Last week, Barack Obama paved the way for setting up the first nuclear power plant in the US in almost 30 years. His predecessor had paved the way for returning India to the international nuclear arena after more than 30 years in exile. What?s propelling the nuclear shifts in the two countries and how do emerging technologies play into this shift?
It was in the US that the world first saw electricity being produced from a nuclear reactor. That was in 1951. By 1957, the US had put up its first commercial reactor. Commercial operation of India?s first nuclear power reactor dates back to 1969. But its first research reactor was made critical as early as 1956. Outside of the USSR, this was the first nuclear reactor to become operational in Asia. Notwithstanding the promise of these early starts, both countries ceded headroom to competitors in the 1970s. This was, of course, for very different reasons.
For India, the testing of a nuclear device in 1974 meant more than three decades spent in an isolated wilderness where it was denied access to world know-how and supplies. So, although far-sighted nation-builders like Homi Bhabha had put the country on the path to using nuclear energy for industry, agriculture and power generation long before like countries were considering such notions, reality doggedly evaded that early vision. For the US, momentum was lost when the core of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor melted down, albeit partially, in 1979. The accident didn?t just release radioactive gases but also mass antinuclear demonstrations. Public opinion remained decisively negative, what with the continued challenges of disposing of nuclear waste and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
When India and the US agreed to engage in civil nuclear cooperation in 2005, it was a reflection that they were both?once again?getting serious about propelling the nuclear element as a key part of their energy mix. Since the Indo-US deal went through in 2008, everyone has been lining up at India?s doorstep to participate in our market?Canada, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the UK in particular. Now comes the US President?s announcement of more than $8 billion of loan guarantees for two new light-water reactors in Georgia.
Obama said the justification for the loan guarantee is simple: ?To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we?ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power.? This is also as straightforward a summary as any of why India is pushing nuclear power generation with an increasing intensity. The 2010 report of the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security, which some admittedly decry as scaremongering, finds that global production could max out in just five years. This apocalyptic date would get postponed if there are any new, significant discoveries of easily accessible oil (unlikely) or if higher oil prices make it economical to extract known but taxing reserves such as those in the Canadian tar sands (not a happier prospect). How higher oil prices would impact India?s economy, where consumption is growing but indigenous resources are scarce, is the stuff of nightmares.
Before the world was engulfed by the debate over who should and who shouldn?t have nuclear power?a debate in which the US played a powerfully protectionist role and which rendered India a castaway for many decades?a militarist president foresaw that the knowledge possessed by a select group of nations would in time be shared by others??possibly all others?. Refer to Ike Eisenhower?s famous Atoms for Peace speech before the UN in 1953. Proliferation-control fanatics may wish otherwise, but that vision too is coming true today as countries seek cleaner alternatives to coal and oil. Never mind Vietnam or Indonesia, even oil-rich UAE is aiming to generate 25% of its energy from nuclear power by 2020. Who won the contract for the UAE reactors? Not the established heavyweights from the US, France, Japan or Russia, but the South Koreans. Simply because the latter have a great construction and operation record and they charge less.
Technology isn?t parochial. The backbone of the nuclear renaissance that we are sensing in India and the US is made up of advancements in technology. Smaller plants are on the anvil. These would boast lower construction costs, be easier to shut down in case of a malfunction and be more easily integrated with existing electricity grids. Smaller plants would consume substantially less water every day, although we must also mention that a Russian manufacturer is trying to make the world?s first floating nuclear plant operational by 2012?which could be towed to areas in need. Experiments are also ongoing with reactors that will use uranium fuel more efficiently and produce reduced waste. Finally, scientists are working on alternatives to storing nuclear waste in vast dry casks or pools of water. Deep geological repositories are one viable option and new polymers that would decontaminate decommissioned power stations are another.
To those who counter that technology is also advancing on ?nicer? renewables like wind, we say the world needs to power ahead on all fronts. Any country that waits for a foolproof mix before taking action is likely to simply suffer. Consider how France nuclear- powered ahead in the decades that the US didn?t. If the US were getting 80% of its electricity from nuclear power like France does today, it?s said that carbon emission savings would amount to taking all cars off the US roads.
Does Obama?s loan guarantee amount to a subsidy? Sort of, but it?s not a forever subsidy, only a kickstart for the private sector (something India needs to encourage). Governments can?t plan national energy futures based on just opinion polls, which go up and down by the week. Just because it?s been recently revealed that the French military deliberately exposed its personnel to radiation for research purposes, should France turn its back on nuclear power? Better safeguards and oversight would provide a better alternative. In India, contamination at the Kaiga plant doesn?t diminish the imperatives for making nuclear power more and more intrinsic to our energy mix. In the US, perhaps the most apt comparison of the Obama plan is to the Mickey Rourke saga?self-inflicted wounds may have been at the heart of a career crashing for eons, but this doesn?t negate the viability of its recovery.