NUCLEAR POWER: IS IT HELPFUL REALLY?????????

“Nuclear power is the best alternative to fossil fuels”

After many trials and tribulations, the historic Indo-US nuclear deal is through. And while some on the Left cry foul, experts say that India stands to gain both at a political and economic level. They claim that India is at the forefront in recognising the distinct advantages of using thorium in the nuclear fuel cycle and will become a significant player on the international nuclear market, given the number of highly skilled nuclear engineers and scientists. The US-India Business Council thinks that the deal could open a wide vista of opportunity for US-India collaboration in commerce, civil nuclear research, technology transfer and essential inputs to power India’s dynamic and fast-moving economy.

On the other side we see that today across the world there are 440 land-based nuclear power reactors that produce around 370 gigawatts of electricity, amounting to 16% of the world’s electricity. But that is barely two percent of the share of total world energy consumption. With depletion of the fossil fuel reserves and global warming becoming a major concern, massive campaigns are being undertaken by governments across the globe to teach their citizens about the importance of conservation and renewable sources of energy, which is often taken to include nuclear power. However, critics contend that nuclear power is neither a renewable nor a clean source of energy.

The nuclear power debate in context:

India's power needs

The world’s largest democracy is in dire need of power. To understand India's hunger for energy, one simply needs to look at the numbers. India is the world’s sixth largest consumer of oil, using an estimated 2,450,000 barrels per day in 2005. That demand is expected to grow rapidly until 2030. Today, India imports about 70% of its oil; and as its demand for natural gas is also expected to grow, most of that would have to be imported too.

The nuclear solution

To curb this dependence, the nuclear option looks viable. However, at present nuclear energy in India accounts for a measly 3% of the total generation of 120,000 MW. As of 2008, India has 17 nuclear power plants in operation generating 4,120 MW, while six others are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 3,160 MW. Large-scale nuclear power production would also mean less dependence on traditional sources of non-renewable fuel such as coal, oil and petroleum. Abundant nuclear power production would lead to a fall in fuel and electricity prices. It especially holds relevance as a promising new alternative in the face of price rise and fall in oil output. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium-centred fuel cycle. While uranium deposits in the nation are limited there are much greater reserves of thorium, and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. A prototype reactor that would burn uranium-plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at the Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.

Civil nuclear co-operation and the power politics

India, being a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been subjected to a de facto nuclear embargo from members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) cartel. This had prevented India from obtaining commercial nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant components and services from the international market, thereby forcing India to develop its own fuel, components and services for nuclear power generation. It has been argued that the embargo had both negative and positive consequences for India's nuclear industry. On the one hand it has constrained the country’s ability to move towards its goal of expanding its nuclear power generation capacity to at least 20,000 MW by 2020. On the other hand, the NSG embargo has forced the Indian government to support and actively fund the development of Indian nuclear technologies.

India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 13 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards. However, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). With India’s desire to emerge as a global superpower, the status of being one of the countries who will be in civil nuclear cooperation with NSG countries without signing the CTBT or NPT will help further its cause. However critics of the deal are quick to point that the American military-industrial complex has its own calculations to ponder. The enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation is a handy weapon to maintain American nuclear hegemony, and is a policy supplemented with a further stratagem of offering vulnerable countries around the world, under strictest safeguards, driblets of nuclear fuel and technology for civilian use.

Renewable sources - the cleaner yet costlier alternatives to fossil fuel ?

There are many renewable energy options available to India. With a huge coastline, wind power is a viable option. India was one of the pioneering states in establishing hydro-electric power plants. The hydro-power plant at Darjeeling was established in 1898 and is one of the first in Asia. The current installed base of hydro power is 36,033.76 MW, which comes to 24.7% of total installed base. Being a primarily agricultural country, biomass power is under consideration by the government, as well as the conversion of urban and industrial waste into energy. This tropical country is also exploring the option of solar energy. The current installed base of renewable power is 12,194.57 MW, which comes to 7.7% of total installed base and is estimated to increase in the future. But in spite of the steps taken, critics argue that the renewable sources, while cleaner, will be a costlier option and will fail to be the substitute for fossil fuel.

Is nuclear power superior?

Fossil fuels like coal will continue to play a role in meeting our energy needs, and new techniques like carbon capture and storage will make them cleaner and more efficient. However, much of the debate pits nuclear power against renewable energy, particularly hydroelectric and wind power. Critics see government targets for the increase in renewables as pure wishful thinking and see alternative sources like wind power and biomass fuel as expensive and intermittent. But supporters contest that not only is wind power reliable, it is the future of energy: the subsidies for wind power are small by nuclear standards, and cost reductions will continue in the future. However, critics of the nuclear option like Arthur Scargill, former president of the UK National Union of Mineworkers, claim that nuclear-power generated electricity is the most expensive form of energy - 400% more expensive than coal, having received £6bn in subsidies, with £70bn to be paid by UK taxpayers in decommissioning costs. Besides the cost scenario, there are the added problems of nuclear waste disposal and the risk of nuclear disasters; and reminders of the disasters at Windscale (UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979) and Chernobyl (Russia, 1986) still feature prominently in this discussion.

The arguments against nuclear power

Opponents of nuclear power argue that an assessment of potential benefits must take into account the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station. Factoring in the costs of construction, insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning undermines the economic case for nuclear. The question of cost is a complex one and both sides agree that we will only really know how much a nuclear power station costs by building one. It is also argued that the carbon dioxide emitted in the mining and refinement of uranium makes the case that nuclear is clean look more doubtful. There is also concern about the link between nuclear power and weapons proliferation and about vulnerability to terrorism. Critics say that extending civil nuclear cooperation to India, a non-signatory of CTBT and NPT, will escalate the nuclear race in the subcontinent. However India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on ‘credible minimum deterrence.’ In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of ‘retaliation only.’