Death-ly Competition: Choosing between Nuclear and Fossil Fuels

Yesterday, the world mourned on the 27th anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster - and things are still not 'normal' in the disaster effected zone. In fact,  many things will never get fixed, or normal, or reverted to prior-to-accident-state - some 30,000 sq. kms which will remain contaminated actively radiating till 2090 - polluting soil, air, water, and all living things and also killing them.

In this context, the efforts of nuclear lobby took an absurd and macabre turn with this recently published paper. The authors calculated deaths prevented by production of nuclear power, instead of power from fossil fuels - which would generate sufficient air pollution to choke 1.8 million people to death. This estimate is a cumulative of nuclear power generated throughout history and strongly advocates its future expansion, despite the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, to  prevent a purported 7 million deaths by mid-century. It is curious that the authors compared two hazardously polluting thermal technologies, run on nuclear and fossil fuels, to declare nuclear power a winner - and this dubious win is also a suspect. It is more surprising that a journal like Environmental Science & Technology decided to publish this article, since competing two flawed and inviable technologies cannot be used to promote scientific merits of either.

However, if one were to indulge in such a bizzare exercise of account keeping deaths, it is also necessary to track all dead, or dying and generations yet to be born who will die, unnaturally, because their ancestors, in the distant past, were exposed in nuclear disasters. Between 1986-2004, an estimated 985,000 died mostly due to cancer from Chernobyl exposure. By 2011, this number had risen to 1.5 million. Yes.. it is true that these estimates are statistical , but these are now statistics of large numbers and well above average mortality expectations (for example the cancer rates in cleaning crew is three times higher than rest of the population). Remember that for every death due to radiation exposure there are at least twice as many cases of cancer - with their untold misery, pain and suffering. And, all this before we reach the half life of 137Cesium which is 30 years.  It takes three decades for half of the radioactive 137 Cesium to have decayed and harmed everything in its path...and between five to seven such half lives before the radioactive effects become sufficiently small. Thus the radioactive contamination of 137 Cesium will continue decaying and damaging ad infinitum, as will also the other radioactive isotopes of Strontium and Plutonium.


While it might be too early yet to observe the health damage in the exposed population in Japan, recent studies seem to indicate that the Cesium levels from Fukushima disaster could be as much as 20-30 times higher, and might contribute to a thousand times more deaths than predicted. In fact, the effect of irradiating the food chain will contribute and build radiation poisoning in all species. Thus, the total future death toll from Fukushima disaster should also be subtracted from the estimated  'lives saved' in this paper.

A question for the authors is : when a single major nuclear accident, like Chernobyl, can wipe off the canvassed advantage of the historically-compounded nuclear power, over coal, are they sure of their conclusion - of saving lives with nuclear energy, and further advocating a global nuclear future? Especially when the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima will continue to increase on time scale much much longer than our lifetimes, or of these authors writing this ludicrous paper.

Also, the authors calculate that IAEA's projected increase in nuclear energy capacity till 2050 will save a further maximum of 7 million lives, forgetting to scale alongside the direct additional risk of serious future nuclear accidents. Are ready to risk four times as many Chernobyls and Fukushima, with their un-countable future deaths and health impacts and the vast irreversible environmental costs, to allow a future nuclear race? Can we, as a human race sustain or even survive this?

Don't get me wrong - I am definitely not arguing in favor of highly polluting, hazardous, huge GHG emitting fossil fuelled thermal power plants. But I staunchly oppose the pitching one disastrous technology against another to proclaim, unethically, a winner. For this is what the authors do - use incomplete calculations to make strong and wrong inferences, to lobby for the future of nuclear energy, forgetting, that nuclear accidents are inseparable components of such complex and unsafe technology and there can only be losers in such  "death-ly competition".

Response to MRS

 MR Srinivasan(MRS), the ex-chief of atomic energy commission, has recently attempted to re-persuade the public that there really is no alternative to a nuclear power plant at Koodankulam. To this end, he resorts to sweeping generalities, inappropriate distractions and deliberate falsehoods to prop up his arguments – and cleverly side steps the real issues and concerns of people who oppose this nuclear plant.

All proposed nuclear plants in India, like those at Jaitapur, Kovvada, Gorakhpur, Haripur, etc., are sites of intense public opposition due to their inherent risks, even during normal operations. Risks of a serious accident, whether natural, man-made, or of technical origin, further compound the resistance in vulnerable communities near the plants. Thus, there is a real need to address the viability of energy alternatives for India’s rising demands. This write up offers a point wise rebuttal to MR Srinivasan’s many wrong contentions, and also serves as a reminder to a few of the lesser known facts about a nuclear-India.

Natural Gas: Currently, natural gas accounts for more than 10% of India’s installed electricity generations – this despite its other uses as feedstock, domestic and transport fuel. A recent report on the natural gas capacity in India places it amongst the fastest growing conventional options, and recommends that India take advantage of the excess global availability of the fuel and its green advantages. In a similar vein, India’s oil ministry is targeting a tripling in the pipeline capacity for gas distribution. Natural gas is expected to feature increasingly in India’s demand to generate electricity. The cost of natural gas has already fallen by 60% from 2011, and is at a 16 year minimum, due to oversupply in the market; its value currently stands at $2.45/million BTU; MRS uses an unrealistic value of $8-9/million BTU which was last seen in 2007-08 period, to imply a per unit cost which is twice that of nuclear energy!

Wind Energy: A recent assessment by Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory places the wind potential of India at 2000-3000 GW, much higher than the government estimate of 102 GW. This enormous potential requires an estimated  0.05% of India’s land; only 3% of that land is used for power generation, so most of the land in a wind farm is still available for traditional or other uses. Suzlon has recently announced that it has crossed a 1GW mark wind capacity at Jaisalmer, indicative of the practicality of wind as a potential component to India’s energy solutions. Tamil Nadu state itself currently has an installed wind capacity of over 6 GW. It is true that wind power generation happens only part of the time; however in peninsular India, this luckily happens during the monsoon months, when the solar generation is low.

Solar energy: might be diffuse, but its potential, especially in India, is virtually limitless. The solar global market is expected to witness a rise of 200-400% over the next five years with Asia taking a lead.

Furthermore, the scope of meeting the needs of our millions, who are without power, become feasible with ideas of rooftop solar panels for households. This idea was recently examined by Prof. Chokshi at IISc., and shown to have a potential for meeting distributed energy needs  without needing any 100MW photovoltaic solar plants considered by MRS. This has an additional advantage of cutting down enormously on transmission and distribution losses – which in India are  27% of total electricity produced.  While the per unit cost of solar energy is high compared to conventional fuels, in Dec. 2011, its cost fell below the cost of power generated from a diesel source to Rs. 7.49/unit, far below Rs.20/unit quoted by MRS;  and a further drop by 40% is expected by 2015.

Hydro-Power: While MRS limits himself to large hydro projects and its associated human and environmental damages, small hydro electric projects have a potential for renewable and distributed energy generation while also avoiding the large scale damages. Their potential as an integral part of a multi-pronged and green energy approach has yet to be fully explored, and exploited. A feasibility study of mini, micro and small hydro power plants has been carried out at IISc. along the Bedthi and Aghanashini rivers in Uttara Kanara district of Karnataka. It has been estimated that the energy harnessed from streams would provide, respectively, 720, and 510 million unitsof electricity! Grossest estimates for electricity generation from small hydro projects, based on currently available data, suggests a potential of 15 GW –  with likelihood that this number might vastly increase.

Coal: is an unfortunate and a major provider of India’s power needs – and the sooner we wean ourselves – the better.

Nuclear Energy: Contributes about 2.7% to India’s current electricity production with 20 operating nuclear reactors. Koodankulam nuclear Power plant, at the verge of criticality, cost Rs.13,000 crores and almost ten years to build. It has an expected potential of 2 GW, at full capacity. India proposes that by 2032, the national nuclear capacity will increase to 63 GW from a current capacity of 4.8 GW.

MRS grossly underplays deaths and damages in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear disasters, while underscoring that lessons have been learnt. The disaster at Chernobyl has left a legacy of wastelands far beyond regional and national boundaries and mutated the genetic pool of all living matter, plant, animal or human for generations to come. Only the nuclear establishment can callously dismiss the living tragedy of the post-Chernobyl generations and count death with only the handfuls that immediately died. The latest estimate by Union of Concerned Scientists places the casualties of Chernobyldisaster at 25,000, with approximately double of that for radiation induced cancer [ Also see this]

It would be un-scientific to call any nuclear reactor ‘fully-safe’. WANO certificate on technical safety can be accepted – at face value – as only that. Safety of any nuclear plant can be compromised by human error or sabotage, or caused by freak natural occurrences, and human inability to respond appropriately to these during crisis. Fukushima only resulted in our nuclear establishment declaring our 100% safe plants – more 100% safe.

Now a few points that have escaped public attention: In an independent study funded by DAE on the health effects around the Kalpakkam nuclear facility, Dr. Manjula Datta found that cancer cases in nearby villages were seven times higher than in control samples. A 2005 UNSCEAR study found Kalpakkam to have the highest Tritium releases in the world; Tritium is a carcinogen and a mutagen.

Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes truth. MRS concludes by urging confidence in our nuclear engineers who have operated India’s power plants safely for last 40 years – that is, if we choose to ignore the  major reported incidences at Kalpakkam and other facilities; the fire in Narora facility in 1993 being the most serious of all Indian nuclear accidents.Having confidence in our nuclear engineers does not rule out  nuclear accidents or catastrophe. 

So, we can either live in the make believe world of MRS to perpetuate his unnecessary, expensive and hazardous nuclear fantasy. Or, we could do one or both of the following -immediately: (1)Cut down on transmission and distribution losses with insulated wires buried underground and immediately enjoy a whopping ten times our current nuclear capacity.(2) Convert from incandescent to CFL (or LEDs) bulbs to save an estimated 10 GW - without constructing a nuclear plant.

Finally, let us remember that a nation is made of its people; and national development has to be people based. It cannot be dictated from top - it must necessarily involve consensual approach, especially of those people who have most to lose.

A Citizen’s Response To Dr. Manmohan Singh’s Interview in Science, 24-2-2012

Mr. Prime Minister,

I was shocked to read of your interview in Science Magazine on Feb. 24, 2012.  While drawing attention to India as a democracy, you have failed to respond to the legitimate and widespread democratic concerns of citizens on issues of genetically modified foods, and India’s aggressive nuclear expansionist policies. To sideline serious concerns over the safety and merits of both these programs as merely vested by funds from outside, is incorrect, and does not befit a person in your office. One might cast similar aspersions on the many ‘partnerships’ entered by GoI with foreign nations, which might not be considered by all to benefit our nation.

I ask GoI to respond to safety concerns posed by the independent expert committee report on Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP). Besides these particular safety issues with the KNPP project, there are also high health risks associated with radiation exposures for communities living around any nuclear plant. Two studies carried out in Germany and more recently in France show a spike in incidence of leukemia in children around nuclear power plants – a result that should not be taken lightly.

In any democracy, the voice of opposition or dissent – if heard and responded to seriously, strengthens the democratic process and yields solutions that are more representative of people’s needs and concerns. Yet, you have dismissed all opposition to your individual vision for the nation as effectively ‘non-thinking’.

India is at a serious crossroad – to subserve a State-Corporate nexus by siphoning off all national resources with processes such as SEZs, commodification of water resources, industrial energy subsidies, encouraging GM of our food security and promoting FDIs, or, to reassert the true sovereignity of the citizens of this socialist, secular, democratic republic, so that even the highest appointments of the State must first represent and serve people’s interest.

I ask that you do not resort to potentially slanderous, repressive tactics to gag discussions on nuclear or any other ‘development’ issues using any un-mandated powers of your office, but instead adopt a consultative approach with people of India, to resolve their issues and concerns.  While this process may be slow, we must remember that we are not China, as you pointed out in the interview to Science.

Sincerely,

Arati Chokshi

Nuclear Hype and Reality of Uranium Mining

First the Hype.

"During the complete fission of 1 Kg U-235, 19 billion kilo calories are released, i.e. 1 Kg uranium-235 corresponds to 2.7 million Kg coal equivalent" .

Unsurprisingly, most of this propaganda originates from the beneficiaries of nuclear industry and their government sponsors.

Now, lets work out the real numbers - simply.

Method 1:
Lets work out what it takes to get this 1 Kg of uranium-235. In nature the component of this isotope of U-235 to total Uranium is 0.7%. Thus one has to mine 1/0.7% or (1000/7) Kg of total Uranium to get  Kg of U-235. Now the typical ore richness (i.e amount of Uranium to total material mined) is 1/2000; thus the total amount of mined material is 2000x1000/7 i.e. a million/3.5 more or about 300,000 Kg of mining. Thus a rough 'nuclear' advantage is about a factor of 10, rather than the about 3 million implied.

Method 2:


Each nuclear fission reaction produces 200 MeV of energy. In comparison, a thermal reaction for example, coal burning to carbon dioxide produces about 4 eV of energy. Thus each nuclear reaction releases 50 million times more energy compared to a chemical reaction. If we were to compare burning a tonne of coal, and fuel extracted from a tonne of Uranium ore( i.e a 3.5/million tonne), we again get nuclear to thermal advantage as

(3.5/million)x(12/235)x(50 million) = about 10!

Here the second term is the ratio of the atomic weights of carbon to Uranium and is a measure of atoms present per kilo of each material that will participate in thermal or nuclear reaction. Last term is the extra energy released in a nuclear fission compared to carbon burning.

Down Sides of Uranium Mining and the factor of ten nuclear advantage?

First of all, mining Uranium is unlike any other mining known to man.  An ore with 0.05% U is radioactive; even after  Uranium extraction, the remnant ore is still substantially radioactive. Although the uranium ore in geologic structures is usually stable, the mining processes release radioactive materials.  Particularly harmful are the acids or alkalies used to extract the mineral (via leaching) at the site itself, since these react with the ore material producing highly hazardous substances that infiltrate the aquatic ecosystems, causing irreparable environmental damage. Further, Uranium production is highly energy and water intensive.

Before considering any uranium mining, it is also necessary to consider the more obvious down sides of any nuclear power program, during operation, waste disposal, and the enormous,  unforgivable risk posed to life in case of an event or accident.

Current Affairs:


Recently, there has been a great deal of excitement and furor over the discovery of "Massive Deposits of Uranium in Andhra Pradesh with up to 150,000 tonnes of Uranium Ore deposits. This ore is of poor quality, and insufficient to meet the needs of our nuclear program. Yet with a typically pompous arrogance, our government is marching ahead, acquiring agricultural lands for conversions to cess-pools of toxic and radio- active waste, impervious to large public protests or outcry - all to combat Nation's 'future energy threat'.

It is high time we took over our Future, our Energy, and understood the real Threat to our Security.

Stars, Men...and Nukes

It occurs to me, in wake of a still boiling Fukushima, that nature is so much more gentler, kinder, nurturing than man. Some might argue to the contrary following  the colossal earthquake and subsequent Tsunami that hit Japan's coast near Sendai last month. However, let me elalborate:

Universe is into nukes and man is also into nukes. Sun for example wraps up its core nuclear reactions in a blanket about 700,000 km deep, from where the radiation in form of harmful gamma rays take 30,000 years to emerge at the surface as life giving, golden warm sunshine to light our days, grow our food, create our oxygen. Man on the other hand wraps his nukes in haste and his giant ego, in flimsy concrete  structures thus taking giant risks with our precious Earth and all its members.