects being undertaken in a thin
strip of coast of Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts. The total power generating capacity
proposed on a narrow strip of coastal land 50 kilometres (31 mi) to 90 kilometres (56 mi) km wide
and 200 kilometres (120 mi) long is around 33,000 MW.[1][11] The prospect of nuclear power
generation in India received a boost after the Indo US Civilian Nuclear Agreement became
operational in October 2008. India has also signed similar agreements with France and Russia.

Reactors Funding

A consortium of French financial institutions will finance this project as a loan. Both French and
Indian government will give sovereign guarantee for this loan. The extent of guarantee will depend
on what portion of the cost the French credit will cover. The Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) will govern the interest rates and other terms of agreement.
Interest rates and other terms are under discussion.

Hurdle

According to Areva lack of clarity on The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 passed in
Indian Parliament in August 2010 is a hurdle in finalizing deal. This Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage Bill 2010 has a clause deals with the legal binding of the culpable groups in case of a
nuclear accident. It allows only the operator (NPCIL) to sue the manufacturers and suppliers.
Victims will not be able to sue anyone. In reality, no one will be considered legally liable because
the recourse taken by the operator will yield only 1,500 crore (US$ 340.5 million).
Controversy

Debate on nuclear power project at Jaitapur is ongoing on various levels. Environmental effects of
nuclear power and geological issues have been raised by anti nuclear activists of India against this
power project. Even though The Government of Maharashtra state completed land acquisition in
January 2010, only 33 out of the 2,335 villagers have accepted compensation cheques as of
November 2010.

 Earthquake prone site

Since Jaitapur being seismically sensitive area, the danger of an accident has been foremost
on the minds of people. According to the Earthquake hazard zoning of India, Jaitapur
comes under Zone III. This zone is called the moderate Risk Zone and covers areas liable
to MSK VIII. Post Chernobyl disaster and Thee mile island accident people world over the
world, Environmentalists and citizens of the area are questioning about safety as in 2007
largest nuclear generating station in the world Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in

15
 Japan at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was closed for five months following an
earthquake.

 Radiation effects

Effects of nuclear radiation seen in Rawatbhata, India has raised further questions on
effects of radiation on health of people staying near nuclear power plants. The rise in
deformities seen in Rawatbhata is alarming.

 Radioactive waste disposal

It is not clear where the nuclear waste emanating from the site will be dumped. The plant is
estimated to generate 300 tonnes of waste each year. EPR waste will have about four times
as much radioactive Bromine, Iodine, Caesium, etc, compared to ordinary Pressurized
water reactor.

 Future of fisheries

Since the plant will use the sea water for steam generation and then release hot water in the
arabian sea, fishermen in villages around are predicting destruction of fisheries in the
nearby sea. Media articles also highlight the possible human and fisheries cost of this
project

Tata Institute of Social Sciences Report

Social impact assessment review of the project is conducted by Jamsetji Tata centre for disaster
management of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). According to this report, Government
of India is not full transparent with its own citizens. The government is hiding facts about huge
negative impact on the social and environmental development of the Konkan region in general and
government also manipulating notification of the area from high severity earthquake zone to
moderate seismic severity zone.

Proponents

Proponents are advocating the Jaitapur Project as safe, environmentally benign and economically
viable source of electrical energy to meet the increasing electricity needs of India. They believe
that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing India's dependence on foreign oil. The promoter of Jaitapur project
is Nuclear Power Corporation of India. It is a public Sector Enterprise Under the administrative
control of the Department of Atomic Energy (India).

As of 2010 India is on the sixth in rank of an elite club of nations, after USA, France, Japan,
Russian Federation and Republic of Korea, to have twenty or more nuclear power reactors in
operation. The company is currently operating 20 nuclear power plants at six locations in India and

16
is implementing construction of 7 reactors at four locations. In 2009/10 company has generated
18831 million units of electricity.

According to former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar, Jaitapur site is the
best as it fulfilled the technical and scientific norms needed for a nuclear power plant.

All 20 nuclear power projects in the India have been functioning very well and The waste
generated at the this nuclear power plant, will be recycled. Only five per cent of it would be
encapsulated and stored at technologically advanced places. It will not be buried anywhere. The
waste will be stored for the next 30 to 40 years, till scientists develop some technology to treat it.

The Environmental impact assessment and other associated studies of the Jaitapur project have
been carried out in detail over the last few years by National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI), Nagpur in collaboration with several other reputed organizations specializing in
specific environment studies.

Corporate social responsibility

Nuclear Power Corporation of India has adopted a corporate social responsibility policy, by which
1.5 to 2 per cent of the net profit from Jaitapur plant would be spent in that area only.
Development projects will be decided by local people and NPC will provide the funds to ensure
development of these areas.

Protests

Opposition to the power plant began in January 2006. A court case was filed by Janahit Seva
Samitee, Madban in the Mumbai High Court. The high court had given a stay on the process for
the project, which was later lifted. A huge meeting of people from nearby villages was held on 23
November 2009. This meeting was attended by anti nuclear movement of India's activists coming
from Pune, Bangalore, Chennai, Allahabad, Mumbai and Tarapur.

Many protests were carried out by local people against the proposed nuclear power plant. On 29
December 2009, 12 January 2010 and 22 January 2010, when the government authorities visited
Madban for distribution of cheques in lieu of compulsory land acquisition, the villagers refused to
accept the cheques. Government officials were shown black flags, denied any co-operation in
carrying out their activities. 72 people were arrested on 22 January 2010 when people protested
against the compulsory land acquisition.

On December 4, 2010 protest become violent when over 1500 people were detained from among
thousands of protesters, who included environmentalists and local villagers. Members and leaders
of the Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and the Janahit Seva Samiti, (organizations that are
spearheading opposition to the project), were also detained. In Mumbai, members of various trade
unions and social organizations came together to protest against the project. The protesters have
raised serious doubts about the neutrality of the Environment Impact Assessment Report, prepared

17
by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) which forms the basis of
environmental clearance for the project, since Parallel studies by the Bombay Natural History
Society have shown that the project will cause substantial environmental damage.

Public Hearing

A public hearing on the Environmental impact assessment (EIA) Report, prepared by NEERI was
conducted by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, on behalf of Ministry of Environment and
Forests on 16 April 2010, at the plant site. The public hearing became controversial as the EIA
report was not delivered for study to 3 of the 4 Gram panchayat (local village bodies) a month in
advance.

18
 CHAPTER – 3
Types of Wastes and Waste Management

3.1 What is Nuclear Waste?

Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor. It looks exactly
like the fuel that was loaded into the reactor -- assemblies of metal rods enclosing stacked-up
ceramic pellets. But since nuclear reactions have occurred, the contents aren’t quite the same.
Before producing power, the fuel was mostly Uranium (or Thorium), oxygen, and steel.
Afterwards, many Uranium atoms have split into various isotopes of almost all of the transition
metals on your periodic table of the elements. The waste, sometimes called spent fuel, is
dangerously radioactive, and remains so for thousands of years. When it first comes out of the
reactor, it is so toxic that if you stood within a few meters of it while it was unshielded, you would
receive a lethal radioactive dose within a few seconds and would die of acute radiation sickness
within a few days. Hence all the worry about it. 

In practice, the spent fuel is never unshielded. It is kept underwater (water is an excellent shield)
for a few years until the radiation decays to levels that can be shielded by concrete in large storage
casks. The final disposal of this spent fuel is a hot topic, and is often an argument against the use
of nuclear reactors. Options include deep geologic storage and recycling. The sun would consume
it nicely if we could get into space, but since rockets are so unreliable, we can’t afford to risk
atmospheric dispersal on lift-off.

Types of Waste

— Wet solid wastes – In some countries, this is also simply called “wet wastes.” This refers

to evaporator concentrates, spent resins, spent filter cartridges, or any other solid waste

arising from liquid treatment processes.

— Dry solid wastes – All waste which was not generated as a result of liquid treatment

processes, including combustible solids, compactable solids, metal, plastics, concrete,

and similar dry wastes.

— Liquid organic wastes – Oil and solvents.

19
In many countries nuclear power plants are an important part of the national energy system.
Nuclear power is economically competitive and environmentally clean compared to most other
forms of energy used in electricity production. Used in conjunction with them, it contributes

to the security of national electricity supplies. It seems certain that in the medium term and
beyond, a growing contribution to national energy supplies from nuclear energy will continue to be
necessary if the standard of living in industrialized countries of the world is to be maintained and
the energy needs of the developing countries are to be met.As a result of the operation of nuclear
reactors, some radioactive wastes are produced. Yet compared to the amount of waste produced by
coal-fired electrical generating plants, these are of considerably smaller volume.

The wastes generated at nuclear power plants are rather low in activity and the radionuclides
contained therein have a low radiotoxicity and usually a short half-life. However, nuclear power
plants are the largest in number among all nuclear facilities and produce the greatest volume of
radioactive wastes.

The nature and amounts of wastes produced in a nuclear power plant depend on the type of reactor,
its specific design features, its operating conditions and on the fuel integrity. These radioactive
wastes contain activated radionuclides from structural, moderator, and coolant materials; corrosion
products; and fission product contamination arising from the fuel. The

methods applied for the treatment and conditioning of waste generated at nuclear power plants
now have reached a high degree of effectivity and reliability and are being further developed to
improve safety and economy of the whole waste management system.

Wastes generated at nuclear power plants

Low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LILW) at nuclear power plants is produced by
contamination of various materials with the radionuclides generated by fission and activation in
the reactor or released from the fuel or cladding surfaces. The radionuclides are primarily released
and collected in the reactor coolant system and, to a lesser extent, in the spent fuel storage pool.
The main wastes arising during the operation of a nuclear power plant are components which are
removed during refuelling or maintenance (mainly activated solids, e.g. stainless steel containing
cobalt-60 and nickel-63) or operational wastes such as radioactive liquids, filters, and ion-
exchange resins which are contaminated with fission products from circuits containing liquid
coolant. In order to reduce the quantities of waste for interim storage and to minimize disposal
cost, all countries are pursuing or intend to implement measures to reduce the volume of waste
arisings where practicable. Volume reduction is particularly attractive for low-level waste which is
generally of high volume but low radiation activity. Significant improvements can be made
through administrative measures,e.g.replacement of paper towels by hot air driers, introduction of

20
reusable longlasting protective clothing, etc., and through general improvements of operational
implementation or "housekeeping".

Liquid wastes and wet solid wastes

According to the different types of reactors now operating commercially all over the world,
different waste streams arise. These streams are different both in activity content and in the amount
of liquid waste generated. Reactors cooled and moderated by water generate more liquid waste
than those cooled by gas. The volumes of liquid waste generated at boiling-water reactors (BWRs)
are significantly higher than at pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Because the cleanup system of
heavy-water reactors (HWRs) works mainly with once through ion-exchange techniques to recycle
heavy water, virtually no liquid concentrates are generated at them.

Active liquid wastes are generated by the cleanup of primary coolants (PWR, BWR), cleanup of
the spent fuel storage pond, drains, wash water, and leakage waters. Decontamination operations at
reactors also generate liquid wastes resulting from maintenance activities on plant piping and
equipment. Decontamination wastes can include crud (corrosion products) and a wide variety of
organics, such as oxalic and citric acids. Wet solids are another category of waste generated at

nuclear power plants. They include different kinds of spent ion-exchange resins, filter media, and
sludges. Spent resins constitute the most significant fraction of the wet solid waste produced at
power reactors. Bead resins are used in deep demineralizers and are common in nuclear power
plants. Powdered resins are seldom used in PWRs, but are commonly used in BWRs with

pre-coated filter demineralizers. In many BWRs, a large source of powdered resin wastes are the
"condensate polishers" used for additional cleaning of condensed water after evaporation of liquid
wastes. Pre-coated filters used at nuclear power plants to process liquid waste produce another
type of wet solid waste-filter sludges. The filter aids — usually diatomaccous

earth or cellulose fibres — and the crud that is removed from the liquid waste together form the
filter sludges. Some filtration systems do not require filter aid materials. The sludges arising from
such units therefore do not contain other materials.

Gaseous waste and radioactive aerosols

In normal operation of nuclear power plants, some airborne radioactive wastes are generated in
either particulate or aerosol of gaseous form. Paniculate radioactive aerosols can be generated in a
wide range of particle sizes in either liquid or solid form, possibly in combination with non-
radioactive aerosols. Three main sources of aerosols are generated by emission of activated
corrosion corrosion products and fission products; radioactive decay of gases to involatile
elements; and adsorption of volatile radionuclides formed in the fission process on existing

suspended material. The most important volatile radionuclides, which form gaseous radioactive
waste generated during normal operation of nuclear power plants, are halogens, noble gases,

21
tritium, and carbon-14. The composition and the amount of radioactivity present in the various
airborne waste streams largely depend on the reactor type and the release pathway. All gaseous
effluents at nuclear power plants are treated before discharge to the atmosphere to remove most of
the radioactive components from the effluence.

3.2 How does nuclear waste gets to Us?

The planet's water cycle is the main way radiation gets spread about the environment. When
radioactive waste mixes with water, it is ferried through this water cycle. Radionuclides in water
are absorbed by surrounding vegetation and ingested by local marine and animal life. Radiation
can also be in the air and can get deposited on people, plants, animals, and soil. People can inhale
or ingest radionuclides in air, drinking water, or food. Depending on the half life of the radiation, it
could stay in a person for much longer than a lifetime. The half life is the amount of time it takes
for a radioactive material to decay to one half of its original amount. Some materials have half-
lives of more than 1,000 years!

22
3.3 How nuclear waste affects the environment?
1) Power plant emissions

The tall chimney releases effluent gases.Most commercial nuclear power plants release gaseous
and liquid radiological effluents into the environment as a byproduct of the Chemical Volume
Control System, which are monitored in the US by the EPA and the NRC. Civilians living within
50 miles (80 km) of a nuclear power plant typically receive about 0.1 μSv per year. For
comparison, the average person living at or above sea level receives at least 260 μSv from cosmic
radiation.

The total amount of radioactivity released through this method depends on the power plant, the
regulatory requirements, and the plant's performance. Atmospheric dispersion models combined
with pathway models are employed to accurately approximate the dose to a member of the public
from the effluents emitted. Effluent monitoring is conducted continuously at the plant.

2) Boron letdown

Towards the end of each cycle of operation (typically 18 months to two years in length), each
pressurized water reactor reduces the amount of boron in its primary coolant system (the water that
flows past and cools the nuclear reactor core). As a consequence, some of this irradiated boron is
discharged from the plant and into whatever body of water the plant's cooling water is drawn from.
The maximum amount of radioactivity permitted in each volume of discharge is tightly regulated.
A leak of radioactive water at Vermont Yankee in 2010, 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 the United States.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen that emits a low-energy beta particle and is usually
measured in Becquerels per Liter (Bq/L). Tritium becomes dissolved in ordinary water when
released from a nuclear plant. The primary concern for Tritium release is the presence in drinking
water, in addition to biological magnification leading to Tritium in crops and animals consumed
for food.

3) Water usage-Waste heat

As with some thermal power stations, nuclear plants exchange 60 to 70% of their thermal energy
by cycling with a body of water or by evaporating water through a cooling tower. This thermal
efficiency is somewhat lower than that of coal fired power plants, thus creating more waste heat.

The cooling options are typically once-through cooling with river or sea water, pond cooling, or
cooling towers. Many plants have an artificial lake like the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant or
the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station.

23
4) Greenhouse gas emission:

Nuclear power plant operation emits no or negligible amounts of carbon dioxide. 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
carbon dioxide. There has been a debate on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from the
complete nuclear fuel chain.

Various life cycle analysis (LCA) studies have led to a large range of estimates. Some comparisons
of carbon dioxide emissions show nuclear power as comparable to renewable energy sources. On
another hand, a 2008 meta analysis of 103 studies, published by Benjamin K. Sovacool,
determined that renewable electricity technologies are "two to seven times more effective than
nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change".

5) Decommissioning

Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be carefully decommissioned using
processes that are occupationally dangerous, and hazardous to the natural environment,
expensive, and time-intensive

3.4 Waste Management

Treatment and conditioning of liquid/solid waste

Liquid radioactive waste generated at nuclear power plants usually contains soluble and insoluble
radioactive components (fission and corrosion products) and nonradioactive substances. The
general objective of waste treatment methods is to decontaminate liquid waste to such an extent
that the decontaminated bulk volume of aqueous waste can be either released to the environment
or recycled. Waste concentrate is subject to further conditioning, storage, and disposal. Because
nuclear power plants generate almost all categories of liquid waste, nearly all processes are applied
to treat radioactive effluents. Standard techniques are routinely used to decontaminate liquid waste
streams. Each process has a particular effect on the radioactive content of the liquid. The extent to
which these are used in combination depends on the amount and source of contamination.

Four main technical processes are available for treatment of liquid waste: evaporation; chemical
precipitation/flocculation; solid-phase separation; and ion exchange.These treatment techniques
are well established and widely used. Nevertheless, efforts to improve safety and economy on the
basis of new technologies are under way in many countries. The best volume reduction effect,
compared with the other techniques, is achieved by evaporation. Depending on the composition of
the liquid effluents and the types of evaporators, decontamination factors between 104 and 106 are
obtained. Evaporation is a proven method for the treatment of liquid radioactive waste providing
both good decontamination and volume reduction. Water is removed in the vapour phase of the

24
process leaving behind non-volatile components such as salts containing most radionuclides.
Evaporation is probably the best technique for wastes having relatively high salt content with a
wide heterogenous chemical composition. (See accompanying figure.)Although it can be
considered a fairly simple operation which has been successfully applied in the conventional
chemical industry for many years, its application in the treatment of radioactive waste can give rise
to some problems such as corrosion, scaling, or foaming. Such problems can be reduced by
appropriate provisions. For example, the pH value can be adjusted to reduce corrosion; organics
can be removed to reduce foaming or anti-foaming agents can be added; and the evaporator system
can be cleaned by nitric acid to eliminate scaling and subsequent passivation of construction
material. Up till now, volume reduction by evaporation of lowlevel radioactive effluents has
always been so effective that the clean condensate could be discharged to the environment without
further treatment. Chemical precipitation methods based on the coagulation-flocculation separation
principle are mostly used in nuclear power plants for the treatment of liquid .effluents with low
activity and high salt and mud contents. Their effectiveness depends largely on the chemical and
radiochemical composition of the liquid waste.

Most radionuclides can be precipitated, co-precipitated,and adsorbed by insoluble compounds, e.g.

hydroxides,carbonates, phosphates, and ferrocyanides, and so be removed from the solution. The
precipitates also carry down suspended particles from the solution by physical entrainment.
However, the separation is never complete for several reasons, and the decontamination factors
achieved can be relatively low. For this reason, chemical treatment is usually used in combination
with other more efficient methods. Solid-phase separation is carried out to remove suspended and
settled solid matters from the liquid waste. There are several types of separation equipment
available, all based on those which have been regularly used in the conventional water and effluent
treatment plants in the industries. The most popular types are filters, centrifuges, and
hydrocyclones. Particle separation is a well-established technology. Almost all nuclear facilities
use mechanical devices to separate suspended solids from liquid waste streams. Generally,
separation equipment is needed to remove particles which could interfere with subsequent liquid
waste treatment processes, e.g. ion exchange, or with the re-use of the water.

Typical filters can remove particles down to submicron sizes, particularly when a precoat is used.
Once exhausted, the filter is either "backwashed" to yield a sludge of around 20-40% solids, or in
the case of cartridge types, the entire unit is replaced. Ion-exchange methods have extensive
application in the treatment of liquid effluents at nuclear power plants. Examples of these include
the cleanup of primary and secondary coolant circuits in water reactors, treatment of fuel storage
pond water, and polishing of condensates after evaporation. Liquid radioactive wastes usually have
to satisfy the following criteria to be suitable for ion-exchange treatment: the concentration of
suspended solids in the waste should be low; the waste should have low (usually less

25
than 1 gram per litre) total salt content; and the radionuclides should be present in suitable ionic
form. (Filters pre-coated with powdered resin can be used to remove colloids.) In most technical
systems, ion-exchange processes are applied using a fixed bed of ion-exchange material filled in a
column which is passed through by the contaminated effluent either from top to bottom or vice
versa. The ion-exchange material may be regenerated after having reached saturation of the active
groups (break through capacity). Some types of ion exchangers are also removed as waste
concentrate to be solidified. Therefore the ion-exchange process represents a semicontinuous
process and requires major efforts in maintenance like flushing, regeneration, rinsing, and refilling
operations.

Wet solids resulting from liquid waste treatment must still be transformed into solid products for
final disposal. Immobilization processes involve the conversion of the wastes to chemically and
physically stable forms that reduce the potential for migration or dispersion of radionuclides by
processes that could occur during storage, transport, and disposal. If possible, waste conditioning
should also achieve a volume reduction.

26
The most frequently applied methods for conditioning wet solids are cementation, bituminization,
or incorporation into polymers. Immobilization of radioactive waste using cement has been
practised widely for many years in many countries. Cement has a number of advantages, notably
its low cost and the use of relatively simple process plant. Its relatively high density provides the
waste forms with a considerable degree of self-shielding thereby reducing requirements for
additional package shielding. In certain cases, in order to achieve a product of acceptable quality,
chemical or physical pre-treatment steps may be employed. Sometimes additional alternative
materials, such as pulverized fuel ash and blast furnace slag, can be used. These behave in a
similar way to simple cement. Bitumenization also has been used for a number of years in various
countries for solidification of wet solids. Bitumenization is a hot process which allows the wet
stream to be dried off before being immobilized and packaged. This greatly reduces the volume of
conditioned waste requiring disposal with a consequent saving in cost. However, bitumen is
potentially flammable requiring special precautions to prevent its accidental ignition. Nevertheless,
bitumenization has found growing acceptance with waste producers and is used for conditioning of
radioactive waste at nuclear power plants in the USA, Japan, Sweden, USSR, Switzerland, and
other countries. Incorporation of wet solids into plastics or polymers is a relatively new
immobilization process when compared to the use of cement or bitumen. The use of polymers such
as polyester, vinylester, or epoxide resins is generally limited to those applications where cement
or bitumen are technically unsuitable. Such polymers are considerably more expensive and a
relatively complex processing plant is needed. Polymers have the advantages of offering greater
leak resistance to radionuclides and of being generally chemically inert. There has recently been
increased interest in the use of mobile units to condition radioactive waste from nuclear power
plants. This has arisen mainly because they provide saving in capital cost where on-site arisings of
waste are small. Mobile immobilization units for conditioning of radioactive waste of nuclear
power plants are used, for example, in the USA, Federal Republic of Germany, and France. Most

27
of them utilize the cementation process, although several designs for utilizing polymers have been
developed.

Treatment of gaseous effluents

It is common practice at all nuclear power plants for contaminated gases and building ventilation
air to be first passed through filters to remove paniculate activity before discharge to the
atmosphere via stacks. Ventilation and air cleaning system usually employ coarse pre-filters
followed by high-efficiency-particulate-air (HEPA) filters. These have typical particle removal
efficiencies of 99.9% or better for 0.3 mm particles. Radioactive iodine arising from power plant
operation is routinely removed by impregnated charcoal filters, used in combination with
paniculate filters. Impregnation is required to trap the organic iodine compounds from gas
effluents. Because noble radioactive gases released from fuel elements in a small amount are
mainly short-lived, delaying their release will allow radioactive decay processes to greatly reduce
the quantities finally released to the environment. Two delay techniques are used for this purpose:
storage in special tanks or passage through charcoal delay beds. For decay storage, the noble gases
and their carrier gas are first pumped into gas tanks which are then sealed. After a storage time
between 30 and 60 days, the content of the tanks is ventilated to the atmosphere through a
ventilation system. If release is not permissible, the storage period is extended as necessary. Delay
beds consist of a number of vessels filled with charcoal, which relatively retards the passage of
noble gases in relation to the carrier gas and allows radioactive decay to take effect.

28
 CHAPTER – 4
Conclusion

Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source. It is the only source of
energy that can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which massively
pollute the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. If we want to be serious about
climate change and the end of oil, we must promote the more efficient use of energy, we must use
renewable energies – wind and solar wherever possible, and adopt a more sustainable life style.
But this will not be nearly enough to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, and satisfy the
needs of our industrial civilization and the aspirations of the developing nations. Nuclear power
should be deployed rapidly to replace coal, oil and gas in the industrial countries, and eventually in
developing countries.

An intelligent combination of energy conservation, and renewable energies for local low-intensity
applications, and nuclear energy for base-load electricity production, is the only viable way for the
future. An energy shortage of 11 per cent was recorded in 2008–09 and the consequent peak
shortage in 2008–09 was 12 per cent. The peak demand for energy in 2008–09 was 109,809 MW,
while the peak demand met was 96,685 MW. With quantifiable amount of power deficit and the
ever increasing population forecasted to be more than 1.5 billion by 2030, power requirement is on
an increasing demand scale.

In terms of net radioactive release, the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP) estimated the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100
millicuries/4,000,000 tons. With 154 coal plants in the United States, this amounts to emissions of
0.6319 TBq per year for a single plant. In terms of dose to a human living nearby, it is sometimes
cited that coal plants release 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear plants. This comes from NCRP
Reports No. 92 and No. 95 which estimated the dose to the population from 1000 MWe coal and
nuclear plants at 4.9 man-Sv/year and 0.048 man-Sv/year respectively (a typical Chest x-ray gives
a dose of about 0.06 mSv for comparison). The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an
added dose of 0.3 µSv per year for living within 50 miles (80 km) of a coal plant and 0.009 milli-
ren for a nuclear plant for yearly radiation dose estimation. In short, nuclear power plants emit
fewer radioactivities than coal power plants. Unlike coal-fired or oil-fired generation, nuclear
power generation does not directly produce any sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or mercury
(pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for 24,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. alone).
However, as with all energy sources, there is some pollution associated with support activities such
as manufacturing and transportation.

29
Proponents argue that the problems of nuclear waste "do not come anywhere close" to approaching
the problems of fossil fuel waste. A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health
Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually
from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." In the
U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. A coal power plant releases 100 times
as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982,
US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile
Island accident. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents
among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity
produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas,
and 8 for nuclear. Tomorrow’s nuclear electric power plants will also provide power for electric
vehicles for cleaner transportation. With the new high temperature reactors we will be able to
recover fresh water from the sea and support hydrogen production. We believe that the opposition
of some environmental organizations to civilian applications of nuclear energy will soon be
revealed to have been among the greatest mistakes of our times. Old Fashioned Attitudes and
mindset of people is definitely harnessing the acceptance of nuclear power among people.
Ecological organizations such as Greenpeace have consistently had an anti-nuclear bias which is
more ideological than factual. An increasing number of environmentalists are now changing their
minds about nuclear energy because there are very good, solid, scientific and, above all,
environmental reasons to be in favor of nuclear energy.

“I know the environmentalists will not be very happy with my decision, but it is foolish romance to
think that India can attain high growth rate and sustain the energy needs of a 1.2 billion population
with the help of solar, wind, biogas and such other forms of energy. It is paradoxical that
environmentalists are against nuclear energy”- Jairam Ramesh, Environment Minister. The
Hindu November 28, 2010

India gearing up to be a “SUPER POWER” it should definitely possess “SUPERB POWER”.

30