FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS OF THE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY

FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS OF THE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY

by Hari Sud

The fossil fuel reserves are exhausting fast. No new energy sources are on the horizon; hence the world has to look at nuclear energy, as a possible source to meet future power needs. This, the much maligned power source has been receiving failing grades from the environmentalists, because of its bad safety record. The Three Mile Island Power Plant near melt down in 1979 and the Chernobyl melt down in 1989 and hundreds of minor accidents which result in radioactive leaks all over the world do not speak very well of the nuclear industry. For all its faults, the nuclear energy industry has survived and has kept on producing 21% of power in US, 80% in France, 25% in UK and 30% in Germany. Lately its safety record has improved. Better training & maintenance, better design of the hardware, R & D have all played key roles in this improvement.

The Long-term prospect of $60 a barrel oil has infused a fresh life in the nuclear power industry. In the not too distant future, not only oil will be in short supply, its supply will be hotly contested by all the powers of the world. That means alternate sources of energy have to be developed. All other sources of energy, namely solar or wind power are insufficient to even supply 2% of the energy needs of the world. Coal has a potential to provide energy to countries like China, and USA for another one hundred years. Countries not blessed with huge coal deposits are at a great disadvantage. Also, the greenhouse gases which the coal fired plants produce are an unwelcome development for anyone in the world. Hydrogen, the other much touted energy source for automobile industry requires huge amounts of electric power to split water into Hydrogen. Only then it can be further used to power the motor vehicles. Hence, the world needs a reliable source of power which is safe and which will not exhaust quickly.

There is a glimmer of hope in Natural Gas as an energy source. It could meet some of the world’s energy needs, when the crude oil supplies peak out and production starts to dwindle. It has one disadvantage. Unlike crude oil, which is easily transportable from its source by ship or by pipeline, Natural Gas has to be piped to the user, sometimes over a hostile territory ( Pakistan or Afghanistan ) or very expensively transported in refrigerated containers. In addition, Natural Gas has far fewer uses other than generating electricity or providing thermal energy to industry or heating homes and businesses compared to the Crude Oil. The latter is a building block of today’s petrochemical industry, oils & lubricants, synthetic fibers and various chemicals (Natural Gas can also be stripped out of ethylene, the building block of petrochemicals, but its quantity is very small). Hence we are back to square one i.e. a cheap source of unlimited power has to be developed and made freely available to everybody.
What is the Status of Nuclear energy today?

Technology to build nuclear power plants was mastered in sixties and seventies. Nuclear power plants built or licensed to build in that era, but completed later, are operating today and produce electricity at comparable cost to coal, natural gas or hydroelectric power. Non nuclear power plants are everywhere in the world. They are either locally engineered or purchased from some of the advanced nations in the West. The same is not true about the nuclear power plants. Its supply, operation and technology is controlled by five nations, by a complex set of international treaties (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty – NPT), supply monopoly (Nuclear Supplier’s Group – NSG) and monitoring agency (International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA) and a host of very complicated local laws enacted by the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (mainly US). US, Russia, France, UK and China are the monopolists in this area. The first four also design and build nuclear power plants for themselves and for export. China although fairly advanced in nuclear weapons technology is unable to build large sized nuclear power plants for itself, hence look at the first four to supply nuclear power plants. India, although well advanced in nuclear R & D, has no capability to build extensive power plants. Today in the era of energy shortages, it has become important to revisit the whole issue of nuclear power generation, R & D and sharing of the knowledge.

What is NPT and why is it a Hindrance to Acquiring Civilian use Nuclear Plants?

Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was enacted in 1970 by the first four but mainly US to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The fifth member of the nuclear exclusive group i.e. China got inclusion in this group as a bonus for exploding its nuclear weapon prior to the January 1, 1967 cut off date. US is completely consumed by a thought that a rogue state or a terrorist group will lob a nuclear weapon in its middle, hence has worked hard to prevent spread of nuclear knowledge. This, it has achieved by intimidation and enacting a whole set of laws (some of them contradictory) to prevent the five recognized nuclear states from exporting nuclear technology. One such law was enacted in 1978 and it’s appropriately named as Nuclear Proliferation Act. Its declared intent is to prevent any smaller state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Still this law did not prevent Pakistan, Israel, India, Brazil, South, North Korea and Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons know how.

Some of forgoing countries deny having military related nuclear program. South Africa in the nineties dismantled its nuclear program. Israel never acknowledged having one and Iran and North Korea will complete this task in a short while. India openly built its nuclear bombs and chose to delay exploding until 1998, although a small nuclear explosion was set-off in 1974,said to be for peaceful purposes. Pakistan denied having a military nuclear program but stole all the technology to match India.

In short, the NPT did not have the impact it was supposed to have. Nuclear know now is freely available for anyone who has the money. Pakistani nuclear scientists are available to supply know how to any country that wished to build a nuclear bomb. Internationally, no country has dared to use or even threaten to use these weapons, since US bombing of Japan in 1945. This is true, because the consequences to itself is total annihilation. Alternatively, these weapons offer prestige and confidence, hence are considered, good to have. That is why Iran and North Korea are working to acquire them.

Hence the question arises i.e. if you are unable to prevent nations from building nuclear weapons, then should you be throttling the spread of civilian uses of the nuclear energy? The latter has become a staple conversation in US political circles. Politicians within the US Administration and Congress work hard to deny responsible states (India) from meeting their energy needs, yet do nothing when nuclear secrets are stolen from right under their noses (Pakistan) to build nuclear weapons and spread them to others.
Where is the Hindrance?

Technically NPT does not prevent any country with money to purchase civilian nuclear power plants from the big four. As a matter of fact it guarantees it, provided it has signed the NPT treaty. India in its past wisdom did not sign it. So did Israel and Pakistan. India’s argument against the treaty is mainly centered on the January 1, 1967 cut off date. It considers it as arbitrary. This date offered China a great military and diplomatic advantage. India is comparable in size and stature to China and cannot be denied its due place in the world affairs. Pakistan is a spoiler state for both China and US. The latter uses Pakistan to deny India everything to punish it for supporting the Soviets during the Cold War. Hence hindrance to utilizing full potential of nuclear energy by states which are experiencing energy shortages are not the dangers of its misuse but politicking in Washington. Cold war is over, energy shortage is looming and the supply of nuclear power plants has to be freed from its old self-serving doctrine. Time has come to undertake changes. These changes include:

*

Rewriting the NPT, which in its current state discriminates nuclear and non-nuclear states as of January 1967.
*

Repealing contradictory laws enacted in 1978 in US, which gives too much influence to officials who wish to stay the course.
*

Developing a methodology to deal with the spent fuel cycle. It is important not to leave the spent fuel in the hands of any nation. It should be picked up by the donor nation and accounted for by the user.
*

IAEA without teeth is a toothless tiger good for propaganda only. It has done very little good in its 40 years of existence. It has to be re-organized made non political and given responsibility to run the full fuel cycle at all the nuclear power generation facilities. Such an organization will go a long way to prevent tempering with the nuclear material. Today IAEA is a hindrance. But it can become a real useful international entity preventing any nuclear theft.
* Stiffen laws everywhere, which can be used to prevent nuclear material and technology theft. Pakistan would not have a nuclear bomb today, had the West chased the main perpetrator of this crime, strongly.

Nuclear Energy Economics in Today’s World

Coal and nuclear power have a comparable cost structure. Cost of Power generated using oil and natural gas is high. Raw material cost is the key reason for the higher cost. Combine this with looming shortage of oil and high cost for emission control; the power cost will be still higher. If a nation has abundant supply of coal, which China & US have, they can easily convert oil fired units into coal-fired units. Unfortunately coal is less desirable due to its impact on the environment; hence the choice in near future will fall upon nuclear energy or Natural Gas. Switch to Natural Gas is possible, if one could solve all the international vagaries of jurisdiction, transportation and control over this resource. Natural Gas is relatively a cleaner fuel, if its prices could be kept stable and uninterrupted supply guaranteed, then we have an energy source for next 100 years. But none of the foregoing is likely to happen in an orderly manner. Hence too much reliance on Natural Gas or Coal is impractical. Moreover other uses of oil make it necessary that we conserve it as much as possible. That leaves development of nuclear energy as an alternative to Coal, Natural Gas and Oil as a sure bet.
Civilian Nuclear Energy V/s Military Nuclear Energy

A test case is underway currently where a non-signatory of the NPT – India, is to be conferred an almost nuclear power status. A complicated process is underway to change US laws after the Bush-Manmohan agreement of July 18th, 2005. At the heart of this change is India’s desire to import 4 to 6 large sized nuclear power plants in lieu of not importing natural gas from Iran. The latter is in the cross hair of the US propaganda campaign for trying to build a nuclear bomb. India will not get the original five status but, if it successfully separates the military component of its nuclear program then US will change a few of its laws to make it easy for India to buy nuclear power reactors from the US or any other NSG group members. All the civilian use nuclear power plants will be subject to IAEA inspection.

India is in a win-win situation. This is not sitting well with the US elected officials and the nuclear lobby in the US State Department. US Congress is being asked to vote on India specific changes to the US laws. For the past 50 years they have been fed with anti Indian propaganda and now they are being asked to change their views. Still, India has support for its position. First and foremost, President Bush advised by his able Secretary of State Condi Rice wishes to change US position with respect to India. Second, even hawks like El Baradei, the IAEA Chief has come out in support of the Bush – Manmohan agreement. Third, all-important members of the NSG group (excluding China) have come out in support of the above agreement. They have all sensed possible business deals. Indian parliamentary opposition lead by the leftists is of no value. They are just acting as spoilers for anything US. They are still in Cold War mode.

God willing, if the song and dance currently in progress in Washington goes in India’s favor and no more conditions are attached, these nuclear power plants will go along way to relieve the power shortage in the country. India will be able to participate in the nuclear fusion R & D currently in progress with the building of experimental fusion reactor in Switzerland. Nuclear fusion is touted as the source of unlimited source of energy. It is the future, probably, twenty years from now.

Other countries like Pakistan are waiting in the wings to ask for a similar deal. So far US has said “no”. But if Pakistan completely shuts down its nuclear Wal-Mart and hands over, keys to its nuclear bombs to the US, they may get their wish.
Conclusion

NPT is irrelevant if it stands in the way of energy self sufficiency via nuclear energy. In addition a host US laws are also standing in the way of civilian nuclear export. If military component could be separated out, just as India plans to do, then spread of civilian nuclear energy should be a benefit to the mankind. The world needs energy and the fossil fuel is no longer a viable option, hence all laws, rules and regulations need to be modified. The world has to watch the final outcome of Bush-Manmohan agreement. It is the forerunner of shape of things to come.