As we go to press, authorities in Japan are considering burying the earthquake-and-tsunami-struck Fukushima nuclear power plant in sand and concrete — the ‘Chernobyl Option’ — to save the country’s people from dangerous levels of radiation from the plant’s six reactors.
But the Chernobyl Option may not be confined to just the Fukushima complex, until the morning of March 11 said to be among the safest nuclear power plants in the world. Will it be the fate of nuclear power itself, around the world?
Japan’s nuclear disaster, caused by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami in its wake, has raised concerns and led to calls worldwide from anti-nuclear activists, politicians and thousands of ordinary people to bury nuclear power once and for all and has shaken governments that until last week were looking to effect a global resurgence of nuclear power.
In the US, President Obama had only in January proposed $36 billion in government loan guarantees for the construction of 20 new nuclear plants. But the unfolding crisis in Japan’s nuclear reactors has left even staunch supporters of nuclear power advocating a pause in licensing and building new plants.
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel cancelled the proposed life extension of the country’s pre-1980 nuclear plants and announced that they would be shut down.
China suspended work on all new nuclear power plants — 27 are under construction — until safety standards were “revised” and ordered a review at its existing 13 nuclear power plants.
Closer home in India, the nuclear naysayers are back with a bang. Praful Bidwai of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace has demanded a “radical review” of India’s nuclear power policy”. Popular protests sprung up in a number of places earmarked for future nuclear power plants as India embarks on an ambitious expansion plan — to up its nuclear power generation capacity from around 5,000 MW today to 60,000 MW by 2030.
The last week has witnessed popular protests in Mithivirdi village in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district, the proposed site of a 8,000 MW nuclear power plant, where people shouted “Anu Mathak, Mot nu Mathak” (nuclear plant, death plant); in Maharashtra’s Jaitapur, where French giant Areva is to set up a six-reactor 9,900 MW plant; and in Andhra Pradesh’s Srikakulam district, where some 35 Gram Panchayats passed resolutions opposing the establishment of a 10,000 MW nuclear power plant at Kovvada village. Is it time to press the pause button on nuclear power in India, perhaps even scrap the N-option out of the country’s energy mix?
Fukushima could not have come at a more inopportune time for India, which is looking to rapidly expand power generation following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s nuclear deal with the US. Nonetheless, a safety review is called for at this time, and the lessons of Fukushima must be learnt. And that’s what the doctor ordered.
Yet, it may be impossible for India to go slow, or rather go any slower than already, in its push for nuclear power, let alone scrap that option. For India, nuclear power is not just a reliable and green option, it is an imperative in the bigger battle to maintain rapid economic growth, bring some 800 million poor into the ranks of the middle class, and generally raise the standard of living for all Indians – and do all this while keeping its carbon emissions falling.
India’s installed power generation capacity is about 170 GW from all sources. That number is set to go up to 250 GW by 2015, about 330 GW by 2020 and to a whopping 800 GW by 2030 for India to maintain its 8-9 per cent growth rate. Can we do that without a rapid increase in nuclear power generation?
Consider these facts:
Coal already contributes to 60 per cent of India’s power generation capacity. It’s also the biggest contributor to India’s carbon emissions. In addition, it releases lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic. If India were to increase its coal usage any higher, the world would be alarmed!
Of India’s projected power generation capacity of 800 GW by 2030, hydel power could contribute 84 GW, about 10 per cent, but much of that potential is locked up in the north-eastern states, especially Arunachal Pradesh. No wonder China has kept up the heat on India, claiming that state for itself.
Wind power is probably the most hyped green source. Putting up wind turbines requires vast amounts of land – as much as 30 times what a nuclear power plant would need to produce the same amount of power. Worse, every megawatt of wind power capacity established has to be backed up by a megawatt of conventional power. So, what is the green gain? In any case, wind power only has a potential of about 45 GW, at full load factor.
Solar power theoretically can meet all of India’s power needs. Yet in practice, it, too, requires vast lands – some 15 times as much as a nuclear power plant would require to produce the same amount of power.
India currently imports 65 per cent of its petroleum requirements, and that figure is set to go up to 90 per cent by 2025. That level of import dependency, much of it on the Gulf countries, is strategically dangerous. Moreover, it makes no sense to import oil and put it to produce electricity. Natural gas is the cleanest source among fossil fuels, and it has risen faster than any other type as an energy source. It may be India’s biggest hope, apart from nuclear.
Thanks to their high power-density, nuclear reactors require small amounts of land, thus allowing India the luxury of having large swathes of land for agriculture and forests. And, they are cost-comparable, even cheaper, compared to wind or even coal when measured on lifecycle cost basis. According to Dr Anshu Bharadwaj, director of the Centre for the Study of Science and Technology Policy, Bengaluru, nuclear power will come in at between `3.50-5.00 a kilowatt hour, while power from coal will cost `2.50-3.00, biomass will cost `4.50-5.00 and solar power will cost `12-14 per kWh.
Pause for safety? Yes. Learn lessons from Fukushima? Yes. But let’s do it quickly.