The Hindu Business Line : A case for alternative sources of power

The time is right for India to take decisive steps to raise the share of nuclear power in power generation. And light water-cooled plants of the Tarapore type, being easier to manage than heavy water-cooled reactors, could be the preferred option.

THE Common Minimum Programme has assured that steps will be taken to put in place policies to enhance the country's energy security, particularly in the area of oil. While the emphasis on availability of oil is right, energy security extends to a broader picture. It has to cover the role of different sources of energy ranging from fossil fuel through hydro-power to nuclear energy.

Of particular significance is the fact that petroleum resources, including gas, are reaching their limits, globally. Recent reports in international media stress that the known reserves of petroleum resources may have already peaked. The problem is also accentuated by the threats to security in the Middle East, especially in the light of recent terrorist attacks on Saudi installations.

The tenuousness of various estimates regarding known fuel resources is also not a matter of debate, considering recent disclosures regarding Shells accounting for its reserves. Discovery is also not proceeding at as rapid a pace as justified by the growth in demand.

For these reasons, especially the stranglehold that OPEC countries have on sources of hydrocarbon fuel, attention has turned recently to nuclear power. Nearly two years ago, President Bush himself indicated a new start in US policy when he announced new incentives for nuclear power — until then considered a verboten subject.

The increasing stress on nuclear energy is also evidence that the earlier fears about its risks are seen to be overstated.

In the recently enlarged European Union, many new member States have a high degree of dependence on nuclear power. Especially is this true in respect of former members of Comecon. They are also inheritors of Chernobyl type reactors with all their built-in risks.

In spite of this, there is a feeling in responsible countries in the European Union that the trend towards nuclear power with adequate safeguards cannot be denied. While the environmentalists' lobby is against both fossil fuel-based power and nuclear power, it has to admit that global warming danger is less in the case of nuclear power — although it comes with their own risks of a different kind.

My focus is on nuclear power because it is an area where there is a good deal of interest in investment by many countries abroad. But this should not be to the exclusion of an emphasis on hydropower. We have to consider the vast potential of our Himalayan neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan.

In particular, there is a considerable amount of work waiting to be done to reopen the Karnali and Pancheswar projects. They deserve to be revived. Nepal and India can both benefit from these projects. Bhutan's hydro-electric potential is only partially utilised, with imaginative deals as in the case of Chuka project.

The time has come perhaps for an Indo-Himalayan Hydel Power Corporation, which can develop the projects in Nepal and Bhutan with the cooperation of the respective Governments and sell the power at agreed rates.

Experts guess that the exploitation of these resources will be the equivalent of another Bombay High or two from the point of view of energy security. It will also enable availability of power at relatively cheap rates to farmers and industries in the poor Northern States.

After this brief recital of our policy options on the hydel front, let me return to the nuclear power issue. To get a fix on the role of nuclear power, it is worth looking at its current share in power generation in various countries. The figures regarding the prevalence of nuclear power in different countries of the world are revealing.

It is significant that France has 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources. Most European countries, including Switzerland, depend substantially on nuclear energy. France is also one of the largest exporters of power. It is also comparatively cheap. Nuclear power has high capital costs, but raw material is virtually free once the initial input is made.

The Chinese authorities are trying to make up for their earlier lack of progress in nuclear power by going for international bids on a large scale. China has reportedly asked for international tenders for new nuclear power reactors. It is proposing to increase nuclear capacity from about 8 gega watts to about 400 GW by 2020.

This programme would involve construction of two new reactors a year, each costing $1.5 billion. This reminds us of the massive effort undertaken by France in the eighties to achieve its current high nuclear capacity. China also proposes to establish a second series of four reactors of 1 GW each.

The Chinese strategy of inviting international bids is pragmatic and well-timed considering the poor order position of nuclear power equipment industry in the developed world. China is also planning to incorporate Brazilian interest in the project considering that Brazil is an important source of uranium and has a fledgling uranium enrichment industry.

The whole Chinese order is expected to be in the neighbourhood of $30 billion — a mouth-watering temptation for the equipment manufacturers in the world.

I am reciting this Chinese tale only to excite interest of our power policy planners in the field. We have to note that the Chinese bid will definitely tie up a lot of capacity and make it harder for us if we were to enter the field. However, considering that no orders have come for a long time, the nuclear power equipment industry in the world, especially in France, seems to be ready for a fresh burst of activity.

The decision whether or not India shall go in for foreign nuclear plant is, indeed, a tricky one. We are hamstrung by fear of safeguards required by the nuclear powers. The Chinese precedent should show us a way-out of the problem.

In fact, our search for indigenous technology led to dependence on heavy water-cooled reactors, which has put a constraint on our nuclear expansion. According to power experts, heavy water-cooled nuclear plants are more difficult to manage than light water-cooled plants of the Tarapore type.

It was in the 1980s that the late Rajiv Gandhi authorised the go-ahead with Soviet collaboration for a new nuclear plant. The time has come for India to take a decisive step forward to raise the share of nuclear power in the electricity map of India.

This, no doubt, requires a rethinking on our stand in regard to safeguards, if we want to use non-Russian sources of technology and equipment. But that should not be a difficult exercise, considering that we have already graduated to nuclear power status after Pokhran II.

Opponents of nuclear power are many. There are those that fear the problems of disposal of nuclear waste. These are not insurmountable. Countries, like France and Russia, have shown imaginative ways of disposal. We have to learn from them and adapt the methods.

There is, of course, the risk of exposure to terrorist threats. But that threat is not peculiar to nuclear power stations alone, although the danger that stolen fissile material presents is greater in today's circumstances. Here again, there are precedents for well-secured power stations that are offered, particularly in France and Europe.

Critics point out that our nuclear safety record leaves much to be desired and that the regulatory authorities need to tighten their grip over the control mechanisms before we think of expanding nuclear power. But this is a question of what comes first. Regulation will definitely improve as power capacity expands.

There is also the question of high capital costs and how to raise the funds. There have been some suggestions that leading power distributors can enter into arrangements with the Nuclear Power Corporation. These power purchase agreements can be securitised to raise funds, provided of course the NPC guarantees costs and quality of power generation.

A great deal of effort needs to be directed towards reducing the capital costs, which are admittedly high. Much can be saved by local fabrication, but here there is conflict with the goal of using external sources. But, it should not be beyond the ingenuity of our planners and policy-makers to tie up local manufacturing collaborators with successful bidders from abroad.

At a minimum, our power policy planners have to put on their thinking cap and work out the likely costs and benefits of a further nuclear power expansion. The experience of the rest of the world shows that nuclear is the way to go to achieve sustainable self-reliance in power. Nuclear power expansion does, no doubt, pose problems. But they can surely be overcome, given the will and political commitment.

More Stories on : Non-conventional Energy | Power

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
A case for alternative sources of power

Course correction

Failed by fallacies

A Greater China that will dominate

Unctad: For a new agenda

Avoidable foibles

Will TCS offer be a market stimulant?

The mid-day meal scheme

Travel bandh