The debate on nuclear power and koodankulam needs to be viewed from several angles.
1. Nuclear Fission power generation is decreasing in countries that started using them first.
The
use of nuclear power has been decreasing in relative terms with respect
to other forms of energy generation, due to economics of power plant
construction and operational costs. By various mechanisms nuclear power
is heavily subsidised. The US produces more than 1,00,000 MW of nuclear
power from more than 100 power plants but it is only around 20% of
their power usage. France produces around 60,000 MW but it is around 75%
of the country's usage. India produces less than 10,000MW and is only
about 2% of the country's electricity usage.
In the US there have been no new reactors built for more than 30 years.
The plants have been modified or given life extensions. The Indo-US
nuclear deal which opens up the Indian power sector for the US Nuclear
Industry has to be viewed in this background.
The number of power plants
peaked worldover in the 1970s and declined with a slight resurgence
recently. 26 years after Chernobyl, the fukushima incident has raised
issues in many countries. The only countries of the world without
nuclear powerplants (built or being built) are Australia and Central
African countries.
In environmental terms, on a daily basis the nuclear fission power
plants are less damaging than thermal coal power plants. Water discharge
into
the sea by the power plants cause less damage than discharge of sewage and chemical plants.
2. Renewable energy - wind, solar, sea - use for power generation
are not as efficient as nuclear energy. The regionality, seasonality
and time-dependency makes it necessary to have power storage options,
like batteries. Disposal of used solar cells, batteries etc make the
technology not so 'green' as advertised. The use of renewable sources
for energy generation is growing but not sufficiently rapidly due to
science and technology limitations. Increased research is needed to
overcome the problem of efficiency of conversion. Biological systems do
the conversion of solar or wind power into chemical energy very
efficiently.
3. Coal (and older oil) based power plants are
economically feasible. The technology is well developed and accessible
to all countries. But, the resources are limited and there is lot of
political and economic control that prevents their being available at
low cost. The coal power plants damage the environment severely on a day
to day basis.
4. Hydel power projects are possible only where there is sufficient
water flow. Moreover, the dams that are required often result in
submergence of large areas of land.
5. Nuclear fusion power that
drives our Sun and other stars is clean, efficient technology.
Biological energy generation systems that have evolved are clean and
efficient. But we are nowhere near harnessing these technologies. We
need more research and understanding of the mechanisms.
6. So where do we go for power now?
We need to use the available
power generation technologies wisely. Given our current science and
technology, any project be it house building or roads or chemical /
power / anyother industries leads to alteration of environment and
livelihood effects. The answer is not to say 'no' to use of available
technology but to find out how best we can minimise the damages, develop
an open and transparent human friendly system of sharing resources,
environment, livelihood capacities. We need power plants that use the
safest and cleanest technologies available currently. Ultimately we need
to change our development perspectives, so that as a nation and as a
world our power dependency is not inequal and skewed.
I know these are general views but it is necessary that we revisit our world views whenever we get stuck in our local issues.
I hope this helps us to view the koodankulum issue with a better perspective.
Krishnaswamy
TNSF
