New Delhi
3 September 2007
A Planning Commission document that advocates nuclear energy
also suggests that real energy security will not come from importing light water reactors
(LWRs) alone but by harnessing thorium, pursuing the gas pipeline from Iran and
tapping hydro power in India's immediate neighbourhood.
The "Integrated Energy Policy: Report of the Expert Committee" of August 2006 qualifies
by saying that LWRs will only serve to supplement capacity addition in the first stage
"initially" through imports of technology but with long-term objective of indigenisation.
Planning Commission's Member (Energy) Dr Kirit Parikh chaired the expert committee.
Department of Atomic Energy Secretary Dr Anil Kakodkar was a member.
The report suggests that import of LWRs and uranium fuel will only be a bonus if the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) changes its guidelines to integrate India into global
nuclear commerce; focus should be on augmenting research and development for
transitioning to the next stages of India's three-stage nuclear power programme.
The report reads: "[If] energy security concerns are our primary driver towards nuclear,
then import of LWRs, even though more economical, may have to be limited to restrict
our dependence on energy imports. Imported LWRs could be an important option if the
FBR and Thorium reactor routes not materialise or are found to be uneconomical. Energy
security concerns may leave us no option other than full pursuit of the FBR and Thorium
routes."
Dr Kirit Parikh defends by saying that it may not seem to make a difference now but with
coal projected to last only for about 45 more years (assuming current rate of
consumption of five per cent per year), nuclear energy will provide a fallback power
supply. He also suggested that the India-US nuclear nuclear deal will enable India to buy
time for the next stages of three-stage nuclear power programme.
He told this newspaper: "We are not solving today's problem ... we are looking at 25 or
more years into the future. If the import of 6,000 MWe of LWR reactors does not
materialise, the installed nuclear capacity by 2031-32 will 48,000 MW instead of 63,000
MW. The difference is not very large, only 15,000 MW, but 30 or 40 years later the
difference will be large. In an optimistic scenario, we will get 275 GWe rpt GWe by 2050,
which is a huge gain. So it is a hugely important deal."
Dr Parikh nevertheless acknowledged that the nuclear deal will only serve to reduce the
time India will otherwise take to attain certain level of nuclear capacity. He said: "We can
accomplish in fewer years with the India-US nuclear deal what will otherwise take
longer." He said that that real energy security will only come with development of
nuclear power using thorium. He also maintained that India must pursue all options,
including the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline.
An article published in the latest issue of People's Democracy, CPI(M)'s weekly organ,
questions the rationale of peddling the India-US nuclear deal as an energy panacea. The
article, titled "Discovering Nuclear Energy For Justifying A Bad Deal", says that one of
the objectives of the US through this deal is also to provide an immediate "easy" LWR
route to India for nuclear energy instead of developing FBR technology.
The article reads: "It is interesting that it is only when Department of Atomic Energy has
now been able to commercialise its PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor) technology and
scale it up to 540 MW that the US is now offering to lift technology sanctions on reactors
and fuel. Once we take this easy route, they will then be able to control us through their
control over fuel as well as control over technology (spare parts, etc.). Therefore,
developing the FBR route and indigenous reactor technology would provide a much
surer route to energy security than taking the dependent route of imported reactors."
The article adds that the argument that nuclear energy is the energy for the future is not
backed up by either an analysis of India's energy needs and to put in the major part of
our available money in to nuclear energy right now, that too with imported reactors,
seems to be short-sighted. It says: "We definitely need to keep the nuclear option open,
looking at possible long-term needs; but to present this as a panacea for our current
energy requirements flies in the face of reality. If India has to take measures for its
energy security, its primary concern must be to secure oil and gas supplies."
No comments:
Post a Comment