Iijm 2014 05 28 041

IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 1

Abstract
India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with a worlds second largest population of 1.2 billion people; to
sustain its strength in both economic front and industrial front, it needs to strengthen its power sector with a strong power
production capability which is one of the major concerns of India. India is looking for new sustainable ways to power its energy
shortage by Nuclear Energy (NE) to minimise the carbon emission levels to a substantial levels that can reduce volatile fossil
fuel price and by controlling the effects on climate change. This paper will be focusing on the future prospects of Indias NE in
contributing to the nations shortage of power; and to what extent India can adopt to the usage of NE for generating electricity
will be highlighted. Secondly this paper will discuss the consequences of risk factors of NE and its implications over the other
alternative source of energy resources will be analysed. Further a descriptive study will be taken up to find out the existing
nuclear power plants in India; its present and future production capacity and whether they have met the safety requirement.
This study will also focus on the public demonstration against NE, delay in procurements and implementation of power plant in
India is key hurdle which will be discussed as well along with it a survey from public will be conducted in two major places in
India Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan for their opinion on whether to go Nuclear or any other alternative way of producing energy
sources. My thesis will provide a comprehensive analysis of overall picture of Indias Nuclear power its present, future and
its sustainability in moving forward in achieving the power hungry India.

Keywords: Nuclear Energy Agency, Department of Atomic Energy, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.

JEL Classification: C42, C80, G28, H12, H56, O14, Q42, Q47, Q51

1. INTRODUCTION
Nuclear energy is a highly competitive energy option for the production of base-load electricity, the OECD's Nuclear
Energy Agency (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the IAEA have concluded in their
latest joint study into generating costs. Launching the report, NEA director-general Luis Echavarri commented: "In a
period when many countries are looking to invest in electricity capacity while working to reduce carbon emissions, it
provides an indispensable basis for any discussion about electricity generation choices." (World Nuclear News, 2010)

India is planning to increase the present share of 3 per cent to 10 per cent by 2022 and 26 per cent by 2052. But the
present scenario doesnt look what is been happening, from its original target of 10,000 MW (Megawatts) by year 2000,
to its revised target of 20,000 MW by 2020 since 1984, the heated debates on Indo-US nuclear deal were to make
Cabinet Minister for Power, Sushilkumar Shinde declare that, against existing 4120 MW for 2008, the U.S. will help
us add 40,000 MW of nuclear power by the year 2020. Atomic Energy Chairman Anil Kakodkar was to pitch in
predicting, how by 2050, the share of nuclear power will constitute 20 to 35 per cent of electricity generation though it
now stood at less than 3 per cent. (M. V. Ramana, 2013). To add to it Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh at the
International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in New Delhi in September 2009 he prophesied:
India would have 470 GW of nuclear power by mid-century which was one-hundred times that of Indias current
total. So is it possible at the moment after looking into the projection and the facts can India achieve the target using
the Nuclear energy for its electricity shortage is a billion dollar debate and whether alternative source of energy is better
option compare to Nuclear energy need to be thought about.

1.1 Research Objective
The intention of formulating the research is to find and pinpoint the key problems, challenges and its prospects in using
Nuclear energy as an source of energy generation for India; its present and future developments will be examined and
whether the current scenario will be able to achieve the required amount of energy to cater to the need of fast growing
economic and its vast infrastructure developments will be explored. Key focus will be that, whether India needs Nuclear
energy for its power shortage or can it depend on other alternative energy sources will be look into it.

Descriptive analysis on Nuclear energy in building the future power generation for the world; its future growth and
Analysis on Nuclear Power in India: Do India Really
Needs Nuclear Energy for its Energy Shortage

Naganathan Venkatesh

Research Scholar NITTTR, India


investment potentials, its impact on global climate change, overview of its benefits and draw backs will be analyzed by
different reports from NEA, IAEA, AERB and various opinions from different scientist and research publications will
be analyzed and all the datas gathered will be consolidated and the final cumulative report will be presented to know
the position of Nuclear energy potential whether it is safe in long term or we are in a hurry towards power. Opinion by
the people of India from the two states of Tamilnadu and Rajasthan have been taken through a survey to find their
views about the Nuclear power and what is their perception about the option of moving to Nuclear energy as the
alternative source of electricity generation will be studied.

1.2 Research Question
1. What are the key challenges and issues that need to be addressed / considered by the Indian government before
considering the Nuclear energy as the key sources for its power generation?
2. What are the other alternative options for power generation that are viable need to be compared with that of
Nuclear energy?
3. Is Nuclear energy benefiting the society or the corporate world is using it as a business opportunity to enhance
their profitability over the peoples safety.

1.3 Research Type
This research type focus on descriptive analysis as well survey based. The survey was made through questionnaire,
observation, and discussion with peoples of all walks of life from professionals to fishermen staying near the coastal
area where the Nuclear power plant is either build or in the process of building in Indian state of Tamilnadu and
Rajasthan. The research will give an immense data that will be very useful in understanding the peoples perception of
what they think about Nuclear power and its future.

a) Research Population
A sample of 200 respondents have been be taken for the survey (100 from Tamil Nadu and 100 from Rajasthan)

b) Data Collection Method

The study conducted will be very useful to know the peoples mind set of what they are thinking about the Nuclear
energy and is it the only source of electricity generation in future or do we need to explore other alternative source of
energy production. And also to know in general what is the level of awareness among people about the Nuclear power
they know about it. This report will give a basic insight about the peoples opinion and it will be useful for the
government to consider their feedback before planning to go ahead with nuclear plants. In US and UK they have the
mechanism where the people give their feedback through survey, taken periodically to know the opinion of the citizen;
which India can also look into it to conduct a country wide survey and also to create awareness of the Nuclear power
rather than putting a cloud in the mindset of the rural India were still people are not much aware of Nuclear power.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Nuclear power is not just a form of some radioactively charged material like it is been portrayed in some simple minded
television shows. In fact it comes from a very tedious and meticulous process called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a
process by which a slow-moving neutron is absorbed by the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom, which in turn splits into
fast-moving lighter elements (fission products) and free neutrons. This process creates massive amounts of energy in
forms of gamma rays, and in the form of kinetic energy. Nuclear power plants perform this process within their nuclear
reactors, where they can then use this kinetic energy to heat water that flows through the reactor into steam. At which
point the steam will rise and spin a turbine that creates the electricity sent out to you and I. (Hesston College Research
paper, 2010).
Nuclear power provides a large share of U.S. and global carbon-free dispatch base load generation today and its
a) Primary data The primary data was collected from both the Indian state of Tamilnadu
and Rajasthan by conducting a survey and gathering feedbacks form the
people down there in person with the help of college students during the
period September 2013 to January 2014, this gave us a more precise
inputs and it helped a lot for the findings.
b) Secondary data

Secondary data are the information which is attained indirectly. Its
collected through Website, through internet, Research organizations
documents: (Articles / Journals / Newsletters / factsheets), reports from
NEA, IAEA, AERB etc.


continued growth is embedded in many forecasts for future global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Nuclear power
accounts for about 20% of U.S. electricity production and about 13.5% of global electricity production today. Indeed,
one of the reasons for the much discussed renaissance of nuclear power is the recognition that nuclear power
represents a potential source of large quantities of carbon-free electricity production for the future from plants that do
not create the intermittency problems associated with wind and solar generating technologies (Joskow 2011a, 2011b).
Accordingly, significant changes in the expected future paths of electricity generation from both existing and new
nuclear generating plants could have significant implications for future investment in electricity generation and
electricity networks and for the challenges of meeting aggressive targets for reducing GHG emissions.

In 2003 MIT published the interdisciplinary study The Future of Nuclear Power. The underlying motivation was that
nuclear energy, which today provides about 70% of the zero- carbon electricity in the U.S., is an important option for
the market place in a low-carbon world. Since that report, major changes in the U.S. and the world have taken place as
described in our 2009 Update of the 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Report. Concerns about climate change have risen:
many countries have adopted restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and the U.S. is expected to
adopt similar limits. Projections for nuclear-power growth worldwide have increased dramatically and construction of
new plants has accelerated, particularly in China and India. This study on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has
been carried out because of the continuing importance of nuclear power as a low-carbon option that could be deployed
at a scale that is material for mitigating climate change risk, namely, global deployment at the Terawatt scale by mid-
century (MIT Study, 2011).

Another aspect of risk perception discussed by researchers is that of political anchoring. In one study, the researchers
noted that risk perception of nuclear power is often aligned, or anchored, with political affiliation or political
ideology (Costa-Font et al. 2008) irrespective of knowledge of nuclear power. Using survey data from a 2005
Eurobarometer of UK citizens, results show that views about nuclear power are driven by an instinctive political
position that is often deeply held by citizens. Citizens with more left leaning views are more likely to hold that nuclear
power is a highly risky technology as compared to those with moderate or right leaning political views. In fact in some
instances, general knowledge of nuclear power can actually decrease support for nuclear power (Costa-Font et al.
2008). Summarizing such findings, Slovic and colleagues state that attitudes toward nuclear power are conditioned by
the interplay of psychological, social, cultural, historical, and political factors that will not easily be changed by public
information or educational campaigns (Slovic et al 2000, p. 98). Based on these findings, it is likely the case that
perceptions of risk from nuclear power development will vary considerably by the general political orientation of a
jurisdiction (e.g., progressive or conservative).

Given the ways in which citizens are placed in trusting relationships with actors and regulators of risky technologies, it
is no surprise that research finds a strong and consistent relationship between levels of risk perception and levels of
trust in institutions, information, individuals or other objects of trust (Whitefield et al. 2009). Trust is destroyed quickly
in situations where the appearance of secrecy or the desire to exclude publics is evident within the regulatory context
(Freudenburg 2004). Moreover, as indicated below, trust has become an increasingly important aspect of contemporary
society when at the same time trust is also challenging to maintain and relatively easy to destroy.

Freudenburg (2004) indicates that as early as the 1980s stigma was noted as one of the special effects in the socio-
economic assessment of nuclear waste disposal. Other effects included controversy and considerable polarization within
the proposed host community. More recent research from Europe and the UK also indicates that stigma is a strong
factor in community response to nuclear issues (Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg 2001; Poortinga et al. 2006).

Survey data described by Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg shows that only 12% of respondents were deemed to be
demonstrating entirely NIMBY-like behavior (Not-In- My-Back-Yard). In contrast, the vast majority demonstrated that
opposition was based on the belief that nuclear power was not beneficial individually or for the country. Therefore the
strict criteria for NIMBY behavior were not met. In contrast, concerns were mostly expressed in terms of the health of
others and the stigma of their community. These authors conclude that local opposition to nuclear waste repositories
may often be conflictual and highly emotional, but opposition cannot accurately be described as irrational. (Sjoberg and
Drottz-Sjoberg, 2001).

The policy context for nuclear power development has a long and challenging history. In chronicling some of this
history, Pidgeon et al. (2008) note some of the overoptimistic claims of industry promoters in the 1970s and 1980s,
followed by the major accidents such as the fire at Windscale in the UK, Three Mile Island in the United States and
Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. After these major events and the world-wide attention they garnered, a series of smaller


scale environmental concerns began to emerge. These concerns were most acute in the siting processes for nuclear
waste repositories and many communities resisted the stigma associated with such siting processes. Finally, from the
publics point of view, there has been a consistent stream of concern arising from these historical factors and a growing
mistrust of regulators and industry proponents who are seen to be less than responsible in their actions (Wynne 1992;
Rosa and Clark 1999).

Nuclear energy conjures up the image of nuclear bombs, but one should also know that it is basic unit of human body
and when used by the right hands it would be more useful for the society, said Dr. Sharad Kale, head, technology
transfer division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai (Times of India, Dec 12, 2013)

Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete
independence in the nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because it is excluded from the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) due to it acquiring nuclear weapons capability after 1970. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
(NPCIL) is presently operating 20 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 4780 MW. The reactor fleet
comprises two Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and eighteen Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) including
one 100 MW PHWR at Rajasthan which is owned by DAE, Government of India. Currently it has six reactors under
various stages of construction totaling 4800 MW capacity out of which one reactor of 1000 MW capacity at
Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, is in the final stage of commissioning (NPCIL, 2013)

The Future of Nuclear power, a study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, focus on options at
least for the next few decades, there are only a few realistic options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from
electricity generation: a)increase efficiency in electricity generation and use; b) expand use of renewable energy sources
such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal; c) capture carbon dioxide emissions at fossil-fueled (especially coal)
electric generating plants and permanently sequester the carbon; d) increase use of nuclear power. There key focus was
to use nuclear power for meeting future world energy needs at low cost and in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(MIT, 2003).

At the end of 2012, there were 437 nuclear power reactors in operation worldwide, with a total capacity of 372.1
gigawatt s-electric (GW(e)), 1% more than at the beginning of the year. Only three reactors were permanently shut
down. This compares with 13 permanent shutdowns in 2011 (12 of which were shut down in the aftermath of the
accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (the Fukushima Daiichi accident)). The impact of the
Fukushima Daiichi accident continued to be felt in 2012, slowing the expansion of nuclear power. However, Agency
projections indicate significant growth in the use of nuclear energy worldwide between 23 and 100% by 2030
although its projections for 2030 are up to 9% lower than those made in 2011. Capacity is now expected to grow to 456
GW(e) in 2030 in the Agencys low projection and 740 GW(e) in the high projection. Growth is still centred in Asia,
where 47 of the 67 reactors under construction are located, and in countries that already have operating nuclear power
plants. (IAEA Annual Report, 2012)

A survey was conducted by professor emeritus of Tokyo Womens Christian University, Hirose Hirotada. He submitted
the survey results to the Cabinet Offices Japan Atomic Energy Commission on July 17, 2013. According to the survey
results, the percentage of respondents saying that Japan should depart from nuclear power generation increased to
84.8% from 79.7% in the previous survey in 2011, while the percentage of those agreeing that Japan should maintain
nuclear power decreased to 9.8%, a decrease of 6.7 percentage points (Hirose Hirotada, 2013)

The nuclear energy industry can play an important role in job creation and economic growth, providing both near- term
and lasting employment and economic benefits. The 104 nuclear units in the U.S. generate substantial domestic
economic value in electricity sales and revenue - $40-$50 billion each year - with over 100,000 workers contributing to
production. (NEI, 2013)
In the last several years we have seen what appears to be revived global interest in continuing operation of existing
nuclear power plants and constructing a new generation of plants. A recent IAEA report indicates that 24 countries
with nuclear power plants are considering policies either to accommodate or encourage investments in new nuclear
power plants, and that 20 countries without nuclear power today are considering supporting the use of nuclear power to
meet future electricity needs. It projects as much as a 100 percent increase in nuclear generating capacity by 2030
(IAEA Annual Report, 2008)

The core advantage of this research study is to analysis the importance of NE viability and its sustainability as well its
prospect and whether to know India really needs Nuclear energy for its power generation. There are many researchers,


scientist had already started argument around the world whether to use Nuclear energy for power generation and
reduce carbon emission to save the planet earth (or) alternative means of power generation through hydro power, solar
energy by which reduce/avoid the danger of Nuclear disaster. So the analysis will focus on these aspects to give a clear
picture of were Nuclear energy is leading towards it. I will try to cover as much as possible to gather information on the
objective specified in the research questions; key concepts and what is happening in the NE sector will be explored
deeply. All the methods, concepts will be explained in details from which the central research will be started.

3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Every research project is based on certain methodology that is a way to systematically define and solve problems and
attain its objectives. This is a crucial guideline and lead to a concluding outcome of any research project through
marketing observation, data collection and data analysis.

In order to achieve the objective of the research it is generally practiced approaches is to use both primary and
secondary data to solve the problem that need to be identified by the research study. I will be using both primary and
secondary research for my data collection. Primary research, I will create a questionaries and collect the feedback from
the public who stay close to Nuclear plants of the two states of India Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, key highlight will be
on their opinion; whether to go Nuclear or any other alternative way of producing energy sources and do they feel the
safety measure of our Nuclear plants are good enough to handle the natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunami etc.
Also feedback collected form the experts in the related fields, corporate world and international business firms which
are key contributors to the study through mailers as well personal interview will be undertaken wherever it is required
and needed, I will restrict myself to a sample of 200(100 from Tamil Nadu and 100 from Rajasthan) will be taken into
account. Secondary research, data will be collected through latest articles resource from both internet and books, reports
from scientific community and experts on Nuclear power and through observation methods.

3.1 Survey Design
Intension of my survey is to design an easy and well organized question; which will in turn lessen the probabilities of
uncertainty; in this way respondents can understand the question well and give their feedback for the questions with
ease. I have created a total of 17 questions in my survey that is widely divided in to different category in such a way that
my research objectives are covered in the questions and I get the maximum feedbacks from the respondents
appropriately. Initially I started with the questions that will give their particulars, demographic location, their
knowledge of the Nuclear power. Next part of questions will start on the renewable energy, climate change and what
the respondents are feeling about the Nuclear power and is there an alternative source that can be explored. Next part of
questions focus on the nuclear power plants and its safety and whether India really needs Nuclear power to produce
electricity for their electricity shortage. And finally covering what the respondents really thinking whether to support
nuclear power or not.

3.2 Pre-Test
I took a pre-test before distributing the survey forms to the respondents; this was done to know whether the questions
were appropriate and whether any vagueness or problems with the questions are there. Experts opinions were taken
into account well before the questions are drafted. This was done to make sure later there is no issues arises with
respect to ethical and legal issues as well if any mistakes then I can change or adjust the questions accordingly before I
distribute it. Outcome was good so I went with the survey as designed.

3.3 Sample Size / Area Covered
A trial of 200 respondents have been taken for the survey (100 from Tamil Nadu and 100 from Rajasthan), respondents
age start from with minimum 18 years old and above. Targeted respondents were from different backgrounds with
different qualification; this helped do gather different answers with more appropriate and accurate results.

3.4 Ethical Consideration
Ethics is a set of moral principles or values, which is the righteousness, or wrongness of doing a research in relation to
individuals and organisations. In accordance with Sections 1.1 to 1.15 of the National statement of Ethical Conduct in
research, every effort is to be made for maintain the privacy and confidentiality of participants, as they will not be
identified in any reports arising from this research. Business organization has thereon ethics they has to think about the
impact of its decision on people or stake holders for whom it is to be affected directly or indirectly (Trochim, 2006) .
An ethical consideration is taken care off and any issues arises was taken care as well. At most care is taken and kept
the word not to disclose any personnel information about the respondents of the survey and keep the values of
respondents been taken care.


3.5 Limitation
Getting feedbacks directly from the nuclear scientist is not an easy task due to their busy schedule and security reasons;
but I will be trying to speak to them if had a chance. Secondly Im looking into global aspects of Nuclear energy and its
usage and my key focus is on Indias requirement for power generations through Nuclear energy is better or any the
alternative source of energy is better for India long term goals, So on this regard I need to keep myself restrict to Indian
sates of Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan for the survey; since I cant cover the whole India due to its vast area and the due to
time and resource constraints.

4: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Analysis and Interpretation
For this study the data are collected through questionnaire survey. A comprehensive analysis on the survey have been
done and based on the inputs the results have been consolidated in a nut shell that gives us a clear indication of what
the respondents have given as their feedback.

Survey Questionaries
1. Which state do you belong to?
Total number of 200 respondents was surveyed for this research; out of which 100 respondents were from Tamilnadu
and 100 from Rajasthan. As initially planned I was able to collect the feedback as stated from the respondents who
leave mostly near the coastal region where the Nuclear power plant is build or under construction; so that I can get the
real sense of feeling of the respondent what they think about the implication of Nuclear power plant near there home
town . Respondents were quite helpful in filling up the survey forms and they felt their grievances / their thoughts are at
least taken a note off for the study.

2. Your gender?
From the question 2 I want to find the ratio of the gender response from each state of Tamilnadu and Rajasthan
separately so that I can consolidate their responses separately within India; since separate state people have difference
of opinion about the nuclear energy. Tamilnadu 55% men and 45% women took the survey whereas in Rajasthan 60%
men and 40% women took the survey. The difference of 20% felt in Rajasthan were only 40% of the women took the
survey due to cultural difference; women in Rajasthan are quite homely and reserve type and I took the survey in the
rural area of Rajasthan were the nuclear plant is functioning, so I get the actual feedback of the respondent mind set.

3. You belong to which age group?
In this survey mainly the age group that mostly responded were less than 60 years of age; 81% of respondents are under
60 years old in Tamilnadu and 88% of respondents are under 60 years in Rajasthan. I took into consideration that the
entire age category are covered so that a maximum response can be gathered and their opinion can be explored in a
greater context. I covered all the age groups from students, professional, housewifes etc., so that more views can be
expected and a conclusion can be obtained of what their thoughts are about NE. I made it mandatory that the
minimum age is 18 years old can only take the survey. Reason for that is to make sure the respondents are bit aware of
the nuclear plant and can give their feedback more appropriate.

4. Highest educational or professional qualification you have obtained?
The questionnaire survey was made in such a way that all the categories of education qualification is taken into account
as per the Indian standard of education qualifications. When it comes to education state of Tamilnadu stands high in
education standard compare to Rajasthan; from the survey it is quite clear, taken the survey result - Tamilnadu most of
the respondents were Degree holders at 52%, followed by professional qualification 22%, Masters or Phd equivalent
17% were compare to Rajasthan only 26% of the respondent were Degree holders followed by 24% professional
qualification and the rest major portion of the respondent falls under the 10
th
/12
th
standard category only. Recent
statistic shows that Rajasthan literacy rate is increasing compare to 10 years back; According to the latest report, the
male literacy rate has also increased from 74.7% to 79.2% and the female literacy rate has pushed up to 52.1% from
43.9%. The overall literacy rate has increased from 60.14% to 66.11% in the state as of 2013 and Tamilnadu score
83% as of 2013 [Census report, 2013].

5. Working Status of Respondent?
From the statistics consolidated from the survey it seems Tamilnadu respondents working class percentage is quite
high compare to Rajasthan working class. 71% are working and unemployed were only 4% were as Rajasthan working
class was only 43% and unemployed was 12%. Unemployed respondents percentage is also bit high in Rajasthan with
12% whereas Tamilnadu was only 4%. Quite difference was seen in housewife category were Tamilnadu 9% and


Rajasthan 25% were housewife. As stated and found in the earlier question that Rajasthan women are quite reserved
type and they prefer to be housewifes compare to Tamilnadu.

6. What is the extent of your knowledge about nuclear power?
This question was the key part of the survey questions that guide the rest of the question how the respondents will react.
It was quite interesting to know from the feedback that most of the respondents are aware of the nuclear power. Out of
the four categories Tamilnadu favor highest score that most of the respondent are well aware of nuclear power at a
score of 45% followed by moderately aware 27%, not much was 18% and nothing was 10% only. Whereas Rajasthan
30% were respondents said they are well aware off nuclear power and 20% moderately aware, 28% not much and 22%
nothing. On an average compare to Tamilnadu respondents Rajasthan respondents were not that much aware off
nuclear power. Mass media coverage on nuclear power is more forecast in Tamilnadu and the people are quite aware
off it compare to Rajasthan. Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power station in Koodankulam in the
Tirunelveli district of Tamilnadu which was recently started production of NE for electricity production, before the
opening of the plant there was huge protest by the people who are leaving near the coastal area, I was doing the survey
at the time of the event in September and the survey was quite lively since I took the respondent views at the protest
time.

7. Which method of power generation do you think is the best?
From the question the respondent from Tamilnadu and Rajasthan seems to be more or else giving similar response not
a huge variance on the selection of power generation method that suit their states requirements. Tamilnadu respondents
support for Nuclear power generation is only 10% compare to the other source of power generation; they prefer 90% of
power generation should be from other source as wind mill, solar energy, hydro powers. Rajasthan respondents support
for Nuclear power generation is 18% compare to the other source of power generation; they prefer 82% of power
generation should be from other source. Seeing from the feedback of the respondents it seems majority are not in the
favour of producing electricity by Nuclear power.

8. Promoting renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, is a better way of tackling climate
change than nuclear power
This was an interesting question in the survey to know what actually the respondents think about renewable energy as
an alternative as well better source of energy to overcome the climate change. Most of respondent feel that renewable
energy from wind or solar is better option compare to nuclear power. In Tamilnadu 46% of the respondents strongly
agree, followed by 27% tend to agree with an average total of 73% and in Rajasthan 35% of the respondents strongly
agree, followed by 28% tend to agree with an average total of 63%. Rest not decided case in Tamilnadu is 18% and
Rajasthan 15% were they neither agree nor disagree. When we see the scores of tend to disagree and strongly disagree
the respondents in Tamilnadu have given less score whereas Rajasthan is bit more towards disagree on it.

9. Do you think by building nuclear power stations can help to tackle climate change since it reduce carbon
dioxide emission compare to other source of energy?
This was more technical question and so the response was also quite different from Tamilnadu and Rajasthan
respondent view on it; since in Tamilnadu as stated and found earlier that the knowledge of Nuclear power is more
known compare to Rajasthan respondents so from the statistics it is very clear that the output is more or else matching
their view in term of their understanding of the question clearly. Tamilnadu respondents favoured and strongly agree
(34%) that building nuclear power stations can help to tackle climate change since it reduce carbon dioxide emission
compare to other source of energy; but Rajasthan respondent on the other hand gave only strongly agree (12%) only.
Extreme case strongly disagree was 15% in Tamilnadu, but Rajasthan 23% of the respondents strongly disagree.
Level of emission from using coal for electricity production India is quite high and the health related impact as stated
in this report In 2011-12, the emissions from coal-fired power plants, resulted in an estimated 80,000 to 115,000
premature deaths and more than 20.0 million asthma cases from exposure to total particulate pollution, which cost the
public and the government an estimated 16,000 to 23,000 crores of Rupees (USD 3.2 to 4.6 billion). The largest impact
of these emissions is felt over the states of Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Indo-Gangetic
plain, and most of central-east India (CEA report, 2012).

A report from IAEA states that Nuclear power has the potential to continue to play a significant role in the effort to
limit future GHG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) while meeting global energy needs. Nuclear power plants produce
virtually no GHG emissions during their operation and only very small amounts on a life cycle basis (IAEA report,
2012).



10. We shouldnt think of nuclear power as a solution for climate change before exploring all other energy
options
This question put the respondent to think and respond to it; from the satistics it is clear that 43% of respondents in
Tamilnadu are in favour of exploring any other energy option over the nuclear power and when we see the Tend to
disagree was favoured only (4%) and strongly disagree was (2%). Rajasthan on the other hand the respondents
favoured 25% towards strongly agree and 32% tend to agree and only 9% strongly disagree and followed with the rest
as shown in the figure for the other category. Overall roughly more than 60% of the respondents in general agree to
explore other alternative options before going for Nuclear power as the only solution. India has huge natural resources
with extreme heat climate in Rajasthan and freezing snow in the Himalayas; with proper planning and exploration
India can avoid Nuclear power and think of alternative sources of energy.

11. Nuclear power has contributed a minimal amount of electricity generation in India compare to other source
of energy? Do you think we should still go Nuclear power generation considering the risk involved?
An important question for the respondent to give their view point, considering the risk involved in the Nuclear power
generation. From the result outcome mostly the respondents strongly agree that Indias overall production of electricity
through Nuclear power is very minimal compare to electricity produced through other source. Tmailnadu respondent
gave only 8% in favour of nuclear power generation, followed by tend to agree 7%. Majority of the respondents have
respondent both in Tamilnadu and Rajasthan under the category of neither agree nor disagree with 37% and 35%
respectively; this shows that most of the respondents are not clear about their choice. From the statistics available from
NPCIL through Coal provides 68% of the electricity at present, but reserves are limited. Gas provides 15%, hydro
12%. The per capita electricity consumption figure is expected to double by 2020, with 6.3% annual growth, and reach
5000-6000 kWh by 2050, requiring about 8000 TWh/yr then. There is an acute demand for more and more reliable
power supplies. One-third of the population is not connected to any grid. Nuclear power supplied 20 billion kWh
(3.7%) of India's electricity in 2011 from 4.4 GWe (of 180 GWe total) capacity and after a dip in 2008-09 this is
increasing as imported uranium becomes available and new plants come on line. (Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Ltd, 2014).

12. India needs a mix of energy sources to ensure a reliable supply of electricity, including Nuclear power and
renewable energy sources
The survey results showed a contrast result as far Tamilnadu and Rajasthan is concern. Looking into the category of
strongly agree Tamilnadu respondents gave 23% and tend to agree 20% whereas Rajasthan respondents strongly agree
gave only 10% and tend to agree 13%. Strongly Disagree rate of Tamilnadu (7%) is less compare to Rajasthan (25%);
reason may be lack of knowledge about the energy source production and its safety. Since in Rajasthan most of the
respondents are not much aware of Nuclear power and its impact due to lack of awareness among the rural population
compare to the Tamilnadu were most of the respondents were from the city side residents were the media exposure is
quite high.

13. We should shut down all existing nuclear power stations now; as well not to build any new ones after the
fukushima nuclear accident
From the survey feedback the respondents interest in Tamilnadu and Rajasthan are different. Tamilnadu the
respondents tend to disagree (24%) and strongly disagree (21%) shows that they are not totally against the shutdown of
all existing nuclear power station and not to allow further new nuclear power station. Rajasthan the respondents tend to
disagree (15%) and strongly disagree (10%) shows that they prefer to shutdown of all existing nuclear power station
and not to allow further new nuclear power station. Since respondents in Rajasthan favour strongly agree with 20% and
tend to agree 23% shows that clearly they are not interested in Nuclear power station in their state especially after the
incident of fukushima nuclear disaster. When I interacted with the respondents they told that peoples life is more
important than the Nuclear power station; since few of them mainly live in villages and they are happy with what they
have rather than constructing Nuclear power station at their state will nowhere help them in any manner. So nuclear
Free State is what they prefer in general opinion that I could feel from their expression. After witnessing the incident of
fukushima nuclear disaster where still the radiation effect are felt in the area and with so much latest technology and
skills developed by the Japanese team it took a year or so to control the nuclear plant to cool off. So fear of it still
resides in the mind of every people in the world after watching the video that were telecast live on all the national
media and the media coverage was so much that every laymen was also aware of the nuclear radiation impact and its
consequences. So shutting down of the nuclear power plant is not so easy when a disaster happens;so before any similar
incident take place it is better for the IAEA to further strengthen the policy and norms related to safety of this nuclear
power plants throughout the world.



14. What is the main concern on nuclear power?
This question had a good impact on the survey result by knowing the reason why and what is the main concern of the
people towards the Nuclear power. I have made four key categories such as Safety measures, waste disposed of it, Lack
of skilled operator and the location; out of the four options asked to the respondents which is their at most concern
towards nuclear power; majority told it is the safety measures that worries them the most. Tamilnadu respondents gave
52% and Rajasthan respondents gave 60% for the safety measures as the key concern compare to the other category.
Other category that Tamilnadu respondent talk about and mentioned in the survey forms is the Lack of skilled operators
to run the nuclear power stations that score 23% of their concern. After the Bhopal gas disaster in India respondent feel
even with the best technology we have, the skills required to operate these machines we dont have proper skilled
operators. Foreign operators provide support but they are not ready to accept the consequence if any disaster takes
place or any emergency caused which was witnessed in Bhopal gas disaster; till date politician blame the system and in
term no proper solution was given to the public at the end of the day; the case was failed in the court against the
operator for the failer of not providing proper safety; but with insufficient policy nothing could be done against the
operators and they dont take the responsibilities. Since nowadays climate change and global warming has constituted
to unpredicted disaster during the past several years so no operator are ready to accept the risk that is involved and pay
the compensation; so it is better for the government to think before signing contract with the foreign operators.

15. Do you think nuclear power is safe or not?
Feedback from the survey clearly shows that respondents feel nuclear power is not safe. Respondents have voted 53%
not safe in Tamilnadu and 45% not safe in Rajasthan. Other category when looked into it Dont know respondent
from Rajasthan have voted 35% whereas Tamilnadu only 5% said they dont know; this reflects earlier finds of
Rajasthan respondents knowledge about the Nuclear power. Ultimately both Tamilnadu and Rajasthan respondent
commonly said with respect to safe option only 10% and 15% respectively. A saying goes that; nothing in the world is
safe only think what we can do is follow proper safety measures and take the necessary preventive measures to avoid
large scale disasters in case of disaster time. Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a
"safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean. The Department of
Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. The original cost estimate
was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U.S. nuclear
power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale."
(Greenpeace, 2013). The debate on whether the nuclear power is safe or not safe is an everyday discussion and the
worldwide debate going around the world leaders and the scientific community; but as far the corporate world is
concern they want to make money with short period of time by convincing the politicians to go ahead with the new
nuclear plants. Before deciding to go Nuclear need to make sure all the safety norms are met and the environment
clearance is achieved from the respective departments and how the waste of the nuclear power plant is going to be
disposed need to be taken in to account before taking any decision to go Nuclear by any government.

16. Do you support Nuclear Energy for producing electricity in India?
This was a straight forward question asked to the respondents to know whether they are in favour / support of Nuclear
energy for producing electricity in India. Tamilnadu was in support with 23% and not in favour was 34% and Neutral
was 43% whereas Rajasthan was in support with just 10% and not in favour was 45% and Neutral was 45%. Taking
both the states Tamilnadu respondents are at least somewhat supportive to go Nuclear seeing the present electricity
shortage they are facing everyday with power cuts in the city for two hours and rural areas it is six to eight hours of
power cut. But in case of Rajasthan majority of the respondents are not in favour of nuclear power for their state.
A quote that was stated by former President and nuclear scientist APJ Abdul Kalam saying There is no alternative to
nuclear energy. India is a power hungry nation and needs to switch over from its tremendous dependence on fossil fuels
to alternative sources of energy like solar energy, bio energy and nuclear energy

17. What is the reason for you to support the Nuclear Energy?
Finally I wanted to ask the respondents opinion through this survey if at all they want to go for Nuclear energy what
will be the best reason for them to support it. I made different category so that the respondents can come up with their
view openly. As far Tamilnadu respondents are concern they are in support of nuclear energy if the three categories are
meet (Keeps electricity tariff low 23%, Reduce carbon dioxide emission 24% and Ensure continuous energy supply to
generate electricity with 19% vote); overall when we see 66% have given green signal to support nuclear energy if the
three categories are met; but still 34% are not in support of nuclear energy. As far Rajasthan respondents are concern
they are in support of nuclear energy if the three categories are meet (Keeps electricity tariff low 10%, Reduce carbon
dioxide emission 16% and Ensure continuous energy supply to generate electricity with 29% vote); overall when we see
55% have given green signal to support nuclear energy if the three categories are met; but still a majority of 45% are


not in support of nuclear energy.
So the dilemma of Nuclear power needed or not needed for producing electricity is an ever ending discussion and long
standing issue for every nation and very citizen; since it involves risk in one aspect and other is the benefits it can bring
along with it.

5: FINDINGS
An in-depth data analysis and interpretation is done in the earlier section 4; from the survey conducted in Tamilnadu
and Rajasthan the data have given a clear indication of what the respondents feel about the nuclear energy and it can
contribute to the nation like India with respect to shortage of power. Do we really need nuclear energy for production of
electricity in India especially focusing on Rajasthan and Tamilnadu. Some of the questions were asked in terms of its
safety aspects and how well India can safeguard its nuclear power plant after several accidents of nuclear plant disasters
happening around the world. Lot of query come into your mind and the respondents key worry was the safety aspects
of our nuclear plants and do the foreign operators give any assurance if any disaster take place will they take
responsibilities and pay compensation in case of any fault occurred due to their technical or mechanical fault etc.

Electricity generation in India is mainly produced through Coal and its demand is getting higher and higher and we
need a large amount of coal to meet the shortage of electricity generation in India. From the annual report given by
Central Electricity Authority (CEA) it is clear that India utilization of Nuclear energy for power is very minimal
compare to the utilization of coal; see the Figure 1 for details that will give a broader view of the power generation by
different methods in India with the present status. Next when I was exploring the renewable energy for tackling climate
change most of the respondents were quite positive towards solar and wind energy etc. rather than going nuclear
energy; but in scientific term and the actual facts obtained shows that Nuclear energy is much more safe and clean
compare to the energy produced trough coal.

Coal-fired electric power plants emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants to the
atmosphere on a daily basis. Among the worst offenders are sulfur dioxide, which contributes to the formation of acid
rain; nitrogen oxides, which combine with VOCs to form smog; and toxic compounds of mercury. That's beyond the
tonnage of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute directly to climate change. Burning coal releases over two pounds
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it creates (Mike Matthews, 2014)

Renewables are an important source of energy for India and without doubt the magnitude will increase, nonetheless it
will be some decades before its full potential can be exploited in form of commercial viability. In the span of years that
lie ahead, Indias dependence on fossil fuel will skyrocket. Coal accounts for nearly 70 percent of energy generation in
India and almost 20 percent will be imported this year
[1]
. Recent report of International Energy Agency (IEA) projected
the use of natural gas to increase in future in tandem with the rise in production
[13]

Figure 1: Fuel wise energy generation chart [Source: http://www.cea.nic.in/yearly_report.html]

As far the pollution level from the Coal and Nuclear energy is concern, nuclear energy produced doesnt pollute the
environment as well. Considering the above explained scenarios, the nuclear energy option stands out as an important
component in Indias energy mix. The Government of India plans to increase the share of nuclear energy to 25 percent
by 2050, roughly reaching a target of 20,000MW by 2020 from the current 5000MW, apparently a threefold increase
[23]
. If these targets are met it will be a useful alternative for India, amplifying self-dependency of the country whilst
proving to be a major source of energy security. The Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal has provided a valuable opening for India
to trade internationally in hitherto prohibited nuclear fuel and technology that too strikingly without being a party to


Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)

[24]
.

With respect to the emission of Nuclear energy the published article from IAEA have given a clean chit Nuclear power
is among the energy sources and technologies available today that could help meet the climateenergy challenge. GHG
emissions from nuclear power plants are negligible and nuclear power is among the lowest CO2 emitters together with
hydropower and wind based electricity when emissions throughout the entire life cycle are considered. In the electricity
sector, nuclear power has been assessed as having the greatest potential (1.88 Gt CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq.)) to mitigate
GHG emissions at the lowest cost: 50% of the potential at negative costs due to co-benefits from reduced air pollution,
the other 50% at less than $20/t CO2-eq. Nuclear energy could account for about 15% of the total GHG reduction in
electricity generation by 2050. Nuclear energy can contribute to resolving other energy supply concerns and has non-
climatic environmental benefits
[24]
.

Other factors that makes nuclear energy more viable option is that hydrocarbon resources are yet to prove themselves as
viable alternatives. In addition, renewable sources have only been able to supplement and not replace the fossil fuel
requirements. No doubt, renewable energy sources are attractive but powerless. Moreover, they are capital and land
intensive
[4]
see the Figure 2 for details

Figure 2: Average Carbon Emission Levels (Global) (Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Emission MWh) [Source: Bhupendra
Kumar Singh, Indias Energy Security: The Changing Dynamics (New Delhi: Pentagon Energy Press, 2010), p. 32.]

So the fear of pollution can be taken away from our mind set; but the safety of the power plant is still a bigger question
when it comes to the respondents view; most of the respondents fear that safety mechanism in our nuclear plants are
not maintained properly and if any disaster like Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, that took place in Japan that
created a tsunami; if similar event takes place in India then are we prepared enough to handle the situation. Reason for
fear was found in the setting up of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamilnadu; many scientists wrote petition to
the government of India stating substandard materials have been provided by the Russian operators and that may cause
severe problem in running the reactors safely.

The major findings from the world nuclear association report have indicated that compare to other major disaster
happened around the world; the major accidents that occurred in the civilian nuclear power reactors were Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. When we look into its impact of all the three, the first one was controlled and
contained so not much harm was caused to anyone. Second Chernobyl caused heavy fire and was not in a position to
control and they didnt have proper mechanism for containment. And finally Fukushima harshly tested the
containment, and it allowed certain radioactivity in to the sea and till now containing the radioactive is still undergoing
in Japan. Highlighted once are the three foremost accidents involved in civil nuclear power out of over 14,500
cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries. Risk appetite of nuclear power plant is
much lesser compare to the terrorist attack that killed many innocent lives across the world.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has announced enhancing its nuclear energy capacity tenfold
in the next two decades. A public sector enterprise under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE), NPCIL is confident of achieving the target as several of its projects are in different stages of
implementation. "NPCIL plans to add 60,000 MW nuclear energy to the existing capacity by 2032," said S K Malhotra,
the head of DAE's public awareness division. He added that NPCIL's 20 reactors, currently in operation across the
country, generate 4780 MW of nuclear power
[32]



The only worrying factor is the nuclear energy produced from the nuclear plants are properly used for the civilian usage
in terms of electricity production; but key factor need to be taken in to account is the roughly every commercial nuclear
reactor produces 400-500 pounds of plutonium in a year, along with other nuclear waste material; this is very
dangerous if misused and falls to the terrorist hands. Just for an example 10-20 pounds of plutonium is needed to make
a bomb; at this if we take an average nuclear reactor, in a year can produce sufficient plutonium waste to make 50
nuclear bombs. So the country those pose the nuclear reactor technology need to be extra cautious in monitoring of the
waste material from the plants. One of the major concerns for most of the nuclear reactor plants running around the
world and the upcoming new nuclear reactors is how to minimize the waste and how to safeguard and use the waste
material in a useful purpose for civilian use.
Looking into the facts about the clean energy produced from nuclear energy it all sound good but shocking news in
terms of risk factor let us see one example of what happened in Japan Fukushima Dai-ichi plant complex. The head of
the International Atomic Energy Agency team, Juan Carlos Lentijo, said Monday that damage at the Fukushima Dai-
ichi plant is so complex that it is "impossible" to predict how long the cleanup may last. "As for the duration of the
decommissioning project, this is something that you can define in your plans. But in my view, it will be nearly
impossible to ensure the time for decommissioning such a complex facility in less than 30-40 years as it is currently
established in the roadmap," Lentijo said.( The Associated Press, 2013)

Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. In India when mild
level earthquake have occurred and all our major nuclear power plants were safe, but in 2004 tsunami the Kalpakkam
Atomic Reprocessing Plant was flooded when tsunami hit Tamil Nadu. In India, every region falls in seismic zone in
some way, said Durgesh Rai of IIT Kanpur. Most of our nuclear plants are in weak seismic zones but lie in coastal
areas. Their structure is earthquake-resistant but they have not been tested against tsunami. The entire coastal region is
believed to be vulnerable to tsunami, he said. Nuclear plants are built near the sea because sea water is required to cool
the reactor
[14]

Finally the respondents when asked to they support nuclear energy for producing electricity in India the response was
not in favor of it from the survey result. Only they are in favor of electricity production through nuclear energy
provided it keeps electricity tariff low, Reduce carbon dioxide emission and Ensure continuous energy supply to
generate electricity was most favored. Presently Tamilnadu is facing a shortage of 2500 MW of power with demand far
outstripping supply, the state has announced outages to bridge the gap. A minimum of two hour is cut in the city and
six to eight hours on the outskirts/ rural area.
Tamil Nadu Government has proclaimed a slew of projects in the past two and a half years, some of the major power
projects are still in the preliminary stages. These include the Ennore SEZ thermal Power project, NCTPS stage III
thermal power project, Nagapattinum Ultra Mega thermal power project, Cheyyur Ultra mega thermal power project
and Udangudi Power Corporation. Some of the thermal power plants have been shut down for maintenance or it is
closed because of shortage of coal. Some relief has come down now by the Koodankulam nuclear power plant start its
functioning by supplying 500 MW to Tamilnadu. So it seems from the border view that improper management of
projects and long delay in acquiring the approvals and political in stability is one of the factors in India that creating
power shortage.

At the end it seems that India got lot of resources but not utilizing it properly is creating a situation where they have to
go for Nuclear energy at last even taking the risk factor aside.

6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Things have changed in the past decades; earlier people were not much aware of Nuclear Energy but recent Fukushima
disaster, the nuclear industry had made it clear that it could not afford another major accident in near future. People
around the world have started protesting against the use of Nuclear energy for the power generation since a country like
Japan with so much advanced technology could not able to control the Fukushima disaster. Safety of nuclear plants
around the world was reviewed and IAEA wanted all the nuclear power plants to do their own inspection and find
whether the plant can with stand any disaster of Fukushima volume.
Fear of safety issues are the key concern of the respondents from the survey towards going Nuclear power for electricity
generation in India and if that is safer and pollution free as well secure enough been felt by the respondent then they are
willing to accept nuclear power plants to be built in their state. Operators need to follow strict regime and follow the
standard procedures that has been layout by IAEA and other international governing bodies.
As far the Indias Nuclear powers plants are concern NPCIL's got 20 operational plants in the country, the possibility of
radiation affecting human beings is zero. "There are enough safety parameters and hence there is no chance of
Fukushima Daiichi disaster happening here. Accidents can occur, but we have the capacity to check their effects. If
there is any source that can answer country's energy security concerns, then it is nuclear energy," he said at a seminar


"Nuclear Energy and India's Energy Security". Solar and wind power generation in the country would take a decade to
reach a level of maturity. "As far as nuclear energy is concerned whose share in country's total electricity generation
today is just 3.1 per cent, we are at a stage to produce 63,000 MW of energy by 2032 from the present 5,000 MW," said
former director (technical), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited's (NPCIL), SA Bhardwaj here on Sunday
[32]

India has a rapidly developing economy and needs to increase their electricity generation to sustain growth. India is
reportedly running out of domestic fossil fuel so they need to look in another direction to not import more gas and coal.
Nuclear power plants are known to have very high upfront capital costs but very low operating costs. Capital cost is
reduced because we build the nuclear plant by our self; so it helps in domestic employment and our Indian contractors
will get the benefit of constructing the plant and we only import Uranium cheaper than importing gas, coal, or
petroleum. This is important for a country low on natural resources. In this way, more money is directed domestically
towards growth. Further Nuclear is mature, relatively clean, and the best alternative to coal. Nuclear power isn't perfect,
but looking into it is not a bad option as well. I believe it'll be an important part of the future energy mix for India.
India has huge deposits of Thorium which is considered to be the nuclear fuel of the future. Thorium has many
advantages over uranium: produces eight times more energy for the same mass, has a less toxic waste stream, is more
abundantly available. Most prosperous nations extract about 30 to 40 percent of their power from nuclear . Further
research on my own study can be extended to other parts of India to know the respondents feeling and their level of
acceptance towards nuclear energy for the future and also I suggest the option of exploring Indias own deposits of
Thorium by the government agency or independent researchers to explore and start building on resources of their own
and start building nuclear plant with their own expertise rather than depending on other countries for resources as well
technology transfer.
My recommendation will be to go Nuclear. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source. It is
the only source of energy that can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which massively
pollute the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. If we want to be serious about climate change and the
end of oil, we must promote the more efficient use of energy, we must use renewable energies wind and solar
wherever possible, and adopt a more sustainable life style. But this will not be nearly enough to slow the accumulation
of atmospheric CO2, and satisfy the needs of our industrial civilization and the aspirations of the developing nations.
Nuclear power should be deployed rapidly to replace coal, oil and gas in the industrial countries, and eventually in
developing countries. An intelligent combination of energy conservation, and renewable energies for local low-intensity
applications, and nuclear energy for base-load electricity production, is the only viable way for the future. Finally on the
safety side I just like to conclude that new facilities, progressive improvements in safety need to materialize through
innovative technologies. In addition, regulatory authorities have to streamline licensing processes for new designs and
still enable a high degree of transparency for public scrutiny.

References
[1] Asia Sentinel, Indias coal consumption skyrockets, 28 May 2010, [online] Available:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/33035/indias-coal-consumption-skyrockets/ [Accessed 25 January 2014].
[2] Atomic Rise and Fall, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission 1953-1987, by Clarence Hardy, Glen Haven (PO
Box 85, Peakhurst, NSW 2210), 1999. Chapter 1 provides the major source for 1939-45. Radiation in Perspective,
OECD NEA, 1997. Nuclear Fear, by Spencer Weart, Harvard UP, 1988.
[3] Berman, B. and Evans, J.R., 2010. Retail Management: a strategic approach. 11th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[4] Bhupendra Kumar Singh, Indias Energy Security: The Changing Dynamics (New Delhi: Pentagon Energy Press,
2010), p. 82
[5] CEA report, 2012 [online] Available: http://www.urbanemissions.info/india-power-plants [Accessed 25 February
2014].
[6] Costa-Font, J., C. Rudisill, E. Mossialos. 2008. Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and "Political
Anchoring": The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis 28(5): 1273-1287.
[7] Clarke, L. 1999. Mission improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster (A Critical Look at How
Governments and Corporations Plan for Accidents and Disasters). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[8] Freudenburg, W.R. 2004. Can We Learn from Failure? Examining US Experiences with Nuclear Repository
Siting. J ournal of Risk Research 7(2), 153-169.
[9] Greenpeace, 2013 [online] Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/ [Accessed 25
February 2014].
[10] Hirose Hirotada, 2013. Japan press weekly [online] Available: http://www.japan-
press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=6047 [Accessed 29 March 2014].
[11] Houghton Mifflin Math Steps: Student Edition Level 2 2000 Paperback January 1, 1999 by HOUGHTON
MIFFLIN (Author)


[12] Hesston College Research paper, 2010. [online] Available:
http://www2.hesston.edu/Physics/NuclearPowerBJ/ResearchPaperpg.htm [Accessed 9 February 2014].
[13] Hubbard, W., 2010. How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business. 2nd ed. Boston: John
Wiley and Sons.
[14] How vulnerable are India's nuclear power plants to disaster 27 Comments Date: Mar 15, 2011 [online] Available:
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/how-vulnerable-are-indias-nuclear-power-plants-disaster [Accessed 29
March 2014].
[15] International Energy Agency says gas in golden age, 7 June 2011, [online] Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13677732, [Accessed 29 April 2014].
[16] IAEA Annual Report, 2008 [online] Available:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2008/anrep2008_full.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2014].
[17] IAEA Annual Report, 2012 [online] Available:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2012/anrep2012_full.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2014].
[18] Joskow, Paul L., 2011a, Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Generating
Technologies, American Economic review: Papers and Proceedings 100(3), 238-241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.3.238.
[19] Joskow, Paul L., 2011b, Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Generating
Technologies. MIT CEEPR Working Paper WP-2010-013 as revised February 9, 2011. http://econ-
www.mit.edu/files/6317.
[20] James P. Key, 1997. Questionnaire and Interview as Data-Gathering Tools, Oklahoma State University [online]
Available: http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage16.htm [Accessed 22
February 2014].
[21] John Wiley & Sons, 02-Feb-2010 - Business & Economics - 488 pages
[22] Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L., 2012. Marketing Management.14th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
[23] M. V. Ramana, 2013. The Power of Promise, Examining Nuclear Energy in India, New Delhi, India: Penguin
Books India Pvt. Ltd.
[24] MIT Study, 2011. "Future_of_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle" [online] Available:
http://www.mit.edu/~jparsons/publications/MIT%20Future_of_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle.pdf [Accessed 19 March
2014].
[25] Mike Matthews , 2014. Which One Is Better for the Environment: Coal or Nuclear? [online] Available:
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/one-better-environment-coal-nuclear-78760.html [Accessed 29 March 2014].
[26] Nuclear Power in India, World Nuclear Association, [online] Available: http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf53.html [Accessed 29 February 2014].
[27] Nuclear Energy in India: A Market Overview- Selected Slides, [online] Available:
www.bostonanalytics.com/.../Summary%20Nuclear%20Market%20in%20India%20-%20BA%20 [Accessed 25
February 2014].
[28] Nuclear a competitive energy option, study shows, World Nuclear News, March 2010, [online] Available:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Nuclear_a_competitive_energy_option_study_shows-2503104.html
[Accessed 26 February 2014]
[29] Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, June 2013, [online] Available:
http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/AboutUs.aspx [Accessed 25 January 2014].
[30] Nuclear power in India, 2014, [online] Available: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-
G-N/India/ [Accessed 11 Jan 2014].
[31] Nuclear Energys Economic Benefits Current and Future published by Nuclear Energy Institute, US, 2013,
[online] Available: http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Nuclear-Energy-s-Economic-Benefits-
Current-and-Future.pdf?ext=.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2014].
[32] NPCIL to add 60k MW nuclear energy by 2032, [online] Available:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-07/ranchi/41854280_1_npcil-nuclear-power-corporation-
kudankulam [Accessed 9 February 2014].
[33] 'N-energy can enhance India's power output', [online] Available:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-29/surat/38903286_1_nuclear-energy-wind-power-generation-
energy-security-concerns [Accessed 9 February 2014].
[34] Poortinga, W., N. Pidgeon and I. Lorenzoni. 2006. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and
Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005.
Understanding Risk Working paper 06-02. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
[35] Pidgeon, N.F., I. Lorenzoni, and W. Poortinga. 2008. Climate change or nuclear power no thanks! A quantitative
study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 18, 69-85).


[36] Paul Szwarc., 2005. Researching Customer Satisfaction & Loyalty: How to Find Out what People Really Think.
Kogan Page Publishers, 2005. Business & Economics - 258 pages
[37] Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie
[38] Slovic, P., J. Flynn, C.K. Mertz, M. Poumadere, C. Mays. 2000. Nuclear Power and the Public: A Comparative
Study of Risk Perception in France and the United States. In O. Renn and R. Rohrmann (eds.). Cross-Cultural Risk
Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[39] Slovic. P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science, 236 (4799), 280-285.
[40] Sjoberg, L. and B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg. 2001. Fairness, Risk and Risk Tolerance in the Siting Of Nuclear Waste
Repository. Journal of Risk Research 4 (1), 75-101.
[41] Sharma, K., 2009. Marketing Management, How to Create, Win and Dominate Markets. India: Global India
Publications.
[42] The Future of Nuclear power, an interdisciplinary MIT study, 2003 [online] Available:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ [Accessed 29 February 2014].
[43] Times of India, Dec 12, 2013. Nuclear energy useful in right hands: BARC scientist [online] Available:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/mangalore/45121067_1_barc-scientist-barc-nuclear-energy
[Accessed 29 March 2014].
[44] The Associated Press, 2013 [online] Available: http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/04/iaea-japan-nuke-
cleanup-may-take-more-40-yrs [Accessed 19 March 2014].
[45] Whitfield, S. C., E. A. Rosa, A. Dan, and T. Dietz. 2009. The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and
Risk Perception. Risk Analysis. 29(3): 425-437.
[46] William M.K. Trochim, All Rights Reserved Purchase a printed copy of the Research Methods Knowledge Base
Last Revised: 10/20/2006.
[47] World Nuclear Association, 2010 [online] Available: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-
Generation/Outline-History-of-Nuclear-Energy/ [Accessed 19 February 2014].
[48] Zikmund, W.G., 2003. Exploring Marketing Research. 8th ed. Ohio: South-Western.
[49] Zikmund, W.G. and Babin, B.J., 2009. Exploring Marketing Research. 10th ed. Ohio: South-Western.

AUTHOR

Mr. Naganathan Venkatesh obtained his Degree and a Master degree in Computer Science from
University of Madras, India as well he also holds another Masters Degree in Human Resource
Management and presently he is pursing PhD in Computer Science & Engineering from University of
Madras, India. As Research Scholar, from NITTTR (National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and
Research, Ministry of Human Resource Management, Govt. Of India) he has published many international journals to
his credit. He is an Assistant Editors for Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education (AJMSE, Japan) as well
Associate Editor for International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT, India). He is a charted
member of Microsoft and holds Microsoft Certification in MCAD.Net, MCPD.Net, MCSD.Net and MCTS in SQL
Server 2005 and BizTalk Server 2006. He is also a ACTA (Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment) certified
Trainer, Assessor and course developer awarded by WDA, Singapore

He got seventeen years of work experience out of which; 6 years he worked in software industry with different roles
played Software Engineer, Team Lead, Business Analyst, Associate Consultant, and Program Manager for various
clients in US and India whose company status was PCMM Level 5. In training industry he has over 11 years
experience; roles played has a Corporate Trainer, Train the Trainer, Senior Lecturer, Chief Manager, Manager
Operations, Assistant Dean, Academic Head, Training Director. He had delivered and conducted wide range of training
in Information Technology, Business Management and Human Resources Management subjects for various
Universities; from Australia (Monash University, Deakin University, University of Western Sydney); from UK
(University of Greenwich, Liverpool John Moores University, Anglia Ruskin University, University of East London)
and University of Madras (from India). He had delivered number of technical and marketing seminars in US, India,
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia for respective employers he worked earlier.

Iijm 2014 05 28 041

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Iijm 2014 05 28 041

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm

S-ar putea să vă placă și