Japan's nuclear disaster has fuelled fear and uncertainty among all of the world's producers of nuclear power. For India, an energy-starved country with big nuclear plans, much is at stake.
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment