Opting for nuclear power plants
Sunday, 9 December 2007
SM Shakhawat Hossain
The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) has given Bangladesh approval to set up nuclear power plants. This is a very helpful proposition to say the least. For Bangladesh has been searching for low cost, environmentally safe and large scale production of power against the backdrop of its fast growing demand for power and the serious shortfall in power production it is facing currently.
The IAEA approval will facilitate the endeavour to set up nuclear power plants in the country. Already, Daewoo Engineering, a South Korean industrial giant, has reportedly offered to build and operate a fairly large-scale nuclear power generation plant in Bangladesh. Major donor organisations also appear to be giving the nod to set up power plants in Bangladesh. Thus, the prospects of nuclear power in Bangladesh are brightening and the opportunities should be well exploited by the policy planners at the fastest.
According to expert assessments, the production of power from coal, oil and natural gas involves polluting processes. Running power stations with oil leads to much emission of greenhouse gases. Emissions from gas-fired power plants do also contribute to pollution. In contrast, power generation from nuclear plants can be true bliss. No long supply chain of raw materials and other inventories is required to operate a major nuclear power plant. Operation of a big coal-based power plant to the demands of a city like Dhaka would require about a 1000-kilometer line of railways trucks filled with coal along with the back-up facilities to mine the coal and the attendant polluting processes spread over large areas. Power generation with oil for a similar purpose would call for at least four or five super tanker loads of heavy imported oil. Power generation with natural gas requires the laying of pipelines extensively from the gas fields to the power station. The supply chain for a nuclear power plant, by comparison, is incredibly shorter and manageable. It can feed on about two trucks of cheap and plentiful uranium imported from stable countries like Canada or Australia. Gas and acid emissions from a nuclear power plant is zero; toxic ash and dust, none. Only a few bucketful of radioactive wastes may be produced that can be safely disposed away.
A careful study should establish that the fear of nuclear energy from the health and environment perspectives is really exaggerated. Notwithst-anding the operation of environmental organisations such as the Greenpeace, the fear of radiation is more in the imaginations of people than in the real world. Humans worldwide are always being bombarded with more radiation from natural sources. Radiation from power plants and the like is a very tiny part of the total radiation. According to the UK's National Radiological Prote-ction Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one per cent of the total exposure to people in the UK.
Even if Bangladesh operates several fairly large-sized nuclear power plants for about a hundred years, the total radioactive wastes from these would probably fill a medium-sized ditch. But then the wastes could be put in sealed containers and kept in a bunker like concrete underground storage to avoid leakage. Nuclear waste does indeed take a long time to decay, but its highest level of radioactivity is lost within a few years. Much of the remaining waste can be returned to the fuel cycle and re-processed. Even radioactive leakages are not found as dangerous as publicised by environmental lobbies. The fall-out from the Chernobyl accident, the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe, was finally and scientifically found to be a minor one : at worst, the equivalent of a couple of chest X-rays for each exposed individual. If nuclear power plants were not entirely safe then France would not be meeting 78 per cent of its power needs from them. As it is, the world's nuclear champion is safe and the health of its people among the very best in the world.
Therefore, the case should be very strong for Bangladesh to plan for large scale generation of nuclear power in the country. Nuclear power generation is actually not only environmentally best but also very cheap. Counting out the initial establishment costs, the per unit of electricity to be produced by a nuclear power plant should be much cheaper than a coal or gas fired plant.
One may ask: what Bangladesh should do with its coal resources? Should it leave the coal underground, unused? That would not be a smart thing to do. One very sound and environment-friendly proposal would be to dig up the coal not in a manner that might endanger the environment such as the open method. On the contrary, an environment-friendly mining system should be used and then at least a part of the coal should be allowed to be exported for earning foreign currencies for the country.
The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) has given Bangladesh approval to set up nuclear power plants. This is a very helpful proposition to say the least. For Bangladesh has been searching for low cost, environmentally safe and large scale production of power against the backdrop of its fast growing demand for power and the serious shortfall in power production it is facing currently.
The IAEA approval will facilitate the endeavour to set up nuclear power plants in the country. Already, Daewoo Engineering, a South Korean industrial giant, has reportedly offered to build and operate a fairly large-scale nuclear power generation plant in Bangladesh. Major donor organisations also appear to be giving the nod to set up power plants in Bangladesh. Thus, the prospects of nuclear power in Bangladesh are brightening and the opportunities should be well exploited by the policy planners at the fastest.
According to expert assessments, the production of power from coal, oil and natural gas involves polluting processes. Running power stations with oil leads to much emission of greenhouse gases. Emissions from gas-fired power plants do also contribute to pollution. In contrast, power generation from nuclear plants can be true bliss. No long supply chain of raw materials and other inventories is required to operate a major nuclear power plant. Operation of a big coal-based power plant to the demands of a city like Dhaka would require about a 1000-kilometer line of railways trucks filled with coal along with the back-up facilities to mine the coal and the attendant polluting processes spread over large areas. Power generation with oil for a similar purpose would call for at least four or five super tanker loads of heavy imported oil. Power generation with natural gas requires the laying of pipelines extensively from the gas fields to the power station. The supply chain for a nuclear power plant, by comparison, is incredibly shorter and manageable. It can feed on about two trucks of cheap and plentiful uranium imported from stable countries like Canada or Australia. Gas and acid emissions from a nuclear power plant is zero; toxic ash and dust, none. Only a few bucketful of radioactive wastes may be produced that can be safely disposed away.
A careful study should establish that the fear of nuclear energy from the health and environment perspectives is really exaggerated. Notwithst-anding the operation of environmental organisations such as the Greenpeace, the fear of radiation is more in the imaginations of people than in the real world. Humans worldwide are always being bombarded with more radiation from natural sources. Radiation from power plants and the like is a very tiny part of the total radiation. According to the UK's National Radiological Prote-ction Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one per cent of the total exposure to people in the UK.
Even if Bangladesh operates several fairly large-sized nuclear power plants for about a hundred years, the total radioactive wastes from these would probably fill a medium-sized ditch. But then the wastes could be put in sealed containers and kept in a bunker like concrete underground storage to avoid leakage. Nuclear waste does indeed take a long time to decay, but its highest level of radioactivity is lost within a few years. Much of the remaining waste can be returned to the fuel cycle and re-processed. Even radioactive leakages are not found as dangerous as publicised by environmental lobbies. The fall-out from the Chernobyl accident, the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe, was finally and scientifically found to be a minor one : at worst, the equivalent of a couple of chest X-rays for each exposed individual. If nuclear power plants were not entirely safe then France would not be meeting 78 per cent of its power needs from them. As it is, the world's nuclear champion is safe and the health of its people among the very best in the world.
Therefore, the case should be very strong for Bangladesh to plan for large scale generation of nuclear power in the country. Nuclear power generation is actually not only environmentally best but also very cheap. Counting out the initial establishment costs, the per unit of electricity to be produced by a nuclear power plant should be much cheaper than a coal or gas fired plant.
One may ask: what Bangladesh should do with its coal resources? Should it leave the coal underground, unused? That would not be a smart thing to do. One very sound and environment-friendly proposal would be to dig up the coal not in a manner that might endanger the environment such as the open method. On the contrary, an environment-friendly mining system should be used and then at least a part of the coal should be allowed to be exported for earning foreign currencies for the country.