Making nuclear power double-D sexy!

In what seems like eons ago, when I had started teaching in California, we were discussing nuclear energy in the economic geography class.  One student, whose name I have forgotten all these years later, with a track record of wisecracks, raised his hand.  I should have known better than to recognize his hand, but I did anyway.  He had a question, which went something like this:

"That is a nuclear power plant, right, by I-5 on the way to San Diego?"  I said yes, not knowing what was coming up after that.

"Why did they build it to look like two boobs?"

The class laughed.

Soure

By no means an original joke that was.  It is such a cliche. One of those typical junior-high humor that giggles on seeing sex in everything.

I was reminded of that when I checked in with The Hindu, as I do every afternoon, and the story on Kundakulam carried this photo:

source

The news item is of critical importance to this nuclear project and to India:

The Supreme Court on Monday said there is no basis to the fear that the radioactive effects of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, when commissioned, will be far reaching.

The court noted this about petitions challenging the commissioning of Kudankulam nuclear power plant:

Few of them raised the apprehension that it might repeat accidents like the one that had happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Union Carbide and Fukushima and so on. Apprehension, however, legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project. Nobody on this earth can predict what would happen in future and to a larger extent we have to leave it to the destiny. But once the justification test is satisfied, the apprehension test is bound to fail.

Yep.  Often people, like the petitioners who are dead set against the nuclear power plant, confuse risk with uncertainty.  All we can do is estimate the probabilities as best as we can.

Frank Knight was an idiosyncratic economist who formalized a distinction between risk and uncertainty in his 1921 book, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. As Knight saw it, an ever-changing world brings new opportunities for businesses to make profits, but also means we have imperfect knowledge of future events. Therefore, according to Knight, risk applies to situations where we do not know the outcome of a given situation, but can accurately measure the odds. Uncertainty, on the other hand, applies to situations where we cannot know all the information we need in order to set accurate odds in the first place.

“There is a fundamental distinction between the reward for taking a known risk and that for assuming a risk whose value itself is not known,” Knight wrote. A known risk is “easily converted into an effective certainty,” while “true uncertainty,” as Knight called it, is “not susceptible to measurement.”

We can always invoke uncertainty in order to oppose any project.  In fact, that is very much one of the arguments that some committed environmentalists use when they base their opposition on the "precautionary principle."

The Supreme Court also had observations on energy and economic development, and the critical importance of Kudankulam:

Quoting a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Bench said: “The report highlights that to sustain rapid global economic growth, it is necessary to double the supply of energy and tripling supply of electricity by 2050. Further, it is stated billions of poor people need energy and other life-saving and job-creating technologies.”

India, as I have often noted here, is a power-starved country.  Tamil Nadu, where this nuclear power plant is located, has acute electricity shortages--so much so that there are regularly scheduled rotating outages, which is more than 12 to 14 hours every day in the rural areas.  India has a huge challenge in terms of electricity generation.  In such a context, to oppose the Kudankulam project simply because it has the word "nuclear" in it is awfully stupid and irresponsible.

I wonder if the opponents in India are aware that one of the original founders of the no-nuke-movement--the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore--has long since ditched his opposition and has apologized for equating nuclear power plants with nuclear bombs.  Or that even the climate change guru, James Hansen, calculates that nuclear power plants have saved lives that would have been lost because of pollution from coal-fired plants that would have otherwise been built.  Do the opponents really prefer that India build more coal power plants instead?  Or, do they want to condemn the hundreds of millions of India's poor to their poor and neglected state?

As a former minister for India's environment bluntly stated:

“I know the environmentalists will not be very happy with my decision, but it is foolish romance to think that India can attain high growth rate and sustain the energy needs of a 1.2 billion population with the help of solar, wind, biogas and such other forms of energy. It is paradoxical that environmentalists are against nuclear energy”

Yes, "foolish romance" indeed!

High tension in Indian cities doesn't matter as it does in US cities?

By high tension in cities, I am not referring to the commonly held belief that life in cities is stressful and that it is all peace and harmony in the rural landscape.  "High tension" as in high voltage transmission lines.

As we drove, I heard "X" say "this is high tension road." I thought I misheard--after all, the traffic was flowing really well, and the road was relatively ok.

I knew it couldn't be my faulty ear either, given that the passenger seat is to the driver's left.  So, when I asked for clarification, "X" said, "this is called high tension road."  Turns out that is the name of the road, because of the transmission lines there.

In the US, people freak out about being anywhere near high voltage transmission lines.  A few years ago, there was all that worry over the hyped up electromagnetic radiation.  The risk calculations in the US are very, very different from how risk is assessed in India by individuals and society as a whole.  

Driving under high tension cables, or living right by a distribution transformer, is, therefore, nothing out of the ordinary in India.  A few weeks ago, the directions "S" gave me included the location of a transformer as a landmark.

In Mumbai, my uncle led me on a short hike up the hill by their home in a suburb.  It was absolutely pretty, and I imagine that soon with all the spring blossoms the hill will come alive with greenery and colors.

In between all that are high tension cables, which run right by the housing development too.

Risks of different types are part of the daily life here in India.  When I climbed up the fort at Aurangabad, I was worried about safety aspects in so many contexts that it will be a lengthy post all by itself.  In the US, not one person would have been allowed past the outer walls of the fort because of the potential legal liabilities when things go wrong, for which there is immense scope.

Risk minimization is a reflection of affluence in a country, and by that measure India has a long, long way to go.  In a way, the controversy over the Kudankulam nuclear power plant is also nothing but a discussion over risk minimization.  The protesters seem to be using a US-type standard in a country where most activities are not governed by US-type safety standards.

The cab driver in Nagercoil put it this way: "the tsunami killed thousands and destroyed many homes, sir.  Abdul Kalam says that Kudankulam going wrong will be the tsunami kind of a very rare event.  But, think about the electricity this will generate, sir.  We have ten hours of power cut now every day."

The tension the cab driver had while offering his strong opinions seemed to be a lot more than the tension in the high voltage cables!

Later, as the full moon came up on the Holi evening, I forgot all about tensions of every possible kind!

The exacting price of democracy in India: Mullaperiyar and Kudankulam

Mark Twain famously observed that water in America’s west was for fighting and that whiskey was for drinking.  Here in the southern part of India, while Twain’s whiskey might not be applicable, fights, though, are in plenty!

A significant fight is over a dam that is located in the border areas of two southern states—Kerala and Tamil Nadu.  The Mullaperiyar Dam is in Kerala, and provides much needed water for irrigation in neighboring areas in Tamil Nadu too, especially during the drier months.

The dam itself is more than a hundred years old, and there are concerns over its structural safety.  Kerala, whose towns and villages lie downstream from the dam, is worried that the hundred year old dam might not be up to contemporary standards.  Public policy in contexts like this dam is about first evaluating costs and benefits, and a political decision later.  However, the feuding politicians in both the states seem to be operating only with votes on their minds.  But then, aren’t such intentions fundamental requirements to be a politician?     

The dam(n) water conflict is more than mere war of words.  Largely goaded by the histrionics of politicians, protesters in the border areas of Kerala and Tamil Nadu severely affected trade and commerce as well.  The region around the dam is known for its cardamom production and, India is the dominant global exporter of cardamom, with Guatemala a distant second.  Yes, Guatemala, which is half way around the planet from this dam!  The Economic Times reported that “the inferior quality of Guatemalan cardamom” cannot compete with the spice from India.  As one can imagine, the suspension of cardamom auctions for two weeks quickly amounted to losses that have been estimated at more than 1,000 million rupees (about $20 million.)  Thankfully, trade resumed after a two week standoff, preventing further losses.

Even as the war of words has abated over the dam conflict, another project continues to be a huge headache for the government at the federal level, and for the state of Tamil Nadu.  This is over a nuclear power generation plant located at Kudankulam.  India faces severe energy shortages, and has been pushing nuclear power for electricity generation.  The Kudankulam project has a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, and the first phase was scheduled to be commissioned in December 2011.

With the construction work practically completed, and with various pre-operation tests underway, quite suddenly extensive protests have been launched against the facility.  Here too, as in the case of the Mullaperiyar Dam, rhetoric has preceded reasoning. It appears that there was little to no protests right from the project planning stages, and all the way through the ten years of construction, for which work began in September 2001.  It is rather ironic that opposition has been vigorous only when the power plant is a metaphorical switch throw away.

Commentaries and reports suggest that two factors are largely behind why protests have come at such a late stage of the nuclear power plant construction.  The first was, understandably, the dramatic and eye-arresting catastrophic developments at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.  However, politicians and activists, more than experts themselves, seem to be ever ready to offer rhetorical doomsday scenarios of the Kudankulam reactor completely failing.   The second reason for the protests is quite conspiratorial: that foreign money is funding the protests.  Recently, a federal minister stated that "some organisations involved in the protests against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant had received funds to the tune of over Rs. 55 crore from “foreign sources.”" 

The Mullaperiyar and Kudankulam problems are representative of the resource challenges that India faces.  China, too, faces similar issues, but non-democratic politics in China means that rarely ever do such protests ever happen.  Even if they do, the authorities quickly put them out.  India, however, continues to struggle with these challenges through the ballot box, for which it deserves enormous sympathy and support.

But then, sometimes I wonder whether Mark Twain was cynical, or humorous, or being a realist, when he said “Only a government that is rich and safe can afford to be a democracy, for democracy is the most expensive and nefarious kind of government ever.”

Energy politics worsen--in India, and South China Sea

Consider this: in a rapidly growing economy, to go along with a huge population that is hungry for electricity, a power generation facility is ready for commissioning after years of construction.  While one might hypothesize that this will be a welcome relief from the blackouts and energy rationing, it has become controversial. Because, it is a nuclear power station--the Kudankulam project in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

People's activists want the Kudankulam nuclear power plant shut down completely; Tamil Nadu's politicians have the less ambitious aim of halting work on the project until the fears of local people are allayed. The plant was originally scheduled to begin operations later this month. 

A combination of the Fukushima aftermath and the nature of politics in India have brought this about.  The Fukushima angle is not only because Kudankulam is a nuclear power generation facility, but also because of its location by the sea, and the populated peninsular India.

Looking at the map, one might be reminded of the Indonesian earthquake that triggered the tsunami, which reached the coastlines of India and wiped out people and communities.

In a tropical country like India, where it is the sea that guarantees limitless water supply, well, nuclear power plants tend to be located very near the coast: as the Union of Concerned Scientists explains:

Nuclear power plants are usually built next to lakes, rivers, and oceans.1 Not for the scenic views that such locales provide, but because water can absorb the waste heat produced by the plants. Nuclear power plants consume vast amounts of water during normal operation to absorb the waste heat left over after making electricity and also to cool the equipment and buildings used in generating that electricity. In event of an accident, nuclear power plants need water to remove the decay heat produced by the reactor core and also to cool the equipment and buildings used to provide the core’s heat removal.

So, ... One can easily imagine the complex politics in this context.  A country with severe electricity shortage while demand rapidly increases; a facility constructed at quite an expense in a country that has nearly half a billion poor; the location dynamics affected by the consequences of earthquakes and tsunamis; politicians and activists who are only too eager to seek short-term victories; cavalier statements by officials; and endless commentaries (including this one!)

This will, however, not be the final battle over nuclear power. 

as for China, India, and South Korea -- countries with a growing appetite for nuclear power that account for the bulk of active plant construction -- only the first has put any of its nuclear plans on pause, and that's just pending a safety review. India and South Korea have vowed to tighten safety standards, but have otherwise forged ahead with plans for nuclear expansion.

The battle is far from over because the energy demand simply cannot be met through renewable "green" sources of energy.

There are three reasons why hydrocarbons will continue to dominate the global energy mix for decades to come: cost, the slow pace of energy transitions, and scale.

Further, carbon-based sources are already being contested, as I noted even recently, when  I worried about the growing tensions, primarily between India and China, over valuable oil and natural gas in the South China Sea, off Vietnam.

The South China Sea war of words is escalating as well:

India is playing with fire by agreeing to explore for oil with Vietnam in the disputed South China Sea, a major Chinese newspaper said on Sunday, advising the Indian company to reconsider and pull out. ...

The China Energy News, published by Communist Party mouthpiece the People's Daily, said cooperation between India and Vietnam in these seas was a bad idea.

"India's energy strategy is slipping into an extremely dangerous whirlpool," it said in a front page commentary. ...

"Challenging the core interests of a large, rising country for unknown oil at the bottom of the sea will not only lead to a crushing defeat for the Indian oil company, but will most likely seriously harm India's whole energy security and interrupt its economic development.

"Indian oil company policy makers should consider the interests of their own country, and turn around at the soonest opportunity and leave the South China Sea," it said.

I can only imagine that these resource issues will worsen this decade before they can get any better.