Renewable energy sources are attractive but in a sense, powerless. Maybe, someday we'll all live in houses with photovoltaic roof tiles but in the real world, a 1GW of solar plant will require 60 square miles of solar panels. When the demand increases, you can fire up more coal, but how will you cause the wind to blow and the sun to shine 24x7? The earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years.
Each year, we are taking out 400 million more tonnes of coal from the earth's crust. The coal reserves are depleting at a high rate. Tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere. Wind energy and solar energy are so dilute that huge capital is required to produce any scalable amount of electricity from them. The separate grid that has to be installed in large areas will result in huge power losses before the electricity generated reaches the consumer.
Nuclear radiation containment, waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation are manageable problems in a way that global warming is not. A report by researchers of MIT forecasts that worldwide, energy demand would triple by 2050.We have no time to experiment with visionary sources of energy; civilisation is in imminent danger. Unless we see some energy miracle, nuclear energy seems to be the only option. There is no currently available renewable energy source which can meet our 24-hour base load electricity requirements. Accidents, though, in the past have unfortunately raised speculation. Indeed, speculation does arise when we live in an uncertain era. It's like we have to choose the most certain uncertainty.
Talk of climate, the most knowledgeable are the most worried. Talk of nuclear energy, the most knowledgeable are the least worried. What needs to be done is to spread awareness, impart education and disseminate information to all the vehement anti-nuclear environmentalists.
It is high time they were convinced not to stall the growth of the advanced safe nuclear reactors or else the rising demand for energy will hinder our run to becoming a developed nation. The original U.S. nuclear power plants of the 1950s descended from propulsion units in nuclear submarines. But the current Gen 3+ reactors are a big improvement.
As far as nuclear waste is concerned, waste storage for disposal or recycling is done in corrosion-proof containers that can withstand long years of heat and moisture. There are proposals to create a global nuclear fuel company under the IAEA which will collect nuclear waste from reactors across the globe, reprocess it and then redistribute the fuel to those power plants.
We are also on the way to developing thorium-based reactors. India has the greatest potential for thorium reactors considering the vast thorium reserves under its belt. There are great examples of nuclear energy in the world. Interestingly, Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. France is already 77% nuclear energy dependent, Belgium 58%, Sweden 45%, South Korea 40% and still counting.
Five out of six people today live in the developing world. Shortages of finance, infrastructure and efficiency are the main obstacles to optimal renewable energy usage. Germany can afford to phase out its reactors but that is not the case with India and China. Currently, India is facing a supply-side deficit of 8%.The demand is growing at 8% annually. The situation is fragile. Remember hydel power is restricted to geographically suitable sites. Wind energy and solar energy are intermittent. Wind is dependent on appropriate windspeeds and solar energy depends on the location of the sun. We are thus reduced to just two choices, coal or nuclear.
Nuclear plants have to account for every radioactive atom of waste. But coal-fired plants dump tonnes of deadly refuse into the atmosphere at zero cost. If this scenario prevails for 20-30 years more, our planet will become so hot that land many times the area of Ukraine and Japan will become inhabitable.
It's time for that free ride over the “Once Green Earth” to end. It is time for us to decide whether to let 1 GW of electricity release 19,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or develop nuclear energy for an energy safe future.
(The writer's email ID is ipshittarun@gmail.com)
Keywords: Kudankulam Nuclear Plant, Kudankulam, nuclear energy, nuclear safety, alternative energy, disaster management, emergency planning, nuclear disaster, nuclear waste
Renewable energy fanatics are so obsessed with it that they keep on just repeating the same baseless arguments--
1.Power of the sun.
2.Putting solar panels on rooftops
etc etc.
I appreciate the author for writing this--
"It's like we have to choose the most certain uncertainty."
Actually being anti-nuclear leaves us with no parallel source of 24 hour greenhouse emission free electricity.
Such hocus pocus advertisement for the Nuclear Industry. First of all
the ice started melting after nuclear power plants were built, mainly
becsuse nuclear power is 40% more thermally polluting than other modes
of power generation. As for getting rid of the waste, the Indian
Government is not able to get rid of plastic and garbage so how will
it get rid of nuclear waste which requires more sophisticated systems
of removal, The waste has to be kept in sealed containers for ever
deep down miles into the ground Can you imagine what THIS WILL COST??!
Dangerous nuclear power electricity has destroyed the Western
economies, However the extra heat has been piped into frozen homes in
Russia etc and these may have benefited from the thermal pollution
Today solar has dropped to less than Rs3 per watt per panel and after
initial installing gives FREE ELECTRCITY for 30 years with no waste!
Solar powered Germany is now supplying nuclear France with 170.000MW
of electricity! Go solar and get rich!
The author has not differentiated between power and energy in the last para of his article. 1 GW station (ie.1000 MW station), at full load, will produce one million units of electricity (kwh) in one hour and 24 million units in one day. For producing 24 million units of electricity, carbondioxide released into the atmosphere may be about 12,000 tonnes.
What I find particularly galling is that green energy fanatics spout out words like 'wind and solar energy will eventually replace all polluting energy sources'. Even if solar cells or wind turbines gets cheaper in due to economies of scale, how do we install the vast solar power or wind power farms in a densely populated country like India! Do they have any idea how much power is technically feasible from a solar cell and how much open land is required to produce equivalent solar power compared to nuclear power from a plant like Kudankulam! Do they think China is really stupid to expand its nuclear power reactors including those built by US companies! And please stop uttering the mantra of India signed nuclear deal with the US solely to benefit the US firms, you have no idea what the treaty means and sound like conspiracy theorists who claim '9/11 is a US govt conspiracy', that just shows ignorance. No one said nuclear power is the cure all, India needs nuclear power in its energy mix
A big thanks for the article.Its a definitve step towards alleviating
the fears, people have for nuclear energy.India is on a path of
development and if it wants to be a forerunner,it would have to deal
with its energy shortages,strongly and nuclear energy definitely
qualifies as one of the best options,we have.
An excellent article from the author.Upon time the fear for nuclear reactors among people has to recede for the betterment of society,as of now unemployment and poverty due to energy deficiency curbs a nation which is developing in its full phase.
The figures given by the author here are absolutely correct and the anti-nuclear activists are completely stereotyped without knowing the fact that our country needs a proactive measure for this issue.
An excellent article from the author.Upon time the fear for nuclear reactors among people has to recede for the betterment of society,as of now unemployment and poverty due to energy deficiency curbs a nation which is developing in its full phase.
The figures given by the author here are absolutely correct and the anti-nuclear activists are completely stereotyped without knowing the fact that our country needs a proactive measure for this issue.
1.Unfounded fears!!!!! What is the probability of a major nuclear
accident? Will anybody venture to give an answer along with the
confidence level of that probability.
2.Regarding the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy solutions
exist all over in the form of combination of sources,Storage
techniques and better energy management.
3.In case of solar and wind power the cost of power generation is same
for mini,small and large applications and independent of number of
units in use on a site. In India more than 25% energy requirement is
off grid and even small towns and new SEZs can be serviced with on
site generation if we adopt captive power approach with little
transmission infrastructure and losses.
4.India should concentrate on renewable energy sources for its massive
requirements of 7-8 lakh mega watts over next 2 decades which is much
more than the replacement requirements of developed world. Technology
development in these areas can make it a technolog leader in this
areas
Thorium-233 is the way to create an environmentally safe source of nuclear power. By using the Liquid Fluoride technology also known as Molten Salt Reactor technology. In this the heated material powering the turbines is molten sodium fluoride (NaF) which melts at 993ºC.Powering 1,000,000 homes for one year needs only one ton of thorium! (compared to 250 tons of uranium)It’s clean: Thorium ‘burns’ much more cleanly than uranium, and only produces 1% of the waste.and waste could be used to refuel the reactor !Thorium does not require enrichment,India has the world's second or third largest thorium reserves, and thorium can be used to build "breeder" reactors (which produce more fuel than they consume) and lead to self-sufficient power generation.
I hope you found this useful!!!
Sir you were fantastic.I just want to add another point of view for the pro-nuclears that grid supply has to be kept uniform and constant.Storing large amounts of energy for doing so is impractical.
For the same amount of power produced, say 100crore units, nuclear has
been causing minimum life losses. Also the radioactivity of ashes from
the same amount of power from coal is more than the spent fuel. The coal
ash has uranium and the Chinese are considering recovery from the coal
ash from one coalfield, more rich in uranium.
We are so short of power that we cannot afford to give up any source and
definitely nuclear which can be scaled up to the level required, people
permitting.
What is the basis for asserting that renewable energy generation is not feasible?
Nuclear energy can be part of the energy source mix, but suffers the drawback of spreading its benefits and localizing its risks to the residents near the nuclear plants.
Thin film solar energy can reach cost of $0.23/kwh compared to $0.16/kwh for coal.
Solar energy costs more at this point since economies of scale have not yet been achieved in this nascent technology.
Countries like Germany are leading in solar energy generation with far fewer hours of sunshine per day.
Solar and other renewable energy sources must form part of India's energy sources.
The author's arguments do not hold water.This proves his utter
ignorance,by,adversely comparing the waste generated,by Coal-fired
boilers, with the Nuclear one.The height of the author's stupidity and
bias.The agreement signed by unelected M M Singh,with,the USA,is simply
for offering business to the MNCs,especially,the US ones.
When photography was introduced people were scared of it. I heard from my grandfather people were scared to be photographed. They thought one's life will be reduced if taken the picture. Fear of new things and unknown is natural. In the case of Kudankulam how much is this opposition due to fear need to be investigated. Defenitely some one is using this fear to wip up the opposition. Religion is defenitely one of the reason.
"We have no time to experiment with visionary sources of energy; civilisation is in imminent danger." - IPshit.
Wow wow professor! You proclaim Civilization in India is not in danger because of [1] Poisoning of the rivers with industrial pollution (Cauvery river Mettur and Paalaru river at Ambur, VaNiambadi), [2] coal power plants and nuclear power plants, [3] making and burning plastic (SIPCOT industrial estate Cuddalore), [4] poisoning our framlands with horrible fertilizers, pesticides (all of Punjab), [5] massive corruption via mining mafia, urban real estate mafia, etc. etc. You say the danger is because we use less energy than we should be using!!! I will build a temple for this "Civilization" at Koodankiulam. The dieties will be Anusakthi Bagawan, Free market bagawan, Chemical Bagawan. All idols will be made in the latest shiny plastic. Perhaps, then the ordinary folks will understand that "development" and "civilization" must happen at any cost.
@ Rajiv, you want more evidence to prove the unviability of Renewable energy, fine, read this then to supplement whatever Ipshit Tarun has amply elucidated.
World wide 'Plant Load Factor' of wind power is around 20% and imagine the investment and large tract of land needed for installation of wind turbines to replace, say 1000MW, which again cannot be installed anywhere we want, just as we cannot have solar plants everywhere. Sure, grid authorities can vouch that, we cannot be depedent on nature for electricity all the time, all the while. Solar power is still priced at Rs. 15 - 20 Crores/MW even after heavy subsidy from Governement, which ultimately would jack up the cost of electricity which we are all drawing from Electricity board to our homes.
Yes, You want us to look at USA but not China, Some other people want us to look at Germany but not France. China is constructing around 27 new reactors. France will continue to export power to neighbouring Germany even after 2022!
How can you say that nuclear radiation containment, waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation are manageable problems? Can't you see what happened in Fukushima? A developed country such as Japan was unable to contain nuclear radiation. Just imagine the situation if such a thing happened in India? Millions of people would have suffered. Moreover Nuclear technology is not economical. Although the technology has exisited for 60 years, costs have not gone down. I agree that both wind and solar energy are intermittent and either is not the solution. But a combination of both, development of storage technology and smart grid can be the solution! Nuclear will continue to exist in the energy mix, but should not be considered as the primary source of energy.
The author provides no evidence to back his claim that renewable
energy solutions are not feasible. Contrary to the opinion expressed
in the article, renewable energy can truly form a substantial part of
our future energy mix. True you cannot meet the entire needs by either
just the solar or the wind. But you can come very close by using a
right mix of solar, wind, hydro, compressed air storage, pumped hydro,
solar thermal etc - if only the govt cares to provide half the amount
of incentives it provides nuclear and coal industries.
Nuclear energy, contrary to what the nuclear establishment would lead
us to believe, was and never will be cheap. That's the primary reason
why there was not a single nuclear plant was established in the past
35 years in a country like USA. All the calculations that show the
nuclear power being cheap are arrived at by assuming that the cost of
the risk is socialized - ie gutted down the throat of people living
near the nuclear plant.
At last a bold article came up on this subject considering all the aspect of it...
Those who are against nuclear,normally talks plainly about alternatives with out any depth and vision on our energy requirements. Any way nuclear should not be the last word for mankind for energy,research sshould go on....
Please Email the Editor