Over the last one and a half months since the earthquake and tsunami of unprecedented magnitudes crippled the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, the media has captured pictures of people across the world holding up placards that read, “No More Fukushimas”.
Concern, bordering on fear, over the safety of nuclear plants has brought these people into the streets and in a quick response, governments in nearly all the countries that operate nuclear plants have called for a thorough and comprehensive technical review of the safety of their reactors.
However, even as the nuclear industry, nuclear operators’ associations, international nuclear safety organisations and national regulatory bodies derive technical and operational lessons from the unfortunate Fukushima experience and apply them to enhance safety at all levels — site selection, design, construction, operation, emergency preparedness, etc — the most immediate requirement is for reaching out to the public to restore its confidence in the safety of the nuclear power generation installations.
The pressing challenge before the nuclear industry and national nuclear establishments is to arrest the mood of public opinion that appears to be swinging in favour of choosing the easy option of abandoning nuclear energy, though the need of the hour is to maintain a balanced approach by undertaking a calculated analysis of the risks and benefits involved and to distil and assimilate the right lessons from Fukushima.
Country responses have already illustrated that every nation will devise its own approach to nuclear power based on its domestic energy scenario, electricity availability and political affinities. So, while Germany, which has a stable population, a mature electricity market and a politically active Green Party, can afford to consider a phase-out of its nuclear reactors, India and China, with their high population and economic growth, low per capita energy availability and a high projected increase of 56 per cent in the electricity demand in the coming two decades, simply cannot afford to follow Germany’s example.
For India, the role of nuclear energy must be seen from the perspective of the secure availability of other fuel sources. Coal is responsible for nearly 55 per cent of the total electricity production in the country, but dependence on imports is rising by the day since indigenously available coal is of a low quality with a high ash content. As growing environmental concerns compel greater dependence on carbon-neutral sources of energy, the focus will have to shift from coal. Renewable sources of energy are an option, but they have their limitations in terms of full-time availability, storage issues, cost competitiveness and constraints of space. Nuclear energy, in contrast, is a dense form of energy and needs far lesser land to produce the same amount of electricity.
Meanwhile, contemporary trends such as low interest rates, improvements in nuclear plant capacity factors, reduction in construction time, etc, have rationalised the per unit cost of nuclear electricity. In fact, the construction and cost experience of Tarapur 3 and 4, among India’s latest nuclear plants, shows that not only were these plants constructed in a record time of five years but also at a cost lower than expected of Rs 6,100 crore against an approved cost of Rs 6525 crore. Modern systems of construction and resource management have indeed contributed to the economics of nuclear power.
However, after the Fukushima crisis, for nuclear energy to retain its position in the energy mix of India where there is a clear logic for it, it is going to be important for the nuclear establishments to win public support for nuclear reactors. The battle has to be won on two counts: one, to make people understand the need for nuclear power; and, secondly, to explain the safety aspects of nuclear electricity generation. This calls for a far more proactive approach from the nuclear establishment. Until now, this has worked in a closed manner —in decision-making and operations. But in the changed environment after Fukushima, the only way to win public support for nuclear energy will have to include a far greater interaction with the people to explain to them the reasons for the selection of a particular site, the basics of the reactor technology, the safety redundancies built into operations, etc.
In fact, it would be a good idea to invite the public — school and college students, organised groups of women’s associations, the corporate sector, the media and the common people — to visit the plants and to see and feel for themselves. A special effort must also be made to engage with NGOs and local community groups at plant sites since they have the advantage of directly interacting with the local populace as also a huge capacity for mobilising public opinion. The more approachable the nuclear plants seem, the greater will be the confidence that will be engendered over time. A conscious and well-planned education campaign would alleviate public fears about what goes on beyond the walls of a nuclear complex, and also reduce the distance between them and ‘high technology’. Tellingly, a global online public opinion poll of 10,000 people, which was conducted by the UK-based Accenture firm in November 2008, revealed that nearly 40 per cent of the respondents felt that they could vote in favour of nuclear energy if provided with more information. This finding is even more relevant today.
For India, which requires nothing less than an energy revolution to meet the projected electricity demand in the next couple of decades, there is a strong case for careful understanding of the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix. Demographic growth, rising aspirations of a young and aware populace, lack of indigenous fuel resources and mounting proof of climate change are the challenges that call for a long-term vision and commitment to ensure safe generation of nuclear power.
The nuclear establishment, indeed, has its work cut out for the future — comprehensive internal safety audits and stringent implementation of recommendations as well as urgent external engagement with the public.
Concern, bordering on fear, over the safety of nuclear plants has brought these people into the streets and in a quick response, governments in nearly all the countries that operate nuclear plants have called for a thorough and comprehensive technical review of the safety of their reactors.
However, even as the nuclear industry, nuclear operators’ associations, international nuclear safety organisations and national regulatory bodies derive technical and operational lessons from the unfortunate Fukushima experience and apply them to enhance safety at all levels — site selection, design, construction, operation, emergency preparedness, etc — the most immediate requirement is for reaching out to the public to restore its confidence in the safety of the nuclear power generation installations.
The pressing challenge before the nuclear industry and national nuclear establishments is to arrest the mood of public opinion that appears to be swinging in favour of choosing the easy option of abandoning nuclear energy, though the need of the hour is to maintain a balanced approach by undertaking a calculated analysis of the risks and benefits involved and to distil and assimilate the right lessons from Fukushima.
Country responses have already illustrated that every nation will devise its own approach to nuclear power based on its domestic energy scenario, electricity availability and political affinities. So, while Germany, which has a stable population, a mature electricity market and a politically active Green Party, can afford to consider a phase-out of its nuclear reactors, India and China, with their high population and economic growth, low per capita energy availability and a high projected increase of 56 per cent in the electricity demand in the coming two decades, simply cannot afford to follow Germany’s example.
For India, the role of nuclear energy must be seen from the perspective of the secure availability of other fuel sources. Coal is responsible for nearly 55 per cent of the total electricity production in the country, but dependence on imports is rising by the day since indigenously available coal is of a low quality with a high ash content. As growing environmental concerns compel greater dependence on carbon-neutral sources of energy, the focus will have to shift from coal. Renewable sources of energy are an option, but they have their limitations in terms of full-time availability, storage issues, cost competitiveness and constraints of space. Nuclear energy, in contrast, is a dense form of energy and needs far lesser land to produce the same amount of electricity.
Meanwhile, contemporary trends such as low interest rates, improvements in nuclear plant capacity factors, reduction in construction time, etc, have rationalised the per unit cost of nuclear electricity. In fact, the construction and cost experience of Tarapur 3 and 4, among India’s latest nuclear plants, shows that not only were these plants constructed in a record time of five years but also at a cost lower than expected of Rs 6,100 crore against an approved cost of Rs 6525 crore. Modern systems of construction and resource management have indeed contributed to the economics of nuclear power.
However, after the Fukushima crisis, for nuclear energy to retain its position in the energy mix of India where there is a clear logic for it, it is going to be important for the nuclear establishments to win public support for nuclear reactors. The battle has to be won on two counts: one, to make people understand the need for nuclear power; and, secondly, to explain the safety aspects of nuclear electricity generation. This calls for a far more proactive approach from the nuclear establishment. Until now, this has worked in a closed manner —in decision-making and operations. But in the changed environment after Fukushima, the only way to win public support for nuclear energy will have to include a far greater interaction with the people to explain to them the reasons for the selection of a particular site, the basics of the reactor technology, the safety redundancies built into operations, etc.
In fact, it would be a good idea to invite the public — school and college students, organised groups of women’s associations, the corporate sector, the media and the common people — to visit the plants and to see and feel for themselves. A special effort must also be made to engage with NGOs and local community groups at plant sites since they have the advantage of directly interacting with the local populace as also a huge capacity for mobilising public opinion. The more approachable the nuclear plants seem, the greater will be the confidence that will be engendered over time. A conscious and well-planned education campaign would alleviate public fears about what goes on beyond the walls of a nuclear complex, and also reduce the distance between them and ‘high technology’. Tellingly, a global online public opinion poll of 10,000 people, which was conducted by the UK-based Accenture firm in November 2008, revealed that nearly 40 per cent of the respondents felt that they could vote in favour of nuclear energy if provided with more information. This finding is even more relevant today.
For India, which requires nothing less than an energy revolution to meet the projected electricity demand in the next couple of decades, there is a strong case for careful understanding of the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix. Demographic growth, rising aspirations of a young and aware populace, lack of indigenous fuel resources and mounting proof of climate change are the challenges that call for a long-term vision and commitment to ensure safe generation of nuclear power.
The nuclear establishment, indeed, has its work cut out for the future — comprehensive internal safety audits and stringent implementation of recommendations as well as urgent external engagement with the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment