Using the nuclear option
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Mozzamel Haque
FOR Bangladesh has been searching for low cost, environmentally safe and large scale production of power in the backdrop of its fast growing demand for power and its current serious shortfall in power production. As was reported earlier, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) endorsed Bangladesh's proposal for setting up nuclear power plants. If that is the case, this will hopefully facilitate now to undertake follow-up moves to set up such power plants in the country.
Already, Daewoo Engineering, a South Korean industrial giant, has, reportedly again, 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 Bangladesh to set up such power plants. It was earlier reported that the Foreign Affairs Adviser to the incumbent caretaker government discussed the matter of Russia's possible cooperation for setting up a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh during his last official visit to Moscow and the outcome of such discussions, according to reports in the media, was positive. Thus, the prospects of nuclear power in Bangladesh are brightening and the opportunities must 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 are almost similarly polluting. In contrast, power generation from nuclear plants can be true bliss. No long supply chain of raw materials and other inventories are required in operating a major nuclear power plant. Operation of a big coal based power plant to supply a city like Dhaka would require annually about a 1000 kiolmetre line of railways trucks filled with coal along with the back-up of mining 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. Notwithstanding the operation of environmental organisations such as the Greenpeace, the fear of radiation is more in the imaginations of peoples 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 Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to les than one per cent of the total exposure to people in UK.
Even if Bangladesh operates several fairly large size 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 ensure against leakage. Nuclear waste does indeed take a long time to decay, but its most dangerous 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 so 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 a major part 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 it is 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.
FOR Bangladesh has been searching for low cost, environmentally safe and large scale production of power in the backdrop of its fast growing demand for power and its current serious shortfall in power production. As was reported earlier, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) endorsed Bangladesh's proposal for setting up nuclear power plants. If that is the case, this will hopefully facilitate now to undertake follow-up moves to set up such power plants in the country.
Already, Daewoo Engineering, a South Korean industrial giant, has, reportedly again, 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 Bangladesh to set up such power plants. It was earlier reported that the Foreign Affairs Adviser to the incumbent caretaker government discussed the matter of Russia's possible cooperation for setting up a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh during his last official visit to Moscow and the outcome of such discussions, according to reports in the media, was positive. Thus, the prospects of nuclear power in Bangladesh are brightening and the opportunities must 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 are almost similarly polluting. In contrast, power generation from nuclear plants can be true bliss. No long supply chain of raw materials and other inventories are required in operating a major nuclear power plant. Operation of a big coal based power plant to supply a city like Dhaka would require annually about a 1000 kiolmetre line of railways trucks filled with coal along with the back-up of mining 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. Notwithstanding the operation of environmental organisations such as the Greenpeace, the fear of radiation is more in the imaginations of peoples 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 Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to les than one per cent of the total exposure to people in UK.
Even if Bangladesh operates several fairly large size 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 ensure against leakage. Nuclear waste does indeed take a long time to decay, but its most dangerous 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 so 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 a major part 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 it is 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.