The energy security is better defined as the Nation's ability to sustain adequate, reliable energy services in ways that maximize economic competitiveness and minimize environmental degradation
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.
As per one estimate, without adding any new nuclear reactors at the current consumption rate of uranium, we have uranium to last for about 50 to 60 years. Therefore it is not sustainable source of energy.
As exploitable sources of Uranium ore containing reasonable concentrations of Uranium 235 become exhausted, the costs will go up. And as higher-grade ores are exhausted, more energy will be consumed and more CO2 will be released in mining and enriching the remaining poor grade uranium ores.
The idea of obtaining large quantities of uranium, by reprocessing radioactive spent fuel & other waste from nuclear reactors/ nuclear weapons, is widely regarded as an expensive failure, apart from being medically dangerous to nuclear workers and releasing large amounts of radioactive material into the Air and Water contaminating the Food-Chain.
Most of the non-nuclear decarburization scenarios provide far greater security of energy supplies than nuclear power, without its associated worries about radiation contamination, the security of uranium supplies, and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants & nuclear materials in transit and proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Point No.2. Is Nuclear Power CO2- Free?
The fact is, "It takes energy to make energy"- even Nuclear Energy. Although a Nuclear power plant itself releases no carbon dioxide, the production of nuclear electricity, depends upon a vast complex and hidden industrial infrastructure (Nuclear Fuel Cycle- very Expensive, Sophisticated and Dangerous Way to Boil Water) is the intensive user of Fossil Fuel -the kind of energy the Nuclear power is touted as replacing -with the concurrent production of Carbon Dioxide.
Far from being an answer to the problem of CO2 Emissions and Climate Change, Nuclear Power would be a miss-allocation of resources, making things worse by diverting funds away from better and cheaper alternatives. We get six times the reductions in CO2, by investing in Energy-Efficiency, rather than Nuclear Power and much faster too.
Point No.3. Is Nuclear Power Safe, Clean & Green?
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 is a complicated process; it produces radioactive waste and is relatively risky.
Contrary to the Nuclear industry claims, smoothly running nuclear power plants are also not radioactive emission free. They are permitted routinely to emit hundreds of thousands of Curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year, with significant exposure to radiation. A German study has shown that within a 10-mile radius of their reactors, childhood leukemia has increased to a frightening level.
In addition, thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste is getting accumulated. This waste contains extremely toxic elements, which will inevitably pollute the environment and human food-chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of Cancer, Leukemia, Genetic disease in populations living near Nuclear power plants and Radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come for thousands of years.
If the Nuclear Power is so safe and entails as little risk as the Nuclear Industry claims, the insurance premium will not need to be particularly high. Why should the proposed "Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009" of Govt. of India should impose any liability caps on nuclear accident insurance? Why are the American Nuclear Power Plant Vendors demanding Nuclear-Accident Immunity, a pre-condition for their entry in the Indian Civil Nuclear Sector?
Point No.4. Is Nuclear Power Cheap?
When Nuclear Reactors were first commercialized half a century ago, they were encouraged by governments that saw Nuclear Energy as a peaceful, redemptive byproduct of the deadly power unleashed at Hiroshima. The US federal official, Lewis L. Strauss said Nuclear Energy 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 of nuclear power plant 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.
Point No.5 Do We Accept the Socialization of Nuclear Power?
Various studies found that there is no financial return on investment in Nuclear Power without substantial government subsidies. The open market system of capitalism won't support Nuclear Power without government subsidies, as it is found to be a very risky business to invest in Nuclear Power.
Standard economic theory states that subsidies can be justified when they lead to an overall increase in social welfare. But the environmental and health risks associated with radioactive waste, accidents, and risk of meltdown, nuclear proliferation, and the threat of terrorism, decrease the overall contribution to social welfare provided by Nuclear Power plants.
The United Nations Environment Protection (UNEP) Organization, specifically dictates that that the removal of subsidies that are economically costly and harmful to the Environment and to People, represents a Win-Win Policy. It is hard to imagine a more poignant case in point than Nuclear Power Industry, for removal of subsidies..
Point No.6 What Right do we have to commit Future Generations?
When we consider the entire lifecycle of a Nuclear Power Plant, from construction to decommissioning, combined with sourcing uranium and disposal of the radioactive wastes, the present generation would be making decisions that impact people far into the future. We are supposed to tell future generations, for at least 10,000 years, to keep their feet off nuclear waste dumps. Mankind has no experience of communicating so many years ahead in time, making Nuclear Waste a serious language problem..
______________________________________________________________________
.jpg)