Atomic Power. It was the big story of the fifties. The phenomenon that promised to usher in an era of prosperity by providing an abundant and cheap supply of power. Half a century later, however, it is clear that atomic energy has not turned out to be the miracle panacea it promised to be. Public opposition and widespread alarm following the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl forced many countries to scale down their programmes. The US, for instance, has not set up a new reactor in the last two decades. In India too, the atomic energy programme has not lived up to its early promise, failing consistently to meet targets and currently producing 2720 MW, a mere fraction of the country’s total power production. Domestically though, the Atomic Energy Commission has always enjoyed a hallowed status and a certain degree of insulation from public scrutiny, emerging from its well-publicised role as the creator of India’s nuclear weapon. Ironically it is precisely this factor that AEC officials over the years have blamed for its lacklustre performance on the energy front. The loss of international support following the 1974 nuclear explosion is claimed to have caused a major setback to India’s nascent programme. Diminished government funding, particularly in the eighth plan, is said to have further accentuated the Commission’s problems. Those days of gloom are now over. If reports emanating from the nuclear establishment are to be believed, atomic energy is back in the news. George Bush’s recent declaration on the need for diversity in energy policy to protect against blackmail is being perceived as a nod to nuclear energy even as the Indian programme, like the proverbial phoenix, is preparing for a flamboyant revival. A recent magazine cover story details the achievements of the Nuclear Power Corporation (the public limited company responsible for operating and constructing plants) in boosting plant performance and project management in the last few years and claims it has narrowed the competitive gap between atomic and thermal energy. But better housekeeping is just one part of the story. The NPC plans to add as many as 14 new reactors by 2012 and has a brand new production estimate of 20,000 MW by the year 2020. The stupendously steep target — unbelievable, some might say, given the nuclear establishment’s failure to reach anywhere close to its earlier target of 10,000 MWs by 2000 — is audacious for another reason: it aims to put into motion a procedure involving Fast Breeder Reactors and Advanced Heavy Water Reactors — the latter as yet untried anywhere in the world to utilise India’s vast reserves of Thorium. The questions though are inescapable: Can the nuclear establishment pull it off? Equally significantly, should it try? Outside the nuclear lobby, optimism does not run high. Journalist and nuclear policy analyst Praful Bidwai for instance claims that atomic power continues to be a controversial subject with unresolved safety and waste disposal issues. ‘‘The problem of radiation exposure to personnel and emissions in effluents remains,’’ he points out, ‘‘Plutonium wastes, among others, stay radioactive for thousands and millions of years and then there is the high cost of entombing plants that have outlived their utility.’’ The AEC counters by arguing that lessons in safety have been imbibed after Chernobyl; Atomic Regulatory Board chairman S.P. Sukhatme adds that in India no accident over level two has occurred in the last three years. Then there is the question of the NPC’s ability to deliver. Mumbai-based Electrical Consultant Asim Majumdar estimates that the target would involve a doubling of the NPC’s annual growth rate. ‘‘Even if the NPC has the technical and organisational skills to produce this miracle, where would it find the massive funding required for financing it?’’ he asks. There is also scepticism concerning the FBR technology that has run into rough weather in France. What is indisputable however is the fact that the aura of atomic power has diminished considerably over the last 50 years. While it is still a source of power in some countries, other sources have grown in popularity. According to Majumdar the use of renewable sources of energy for instance, has been growing at almost the same rate as nuclear energy over the last decade in the US and it is possible, he claims, that ‘‘the rate of growth of renewables will overtake all other types of energy sources.’’ Solar, wind, biomass, agricultural waste and even water hyacinth are alternatives that are gaining ground. Under the circumstances the notion of stepping up on a problem-ridden, capital intensive nuclear technology does seem questionable. AEC’s Kakodkar does not oppose the emergence of other technologies. His defence is simple. There is place for all. Countries such as India and China require vast, limitless amounts of power to catch up with the West and in his view, nuclear energy is the only solution. The power ministry oddly does not appear to share this assessment. The sixteenth Electric Power Survey estimates a requirement for an additional 100,000 MW by 2012. While nuclear power figures with a contribution of 6400 along with 10,700 MW from ‘‘non-conventional resources’’ projections identify coal as the mainstay fuel, the blueprint for 2012 also stresses the need to further exploit India’s vast hydro potential (currently less than one fourth is being tapped) and ensure reforms in conservation and distribution. Clearly, the case for nuclear power is not as overwhelming as the nuclear lobby would like it to be. Yet in a situation of growing demand, it would be foolhardy to ignore its advantages — one being its low emission of greenhouse gases. The wise option seems to be that if atomic power is to be reappraised it must be without the hype and tall expectations that have surrounded it in the past. ‘For a developed country, there is no option to atomic energy’ The atomic energy programme has been marked by delays. Why are you confident of reaching the target of 20,000 MW by 2020? There are no delays anymore. We are running ahead of schedules. Standard designs are being completed in less than five years and newer designs in six. We are working well within budgets. How did this happen?
