Why we don't need Nuclear Power

Public Benefit Argument for Nuclear Power!

From time to time, right up to the present, attempts are being made to justify Nuclear Power as a Public Benefit. The original justifications for the nuclear power were two-fold:

a) Nuclear Power was considered to be necessary because of its role in the production of nuclear weapons.

b) The means of Generating Electricity, as it was one of the few alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels.

Today, nuclear power is being promoted as part of the answer to the problems of CO2 emissions and Climate Change. Extraordinary as it may sound, nuclear power has sometimes been promoted as a 'Home Grown' source of power that enhances energy security. As can be seen, none of those justifications seem to be sound.

Military and Diversity justifications

The nuclear power was considered to be necessary evil for production of materials needed in nuclear weapons, which need to be phased out in the post cold-war scenario.There are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper, safer and better than nuclear power, which was once regarded as an alternative to coal & fossil fuels for generation of power.

Climate change

Far from being an answer to the problem of CO2 emissions and Climate Change, Nuclear Power would be a misallocation of resources, making things worse by diverting funds away from better and cheaper alternatives. New Nuclear power plants are so extraordinarily costly that they would save about 2 to 11 times less carbon dioxide emission per dollar, about 20 to 40 times slower than investing the same money in efficient use of electricity and generation of power from renewable sources of energy.

Energy Security

The Nuclear power is not a 'home grown' source of energy and does not provide security in energy supplies, as most of the Uranium supplies required for nuclear power, are being imported, from politically-unstable countries like Kazakhstan.

If enough nuclear fission reactors were built to meet most of the world's demand for electricity, exploitable sources of uranium would be exhausted in about 15 to 20 years If the more risky FBRs could be made to work reliably(not easy), this might yield 50 or 60 years of electricity. Thorium could in principle be converted into nuclear fuel but it has not yet been demonstrated.

The idea of using plutonium & other waste from nuclear reactors/ nuclear weapons as a source of energy is widely regarded as an expensive failure. As exploitable sources of uranium become exhausted, prices will rise. And as higher-grade ores are exhausted, more energy will be consumed and more CO2 will be released in processing lower-grade ores that remain.

The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency –- an intergovernmental group known as IRENA that advises about 140 member countries on making the transition to clean energy –- dismissed the notion of including nuclear power among its favored technologies. The IRENA will not support nuclear energy programs because it's a long, complicated process; it produces waste and is relatively risky.

Most of the non-nuclear decarburization scenarios provide far greater security of energy supplies than nuclear power, with its associated worries about the security of uranium supplies, terrorist attacks on nuclear plants/ nuclear materials in transit& proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Is Nuclear Power Cheap?

When nuclear reactors were first commercialized half a century ago, they were encouraged by governments that saw Nuclear Energy (NE) as a peaceful, redemptive byproduct of the deadly power unleashed at Hiroshima. The US federal official, Lewis L. Strauss said NE would produce electricity "Too Cheap to Meter." It has never given consumers anything like that.

Nuclear Power is not only a high-risk technology in terms of safety, but also with respect to financial investment. It does not stand a chance in a market economy without state subsidies. The costs for decommissioning are very high & the cost of isolating radioactive byproducts /wastes from the biosphere & safeguarding them for hundreds of thousands of years, which defy human imagination, cannot even be estimated.

When the environmental costs and all the overt and hidden subsidies/costs are factored in, Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity. There are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper, safer, quicker to build and altogether more attractive. It is possible to de-carbonize the world's economies without using Nuclear Power. It would be prudent to invest just as much money and imagination in Solar Energy as hitherto put into Nuclear Power.

Hidden Subsidies to Nuclear Power

The new nuclear power plants will not be built in USA, UK, or anywhere else, unless substantial subsidies are provided. One of the biggest of several hidden subsidies for nuclear power is, that it is only required to pay a small fraction of the cost of insuring fully, against claims from a Chernobyl-style disaster, or worse.

In the United States, the Price-Anderson Act limits the nuclear industry's liability in the event of a catastrophic accident to $9.1 billion, which is less than 2% of the $600 billion guaranteed by the Congress. In any case, $600 billion is considered to be a gross underestimate. There are similar limitations on liabilities in other countries around the world UK, France etc. Full insurance against disasters would completely demolish any economic case for nuclear power.

Conclusion

The reported statement of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, that US is going to build two nuclear clusters for power generation, one each in Gujarat and AP States, at earmarked sites that might hold six to eight Reactors of 1000 MW each, should ring the alarm bells and the public must make their voices heard, before the events overtake, as it normally happens in all most all environmental issues.

The US Energy Majors Westinghouse- Toshiba and GE-Hitachi are reported to be already talking with India's Nuclear Power Corporation on various business aspects .Also reported that the American companies, however, will not sign contracts until India agrees to shield them from liability above $450 million (5% of liability in USA), in the event of catastrophic nuclear accident. India Promised to adopt a Liability Law in its letter of intent in September 2008.

We cannot even imagine a Chernobyl type of accident at the earmarked site in Coastal area of AP,- Kovvada in Srikakulam district susceptible for Cyclones/Tsunamis- in which millions would perish, with radiation contamination of the entire food-chain, making a large part of the area out of bounds for ever. How can the GOI promise to adopt such a Liability Law, which goes against the very fundamental right of the citizens, even with out consulting the elected representatives of the Parliament?

At this time, when our National and State Leadership is advocating Nuclear Power for energy security & sustainable development, it is important that the facts are made known to the public and that legitimate arguments against & for Nuclear Power are heard and given due consideration, before opting for Nuclear Power, which doesn't seem to add up economically, environmentally or socially and is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea for climate change challenges.

"Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct from Nuclear Power. The actual product is forever deadly Radioactive Waste."

"Our technological society exhibits at one and the same time breathless intelligence and abysmal lack of wisdom. That we can produce Trident submarines shows how smart we are; that we do in fact produce them shows how completely idiotic we are"