Mohammad Shehzad: What is wrong with nuclear energy? Some experts say it is the cheapest form of energy available to Pakistan.
Pervez Hoodbhoy: The cost of nuclear power depends hugely on what items one includes or excludes. For Pakistan, there is little chance of unbiased, honest accounting of costs especially because all nuclear matters are hidden under multiple shrouds of secrecy. One should therefore look at the international context. The United States has the world’s largest nuclear industry and generates about 30 per cent of the world’s nuclear electricity. But, partly because of stringent safety requirements, it has difficulty in competing with other means.
A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, which strongly advocates increasing the role of nuclear power globally out of climate concerns, estimated the cost of nuclear electricity in 2010 to be 8.4 cents/kWh and compares it against coal and gas — 6.2 and 6.5 cents/kWh respectively. These costs were arrived at by using standard economic arguments and input costs. When fossil fuel eventually depletes, the nuclear-fossil price ratio will turn around in favour of nuclear. But this has not happened as yet and the discovery of oil shale is pushing against nuclear development. It is important to note that no new nuclear plant has been commissioned in the US over the last twenty years.
MS: Then why is Pakistan going for a 2200MW nuclear power plant if the risks are so high?
PH: The risk may be medium or even low, but the consequences of an accident are extremely high because of the plant’s location. Nevertheless, our government has been successfully enticed into the deal because the Chinese are dangling a $6.5 billion soft loan - which is greater than the annual budget of the Pakistan Army. This means that we will not seriously consider alternative means of energy production, such as wind power, which exist aplenty in Pakistan but need capital.
China, according to a recent BBC report, has the fastest growing production with a current installed wind capacity of 75,000MW - which is four times larger than the sum total of all electricity generating means in Pakistan. Germany’s current installed wind capacity is 25,000MW but Pakistan’s is only 50MW.
In India, wind power generates twice as much power as their nuclear. Will this disgraceful situation change? With the powerful Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) backing nuclear power in its institutional interest, and with China willing to give only a nuclear loan, one cannot be too hopeful of a rational energy policy.
[quote]There are millions of bomb worshippers in Pakistan[/quote]
MS: Couldn’t someone file a writ petition against the project saying it is a violation of their fundamental rights?
PH: They will have to be courageous. Even though the two have nothing to do with each other, nuclear power plants are somehow mixed up with nuclear bomb production in the public mind. As we all know, there are millions of bomb worshippers in Pakistan who would be only too happy to take up cudgels for a sacred cause. They need to be disabused first with facts and information.
MS: Why is the PML-N government so keen?
PH: Although these reactors are expensive and will take 6-8 years or more to come on line, the powerful institutional interests of the PAEC have prevailed upon the government. They have convinced it that nuclear power is a good option and that China is the only country that will offer to sell to Pakistan. The $6.5 billion loan promised by China for the reactor purchase took care of any possible hesitation.
MS: And what are ‘the powerful institutional interests of the PAEC’?
PH: Over a period of five decades the PAEC has created a vast infrastructure that comprises of hundreds of buildings, fuel processing facilities, computers, electronic and electrical machinery, chemical plants and chemicals, lathes and workshop machinery. Add to all this local and foreign training, salaries and benefits, security arrangements, etc. Like every large institution, the PAEC has powerful lobbyists placed in the state system who fight for enhancing PAEC’s interests even if those interests are not identical to those of Pakistan.
[quote]Terrorists can use nuclear waste to make 'dirty' weapons[/quote]
MS: You said the reactors will take 6-8 years to come online. Are you saying they will be able to generate energy after 6-8 years? Will they really generate 2200 MW electricity? And what will the price per unit be?
PH: Large cost over-runs and construction delays are routine for reactors, and one should not be surprised if this happens with these reactors. As for cost, in the US, nuclear power is substantially more expensive than other means but in France it is the other way around. So it depends from country to country. More importantly, estimating cost is a political exercise, not just a technical one. What is clear, however, is that if Pakistan invested in wind and solar energy it would get cheaper and safer energy in much less time. Countries like Germany are now producing 13-15% of their power from these sources, and China has a currently installed capacity of 75,000MW. But Pakistan has just 50MW, which is just a pittance.
[quote]China is dangling a $6.5b soft loan - greater than the annual budget of Pakistan Army[/quote]
MS: Will this plant be safe? What will happen if there’s a Bhopal like situation?
PH: The short answer: no one knows. Opinion across the world is divided on how safe or dangerous nuclear power is, and on the probability of an accident or some act of nuclear terrorism. But what cannot be denied is that having reactors situated close to any city is, in some ways, worse than storing nuclear bombs within it.
While a reactor cannot explode like a bomb, after one year of operation even a rather small 200 megawatt reactor contains more radioactive cesium, strontium, and iodine than the amounts produced in all the nuclear weapons tests ever conducted. So you can only imagine the radioactive content of these two planned Karachi reactors!
Radioactivity destroys cells and leads to cancers, poisoning, or death. These devastatingly deadly materials could be released if the containment vessel of the reactor is somehow breached. This is why, as a general rule, one should avoid building reactors near population centres. A good portion of the developed world has now realized this fact and is either building reactors far away from cities or, in the case of Germany and Japan, has entirely given up on nuclear power.
MS: What kind of nuclear waste will be generated? How it will be disposed of? Will the disposal be environment-friendly?
PH: To my knowledge, the PAEC has yet to decide on the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. They will probably bury them in Balochistan - if the Baloch permit. The problem is that high-level wastes remain extremely dangerous for centuries and must not enter ground water. Also, they must be protected from terrorists who can use the materials in it to make “dirty” radiological weapons.
Pervez Hoodbhoy: The cost of nuclear power depends hugely on what items one includes or excludes. For Pakistan, there is little chance of unbiased, honest accounting of costs especially because all nuclear matters are hidden under multiple shrouds of secrecy. One should therefore look at the international context. The United States has the world’s largest nuclear industry and generates about 30 per cent of the world’s nuclear electricity. But, partly because of stringent safety requirements, it has difficulty in competing with other means.
A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, which strongly advocates increasing the role of nuclear power globally out of climate concerns, estimated the cost of nuclear electricity in 2010 to be 8.4 cents/kWh and compares it against coal and gas — 6.2 and 6.5 cents/kWh respectively. These costs were arrived at by using standard economic arguments and input costs. When fossil fuel eventually depletes, the nuclear-fossil price ratio will turn around in favour of nuclear. But this has not happened as yet and the discovery of oil shale is pushing against nuclear development. It is important to note that no new nuclear plant has been commissioned in the US over the last twenty years.
MS: Then why is Pakistan going for a 2200MW nuclear power plant if the risks are so high?
PH: The risk may be medium or even low, but the consequences of an accident are extremely high because of the plant’s location. Nevertheless, our government has been successfully enticed into the deal because the Chinese are dangling a $6.5 billion soft loan - which is greater than the annual budget of the Pakistan Army. This means that we will not seriously consider alternative means of energy production, such as wind power, which exist aplenty in Pakistan but need capital.
China, according to a recent BBC report, has the fastest growing production with a current installed wind capacity of 75,000MW - which is four times larger than the sum total of all electricity generating means in Pakistan. Germany’s current installed wind capacity is 25,000MW but Pakistan’s is only 50MW.
In India, wind power generates twice as much power as their nuclear. Will this disgraceful situation change? With the powerful Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) backing nuclear power in its institutional interest, and with China willing to give only a nuclear loan, one cannot be too hopeful of a rational energy policy.
[quote]There are millions of bomb worshippers in Pakistan[/quote]
MS: Couldn’t someone file a writ petition against the project saying it is a violation of their fundamental rights?
PH: They will have to be courageous. Even though the two have nothing to do with each other, nuclear power plants are somehow mixed up with nuclear bomb production in the public mind. As we all know, there are millions of bomb worshippers in Pakistan who would be only too happy to take up cudgels for a sacred cause. They need to be disabused first with facts and information.
MS: Why is the PML-N government so keen?
PH: Although these reactors are expensive and will take 6-8 years or more to come on line, the powerful institutional interests of the PAEC have prevailed upon the government. They have convinced it that nuclear power is a good option and that China is the only country that will offer to sell to Pakistan. The $6.5 billion loan promised by China for the reactor purchase took care of any possible hesitation.
MS: And what are ‘the powerful institutional interests of the PAEC’?
PH: Over a period of five decades the PAEC has created a vast infrastructure that comprises of hundreds of buildings, fuel processing facilities, computers, electronic and electrical machinery, chemical plants and chemicals, lathes and workshop machinery. Add to all this local and foreign training, salaries and benefits, security arrangements, etc. Like every large institution, the PAEC has powerful lobbyists placed in the state system who fight for enhancing PAEC’s interests even if those interests are not identical to those of Pakistan.
[quote]Terrorists can use nuclear waste to make 'dirty' weapons[/quote]
MS: You said the reactors will take 6-8 years to come online. Are you saying they will be able to generate energy after 6-8 years? Will they really generate 2200 MW electricity? And what will the price per unit be?
PH: Large cost over-runs and construction delays are routine for reactors, and one should not be surprised if this happens with these reactors. As for cost, in the US, nuclear power is substantially more expensive than other means but in France it is the other way around. So it depends from country to country. More importantly, estimating cost is a political exercise, not just a technical one. What is clear, however, is that if Pakistan invested in wind and solar energy it would get cheaper and safer energy in much less time. Countries like Germany are now producing 13-15% of their power from these sources, and China has a currently installed capacity of 75,000MW. But Pakistan has just 50MW, which is just a pittance.
[quote]China is dangling a $6.5b soft loan - greater than the annual budget of Pakistan Army[/quote]
MS: Will this plant be safe? What will happen if there’s a Bhopal like situation?
PH: The short answer: no one knows. Opinion across the world is divided on how safe or dangerous nuclear power is, and on the probability of an accident or some act of nuclear terrorism. But what cannot be denied is that having reactors situated close to any city is, in some ways, worse than storing nuclear bombs within it.
While a reactor cannot explode like a bomb, after one year of operation even a rather small 200 megawatt reactor contains more radioactive cesium, strontium, and iodine than the amounts produced in all the nuclear weapons tests ever conducted. So you can only imagine the radioactive content of these two planned Karachi reactors!
Radioactivity destroys cells and leads to cancers, poisoning, or death. These devastatingly deadly materials could be released if the containment vessel of the reactor is somehow breached. This is why, as a general rule, one should avoid building reactors near population centres. A good portion of the developed world has now realized this fact and is either building reactors far away from cities or, in the case of Germany and Japan, has entirely given up on nuclear power.
MS: What kind of nuclear waste will be generated? How it will be disposed of? Will the disposal be environment-friendly?
PH: To my knowledge, the PAEC has yet to decide on the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes. They will probably bury them in Balochistan - if the Baloch permit. The problem is that high-level wastes remain extremely dangerous for centuries and must not enter ground water. Also, they must be protected from terrorists who can use the materials in it to make “dirty” radiological weapons.