Much has been talked about the nuclear agreement signed by the Indian government with the United States administration. Nevertheless, the talks concentrate on the political aspects of the deal, much less on the technical side. I have to admit that the more I read about the deal, the more I get confused.
As I try to understand more on the need of the deal, bigger questions pops up in my mind. Not being a political expert, I couldn’t fathom the ‘political mileage’ and ‘strategic advantages’ the country could gain from the deal, but the mere argument that the deal would revolutionize India’s energy sector makes me suspicious.
It wont take much brain to understand the need for some radical steps to address India’s growing power needs. To beat up China or to prop up the 10 percent growth much need to be done in the energy sector. But is nuclear the way to go ? I feel the propaganda is far from true.
Going nuclear way can only help us to generate more electricity, but that won't address all our energy requirements. Presently, only a small percentage of electricity generated in India comes from nuclear resources. A little more than 4000 Mwe produced makes the figure to just 3.4 percent of the total electricity generated. With the deal, we are just trying to increase that percentage. Atomic Commission admits that “Hydro potential and renewables must be exploited to the maximum possible extent and in as short a time-frame as possible” and it concludes by saying nuclear resources need to be exploited to address the long term requirements.
Understanding the truth that the worldwide nuclear energy generation is a minuscule 2% will give us some hint on how feasible these plans are. United States who pushes aggressively for the deal generates only 4 percent of its electricity requirement through nuclear resources. Apart from France, who invested much on the nuclear technology in the 70s and generates about 78 percent of its electricity which accounts to 16 per cent of its total energy consumption, none of the nuclear majors are interested in investing in this field. America, on the other hand, is betting big on bio fuel. Europe goes the wind and solar way and Russia thinks about coal and gas. Even China is reluctant in investing much on nuclear energy. The commercial potential of nuclear energy is identified way back in 50s, but still none of the biggies are interested in the energy. Are there any fundamental reasons behind their aversion to nuke power ?
Left front rightly pointed out the cost of nuclear power. Even with the best available technology, energy generated through nuclear means can be 8 times costlier than that generated through conventional means. It can cost more than thrice that of renewable energy. Do India still believe that we can maintain the competitive advantage given we give in that big on our energy needs ?
Several countries in the west, particularly Germany and Spain, are on their way to close down plans because nuclear energy is not considered as ‘clean’. One side, there are risks of accidents – the infamous Chernobyl - and on the other, there are waste disposal issues. In 1999, Germany bought law to shut down all plans and ban new ones from starting.
The bigger issues are with the decommissioning of the plants. In January this year, seven nuclear reactors have been decommissioned in Europe, four in UK, two in Bulgaria and one in Slovakia. To decommission its four plants, it will cost British taxpayers 103 billion Euros. If France - with its 58 reactors - decides to decommission the reactors, the bill will be at least five times higher. India may not face this problem immediately, but this definitely is worth a consideration.
A safe and easy way to waste disposal is not yet found out. France tries to bury its nuclear waste in a site near Beure, but the fact that the soil and aquifers will be contaminated for next ten thousand years makes France plans questionable.
Europe is heading in the right direction. The European Council takes nuclear energy out from the list of renewable sources and directed its members to produce 20 percent of its energy through renewable means.
Despite all the protests, the deal might go through. But still, we cannot call this the ‘energy of the future’. An increase in renewable energy and reduction of consumption through energy-efficient industry, habitat or life style might be a head straight solution for the future, but does anyone here care much about it ?
3 comments:
great post Gireesh, agree with u fully! nuclear energy is certainly not the way out of the energy crisis, for India or the world. We've still not found ways to dispose off nuclear waste which certainly becomes even more alarming in the face of such agreements.
Hey Gireesh,
Nice post. I always knew that nuclear energy can cause irrepairable damage to our environment but it comes as a surpirse to me that is can be 8 times costlier than conventional means. Is this true?
In any case, I completely agree with you when you say that clean sources of energy, such as solar or wind, are the ones which can bring about environmental sustainability.
Sagar,
Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, however the capital costs are much greater than those for conventional plants.Hydro is way cheaper than any other forms, but comparing it with thermal plants is pointless (95ps/KWH Vs Rs.2.51/KWH). The cost of a running a 1000 MW coal and nuclear plant with imported technologies are 3.7 cr and 11.1 cr respectively.
[http://www.cpim.org/pd/2007/0902/
09022007_snd.htm]
This in turn is after the capital tax benefits on nuclear plants because it considered as 'clean'.
There are counter arguments as well.
[http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm]
But do consider the source of study before taking a stand.
Post a Comment