Nuclear energy requires evacuation plans
I agree that nuclear energy has great potential to give sufficient energy supplies to countries. At the same time, we need to think about the safety of the people who are residing around the nuclear energy plants, especially as we marked the thirtieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster last week. Since I am from Tamil Nadu, India I know about Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in the Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu. Although, there was an objection from the local people, the construction on the plant began on March 31, 2002. In 2011, thousands from the vicinity of the plant protested against it because they were worried that a nuclear disaster like the ones that happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine or Fukushima, Japan. Protesters believe that evacuation of the people in the event of a nuclear disaster would be impossible and that the nuclear plant was unsafe. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in 2011 with the Supreme Court asking for nuclear power development to be delayed until safety concerns were independently assessed. In May 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plant, stating that the nuclear power plant was in the larger public interest. Finally, it was synchronised with the Southern power grid in October 2013.
As the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of plant, stating that the nuclear power plant was in the larger public interest, the Indian government should assure the safety of the people. No disaster should happen. But if it happens, who is it going to affect? Precautionary actions should be taken by the government. At this time, I remember the Bhopal Gas tragedy in India. Still, the people in Bhopal are affected by what was one of the worst industrial tragedies the world has ever seen.
From Mr T. A. Palani
UAE
Time to learn
Chernobyl might have happened 30 years ago, but we can still see the affects till date. Some women who were exposed to radiations are giving birth to babies with deformities or are facing problems themselves. Let us not forget the damage such forms of energy can cause if not managed professionally. The people, the land, the trees - everything gets contaminated. I hope that we learn from these disasters and don’t simply continue making the same mistakes.
From Ms Anna Krosova
Abu Dhabi
Great benefits and risks
Nuclear energy is indeed a cost competitive and greener way of harnessing energy. As of today, nuclear energy is one of the most environmentally friendly sources of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants. Nuclear power plants provide a stable base load of energy. This can work in tandem with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The electricity production from the plants can be lowered when good wind and solar resources are available and increased when the demand is high.
While being environmentally friendly is the big plus of nuclear energy, disposal of radioactive waste and protecting people and environment from its radiations are big negatives of nuclear energy. The nuclear power plants emit negligible amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, the processes in the nuclear fuel chain such as mining, enrichment and waste management does emit radioactive waste, which can pose a threat to the environment and is dangerous for humans, plants and animals. We all remember the Chernobyl accident, where the harmful effects of nuclear radiation on humans can be witnessed even today.
From Ms Arushi Madan
Sharjah
How many more lives?
Not only was Chernobyl a huge disaster, what baffles me is that very little effort was made to contain the damage. Diffferent parties seem to give very different numbers on the number of people who suffered and continue to suffer because of it but Green Peace said 900,000 people will die due to the explosion at the nuclear plant. So many years down the line, we still have accidents happening at nuclear power plants in different countries. How many more lives are we willing to risk? We need a stronger global body that can put human lives above everything else and implement the strictest regulations. We all need diffderent sources of energy but the risk involved with harvesting nuclear energy cannot be overstated.
From Mr Brian K.
Manama, Bahrain
Ensuring nuclear safety
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines nuclear safety as, “the achievement of proper operating conditions, prevention of accidents and mitigation of accident consequences, resulting in protection of workers, the public and the environment from undue radiation hazards.”
In the past, the world has witnessed disasters, which have caused the loss of life and property whereby, spreading nuclear radiation. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986, resulted in over 50 direct deaths and more than 4,000 deaths due to slow radiation poisoning and compelling over 300,000 people to evacuate the city. Countries harnessing nuclear technology must at all times protect their facilities and plants and must be ready for any unforeseen incident where the nuclear reactor could be damaged by a natural disaster, a human error, or a terrorist attack. Nuclear safety, therefore, is paramount. Proper working conditions must be ensured at all times. Moreover, the concerned authorities must construct the nuclear facility in such a way that it minimises the threat of nuclear leaks to keep the residents safe while giving them ample evacuation time if needed.
From Mr M. Omar Iftikhar
Karachi, Pakistan
Safety, security and toxic waste
Whether we like it or not, we need or will need more nuclear power. The critical part of this is three-fold: Safety, security and toxic waste. These are the matters that demand the focus of our attention. Safety includes properly managed construction and operation with the most suitable of materials and thorough risk analysis at every level and at every stage. Security is obvious, but it’s to ensure that a nuclear plant isn’t attacked or so that nuclear materials aren’t stolen for misuse.
Behind the scenes, enrichment and the production of weapons grade material is not permitted to happen. We have enough global nuclear arsenal. Toxic waste is a sensitive issue. More needs to be done to provide 100 to 200 years of safe enclosure. This is one area where other disposal techniques need developing.
People are very critical of nuclear power, especially after Chernobyl and Fukushima. The latter is in a seismic area and a plant should never have been built there. The former possibly due to poor maintenance as a result of a struggling economy at that time.
It would be nice if we could be reliant upon solar, wind, wave, geothermal and hydro-electric power generation, but until our technological skills advance sufficiently, we will need nuclear much more as we rely less upon fossil fuels.
From Mr David Woodward
Dubai
An economical source
Nuclear energy has become taboo in everyday conversation. The two major accidents in the power plants that happened in Chernobyl in 1986 and in Fukushima in 2011 have implanted fear in our minds. However, research suggests that nuclear power plants have fewer externalities and they are more economical than other means of producing electricity.
There have been only three major accidents in nuclear plants in the span of almost 50 years with only the Chernobyl accident having the highest negative impacts. IAEA report of June 2011 suggests that there have not been any major health or environmental effect of the leakage of nuclear power plants in Japan. Far more accidents occur in the coal mines and electricity produced through fossil fuel. Commercial nuclear plants can also never explode like a nuclear bomb as the fuel is not enhanced more than five per cent. Moreover, safety measures in design, implementation and waste disposal are improving with time.
However, nuclear power plants are not risk free. Authorities must ensure that operators are taking proper measures in handling this energy source.
From Ms Fareeha Sultana
UAE
A necessary evil
It has somehow astonishingly been a topic that has been overshadowed by other topics, some of a lesser importance. Anything that includes the word nuclear in it should be a met with a blaring warning alarm and a bright ‘handle with care’ sign.
As we have seen 30 years ago in Chernobyl, nuclear leaks are considered an event with the highest possible classification. This leads to concerns that should be raised on a global level since there are currently 30 countries that harbour 438 nuclear power plants. There is a need to implement much stronger nuclear safety rules and spend more money in the perfection of those safety plans rather than having to spend greater amounts on a leak or another nuclear disaster.
I personally think that other much safer modes of alternate energy should be adopted, modified, experimented and implemented rather than nuclear energy so as to eradicate the potential risks that this method brings along with it. Knowing that this is not an immediate possibility, I would like to suggest increasing the safety or at the least ensuring that the nuclear plants are built as far away from civilian populations as possible.
From Mr Syed Sadique
Dubai
Editor’s note: Is there a news report that you feel strongly about? Something that has to be addressed in the community and requires resolution? Email us on readers@gulfnews.com. You can also post a comment on our Facebook page or tweet to us @GNReaders.
