University of Tokyo, March 2, 2012

Nuclear energy development inIndia, China, and ASEAN:
Challenges after Fukushima
T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore

1Nuclear Energy in India
Homi Bhabha, Pandit Nehru, and India’s three-stage nuclear
program.
 Thorium utilization for long term energy security, and heavy
water reactor development to avoid expensive & technicallydifficult uranium enrichment path.
 Canada’s contribution to India; USA, Britain, France. NPT,India’s 1974 tests & international isolation.
 Slow growth of nuclear program, indigenous development ofpower program and nuclear fuel cycle; uranium shortage anddifficulties.
2

DAE’s (Bhabha’s) Vision
Stage 1Stage 2

Stage 3Reactor TypePHWR

LMFBR

LMFBR/HWR

FuelNatural Uranium

U-Pu (oxide/carbide/metal)

Thorium-Uranium

Resource Potential~340 GWe-yr~16,000 GWe-yr~168,000 GWe-yr

3

Reconnecting with the world
July 2005: Expansion of bilateral trade and commerce inspace, civil nuclear energy and dual-use technology.
 American motivation: Adjusting to new realities
 India’s motivation: ending nuclear isolation and access toNSG; confluence of strategic interests
 Political costs: Short term difficulties with Iran and uncertainty
over gas pipeline. China’s concerns about emerging India-USrelationship.
 Nuclear Expansion: With obstacles to uranium access andtechnology imports removed, India plans to add 20,000 MWe
nuclear capacity on line by 2020 and 63,000 MWe by 2032. It
aims to supply 25% of electricity from nuclear sources by 2050.
4

Operational reactors

Reactors under construction

Geography of planned expansion

7

India: Energy and Electricity Overview

Electricity production in 2009 tripled from 1990 level. But one third is lost in T&D and theft. Per
capita consumption is 500 kWhr. The next five year plan (2012-2017) targets adding at least
100 GWe—mostly coal, and some gas. Nuclear will add 3.4 GWe.

Nuclear Reactors and Seismic Zones

Source: http://maptd.com/map/earthquake_activity_vs_nuclear_power_plants/

Japan’s quake history

Graphical plots (generated by Mathematica 8) show magnitude 6 and above quakes in the last 30 years.

Earthquakes (>5R) in 30 years

Graphical plots (generated by Mathematica 8) show magnitude 5 and above quakes in the last 30 years.
11Earthquakes (>6R) in 30 years

Graphical plots (generated by Mathematica 8) show magnitude 6 and above quakes in the last 30 years.
12Earthquakes (>6R) in 30 years

Graphical plots (generated by Mathematica 8) show magnitude 5 and above quakes in the last 30 years.
13China earthquakes in 30 years

14

ASEAN earthquakes (>6R) in 30years

15

ASEAN earthquakes (>5R) in 30years

16China’s nuclear energy plans

In 2007, State Council adopted the ‘Nuclear Energy Mid-term and LongTerm Development Plan 2005-2020” which set the target to reach 40
GW of total nuclear installed capacity by 2020. In early 2008, thisnumber was raised up to 60 GW until in 2010 the former head of energy
commission Zhang Guobao announced the goal for Chinese nuclear
power plants to reach 86 GW by 2020.
Fukushima-Daiichi crisis has moderated Chinese government plans andforced the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) tostop issuing licenses for new nuclear plants and initiated inspections forexisting plants.
Fukushima crisis will enhance higher levels of security standards andmore careful assessment of nuclear power plants construction sites.

17China’s nuclear energy plansChinese nuclear power plants under operation are located in the coastal
area. Before Fukushima, there was a strong shift in selecting new sites
for the nuclear power plants: a lot of projects were proposed for theinland provinces. It was a part of the plan to reallocate more industrial
production sites in the less developed areas, and bridge the gap
between developed Eastern and developing Western China.
Xianing (Hubei province) was supposed to be the first inland nuclear
power plant. CGNPC has chosen this site for construction of two blocks
with AP-1000 reactors by 2015, construction had to start in 2011.
After Fukushima nuclear disaster, this project sparked a lot of concerns:
experts warned that the plant could be damaged by the water floods as itis close to the Yangtze river basin.

18

New Challenges to Public
Policy•Traditional public policy challenges
••
•

•

•

Can public interest be served by current regulation and standards?
Does nuclear make economic sense compared to other sources?
Managing local communities and displaced people affected by nuclear
projects
Nuclear proliferation: international security challenges posed by nuclear
fuel cycle facilities

New public policy challenges••••

Institutional reforms to achieve better regulation and standards, andemergency planning.
New economic difficulties due to higher risk premiums and nuclear
liability issues.
Managing new constituencies outside of the local/displaced groups
Differing challenges in democracies and other political setups.

Nuclear Regulation PostFukushima
•••••

•

Regulatory capture and transparency in nuclear safety and regulatory
function, including lessons learnt from Fukushima and other countries.
In the case of Japan, nuclear regulation is shared by three agencies:
The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan (NSC); Nuclear Industrial
Safety Agency (NISA; Nuclear Safety Division.
During the 2011 Fukushima crisis, coordination and consistency wasmore difficult to achieve.
Fukushima highlights several considerations necessary for acomprehensive and coherent regulatory framework.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the principles of good
regulation — independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability.
Impact of Fukushima in reforming regulatory functions has become
even more urgent in India. India’s nuclear regulation is inadequate.

Technology Challenges PostFukushima•

Traditional technology challenges•••

Reactor safety based design philosophy of “defense in depth” to provides aseries of physical protection barriers against accidental release ofradioactivity to avoid LOCA and minimise the chances of core damage.
Acceptable way to dispose of the radioactive waste generated by nuclearpower plants. Reactors in the United States are projected by 2020 toproduce a quantity of nuclear waste of the order of 80,000 metric tons ofheavy metal (uranium, plutonium, or thorium equivalent) of spent nuclear fueland other nuclear waste. The comparable worldwide estimate is about
450,000 metric tons.
Environmental impact of low level radiation is yet to generate the same levelof interest or anxiety like the first two challenges. These include thermal
pollution and low-level release of radioactivity into the air and ground waters
caused by the normal operation of nuclear-power and reprocessing plants.

Technology Challenges Post
Fukushima•

New technology challenges•Reactor safety and environmental issues will have to provide adequate
reactor safety assurance beyond design basis accidents to include
external events.
In US, licensing process external events including seismic activity andflooding from various sources were considered. Japan perhaps
overlooked the external factors by emphasising engineered safetyfeatures.
Fukushima is likely to result in a more careful look at siting, which
provides design independent safety. How to ensure safety when all AC
power is lost?
Challenges for India’s nuclear expansion: siting, public acceptance;
regulation, safety concerns, international cooperation, and financing.

•••

Fear, perception, and attitudes
Public fear about getting cancer and dying from radiation
sources.
 Nuclear fear is the residual equivalent of human response to
the unknown.
 Earlier societies have responded to unknown in mostly
irrational way.
 Current societal response to nuclear risks cannot bedismissed as irrational.
 Science of radiation and cancer risk poses tremendous
challenges for public perception and regulatory oversight.
23

Health Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation(Source: Singer, University of Illinois)• Most exposures of people to radiation have been too low to produce
prompt radiation sickness.
• Our understanding of the health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing
radiation comes primarily from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors,and other studies (fetal exposure, Chernobyl; smokers; breast cancer
diagnosis; mice studies, and background radiation studies).
• Doubling or tripling of background radiation levels has nostatistically clear effect on public health overall.
• However, it cannot be precluded that extrapolation of atomic
bomb survivor effects to low doses predicts increased mortality due toincreased low-level radiation, with producing an overestimate bya factor of 3 or less for the general population, and an accurate
estimate for exposure of children.
24