That for Bangladesh, coal is not feasible is obvious but nuclear power can't become feasible simply by default. Nor is it going to be a solution in the next decade or so, writes
Afsan Chowdhury
PRIME minister Sheikh Hasina recently announced that Bangladesh should go nuclear to meet its power need. This has been followed by a recent interview of CS Karim, ex-chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, where he advocated nuclear power on its own and also in comparison to coal power.. This is unfortunately a scary development. The nuclear lobby is taking advantage of the need for greater energy and the concern over the high carbon emission of traditional fossil fuel sources to push its product. However, even as people are fazed by the lack of immediately available power options, there is increasing evidence that nuclear power is unsafe, far too expensive, extremely difficult to build and maintain, has enormous cost overruns and ignores the much higher potential of other alternative sources which are also infinitely cheaper to install.
Power shortage and nuclear power
SHEIKH Hasina told parliament in early March that her government would set up a nuclear power plant to meet the country's growing energy demand.
'We are taking initiatives to set up a nuclear power plant at Rooppur site,' Sheikh Hasina declared.
Agency reports say that, according to a proposal prepared by the government, a 600-megawatt nuclear power plant will be constructed at Rooppur located in the country's western region.
The UN atomic watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency has already approved a technical assistance project for Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant to be initiated between 2009 and 2011.
Currently, the country is facing power shortage of nearly 2,000MW.
Sheikh Hasina's government has a plan to increase power generation from 3,500MW to 7,000MW in the next five years.
Bangladesh has been suffering from energy and power shortage for many years. It's also the most lucrative and corrupt sector. Despite efforts of the politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats, the situation has been in the dumps for decades. Nobody knows why the situation doesn't improve but it says volumes about the planning and competence level of the responsible authorities here.
The resurgence of nuclear power
FOR Sheikh Hasina to think of a nuclear option is understandable but why her advisers haven't pointed out that the nuclear option is neither safe nor affordable is not understood. Obviously, she has confidence in those who are not familiar with the dangers involved.
After the incident at Chernobyl and the Three-Mile Island, the nuclear lobby took a beating and its stock fell low but the concern about carbon emission has been a great advantage for the nuclear industry which is selling the idea all over the world.
Ralph Nader, the US's most influential consumer advocate, has been battling nuclear power for over four decades. In his latest article, he says, 'The atomic power corporations are beating on the doors in Washington to make you guarantee their financing for more giant nuclear plants. They are pouring money and applying political muscle to Congress for up to $50 billion in loan guarantees to persuade an uninterested Wall Street that Uncle Sam will pay for any defaults on industry construction loans.
'Since 1974, there has not been a filled order for a nuclear power plant. It was just too financially risky, bogged down with delays and cost overruns, with too many spent fuel rods filling pools at the plants because no permanent storage sites for deadly radioactive wastes had been certified. Big time financing also dried up. Finally, risks of sabotage and nuclear proliferation became prominent national security problems in the post-9/11 era.'
What saved the nuclear industry was global concern about carbon emissions and the public desire to desperately find an alternative to fossil fuels. In fact in the US as well as in Europe, coal power has been tarnished beyond repair. The carbon industry which provides 50 per cent of US electricity is known as 'dirty coal'. So the industry has been propagating 'clean coal' which means that the emission that is going to occur is going to be trapped under a method called 'carbon sequestration'.
When challenged the pro-coal lobby scientists have however admitted that such a method is barely in the planning stage and no one knows when it will be ready and if at all it will be successful. So the coal industry has already been 'dinosaured' and what keeps it going is its strategic presence in the US states, excessive dependence built over the years on coal and political sensitivity. However, Obama has said only 'clean coal' will be acceptable so even discussing the coal as an option to anything makes no sense. It's not an alternative to any form of power generation in today's world.
The nuclear disaster factor
THE nuclear power lobby has been arguing that it's much safer now and of course it's clean. And safety is not an issue because existing generators are so much better than the Chernobyl and TMI example. This is now being challenged in the public domain by scientists and activists everywhere.
But let's say Bangladesh doesn't have a safety issue. Let's say it doesn't matter if millions die from a nuclear disaster because millions die or half die anyway. One is reminded of former US president Richard Nixon who was a great proponent of nuclear power and who said he lived near a nuclear plant and he had no problem till it was pointed out that the same reactor had been shut down several times due to flaws and poor Nixon's smile vanished rather rapidly.
Of course people expect at least a Chernobyl to qualify as a 'disaster' forgetting small nuclear disasters are constantly happening. Chernobyl was a mega disaster and a major factor in not only destroying lives and devastating land and people near and far for over many generations but it's the push which ended Soviet Union also. Infinitely lesser disasters can cripple Bangladesh. And Bangladesh will not survive a Chernobyl at all with its tiny land mass. In fact, it will not survive a much smaller disaster either.
The other issues of safety relate to constant release of radiation and disposal of radioactive waste. Recent study shows that in many countries where nuclear plants are running show slow but constant radiation especially of drinking water sources. A recent controversy has been in Canada where radioactive tritium has been released into the Ottawa river and the authorities claimed it was 'safe' and controlled. Challenging this assertion of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Professor Gordon Edwards of Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility wrote, 'Much scientific evidence has existed for many decades on this subject. The overwhelming consensus is that there is no such thing as a "safe dose" of exposure to ionising radiation – or, for that matter, to any other carcinogen. The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined claims from the nuclear industry and its proponents that there might be a "safe threshold" of radiation exposure, and rejected those claims as having no scientific validity.'
It appears that the notion of safety according to nuclear technocrats and bureaucrats often is at odds with the position held by the general scientific community. And they do often mislead as the case above shows.
Meanwhile, disposal of nuclear waste is a critical and very expensive problem even for the US and other western powers and Bangladesh has no extra land to dispose of such waste in some barren landscape or ship it elsewhere either. To gloss over such critical facts is dangerous and irresponsible.
The cost and time issue
THAT for Bangladesh, coal is not feasible is obvious but nuclear power can't become feasible simply by default. Nor is it going to be a solution in the next decade or so. CS Karim says in his interview that it will take 60 months from pouring of concrete to generation plus a year for contract finalisation. The cost mentioned is $1.2 billion. The two figures if unpacked show the absurdity of the vision. No nuclear plant has ever been built on time and in Bangladesh no plant has ever been signed and executed within a reasonable delay. How long this delay will take is anyone's guess. And the $1.2 billion spent on such an uncertain sector as nuclear power is an extremely scary thought.
The average nuclear power station is four years behind schedule and runs three times over budget, latest reports say.
Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, has said: 'The nuclear industry has always made unfulfilled promises; history reveals a damning testament to its failure. Pursuing a new programme of nuclear reactors would deny us the opportunity to make the necessary investment in renewable technologies and energy efficiency to meet future energy needs in a viable and sustainable way.'
A review of nuclear construction in the US shows that 75 reactors were predicted to cost $45bn but the actual cost was closer to $145bn. More recently, in India, completion costs for the last ten reactors have been 300 per cent over budget.
The World Energy Council report states that construction times for the industry were rising from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months – nearly ten years – for completions between 1995 and 2000. It is longer now.
A new group of 'generation three' reactors proposed for Europe and elsewhere are unproven, leading to more potential delays.
It means that the chances of six years becoming ten years to build a Bangladesh reactor are almost certain and $1.2 billion becoming $2.1 billion even more so. And if this is happening in the more advanced countries, the chances of this happening in Bangladesh are even more certain.
What about other options?
WHY the prime minister and her advisers didn't go for other options is a mystery. There is no shortage of options including solar, wind, wave and other sources and many Bangladeshi scientists are working all over the world in this sector. Unlike the nuclear which is an unproven sector, several European powers including Germany have shown themselves to be remarkably successful at alternative renewable sources of energy utilisation.
Part of this one supposes is the power of the nuclear lobby globally including its clout at the UN level where it's supported by the traditional school of scientists who don't see the renewable options as not being 'scientific' enough. However, the evidence that renewable sources are doing better is overwhelming.
Sheikh Hasina shouldn't commit herself to nuclear power before conducting a non-partisan review. It matters little what other international bodies say because the said bodies are by description pro-nuclear. An independent review by scientists who are not committed to nuclear power should look at the options before Bangladesh commits itself to a disaster from which there is no return.