- News>
- Newspapers
Get clear about nuclear: The Indian Express
Nuclear power is the key to achieving a sustained 7 per cent growth rate New Delhi, Dec 10: Every single empirical indicator points to India`s pathetically low rating on the human development index. And this, in spite of tremendous progress it has achieved in terms of food security after a historical inability to feed its people till recently, and with two centuries of de-industrialisation being finally reversed.
New Delhi, Dec 10: Every single empirical indicator points to India’s pathetically low rating on the human development index. And this, in spite of tremendous progress it has achieved in terms of food security after a historical inability to feed its people till recently, and with two centuries of de-industrialisation being finally reversed. There is excitement in the air about increased economic development, and there is a new assertion for a better quality of life among the rich as well as the poor. People in three major states have just thrown out incumbent governments essentially because of perceived failures to deliver development (especially provision of power for agriculture and industry) closer to people’s needs and expectations.
The crux of the challenge of this development lies in adequate access to energy. A sustained annual economic growth of 7 per cent is not possible if our energy availability does not grow at a similar rate. This has to be based on diversification of the type as well as the sources of our energy supplies if we are to avoid increasing import dependency and future vulnerabilities. It needs to be remembered that Japan, France and other industrialised nations rapidly built up nuclear power after the 1973 oil shock. It is in this context that we need to perceive the issue of nuclear power.
To start with, contrary to conventional wisdom, nuclear power is “neither dead, dying or in decline”, with 419 nuclear reactors operating worldwide producing 17 per cent of its electricity. France (with 59 reactors) generates 79 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, Belgium 60 per cent, Sweden 42 per cent, Switzerland 39 per cent, Spain 37 per cent, Japan 34 per cent, the UK 21 per cent, and the US 19 per cent, are all members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) who lays down guidelines for nuclear power technology and trade. The share of nuclear energy in developing countries is expected to grow in the next 40 years from the present 2 per cent to over 11 per cent. And we should be looking past such figures if we are to break out of our poverty-stricken future without jeopardising the environment and possibly sinking Mumbai and Kolkata due to a rise of oceans as a consequence of global warming. The question arises: what is holding us back from expanding our nuclear power generation?
There are, of course, concerns about the negative effects of nuclear power in terms of costs, waste disposal, safety and so on. It can be nobody’s case that these should not be satisfactorily addressed and constantly improved. At the same time, new research indicates that all these concerns can be taken care of more effectively by some fresh thinking to meet the burgeoning demands of the 21st century. Power blackouts this year in the US, Scandinavia and Italy are provoking a rethink. The risks of nuclear power are much less with modern technology and safety standards. Also, even renewable energy like solar and wind, has its own costs in terms of environmental degradation. But the real hurdle to increasing nuclear power generation is the denial of technology and capital, under the rubric of “non-proliferation”. It is not as if we cannot build more nuclear power plants indigenously. But getting to a 10 per cent share (from the current share of 2 per cent) would take much longer. Meanwhile hundreds of million people would continue to live in poverty, burning increasing quantities of coal, wood and oil and dramatically adding to environmental pollution and global warming.
Notably, there is no universal legal regime that forbids international cooperation. In fact, today’s nuclear watch-dog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was set up to promote nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. What comes in the way of our future human development are either national laws or ad hoc regimes like the 1992 NSG “guidelines” composed mostly of industrialised countries that rely heavily on nuclear power and are secure under nuclear weapon umbrellas. But, by definition, these are only guidelines and should logically be applied with a degree of discretion and objective judgment on the merits of each case instead of being locked into the ideological box of non-proliferation.
It is in this context that the recent interdisciplinary authoritative study, ‘The Future of Nuclear Power’, by the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), must be seen. Its central conclusion is that the use of nuclear power should be increased, even while addressing issues of costs, safety, non-proliferation and sustainable environment. It estimates something like 1,000 to 1,500 reactors of 1,000 megawatt-electric capacity worldwide by 2050. This would cut back annually about 800 million tonnes (that is, 12 per cent of current levels) of carbon equivalent emissions of the otherwise environment-friendly gas-fired electricity generation. In the case of coal, this would more than double.
In terms of costs, the study concludes that if real levelised costs are taken into account, nuclear power cost would be practically at a par with that of coal and gas fired power generation. But if power costs with environmental taxes for carbon emission are taken into account, the coal/gas generated power could be one-third more expensive. In our own case, the costs for infrastructure, environment and electricity generation may also be judged by the fact that over 50 per cent of our railway freight transportation (in km-ton terms), itself burning a lot of energy, is tied up with transporting coal for power generation.
The irony is that our concerns regarding non-proliferation, environmental degradation, nuclear safety, and so on, are no different from those of the NSG. What comes in the way is the issue of our nuclear weapons acquired for our security without violating any international law or our own commitments to it. But if human development of a billion people (and the market it represents for developed economies) has to progress with any sense of priority, then a fresh look at the question of access to clean affordable nuclear energy becomes an imperative. This would require some changes in the working guidelines of NSG to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. India obviously would have no objection to placing such reactors under international inspection and safeguards.
To start with, contrary to conventional wisdom, nuclear power is “neither dead, dying or in decline”, with 419 nuclear reactors operating worldwide producing 17 per cent of its electricity. France (with 59 reactors) generates 79 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, Belgium 60 per cent, Sweden 42 per cent, Switzerland 39 per cent, Spain 37 per cent, Japan 34 per cent, the UK 21 per cent, and the US 19 per cent, are all members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) who lays down guidelines for nuclear power technology and trade. The share of nuclear energy in developing countries is expected to grow in the next 40 years from the present 2 per cent to over 11 per cent. And we should be looking past such figures if we are to break out of our poverty-stricken future without jeopardising the environment and possibly sinking Mumbai and Kolkata due to a rise of oceans as a consequence of global warming. The question arises: what is holding us back from expanding our nuclear power generation?
There are, of course, concerns about the negative effects of nuclear power in terms of costs, waste disposal, safety and so on. It can be nobody’s case that these should not be satisfactorily addressed and constantly improved. At the same time, new research indicates that all these concerns can be taken care of more effectively by some fresh thinking to meet the burgeoning demands of the 21st century. Power blackouts this year in the US, Scandinavia and Italy are provoking a rethink. The risks of nuclear power are much less with modern technology and safety standards. Also, even renewable energy like solar and wind, has its own costs in terms of environmental degradation. But the real hurdle to increasing nuclear power generation is the denial of technology and capital, under the rubric of “non-proliferation”. It is not as if we cannot build more nuclear power plants indigenously. But getting to a 10 per cent share (from the current share of 2 per cent) would take much longer. Meanwhile hundreds of million people would continue to live in poverty, burning increasing quantities of coal, wood and oil and dramatically adding to environmental pollution and global warming.
Notably, there is no universal legal regime that forbids international cooperation. In fact, today’s nuclear watch-dog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was set up to promote nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. What comes in the way of our future human development are either national laws or ad hoc regimes like the 1992 NSG “guidelines” composed mostly of industrialised countries that rely heavily on nuclear power and are secure under nuclear weapon umbrellas. But, by definition, these are only guidelines and should logically be applied with a degree of discretion and objective judgment on the merits of each case instead of being locked into the ideological box of non-proliferation.
It is in this context that the recent interdisciplinary authoritative study, ‘The Future of Nuclear Power’, by the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), must be seen. Its central conclusion is that the use of nuclear power should be increased, even while addressing issues of costs, safety, non-proliferation and sustainable environment. It estimates something like 1,000 to 1,500 reactors of 1,000 megawatt-electric capacity worldwide by 2050. This would cut back annually about 800 million tonnes (that is, 12 per cent of current levels) of carbon equivalent emissions of the otherwise environment-friendly gas-fired electricity generation. In the case of coal, this would more than double.
In terms of costs, the study concludes that if real levelised costs are taken into account, nuclear power cost would be practically at a par with that of coal and gas fired power generation. But if power costs with environmental taxes for carbon emission are taken into account, the coal/gas generated power could be one-third more expensive. In our own case, the costs for infrastructure, environment and electricity generation may also be judged by the fact that over 50 per cent of our railway freight transportation (in km-ton terms), itself burning a lot of energy, is tied up with transporting coal for power generation.
The irony is that our concerns regarding non-proliferation, environmental degradation, nuclear safety, and so on, are no different from those of the NSG. What comes in the way is the issue of our nuclear weapons acquired for our security without violating any international law or our own commitments to it. But if human development of a billion people (and the market it represents for developed economies) has to progress with any sense of priority, then a fresh look at the question of access to clean affordable nuclear energy becomes an imperative. This would require some changes in the working guidelines of NSG to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. India obviously would have no objection to placing such reactors under international inspection and safeguards.