The Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu is finally moving towards commission, with the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) giving its approval for the loading of fuel in the first unit of the nuclear power plant last week. The project has been under scrutiny for a lot of reasons, not least because of the anti-nuclear power mood after the accident to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan last year. The AERB has made it clear that the Board has carried out a safety reassessment of the capacity of the Kudankulam plant to withstand extreme external events and the non-availability of power supply for an extended period.
The Fukushima crisis has been called the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, a quarter-century ago. The nuclear accident, after an earthquake and a tsunami, led to anxious questions around the world about the safety of nuclear reactors, and putting world capitals under intense pressure. The Indian government, too, ordered a review of all safety features at its nuclear plants, although the nuclear establishment was quick to underline that all its 20 nuclear plants are earthquake and tsunami-proof. Yet for the first time there were calls from within government circles for a temporary stop to nuclear power plans and production. Dr P Balaram, director of the prestigious Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore and part of the prime minister’s scientific advisory council, described the events in Japan as “a wake-up call” for India. Backed by more than 50 prominent figures, he called for a moratorium on all future nuclear projects following the Fukushima crisis.
After decades of being ostracised by policymakers, nuclear energy had been coming back to the mainstream over the last few years. Faced with rising oil prices and growing concerns about climate change, nations had started giving the nuclear-energy option serious consideration. There was a new enthusiasm for nuclear energy at a time when concerns about curbing global warming and energy security have become paramount. In contrast to coal-fired power plants, atomic reactors produce little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions — which is good news for the climate. In addition, the technology is helpful for regions which may not have natural gas reserves, for example. Nuclear energy means a certain degree of independence and a modicum of political autonomy when it comes to determining energy policy. Furthermore, energy produced from nuclear power 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 or Three Mile Island, not to mention proliferation and dirty bombs. But things have been rapidly changing with previous 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. A growing list of environmentalists openly advocates nuclear power. The “father” of the contemporary global environmental movement, James Lovelock, has been claiming that the challenges of global warming can only be tackled by nuclear energy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasised in its report in 2007 that countries could use more nuclear power as part of a shift away from fossil fuels in order to blunt global warming. An unforeseen consequence of the anti-nuclear movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the West was that it impeded the growth of the most environm ent-friendly, if risky, of energy resources — even as it boosted coal and oil-sourced electricity generation which, it now turns out, has damaged the environment probably beyond repair.
Japan’s nuclear crisis was a major setback to this development. But a proper perspective is needed if debate on nuclear energy is to proceed rationally. It was an old reactor with a design from the 1960s that got into trouble in Japan. The technology of this type of plant is outdated. Its safety level is significantly below that of modern nuclear plants; it wouldn’t get construction approval these days. The crisis at Fukushima was triggered by the failure of diesel generators that provided electricity to cool the reactors once they were shut down. It is significant that despite all provocations, the containment walls seem to have held. In the new Generation III reactors there is a simplified cooling system where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.
The hyper-reaction to the Japanese crisis, though understandable, will not lead to sensible policy outcomes because the costs and risks of nuclear energy need to be rigorously compared against the costs and risks of other energy sources and the long-term costs and risks of global warming. The present situation in Japan is illustrative. As the debate continues to rage in Japan if, in the aftermath of the triple meltdown at Fukushima, Japan should renounce nuclear power, the cost of a nuclear-free Japan are becoming ever more apparent. Japan is facing an acute energy shortage after all but two of the nation’s 50 nuclear reactors were shut under public pressure. Though a majority of the Japanese seem to prefer a non-nuclear policy by 2030, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has made it clear that Japan needs nuclear power for a stable electricity supply, underlining that without that, Japanese society will not be able to function.
Nuclear power remains an important means of meeting the energy requirements in 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 receives only three per cent of its power from nuclear energy. While about one-third of India’s new power supplies have come from natural gas and hydro-electricity over the last decade, the cost of natural gas and the environmental concerns over big dams will force India towards an even greater use of coal in its energy mix. This can be devastating for the global environment; and so India’s embrace of nuclear power should be viewed as a realistic answer to this problem.
The writer teaches at King’s College, London