Opinion Costs,risks and benefits

Nuclear power is here to stay,despite Fukushima.

March 21, 2011 12:50 AM IST First published on: Mar 21, 2011 at 12:50 AM IST

Events at Japans Fukushima Daiichi power plant have led to the crisis being described as the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster a quarter century ago. The nuclear accident has led to anxious questions about the safety of nuclear reactors and is putting governments in world capitals under intense pressure.

In Germany,the Angela Merkel government has decided to temporarily shut down seven nuclear power plants that began operations before the end of 1980,as a three-month safety review of all 17 plants goes underway. Switzerland,where 40 per cent of energy requirements is met by nuclear energy,has suspended plans to build and replace nuclear plants. The EU has convened a meeting of nuclear safety authorities and operators to examine European preparedness. Some US Senators are warning of another Chernobyl and calling for an immediate suspension of licensing procedures for the Generation III reactor presently under review at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Russia and China seem to be bucking the trend. While suggesting that it would be studying Japans crisis in detail,the Russian government has made it clear that it has no plans to revise its ambitious programme of building reactors. China,which has 11 reactors operating and plans to start construction on 10 new ones a year over the next decade,also declared it will carry on with its plans. The Indian government seems to be following this lead. While it too has ordered a review of safety features,the Indian nuclear establishment has underlined that all of its 20 nuclear plants are earthquake- and tsunami-proof.

After decades of being ostracised by policy-makers,nuclear energy has been coming back to the mainstream recently. Faced with rising oil prices and growing concerns about climate change,states started giving nuclear energy a serious consideration. There is a new enthusiasm for nuclear energy when concerns about global warming and energy security have become paramount.

In contrast to coal-fired power plants,atomic reactors produce little in the way of CO2 emissions. In addition,the technology helps regions without natural gas reserves. Nuclear energy also means a certain degree of independence in determining energy policy. Furthermore,energy produced from nuclear plants tends to be cheap,making it popular with consumers.

Nuclear power continued to have a public relations problem,however,as its mere mention raises the spectre of another Chernobyl and Three Mile Island,not to mention proliferation and dirty bombs. But things have been rapidly changing with previously staunch opponents,such as Patrick Moore (a founder of Greenpeace),joining the bandwagon,convinced by the growing evidence that nuclear power is the most efficient energy source around today. There is a growing list of environmentalists openly advocating nuclear power. The father of the contemporary global environmental movement,James Lovelock,has been claiming challenges of global warming can only be tackled through nuclear energy.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasised in its 2007 report that countries could use more nuclear power as part of a shift away from fossil fuels. An unforeseen consequence of the anti-nuclear movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the West was that it impeded the growth of nuclear power,even as it boosted coal and oil-sourced electricity generation which,it now turns out,has damaged the environment probably beyond repair.

Japans nuclear crisis might be a major setback to this development. It is already being suggested that faith in redundant,coincidence-proof security precautions has been wiped out by Fukushima. High-tech Japan has shown what could happen if an Internet attack on reactors were to happen,like the Stuxnet programme used against the Iranian nuclear programme. Or if a determined,technologically skilled terrorist group were to seize control of a power station.

But a proper perspective is needed if the debate is to proceed rationally. It was an old reactor with a 1960s design that got into trouble in Japan. This technology is outdated. Fukushimas safety level is significantly below that of modern nuclear plants,it wouldnt get construction approval these days. The crisis was triggered by the failure of diesel generators that provided electricity to cool the reactors once they shut down. In the new Generation III reactors,there is a simplified cooling system where the water circulates by natural convection.

The hyper-reaction to the Japan crisis,though understandable,will not lead to sensible policy outcomes because the costs and risks of nuclear energy need to be rigorously compared against those of other energy sources and the long-term costs and risks of global warming.

Nuclear power remains an important means of meeting the energy requirements for emerging powers and a valuable tool in heading off global warming. As of today,India imports three quarters of its oil,natural gas and coal and gets only 3 per cent of its power from nuclear energy. While about one-third of Indias new power supplies have come from natural gas and hydro electricity over the last decade,the cost of natural gas and environmental concerns over hydro dams will force India towards greater use of coal in its energy mix. This can be devastating for the environment. So Indias embrace of nuclear power should be viewed as a realistic answer to this problem.

The writer teaches at Kings College,London,express@expressindia.com

# columnist indian express