India’s democratic process is changing the country’s nuclear energy program at startling speed.
First it was protests at the proposed nuclear power plant at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. Now it’s protests at the plant under construction at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, and at practically every site across the country that has been designated for a new power plant. And at most places, people’s concerns about the risks of nuclear power are clashing with the government’s plans to power the country with nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy has been this government’s answer to bridge the chasm of its energy gap. That was the whole rationale for the landmark Indo-U.S. nuclear deal— a significant milestone of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s tenure.
At present India operates 20 nuclear plants that generate 4780 megawatts of electricity, a miniscule 3% or so of the country’s entire output. It has another four under construction, including the plant at Kudankulam whose fate is now unknown, which, if they come on line, will produce an additional 5300 MW.
The protests in places like Kudankulam and Jaitapur are more livelihood driven (along with a sprinkling of the environmental and anti-nuclear lobbies, of course.) Land and water are precious commodities in India and the locals are worried about a loss of both, as well as a loss of the farming life on both land and sea. In West Bengal Mamata Banerjee, the state’s chief minister, has refused to allow a plant at the proposed site of Haripur.
This, says Harsh V. Pant, Reader in International Relations, Department of Defense Studies at King’s College, is a temporary setback, but an important one predominantly because at the moment the Indian government is flailing. “The problem is more administrative and of governance than a paradigm shift toward an anti-nuclear discourse…. The government is not able to comprehend the scale of challenge it’s facing at the moment.”
M.V. Ramana, an associate scholar at Princeton University who focuses on the future of nuclear energy in the context of climate change and nuclear disarmament says the protests are justified. “The people who are in the areas near the plants are certainly at risk of accident,” he says. “What is the probability of accident, no can determine. The nuclear establishment will say chances of an accident are zero but that’s not really true, they don’t really know. The question is not whether these communities are going to be affected by an accident but they are at risk of it.”
The plants at Haripur and Kudankulam were Russian investments.
“If you were a foreign investor, you would say these guys don’t have their act together,” says Mr. Ramana. “These are such local protests, but [they have swayed decisions and] investors might think they need to go to this market very guardedly.” This, he adds, is a different picture from the one drawn a few years ago when the impression was that India would import a lot of plants. “But democratic politics is pushing out the Kudankulam plant.”
For decades India’s department of nuclear energy has been promising a dramatic increase of nuclear power, but has consistently fallen drastically short of those ambitions. In 1970 it predicted that the country would have 43,000 MW by the year 2000. In the mid 1980s that estimate was revised to 10,000 MW.
After the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was signed in 2008 there were a rash of discussions – sites were identified; there would be imports from the U.S., France and Russia; deals were struck with Nigeria and Mongolia to import raw fuel. But once again things haven’t moved along quite at that speed.
Right now one big roadblock is the civilian liability bill that was passed by the Indian Parliament. It puts the majority of the onus of any disaster on the companies, an idea that is anathema to the Western companies who say the bill in its present form makes all investments unviable. But there really isn’t much room for negotiation on this bill, seeing this was the only version that was acceptable to all political parties and it was the only version that could be passed in Parliament.
The disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan earlier this year after the region was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami too raised a question, in India and globally, on the future of nuclear energy. However, the outcry since then has largely died down and countries like Russia and China have renewed their commitment to their nuclear programs. (Germany is the only country to have completely renounced nuclear power.)
Mr. Pant says he remains optimistic that India will get back on track. But, he admits, he is concerned that the argument that nuclear power is important is getting lost in local politics and doubts the current political leadership in India is capable enough to refocus the debate. “With [Tamil Nadu chief minister] J. Jayalalithaa’s intervention this is becoming a state vs. center debate,” he said. “With Congress in disarray in Delhi, and if state governments defer to local sentiment, how does Congress take that on?” He predicts more of those clashes, especially in states where Congress is not in power and as India gets closer to the next round of elections. “How do you allow a discourse from becoming a political issue instead the national issue that it is?”
So what is the future of nuclear energy in India?
Much of the same, predicts Princeton’s Mr. Ramana. To be sure India has received some investments since 2008, particularly from the Russians and vis-à-vis the deals with Nigeria and Mongolia. However, going forward one important difference is that it’s getting more difficult to acquire land for large scale projects, and even more so for a nuclear project. Mr. Ramana predicts that one of the few ways forward for this sector is to expand existing plants. The locals have already been relocated and there is an entire community that has jobs and its livelihood tied to these plants.
“It’s not possible to think of India’s energy metrics without thinking of nuclear,” adds Mr. Pant.
The fact is that the Kudankulam reactors are products of a newer and far superior technology than the Fukushima plant.
The agitation over the Kudankulam nuclear power station in southern Tamil Nadu is understandable but irrational. An accident could prove devastating for the local population and must arouse the liveliest fears after Fukushima, which survived a quake but was swamped by a tsunami such as the one that hit the Tirunelveli coast some years ago.
The damage caused by the more recent Sikkim earthquake has also aggravated fears of natural calamities. Protestors have been on fast for days and only called off their agitation after Jayalalitha got the Assembly to pass a resolution calling for suspension of further work until popular concerns are answered and followed up with a letter to the prime minister in this regard.
Kudankulam envisages a battery of six 1000 MW Russian power reactors, of which the first of two, in respect of which an agreement was signed some 10 years ago,is due to be commissioned in December. The project has seen local cooperation from the start but a recent mandatory safety drill appears to have unleashed fears that something must be or could go amiss. With local body elections due, one view is that undue alarm has been triggered by competitive politics. But, as is sometimes known to happen, ideological opponents, competitors and those pushing rival technologies are not above stirring the pot for collateral reasons.
The fact is that the Kudankulam reactors are products of a newer and far superior technology than Fukushima and have built-in safety and redundancy measures to meet unforeseen eventualities. Moreover the plant, like the proposed Jaitapur nuclear station being negotiated with Areva of France, is sited way above the maximum tsunami flood level observed at Fukushima.
A post-Fukushima safety evaluation of all existing and proposed nuclear plants in India has also suggested additional safeguards that have been implemented and all plants have been certified as safe in relation to these more stringent standards. No more land is to be acquired at Kudankulam and coolant discharge into the ocean will not unduly raise sea temperatures or otherwise affect fishing or the fish catch.
The Nuclear Power Corporation of India needs to revisit Kudankulam and all other existing and proposed nuclear power sites to allay doubts and fears, simultaneously taking the general public into confidence and not just leaving it for people to look up the NPCIL web site. That said, the media and political parties too have a responsible role to play beyond crying wolf and scoring brownie points.
Old debates
Hopefully, the Sikkim earthquake will not reopen old debates about dam safety, especially in the Himalayan belt and the Northeast which are highly tectonic. Some buildings, roads and civil works under construction as part of two Teesta 1200 MW projects in Upper Sikkim were damaged but the dams and headrace tunnels were unaffected according to a Teesta Urja Ltd spokesman. The same was true of the Maneri Bhali and Tehri Dams when they were shaken by the Uttarkashi earthquake some years ago. The moral again is to insist on regular dam safety inspections, invest in stronger defensive measures and upgrade disaster management procedures.
Meanwhile, it is good that a group of ministers has got the ministry of environment and forests to release 150 no-go area coal projects for mining so that the quantum and pace of power augmentation is not affected. The country simply has to get on with developing infrastructure, manufacturing and related services so as to maintain and even step up growth in order to roll back poverty and the environmental degradation that goes with it. There is too much circular argumentation that goes on.
The United States too has long been locked in several powerful muddles in the simplistic belief that muscle and aidcan trump anything. It has now stated that the Haqqani terror network in AfPak is a limb of Pakistan’s ISI which it is using as an instrument of state policy and as a potential partner in Afghanistan after the US and Nato militarily withdraw. And it has warned that it will act unilaterally against Pakistan and cut military and civil aid to it unless in fights to dismantle the Haqquani network The Pakistan Army’s cynical double dealing (using the ISI as a front) has been known for years but was wilfully condoned.
The Pressler Act and Kerry-Lugar Acts were used by the US as PR gimmicks that allowed Pakistan literally to get away with murder, causing ‘collateral damage’ to others.
Therefore, none will take the latest US warning seriously until there is positive proof of its implementation. Past presidential certification of good conduct has proved to be no more than window dressing. And, after Iraq, solemn US affirmations carry very low credibility.
Having spoken out strongly against Pakistan last week, Washington has again said it needs and wants Islamabad’s cooperation. Pakistan has bluntly retorted that the US needs it as much as it needs the US and that if Washington acts unilaterally against it, it will do so at its peril.
Pakistan’s bluff can be called as its economy is on drip and its military cannot long sustain itself without US aid. Nor can China be an immediate or effective substitute. A sensible regional solution in Afghanistan offers the best hope. That is the road to explore.
The US is trapped in another muddle over Palestine and Israel. But that is an unfolding story.
NOTHING evokes a nuclear reaction quite as much as the nuclear issue in India. So it is no surprise that highly emotionally charged responses have surrounded the setting up of the Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu. While the minister of state in the prime minister’s office … has assured that nothing would be done which would compromise the safety of the people, Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa has made this a political issue and sought the suspension of work on the plant.
…Nuclear power is still an unknown quantity in India and the recent Japan Fukushima fiasco has heightened fears. While it’s indisputable that India can’t meet all its growing energy needs through hydel, thermal and non-conventional sources, pushing nuclear energy is always fraught both with risk and resistance from those living in the vicinity of the plants. India’s track record in nuclear safety has been patchy … But, the question that must be asked is whether such secrecy is required when it comes to matters nuclear. Today people have access to various sources of information and this can fuel fears. The political class cannot expect to commission nuclear reactors in populated areas and be ensured of an easy ride. The only way these tensions over commissioned plants can be avoided is for the scientific community to be more transparent and take people into confidence on issues like this which could have far-reaching consequences on their lives.
A positive step has been the effort by senior officers of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and the Department of Atomic Energy to assess the situation and allay the fears of the local community in Kudankulam. … It is imperative that people know about the possible drawbacks of such plants as well as the benefits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment