I read an article by a nuclear scientist which said that nuclear energy was unsafe for South Asia, primarily because extremists had always managed to attack even the most highly guarded military areas,and that the chances of an attack by a religious extremist group was a high probability.
I think he could also have added that nuclear waste was going to be a big problem. So far, India hasn't even figured out how to dispose of human waste of 1.3 billion people--let alone nuclear waste generated by large number of generators.
I've always been against nuclear energy--Fukushima also brought home what could happen to the soil, agriculture, and life of communities in the event of a disaster.
But taking part at the Watson International Center's Advanced ResearchInstitute at Brown University last summer, what came out through our discussions is that nuclear power was an easy option for many countries trying to fulfill energy needs of vast numbers of people. A palmful of nuclear material could generate enough energy to keep a large part of India or China lit up, and all its industrial activities going on at full swing, whereas you would need literally millions of solar panels to generate that same kind of energy. In addition, solar could light a home but it couldn't power heavy machinery needed by industry--it couldn't even power a drill needed by an electrician to do electrical installations in a home. This argument convinced me,somewhat, that nuclear was an option that couldn't be overlooked,especially in the context of massive poverty which could be reduced significantly with the additional boost of energy. In addition, it would get China and India to stop using coal-an important win for global warming.
The risks are always going to be there, of course. A nuclear reactor close to Pondicherry, India was hit by the tsunami in 2004, and it leaked dangerously--but the officials there hushed it up and never evacuated the area. Consequently, many residents around the area suffer from radiation induced diseases and disabilities. Also, India's nuclear waste disposal strategy remains unclear.
The best strategy, at the present moment, seems to be a mix of energy sources that include renewables like solar, wind, natural gas, hydro,and magnets, along with the traditional energy sources of petroleum, a bit of coal and a bit of nuclear. New energy sources might be in the offing--I was told by an IIT graduate about a gel that would replace air-conditioners, and perhaps absorb and store the heat to convert into energy for household use as well (this second clause is unverified, whether I got that from my friend or from my own vivid imagination). While the eventual goal should be to phase out coal completely, that may not be possible for India, at least, for a decade or more, during which moment they could use cleaner technology to filter out the toxic gases--technologies to clean coal emissions exist and can be added to existing coal-using industries.
In addition, nuclear should perhaps be seen as a stop-gap measure--energy that could help make the transition from coal to green energy, without it being seen as the answer. But Asian countries would need a very strict and highly monitored regime of disposing of the waste, since this will surely be the area in which they will try to skimp or completely ignore international guidelines.
Nations like China and India also need to stop viewing and boasting about their energy guzzling, consumeristic overpopulation as are source--discourse of that nature is leading to a lemming-like tendency amongst Asian nations to compete for "Who has the most population?", and this discourse is often tied to religious demographics in a fatal race towards population hegemony.
Of course, there's always the option of not being that wired--and living a more simple and sustainable lifestyle. The existing energy sources we have, along with huge amounts of investments in recycling human waste into gas, recycling every man-made material to reach zero waste, is a good way to reduce the growing carbon footprint human beings are leaving on an increasingly fragile and overheated earth.Living a less frenetic lifestyle in smaller cities, and riding bicycles in urban zones rich with art and culture, may be the way we should live, rather than try to power up all of Asia with nuclear reactors.
Ultimately, that may be where we should head--but until people have the requisite education to realize this is where the Europeans have reached in their linear trudge through history, Asians are going to want the Apple goodies and the high speed cars to zoom through life on the fast lane. Whether the sustainable activists are going to win this one is up for debate--surely some people in Asia, at least, are beginning to realize that this sort of population growth and this sort of consumption habits are not sustainable, and is killing the planet.Eventually even the most wired people want clean air, clean water and a safe environment for their children-that's usually the turning point for most high-growth capitalists. Whether that awareness reaches people fast enough to save the planet is moot--what is clear is that we need to keep working towards that vision.
Published in Setopati, Nepal's digital newspaper, 22 April, 2015
Comments