A transparent assessment of the costs and risks associated with India's ambitious nuclear plans must be made before any ground is broken at Jaitapur or elsewhere.
You really have to hand it to the nuclear industry. In any other sphere of the economy, a major industrial disaster is likely to have adverse, long-term financial consequences for the company or companies whose product or activity was involved in the accident, regardless of actual cause or legal liability. Thus, the people of Bhopal may still be paying for the poisonous gas which descended over their city in December 1984 but Union Carbide became such a toxic brand that it eventually went bust. Last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has also blown a large hole in the profits of BP. But under the perverse economic logic of the nuclear industry, disasters like the one unfolding at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan only mean more business for the world's biggest atomic energy vendors.
According to Dan Yurman, a consultant for firms connected to the American nuclear industry, two giant nuclear consortia are forming to manage the clean-up of the Fukushima site. “The first consortium is composed of General Electric and Hitachi, with support from Exelon and Bechtel. The second group is led by Toshiba which is partnered with the U.S. branch of Areva, the French state-owned nuclear giant. Babcock & Wilcox and The Shaw Group are part of the Toshiba team,” he writes in his excellent and authoritative blog, Nuke Notes. Incidentally, cleaning up isn't really their core competence. GE, Hitachi, Areva, Babcock & Wilcox and Toshiba are all in the business of building components for nuclear power plants.
In case readers have failed to spot the irony, let me be blunt about what's going on here. First, you get paid to sell a reactor in a foreign country. Then, under an international liability regime that is explicitly designed to favour you, the entire burden for site remediation and victim compensation in the “highly unlikely” event of an accident is shifted on to the plant operator. Finally, if and when that “highly unlikely” accident does occur, you are not only insulated from any financial claims but you actually get paid even more handsomely to come in and help clean up the mess!
Exactly how much money are we talking about? Yurman estimates the cost of decommissioning the six reactors at the site could be as much as $12 billion and would take more than a decade to complete. “Industry experts agree this won't be an ordinary job of tearing down a safe and cold reactor. For instance, to remove the spent fuel from Unit 4, a giant superstructure will have to be built around the devastated secondary containment structure to safely load the hot fuel assemblies underwater into special transportation casks.” Indeed, so lucrative is this project that the two consortia — which consist of companies that otherwise fiercely compete with each other for contracts and projects — “are reported to be having exploratory talks to combine forces.”
As for the $12 billion required to pay these companies for the clean-up, where is such a huge sum likely to come from? From the victims of the accident, the Japanese people, who else! “The Japanese government is said to be considering a form of receivership for the Fukushima site which would allow taxpayer funds to cover clean-up costs and pay compensation to people forced to evacuate their homes within the 13 km government defined danger zone around the plants,” notes Yurman.
As far as the Indian debate over nuclear energy is concerned, the unfolding Fukushima scenario poses an urgent challenge on three different fronts: estimating the true cost of nuclear power, assigning liability in the event of a nuclear accident in a way that is both equitable and efficient, and ensuring the highest possible standards of safety and regulation. As of today, despite the government's ambitious plans for the construction of 20 or more nuclear reactors across the country, there is little or no clarity or transparency on these vital issues.
The Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement — which paved the way for actualisation of these grand targets — led to intense political divisions at the time it was being negotiated but the debate over the optimum energy mix for India must be conducted independently of those fault lines. The deal may have been sold to the Indian and global public as a cheap and green solution to the country's power shortage but its primary economic utility today lies in presenting our planners with a wider set of energy options. A door has been opened for India to access nuclear material and technology which was unfairly denied to it in the past but any decision to walk through that door and fill our shopping cart must be based on a sound cost-benefit analysis. Post-Fukushima, we now know, for example, that the cost of clean-up in the event of a “low-probability” event must also be factored in to the equation. Once the $12 billion bill the Japanese taxpayers are going to be saddled with to permanently entomb the highly radioactive reactors there is retrospectively fed into the cost of electricity that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) generated over the years, the true per unit tariff is likely to be much higher than the figure TEPCO worked with when the decision to build the reactors was originally made. Here in India, the Planning Commission should now go back to the drawing board and ask itself whether it still makes financial sense to produce electricity at any given location through large and expensive imported reactors when there may be cheaper options available over the medium term. It may still be that nuclear energy makes economic sense but it is vital that the decision we take be based on a realistic assessment of actual and probabilistic costs over the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant.
As for liability, the Manmohan Singh government owes a debt of gratitude to those who criticised it during last year's debate over the controversial liability law. If the watered down version had been passed, as the American nuclear industry was insisting, our leaders would be running for political cover today. Fukushima is a confirmation of the need for tough liability legislation, especially since the cause of the accident lay, at least partly, in deficient design. As the 16 leading nuclear scientists who recently sent a letter on nuclear safety to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General noted, “It appears that, in the siting and design of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plants, an unlikely combination of low-probability events (historic earthquake plus historic tsunami leading to loss of all electrical power) was not taken sufficiently into account." Rational liability laws are essential for ensuring the nuclear vendor pays adequate attention to safety in coming up with his designs. Optimum safety can only be built in if the vendor is forced to internalize the cost of an accident, something liability laws in Japan and elsewhere do not do. The Indian law is an improvement over the prevailing global model but post-Fukushima, many will argue for its further strengthening.
“We are confident that only nuclear power that avoids being a threat to the health and safety of the population and to the environment is acceptable to society,” the 16 nuclear scientists, including Anil Kakodkar, former head of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), said in their letter. They added: “It is necessary to ensure that national nuclear safety regulators in all countries are fully independent in their decision-making on nuclear safety and to assure their competence, resources and enforcement authorities.”
Unfortunately, India today has no such body of regulators. Even on paper, the “autonomous” Atomic Energy Regulatory Board cannot remotely be called “fully independent” since it reports eventually to the Atomic Energy Commission, which, in turn, is chaired by the head of the DAE. As Prashant Reddy, a research associate at the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, has noted, “This is like making the Securities & Exchange Board of India [SEBI] responsible to the Bombay Stock Exchange and then expecting SEBI to function as an independent, autonomous regulator.” The government is understood to be working on a proposal to create a truly independent regulator for the nuclear industry but what eventually emerges from its internal review process is anybody's guess. Meanwhile, the decision to push ahead with construction activity at Jaitapur and other places has evoked a strong negative reaction from local communities. Opposition parties like the Shiv Sena may be trying to exploit people's fears but the government's failure to be open and transparent in its conduct at the grassroots level is what has created fertile ground for protest. Radioactive pollution, in the “low-probability” event of an accident, has a half-life of hundreds of years. Will the skies fall upon us if Jaitapur and other projects are put on hold for a fraction of that time, so that citizens at large — and the concerned local communities — can be convinced through argument and debate that putting up nuclear plants in their backyard is a safe and economical way of generating electricity?
This article was corrected for grammatical errors.
Correction
(* * In the Editorial Page article, “Rush in now, repent later” (April 25, 2011), a quotation in the third paragraph from the bottom was left unclosed. It should have read as: As the 16 leading nuclear… noted, “It appears that, in the siting and design of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plants, an unlikely combination of low-probability events (historic earthquake plus historic tsunami leading to loss of all electrical power) was not taken sufficiently into account.”)
Keywords: Nuclear power, nuclear safety, Areva Reactor, Evolutionary Power Reactor, Fukushima, nuclear disaster
The very first para is contradictory. The examples given are BP and Union Carbide. These are companies and not the industry. BP oil spill in gulf has not stopped other companies from drilling oil. Though probably in reduced quantities, Methyl Isocyanide continued to be produced after the Bhopal Disaster elsewhere in the world. Any comparison should be of the same parameters, i.e. compare nuclear industry with Petroleum indistry not BP.
While I agree with some parts of the article, how can it be deemed as faulty design with Fukushima reactors? It is almost impossible the design anything that will be absolutely indestructible. Fukushima accident happened because of a very severe earth quake. Japan that has a history of many earth quakes in the past, could not put contingency plans in place for such devastating natural cause. Please don't put forth arguments without full information just so that it serves the point.
This article has presented one of the most serious arguments in the current ongoing debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy: That the costs of cover ups even in the case of very less probable nuclear accident may diminish the benefits completely. And I am sure, most people reading this article would bear the fact in mind. But I am sure, our great government in India will ignore this issue with same ease, as it ignores others like corruption and black money in offshore account.
Millions of Indians are craving for better living facilities. Do we who engage these columns and are blessed want to deny those poor people, energy. In the near future Nuclear is only source for additional energy. Remember The Chernobyl accident took place on a festival day when only one technician with no knowledge of the circuit present in the control room. In India at any shift when a reactor is operated, a brilliant nuclear scientist, a mechanical engineer and an electrical engineer are present in the control room. The earthquake effects can well be negated by proper design. Have confidence in our brilliant scientists and allow us to keep the rate of progress intact please
I think while it's a good initiative to demand more analysis, Indians do not realise that nuclear power is the next big alternative for India, nuclear and renewable energy are the future. Countries like France entirely run on nuclear and if geologists are given their place to comment, perhaps they may suggests sites that offer minimal risks.
Nice perspective. Yes for a country like India, where things can go wrong because of 'chalta hai attitude' can be risky for nuclear industrial development in India. Govt/agencies/Foreign firms have to take everything into account and be made accountable for any misgivings/incidents.
The key sentence in this article is: Radioactive pollution, in the 'low-probability' event of an accident, has a half-life of hundreds of years. This needs to be understood by all and sundry -- policy makers, decision makers, stake holders, and others. I am a proponent of nuclear energy but only where due thought and process has been spent on the above sentence.
No doubt that there are severe risks in nuclear energy. You can expect the worst in a country where fake pilots are operating flights. But what is the alternative for nuclear energy? Renewable or non-renewable energy resources are greatly limited againist our growing demand. We will be in severe shortage in near future and you cannot build nuclear plants overnight. So nuclear energy is unavoidable and only thing is that we need to ensure 100% safety
India as a country, where the research work is not so encouraged either due to lack of funds or motivation, is compelled to buy what the international market is selling. Other means of energy are costly and requires high maintainance cost and those can actually cannot run industry. Instead what we can do is to see as an opportunity to make the rules harder with some good authoritarian body.
The time has come for India to focus more on other alternatives of energy like Solar, Hydel power through our dream Interlinking of national rivers project. Its high time for government to come out of all these corruptions and focus rest of its 3.5 years to development the country. Though clearly getting rid of nuclear energy or nuclear power plants is impossible, its time to revise our nuclear plans and use more indigenous technologies than being dependent on Foreign technologies. Time for opposition parties also to raise this as a major concern - BJP should realize that this is more critical than 2G or CWD or Adarsh or etc etc..
India is well known for its river system and considering the fact that only 20 percent of our available hydro power is being used currently,i think we should start investing in hydro power plants than in nuclear power.
nuclear power can be feasible and economical for a country like france which has rich reserves of nuclear fuel elements,but for a country like India it has to be the hydro power.
As mentioned, the cost of nuclear-power over a life-cycle of a nuclear power plant (taking into consideration a low-probability accident) threatens to take its toll on the Indian Exchequer and that clearly doesnt make nuclear energy a cheap alternative. Instead investing in environmentally viable alternatives (Solar/Wind/Geothermal/Bifuel etc.) might benefit the country in the long run and also provide a less hazardous environment for its people.
Can corrupt and indisciplined India provide safety to its Nuclear power plants, is anybody's guess. Post independence we made many foes rather than friends and we have to build more safety features in agreements with Nuclear power reactor suppliers thus resulting in nuclear power more expensive. It is better to abandon the proposed nuclear power projects and start investing in alternative technologies to provide enerygy security.
Hopefully this article is available in all Indian languages, so it can serve its purpose. Else it is limited in its effectiveness as the PM himself.
I agree with the views expressed in this article regarding a comprehensive assesement of various parameters before giving a green light to all nuclear projects.There is not denying that nuclear energy will be the much sought energy alternative in the future, but as rightly mentioned a detailed account of all the cost and safety factors needs to be reviewed and deliberated upon before giving a nod to resume work at nuclear plants.The less probabilistic , untoward natural calamity which has the potential to wreck havoc as seen in Japan recently) also has to be factored in while working on the design of the plant.The Govt cannnot turn averse to the need of the hour i.e halting work at all plants temporarily and carrying out a thorough audit of all the existing plants and ensuring that the safety standards are supreme.Also as pointed out the liability regulations should be made stern giving the service providers little leeway for ignorance or flippancy related to different parameters of safety.The Govt should not risk the life of its citizens by shrouding them under uncertainity in matters related to safety.An appeal to the govt ,Please make arrangements for forestalling the unseen danger before a 'go- ahead'.
After going through the above article it is very much clear that the nuclear industry is world over works on the principle of, from cradle to grave, nothing bad if we see it from only monetary point of view. But does this approach is at all viable in the long run; we all need to ponder over it. With the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the background which has become the new symbol of nuclear devastation world over taking Chernobyl. We all as a human being are saddened by what has happened, though this also gives us one chance to review all those development happened post the signing of Nuclear agreement 123 with the U.S.A. No one is saying this deal is only bad; it bears fruit of its own kind which we were not able to have, pre to the deal. But that does not mean we should be overlooking the vital areas of nuclear security and liability, at the same time as has been pointed out the deal should be seen for its economic viability from its inception till its decommissioning. At the same time the very purpose of this deal is to provide an alternate means of energy but it would not be successful if it turns out to be more costly in reality, as has been pointed out. Till now somehow our policy makers are turning out to be indifferent to these issues, but now we can at least hope that they might rewrite few things so that somewhere in future we all may not be repenting over it.
Country with GDP of $ 5000 billion, Tsunami loss of more than $300 b and $12 b to be spent over next 10 years for clean up of site tells us how huge is $12 b. 300,000 persons evacuated due to Tsunami. 14000 dead and equal number missing due to Tsunami and there is no civil liability. Now consider the nuclear, no death on account of the nuclear reactor accident.No one exposed in public domain. This needs to be put in correct perspective.
$ 12 b for site clean up and decommissioning of 6 reactors. makes it about $2b for each reactor which i am sure has been internalized already. Sure, an accident has happened but it does not mean everything is wrong about nuclear power.
It is often argued that nuclear power is cheaper by excluding the costs of treating nuclear waste (apart from accidents). If this is factored into costs of production instead of being externalised, nuclear energy would work out to be much more costlier than any other suorce of energy. Also, we have to take account of other accidents apart from eqrth quakes, such as floods, fire, arson, terrorist attacks, enemy action etc.,
The Hindu's exemplary competence as effective media is again well exhibited by the publishing a few days back of two articles on Nuclear power plants: one relating to drawbacks in concept, design, manufacture and construction parameters( Title: Old configuration) and the other (Title: Lured to work with radiation) very sadly depicting the pathetic conditions of humans working as contract Labour in the plants in Japan, the country which is very well renowned for technical expertise. Nothing can be done with whatever has happened. The lesson for India is that a detailed and devoted technical review of existing plants is called for and also the reports should be made fully public. These steps only will lead to cent per cent fault removal. Meanwhile there is report in the press (Business Today , 3 April 2011) that the proposed Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors (EPR), six numbers, by Areva, the French Company for the Jaitapur 9900 MW plant will be of new and untested design. Further the fuel burn up rate will be double and the radioactive waste from these EPRs will be more toxic than those from existing model,with four times more of radioactive bromine, iodine and caesium than the conventional pressurized heavy water reactors Will the Government come out clean on these issues?.
$12 billion? It is nothing compared with the real costs of the Fukushima accident which is estimated to exceed $300 billion. Which insurance company has sufficient funds to fully ensure at least 1 nuclear plant in India?
Independence of regulators.The ministry of Finance is involved in appointment and extensions, foreign travel, budget dispersal of SEBI Chairman and members. Does it mean that they are not independent as regulator. Similarly AERB is regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission. Chairman AERB reports to the AEC. It is not important where Chairman sits (reports to whom) but where he stands (on issues). What is most important is effective separation of responsibilities between agencies responsible for promotion and regulation of nuclear power. Another consideration is the technical expertise of the AEC. The Indian model of nuclear regulatory body has been well appreciated by international experts and also the international convention on nuclear safety (CNS)but this requires complete understanding of associated issues rather than slogan of independence of regulatory body.
Caution advised in this report is timely and welcome. Nuclear energy needs to be approached with sufficient safety mechanisms and necessary liability agreements in place. A far more attractive bet for India should be the solar energy. The technology is mature enough that a US household consuming about 1000 KWH per month can meet their own needs using solar energy. (They may draw energy from the grid at night but generate enough during the day to offset it.) And, at about Rs 6/KWH, the investment (after a generous 30% in incentives from the government) can be recouped in about 10 to 15 years. And, this with high labor costs in the US. If only India invests in reducing the initial investment needed and also leverage its market size to achieve economies of scale, solar energy would be a much more attractive and safer alternative to nuclear energy.
Govt should think ,twice before starting any Nuclear Projects.The earlier bitter incident of Jaitapur and the recent great Japan Disaster should be remembered.Apart from the need for Country's Nuclear Energy,we should not ignore our Peoples health,which is very important.Meaningful article from Siddarth Varadarajan.
Nice article. I completely agree with what the article says.The government has to reach a consensus with the public before they go ahead with the project as their lives are at stake.Government needs to send a team to the location sending across their perspective and making them understand the benefits the government sees out of that project.Government needs to take inputs from the public on the issue.Regarding the nuclear power,I believe there are many other forms of energy that the government is not looking at.For instance how much is the government spending to utilize the solar energy.We can build solar fields or wind farms across the country.
A timely assessment!
Our PM though a Financial expert seems to have limited technical knowledge about nuclear energy. The risks involved are too many.Even an highly disciplined country like Japan is facing numerous problems. In our country where discipline is known for its absence the risks are much greater. Starting from the top where our politicians can not even be punctual, you can not expect our nuclear plant operators to be disciplined.
Nuclear energy has its pros and cons and it is in our best interest,that we adopt it for a more cleaner and safer future. But at the same time, it warrants full consideration of the nitty-gritty for setting up the nuclear reactors so that all safety standards are met and nothing is left to chance, however slim it may be.
The Prime Minister should exhibit his ability to single-mindedly pursue an objective not in strewing the potentially dangerous nuclear power plants all over the country which may endanger the life of the people but in fighting mounting food inflation which would save millions of our countrymen from starvation deaths. Dr.Manmohan Singh should sit back and think hard on the potential dangers involved in the pursuit of his present energy policies. Otherwise people now and history later will not forgive him.
Please Email the Editor