India's First and Largest nuclear power plant.. - Page 2

Jay · 05-28-2005, 13:54 PM

Oneman,
If you havent noticed, we are discussing about Indian nuclear power plants here, so please remove your post and if you wish open a new thread.

Rani Lakshmibai · 05-28-2005, 15:05 PM

Why isn't India among those countries that are jointly trying to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source? Does it have anything to do with the India not signing the NPT thing?

China is there, but India isn't?

oneman28 · 05-28-2005, 18:58 PM

Jay,

Do you know what the shame is?

Who is the guy to start to compare India with other Asian countries?

Confed999 · 05-28-2005, 19:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rani Lakshmibai

Why isn't India among those countries that are jointly trying to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source?

Possible reasons: not enough resources to take on the project as a full partner, lack of intrest knowing it will not be secret technology, they may not have been invited, or maybe they just don't care. What's the difference?

Jay · 05-29-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneman28

Jay,

Do you know what the shame is?

Who is the guy to start to compare India with other Asian countries?

Pfff...if you canonly comprehend English. I just said India is producing more energy thro nuclear power station as a % wise. I didnt name one specific country, and my arguement was throughly oriented towards India.

But your post has nothing related to Indian nuclear power generation, it was blatently Chinese. Get a life and post it in a new thread like the ones you have through out the forum.

Jay · 05-29-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Confed999

Possible reasons: not enough resources to take on the project as a full partner, lack of intrest knowing it will not be secret technology, they may not have been invited, or maybe they just don't care. What's the difference?

Actually India has been pioneering in Thorium fuel based reactors. So instead of spending bulk of its resources on a Fusion projects, Thorium makes much more sense.

Just becoz China invest in it, doesnt mean that India has to follow suit as well.

India may join project on nuclear fusion

By P. Sunderarajan

NEW DELHI, MARCH 20. India is likely to join the highly ambitious project promoted by a select band of countries in the developed world to build a plant to demonstrate the technical viability of nuclear fusion as a source of energy.

The possibility of India's participation in the project has brightened after the Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government, David King, made a proposal here on Thursday that instead of joining as a full member, India could become a partner of Britain. This would help reduce the financial commitment for India.

Speaking to The Hindu , the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, V.S. Ramamurthy, said the offer, which has been made for the first time, was interesting. The Government would consider it. It would engage in further discussions with the U.K. since the financial aspect was not the only issue and many other points have to be sorted out. For instance, the project envisages sharing of information among the participants on technical know-how involved in the setting up of the plant. It remains to be discussed how much information India would be entitled to if it chose to be just a partner of Britain.

The Centre, he said, would also not rule out the possibility of joining the coalition as a full member. The financial commitment required may be high. But, it may be worthwhile, particularly considering that the amount would be spread over about 20 years and part of the payment could be made in kind such as scientific and technical expertise. India had a rich base of manpower, well-versed in nuclear science and technology.0Earlier speaking to a group of reporters, Sir King said that his country was keen that India joined the coalition and strengthened it, as nuclear fusion had the potential to become an important source of energy for mankind in the near future, especially in the context of global warming which was largely due to the use of coal for energy production.

As per current estimates, the project could help make energy generation through fusion a reality in 30 to 35 years and if more money flowed in, the timescale could be furthered shortened. It is also expected that fusion power can provide energy for the next two millennia, given the amount of lithium that is available on ground and deuterium in seawater. (Lithium and deuterium are two key raw materials for nuclear fusion).

Already, scientists have been able to generate 10 times more energy as output compared to input through fusion reaction. But the experiments have all been on a small scale. The international project called ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) seeks to have a facility that would be able to demonstrate the viability on a commercial scale.

The joint committee meeting also discussed the possibility of India participating in an international project, under which a computer-based grid is being set up to help scientists from the countries involved to exchange scientific information. The U.K. is the leading country in the project called `E-Science.' India would need to contribute about £300 million to participate in the project.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/21/stor...2101011100.htm

Confed999 · 05-29-2005, 14:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually India has been pioneering in Thorium fuel based reactors. So instead of spending bulk of its resources on a Fusion projects, Thorium makes much more sense.

Then I would go with the lack of intrest.

konkerer · 05-30-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneman28

big advance for India.

540MW is still too small at today's standard.

India is currently two 1000 MW reactors under construction ( in addition to 5 more reactors of lesser capacity). All these will come online sometime next. That is, by end of next year India will have 22 comercial nuclear reactors in operation.

check out the pictures of construction sites if you like:

http://www.npcil.nic.in/projectsconstruction.asp

The Chap · 02-07-2006, 16:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

No one has answered my question.

If I may ...

I mentioned yonks back in another (now doubtless ancient) thread that Indian CANDU reactors have an appalling safety record and leak tritium into the water supply due to shoddy engineering tolerances (mainly in the thermal cycle and containment vessel).

I assume that this thread is referring to an first all-Indian design/build.

indianguy4u · 02-07-2006, 23:36 PM

rediff

Quote:

Part 1

'A failure on all fronts!'
George Iype

Two weeks before Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in India, senior officials led by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited Chairman and Managing Director V K Chaturvedi visited Moscow.

Their mission was to finalise the multimillion-rupee pact with Russia for setting up India's largest nuclear power plant at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu.

When they returned to their offices at Anushakti Nagar, Bombay, they were excited. They had waited 12 years for the Kudankulam project to materialise. It was in 1988 that Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had signed the energy pact with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Putin's visit was a cause of celebration at NPCIL and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. After years of official apathy and indifference to a programme that was conceived as the torchbearer to India's energy needs, it was finally moving forward.

Despite five decades of research and development, planning and execution, India's record in producing electricity from nuclear plants remains abysmally poor. Today, India is in the select league of nuclear nations. But the electricity it produces from nuclear reactors is less than 3 per cent of the installed capacity.

Contrast this with the production levels in other nations. In France, nuclear plants produce 75 per cent of the country's electricity. In the United States, it is 19.8 per cent, the United Kingdom 28.87 per cent, and Russia 14.41 per cent.

In 1944 Homi Jehangir Bhabha, prime architect of India's atomic energy programme, had predicted that we could become a powerhouse of nuclear energy. But successive governments lacked the vision and enthusiasm to achieve his dream.

The installed capacity of nuclear power in the country today is just 2,280 MW. Or, to put it in perspective, just 2.65 per cent of the total electricity produced in India. After a couple more projects are completed, the capacity is expected to touch 3,000 MW.

INDIA'S nuclear energy production cost is the highest in the world. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission was set up in August 1948, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But when the government felt the nuclear programme was going nowhere, it set up NPCIL in 1987.

According to NPCIL's balance sheets (1994-95 to 1998-99), the corporation has spent Rs 92.43 billion. If we take this as the total cost for producing 2,280 MW of energy, we have spent Rs 450 million for one MW of nuclear energy in the last five years.

The DAE and the NPCIL have now redrafted India' s nuclear energy target. According to their Vision 2020 document, India will have an installed nuclear capacity of 20,000 MW by 2020.

But there has never been any dearth of such papers. Experts say it is not lack of vision or expertise, but skewed government policies that have let down the country's nuclear energy programme.

"The programme certainly should not be left to be run the way it is run at present by the Department of Atomic Energy," says Dr A Gopalakrishnan.

Dr Gopalakrishnan should know. He headed the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from 1993 to 1996. According to him, if India's nuclear power programme remains choked, it is because we have not divided our nuclear activities into civilian and military components.

"Now that India has declared itself a nuclear-weapon power, it is high time we separated our nuclear activities clearly into civilian and military components. Let the civilian work on nuclear power plants be scrutinised and funded like any other power project in terms of investments and returns on investment and, more importantly, on the basis of per kilowatt-hour price for nuclear electricity and what it means to public safety," he says.

Officials put forward various reasons for the malady that has affected the energy programme. Some say that even though the government supported the cause of nuclear power, there has been an acute lack of long-term plans.

"There has been not much budgetary support for the programme. Whatever the government allocated us was just enough to meet the salaries of employees and the maintenance of offices," says a senior NPCIL official.

The budgetary allocation for the nuclear power programme continued at Rs 3 billion annually till 1999. But last year, the government allocated nearly Rs 9.5 billion to the NPCIL.

The change of heart, officials say, was mainly because the Bharatiya Janata Party government was bolstered by the Pokhran nuclear blasts in 1998.

EXPERTS cite two compelling reasons for the stagnation of the energy programme. First, the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1974 and 1988. Second, the hackneyed Indian Atomic Energy Act.

According to NPCIL MD V K Chaturvedi, after the Pokhran tests in 1974, the energy programme suffered because India was isolated.

"The tests stopped the technical aids for setting up nuclear power plants and purchases of reactors. We were forced to prepare everything on our own. It significantly delayed our projects," he says.

Officials say the 1974 tests affected the energy programme even more. International sanctions against India at a time when the country was on the threshold of completing some major projects held it up badly.

"Financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank did not give us aid. So our projects went into the doldrums," Chaturvedi points out.

But what throttled the programme most was the Indian Atomic Energy Act of 1962 (Click for an external link). It prohibits private and public equity from within and outside the country.

The act prescribes that the nuclear programme should be shrouded in secrecy. It provides the DAE enormous powers and the right to withhold any information. The programme, it says, should be run by the DAE with limited participation from private industries.

Thus, the role of industries is limited to that of just vendors, not participants.

Critics call the DAE an 'unaccountable organisation'. "It is neither accountable to Parliament nor to the government," says an official.

"It is only in India that the nuclear power programme is being implemented as a departmental programme by the DAE. Nuclear energy projects should be a national programme like in other countries," he adds.

In the United States, France and Britain, private industries serve as partners in nuclear power generation.

"Our Atomic Energy Act needs to be changed because it does not allow us to attract private industries. Instead of facilitating, the act has stunted the growth of nuclear power projects in the country," Chaturvedi says.

Lack of political will added to the problems hindering energy generation. Particularly, officials point out, the Congress government under P V Narasimha Rao from 1991 to 1996 showed no interest in the projects.

"The Rao government stopped all funding for energy projects. We could set up no plants during this phase," says the NPCIL chairman. "It was total stagnation."

This led to a disastrous result: migration of qualified manpower from nuclear industries to other sectors. In the last two decades, many brilliant scientists and researchers from NPCIL and BARC have joined the private sector.

"Our nuclear energy programme has been a failure on all fronts. We have wasted millions of rupees on a project that is yet to give us any satisfactory results," says Dr A S Cheema, a Madras-based expert.

There are many like him who say the programme can succeed only if it is planned and controlled more tightly, under careful parliamentary and financial scrutiny and adhering to international safety norms.

"Our nuclear power programme lacks transparency," Dr Cheema adds.

What worries experts is not the fact that an ambitious programme has become a white elephant, but the reality that some plants are disasters-in-the-make.

indianguy4u · 02-07-2006, 23:37 PM

rediff

Quote:

Part 2
A Chernobyl can happen in India anytime
George Iype

Bombay, India. 1430 hours, Thursday, April 14, 2001.

An explosion in Trombay rocks the city. Tremors are felt at the Bombay Stock Exchange, the city's financial hub, some 25km away.

Minutes later a ball of fire engulfs parts of Bombay. The wind whips it about. Pedestrians fall down. The sea swells angrily. There is chaos like never before...

This reads very much like the nuclear apocalypse that Humphrey Hawksley describes in Dragon Fire. But it can come true.

A Chernobyl-type accident can take place at India's nuclear power plants. Anytime.

The threat is real because India is the only country in the world where nuclear research and plutonium production occur near crowded areas.

Some reactors operate beyond danger levels. For instance, the emergency cooling system at the atomic power plants in Madras and Rajasthan are inadequate. The reactors in Tarapur are outmoded and, according to experts, should be closed down immediately.

The country's first nuclear power plant, the Tarapur Atomic Power Station, has two reactors -- TAPS 1 and 2. These were constructed with technical assistance from the United States in 1969. Nowhere in the world do such outmoded reactors function.

Adequate cooling systems and tube failures have forced the authorities to lower the load on the TAPS reactors from 210 MW to 160 MW. They have also discontinued the use of nitrogen to make the containment safe.

With such blatant violations of safety norms, experts warn the reactors could melt down and explode anytime.

For proof, look at what happened at Narora in 1993. The Narora Atomic Power Station was commissioned in 1991. But the failure of two steam turbine blades resulted in a major fire in one of the heavy water reactors, which nearly led to a nuclear meltdown.

The US-based General Electric, the manufacturers of the turbines, had warned about the problem and offered a revised design. But neither the government nor the Department of Atomic Energy found it prudent to effect these changes.

LIKE Tarapur and Narora, the other nuclear power reactors across the country have dangerous flaws. Which is why experts say that nuclear accidents like those at Chernobyl in Russia in 1986 and at Tokaimura in Japan should be lessons for India's nuclear establishment.

"There could be lesser accidents which could still release moderate amounts of radioactivity into the crowded areas surrounding some of our less-safe installations at Madras, Trombay or Tarapur. It could be devastating to a large number of people," says Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

For instance, says Dr Gopalakrishnan, the Madras Atomic Power Station reactors at Kalpakam, situated just outside the city, are operated without proper emergency cooling systems.

For their part, the authorities claim that Indian nuclear power plants abide by international regulations on radioactive emissions and safety standards.

The debate today is whether India should promote nuclear energy production when the rest of the world is closing down reactors in view of safety and environmental concerns.

According to S P Udayakumar, research associate and co-director of programmes at the Institute on Race and Poverty, University of Minnesota in the United States the stress has now shifted from nuclear power plants.

For instance, Commonwealth Edison, the largest private operator of nuclear plants in the US, has just announced the closure of two of its plants in Zion, Illinois, because of economic reasons.

The company's Quad Cities plant near Molline, Illinois, was shut down late last year due to safety concerns. Only four of the company's 12 plants currently generate electricity.

Northeast Utilities, another nuclear generator that owns three nuclear plants at Waterford, Connecticut, also recently suspended the efforts to reopen its oldest unit.

"If cost considerations and safety concerns oblige the wealthy and highly advanced American nuclear industry, one can imagine the predicaments India could face on both these fronts," says Udayakumar.

IN India, the nuclear power industry faces the problem of storing spent fuel. The threat to life and environment too is great.

It is not that India is not addressing the safety concerns. After the Narora accident in 1993, the government entrusted the AERB to study the issue. In 1995, the AERB, then headed by Dr Gopalakrishnan, produced a secret report, Safety issues in DEA installations.

It contained 134 safety suggestions and was accepted by the Atomic Energy Commission, which passed it on to the DAE for corrective steps.

The report, which is still a classified document, had identified many serious deficiencies in our initial installations, the plants that were set up in 1979 and 1987 by the DAE.

Shockingly, these deficiencies are yet to be rectified.

According to Dr Gopalakrishnan, the 1995 report find the safety levels in some of India's installations well below the international norms.

"The DAE is postponing the repairs because of several reasons. In some cases, it will necessitate very long shutdown of a facility. In certain others, spare parts and equipment are denied to India," he says.

DESPITE such concerns, NPCIL officials say India has a very good safety record. They rule out a Chernobyl anywhere in India.

"The Chernobyl accident occurred due to the negligence of operators who violated safety procedures," says NPCIL Chairman and Managing Director V K Chaturvedi. "Besides, the reactor was a totally different type. It employed graphite as a moderator. Graphite is a form of carbon and its combustible property contributed to explosion in the reactor core.

"In our nuclear plants explosion in the core is ruled out as it is cooled and moderated," he adds.

He is of the opinion that the safety features in India are adequate. "We have given paramount importance to the safety of the staff, public and environment. Safety experts and regulatory personnel are associated at all operations of nuclear power plants," he says.

Chaturvedi may be confident, but there are many other experts who are not. They warn that explosions and meltdowns are waiting to happen in our plants. And then, they say, the Indian nuclear establishment's confidence of being "the bomb-maker" will not help.

indianguy4u · 02-07-2006, 23:38 PM

rediff

Quote:

Part 3

The Russian Connection
George Iype

Russian President Vladimir Putin attracted considerable international attention when he visited the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, the nerve centre of India's nuclear establishment.

The first Russian president to do so, Putin's gesture and public announcement that Moscow is willing to extend co-operation in this sphere to New Delhi virtually broke the international nuclear blockade against India.

The reverberations of Putin's visit can be felt far away, down South, at Kudankulam village in Tamil Nadu. It is here that India's largest nuclear power plant is coming up -- with technical aid from Russia.

It is for the 2,000 MW Kudankulam Nuclear Power Station that India has signed a US $ 3.1 billion (Rs 114 billion) deal with Russia. Russia will deliver two standard high-pressure VVER 1,000 water-cooled and water-moderated reactors that will produce 1,000 MW power per unit.

To begin with, Moscow will extend a US $2.6 billion credit to India at four per cent annual interest to be paid back over 12 years, after the first reactor is commissioned. The credit would be returned in hard currency and clearing dollars. Both sides are yet to decide on the exact proportion of the repayment scheme.

Twenty-three atomic energy institutions in Russia are now working on the Kudankulam project. According to the agreement, Russia will supply all equipment and material, including fuel for the entire life of the power station. India need only construct access roads and buildings and take care of other support activities.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited will manage the Kudankulam project.

IT was in 1988 that then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi signed the deal in Delhi. Since then, Russia has been lobbying to finalise the pact. But a section of officials at the Department of Atomic Energy had sternly opposed it.

"It is incredulous that India had the courage to ink the deal in 1988, just two years after the nightmarish Chernobyl accident," says S P Udayakumar, an anti-nuclear activist who founded the Group for Peaceful Indian Ocean in 1988 to educate the public against nuclear weapons.

Critics argue that the nuclear energy pact will only boost the Russian nuclear industry. "Nuclear power generation in India has not succeeded because it requires stable grids. The existing grids in the country cannot handle the output of a 1000 MW unit from Kudankulam. So there is no logic in going ahead with the deal," says a senior DAE official.

They say the Kudankulam project will harm India's autonomous nuclear programme, break the country's control of the nuclear fuel cycle and create unnecessary dependency.

The deal had dragged for the past 12 years because a section of DEA officials and successive governments at the Centre cold-shouldered it. Another reason was pressure from the United States.

And the Americans have been open about it. In 1997, US President Bill Clinton pressured his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin at the Helsinki Summit to refrain from building the reactors in Kudankulam. The same year, American Vice-President Al Gore took the issue up with then Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin during a session of the bilateral joint commission.

Again, in June 1998, soon after India exploded the nuclear bombs, the US publicly said that the Russian decision to build nuclear reactors in Kudankulam was not good news, that it sent the "wrong signal at the wrong time".

Then US state department spokesman James Rubin said: "Even before the latest test, we urged Russia not to proceed with the reactor sale to India, as it is not consistent with Russia's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group [which should] not to sell reactors to countries that don't have the so-called full scope safeguards on all facilities."

THE Indo-Russia deal has, thus, stirred up a heated debate. Many ask a crucial question: Why is India depending on Russia for nuclear power reactors? Why Russia?

Official sources claim India agreed to purchase the technology not because of its superiority but because Russia has smartly linked the nuclear reactor purchase with other defence deals. This includes purchase of T-90 tanks for the Indian army, the SU-30 planes for the air force and the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian navy.

A top-ranking defence official said that India is planning to purchase a nuclear submarine reactor and that the purchase of the reactors would help in this.

But experts see no technical merit in India going for the VVER 1,000 reactors. When the idea of the purchase came up a decade ago, the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board had expressed misgivings. In the past, many European countries have abandoned the VVER 1,000 reactors because they have problems with pressure vessels, emergency shutdown systems and team generators.

"The reactors that Russia is going to export to us will be difficult to maintain," says a senior AERB official.

The official adds that in 1997, Dr Alexy Yablokov, Chairman of the Russian National Ecological Security Council, had admitted that the Russian reactors were 'highly unsafe.'

BUT proponents of the Kudankulam project are confident that the two reactors would add substantially to the southern grid and promote social and economic development in the region.

"The Russian reactors are superior in quality and safety standards," says S K Jain, director of the Kudankulam project.

Immediately after the Chernobyl accident, Jain continues, European countries had shut down the reactors supplied by Russia saying its nuclear power programme was very secret, full of defects and had many grey areas.

"But then the Russians opened up and presented their reactors to the international community. Now there is no need for us to worry about the safety and health aspects," he concludes.

But while Indian officials go ahead with such claims, Russians themselves admit that they do not have the money and resources to manage some of their outmoded reactors.

In April last year, Sergei N Ivanov, director general of the Russian Electric Power Company that operates 29 nuclear power plants, said his enterprise "lacked money to pay workers, perform maintenance and repairs, inspect crucial pipes and even buy fuel."

"At times the plants have only two or three days of fuel on hand," he said.

The New York Times reported on April 12, 1999: 'The Russian company would like to close nine of its older reactors, but it says it has no money for decommissioning them. It says its best prospect for earning that money is build additional reactors and sell the power.'

If Kudankulam is an example of that, India is at the receiving end of Russian nuclear business.

indianguy4u · 02-07-2006, 23:39 PM

rediff

Quote:

Part 4

'India's interest is not electricity, but
nuclear bombs'
George Iype and S P Udayakumar

Newcomers attract immediate attention in steaming Kundankulam. Enquiries about the nuclear power project pull a good crowd.

Everyone is willing to talk. And, justifiably, anxious about their future.

It is in this village in Tamil Nadu that India's first nuclear power plant in more than a decade will come up. The Kudankulam Atomic Power Station, a $ 3 billion project, will be built in five years using the Russian VVER 1,000 reactors.

The people are bitter about how the government acquired land for the project. Compensation, they say, was pathetically inadequate -- just Rs 2,000 per acre and another Rs 100 for each cashew tree on the land.

There were tamarind trees too, which used to fetch them "approximately Rs 2,000 every year". The plots were taken in the 1980s -- and with it went the only asset that many families had.

Did the locals know what they were getting into when the land was taken? No. Many say they were not even told about the hazards of radiation.

Some were hopeful of swapping their land for government jobs. A decade later, they are slowly waking up to the reality that there won't be any jobs -- and worse, they might be evicted from the area.

THERE are, of course, people who are very enthusiastic about the project.

The reason could be that they have their eye on winning some contract or the other when the construction begins. The tension between these would-be-entrepreneurs and the anxious landless is very much visible.

Then there is a third group that continuously leaks Didn't-I-tell-you-so rhetoric. Hadn't they, they say, warned their fellow villagers to be careful about selling their land? Hadn't they said that no good would come to them out of it? Of course they had! And now look what is happening!

In the face of such divisions and confusion, civic courage gives way to superstition and resignation. The 'believers' point out that then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, who signed the deal with the Soviet Union, was killed, and that H D Deve Gowda, who revived the project, lost his prime ministership immediately thereafter.

Besides the confused and the contended, there are a few groups in Kudankulam that are now actively opposing the project. Thangathurai Swami, who manages the Narayanaswami temple on his family land that lies inside the project compound, has steadfastly refused to sell his land.

As he puts it, "I cannot sell my God and the temple."

Muthukumaraswamy, a retired schoolteacher, has also said 'no' to the government. He filed a suit in the Tirunelveli district court. Besides highlighting the inadequate compensation, Muthukumaraswami says farming land and burial grounds should not be taken for industrial initiatives.

There is a group called the Nuclear Power Opposition Group in Kudankulam. Their activity, however, is limited to publishing occasional handbills.

IF Kudankulam is indecisive, the surrounding villages and towns are not any better.

There are many social service organisations in Meignanapuram, Nanguneri and in Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Madurai districts, but they are not fully into the fight against the plant.

In Kanyakumari district, the Social Action Movement carries out awareness campaigns. D Mathias of SAM and Reverend Y David of the Samathuva Samuthaya Iyakkam, loosely translated as Social Equality Movement, have been educating the public about the dangers of nuclear power projects since 1988.

The Palmyrah Workers' Development Society of Dr Samuel Amirtham and the Peace Association for Social Action of Dr Gnana Robinson are two other organisations that are in the fight.

The fear of radioactive contamination is what figures prominently in these groups' campaigns. Environmental dangers, health risks and nuclear waste disposal issues are also raised. The impending diversion of water from the Pechipparai Dam for the project is also a grave concern among the farmers of Kanyakumari district and adjacent areas.

The people are more or less certain that the government will go ahead with the project -- and if there is an accident, it would eventually be closed down.

"It is the general trend of our times that people ignore warnings but feel sorry and make amends when disasters strike," comments Dr S Thasan, a retired Tamil professor of Marthandam Christian College.

One reason why the movements have not really been successful is because they have failed to debate the alternatives to nuclear power in the larger framework of national development. Numerous windmills that produce electricity profitably surround the proposed site. Unfortunately, the protesters have not focussed upon the rewards of such renewable energy systems.

IT is true that the southern districts of Tamil Nadu are industrially backward and could use some economic boost.

But what do the people want? Do they want to depend on industries instead of the traditional agricultural? Are they interested in a modern 'big-bang' solution for the intractable problem of underdevelopment?

Ask these questions and you will get deafening silence.

Even as anti-nuke activists mount pressure on the authorities, many commoners say that some good will come out of it -- like, they will get continuous electricity, will they not?

"We have frequent power cuts here. The nuclear plant coming up there will make our fans run," says Murugappa Devan, looking at the motionless fan in his medical shop.

Residents like Devan have another hope -- that "the electricity factory" would bring jobs to their children.

In the past three years, officials of the Atomic Energy Commission have been educating the villagers about the benefits of nuclear energy. But doubts remain -- the VVER-type reactors are dangerous, claim anti-nuclear activists.

Project Director S K Jain, however, does not believe so. After a recent visit to Moscow, Jain is working hard to ensure that construction commences early in 2001.

Talk about the Chernobyl accident and Jain says: "It is not fair to always mention Chernobyl whenever we plan a nuclear power plant in the country. Environmental safety and people's health are our utmost priority. Kudankulam power project will bring us glory and lots of electricity."

Despite such claims there are questions that the Atomic Energy Commission has not answered.

Questions like why did the government opt for a multi-million nuclear power project when electricity could be produced safely from alternative sources from across Kudankulam and the neighbouring villages?

"India has given away Kudankulam to Russian experimentation because our government's interest is not in electricity but in promoting the country's secret nuclear designs," says Mallika Rajendran, a social activist in Kudankulam.

Rajendran says the authorities never conducted any study on the environmental impact of a nuclear project in a place like Kudunkulam, which is close to the sea.

"Radioactive contamination will spread like wild fire because Kudankulam has the largest number of windmills in the country," she says.

Rajendran and her colleagues are now making their final stand. Every day, they hold roadside public meetings in Kudankulam to present their case.

Work on the project, meanwhile, is expected to commence on schedule.

indianguy4u · 02-07-2006, 23:42 PM

rediff

Quote:

Part 5
Is a Chernobyl imminent in India?

Senior Associate Editor George Iype discussed that question with two proponents of nuclear energy and an anti-nuke voice. They had diverse views.

Dr A Gopalakrishnan, chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from 1993 to 1996, holds the apex Department of Atomic Energy responsible for all the ills plaguing India's nuclear power projects. Read his views.

The credit for whipping up a people's movement against the controversial Kudankulam project should go to S P Udayakumar. He is a research associate and co-director of programs at the Institute on Race and Poverty, University of Minnesota. A native of Kanyakumari district in Tamil Nadu, he is engaged in an unorganised struggle against the project. He terms the nuclear power programme a "money-wasting disaster". Read his views.

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited Chairman and Managing Director V K Chaturvedi is responsible for all nuclear power plants in India. Chaturvedi scoffs at the allegation that our plants do not conform to safety norms.Read his views.

This is the last part of this series.

Quote:

'I do not think nuclear plants are polluting and a threat to people's health'
V K Chaturvedi

Rediff: How do you assess India as a nuclear power producing country?

Chaturvedi: India was one of the few countries that started work on nuclear power at a very early stage. We started work in 1955. Some five decades back we developed the technology for uranium processing, making of the fuel, waste management, reprocessing and taking out plutonium. By 1965, we were ready with the basic technology to sustain a close-cycle nuclear power programme.

But when the implementation stage came, a number of difficulties cropped up. Our industry was not ready to take up the manufacturing of sophisticated equipment, which were required. The standard to which they had to raise their manufacturing expertise was too much. So we started giving them lots of assistance, financial and technical.

But despite all our efforts, today we are producing just three per cent of the power of the total installed capacity in the country. It is too less in comparison to the time that went in working on developing the nuclear energy.

Rediff: In 1985, the Indian government released a plan to produce 10,000 MW of nuclear power by 2000. But today it is nowhere near the target. What happened?

Chaturvedi: After our first nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1974, we were isolated. The international community imposed so many sanctions on us that nobody wanted to give us any transfer of technology for nuclear energy. The technical aid suddenly stopped. So we were forced to prepare everything in our own country. Even financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank did not give us any aid. So our nuclear programme had to depend on the government.

Then there was another problem. The Indian Atomic Energy Act of 1962 prohibits us from going for any private or public equity for the nuclear programme. So we had to depend solely on the government for money. In 1987 we found that the government was unable to give us the needed money. Therefore, a new company, the NPCIL was set up.

NPCIL was allowed to go for borrowing through bonds and loans from financial institutions. Our nuclear power programme in fact started to expand only after the setting up of NPCIL, which has installed eight nuclear power units across the country.

But we had also to face many problems at NPCIL. For instance, the P V Narasimha Rao government stopped all funding for nuclear power projects because of some strange reasons. The years from 1991 to 1996 were a period of total dryness and stagnation. No nuclear power plant came up during this period.

Rediff: Were the nuclear power programmes affected after the second Pokhran tests in 1998? Has the government renewed its interest after Pokhran II?

Chaturvedi: Yes. Now the government is showing tremendous interest in the programme. But after Pokhran II, we had to face many problems because of sanctions and international ban on the transfer of technology.

Rediff: Has the government increased the budgetary allocation for the nuclear power programme?

Chaturvedi: Yes, yes, it has. The allocation for us used to be around Rs 300 crore [3 billion] annually. It was just sufficient to pay the salaries. But last year, the government allocated nearly Rs 1,000 crore [10 billion]. This money is also nothing considering the fact that our aim is to add at 700 MW of power every year. For that we require a budgetary allocation of Rs 4,000 crore [40 billion] every year.

Rediff: World norms of nuclear reactor sizes are of 1,000 to 1,500 MW while India's reactor capacity is between 220 MW and 500 MW? Don't you think we are far behind in harnessing nuclear power because we still use the old technology?

Chaturvedi: You are correct. There are two reasons for that. One, our grids are very slim. Our grids used to have a capacity of just 8,000 MW. Now they have increased to 18,000 MW. So we could not attach a big mega watt of electricity to the grid. If we did that, it would collapse. That is why we went in for smaller reactors, which are good for our grids. Another problem is that in India heavy water reactors cannot be made more than 600 MW capacity. We do not have the infrastructure in our country to go for bigger reactors. Fabrication and transportation problems are always nagging us.

Rediff: Do you think nuclear power is a safe and environmentally clean source of power generation? Will it be the largest source of energy for India in the future?

Chaturvedi: Under normal operating conditions, the nuclear plants are safe and environmentally sound. I do not think nuclear plants are polluting and a threat to people's health. A plant generally emits two to three per cent radiation to the people living in the surrounding areas.

But that is nothing. You get that much radiation from the nature every day. You go to Rajasthan, the radiation that you would get from rivers and sands is much more. See, once you go to New York and come back, whatever radiation dose you get in the journey will be the same as the radiation that a man who is sitting 24 hours just outside our plants.

A Chernobyl-type of accident is impossible in a country like India. The heavy water reactors in India have been made in such a way that they have a number of layers of water around the fuel. Adequate safety features in the plant are provided to ensure its safe operation. Paramount importance is given in setting up of nuclear power installations, to the safety of operating staff, public and environment. Safety experts and regulatory personnel are associated at all levels.

Four hundred and forty-four reactors are operating today in the world. In all the countries, the types of accidents and safety norms are reviewed by the United Nations. We never had a major accident at our plants.

Rediff: Some proponents of the nuclear energy programme have expressed reservations about the nuclear plants in the country. For instance, they say the two reactors at Tarapur are unsafe and should be closed immediately.

Chaturvedi: There are reasons for this statement. The Tarapore reactors are very old. But I should say they are not dangerous. These reactors were checked by an international team of experts and were found safe. We are implementing most of the safety recommendations from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

Rediff: Don't you think there is too much secrecy surrounding our nuclear energy programme? The AERB's safety recommendations still remain a secret.

Chaturvedi: There is no secrecy in our nuclear power programme. But I do not know why the safety recommendations are not made public. We are transparent. You go to our site on the Internet and you find all the details about our projects and specifications. Critics claim our plants are unsafe because they take out minor incidents and exaggerate.

05-28-2005, 13:54 PM	#16 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 6,191 Country:	Oneman, If you havent noticed, we are discussing about Indian nuclear power plants here, so please remove your post and if you wish open a new thread. __________________ A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

05-28-2005, 15:05 PM	#17 (permalink)
Rani Lakshmibai Banished Join Date: 05-13-05 Location: Mississauga, Canada (but from Kerala, India) Posts: 156	Why isn't India among those countries that are jointly trying to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source? Does it have anything to do with the India not signing the NPT thing? China is there, but India isn't?

05-28-2005, 18:58 PM	#18 (permalink)
oneman28 Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 02-20-05 Posts: 894	Jay, Do you know what the shame is? Who is the guy to start to compare India with other Asian countries?