Ironically, it is the massive destruction caused by the recent accident — caused by an earthquake and tsunami of unsurpassed and unanticipated magnitude — at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan that provided the primary level of education on various aspects of nuclear energy and nuclear technology for most Indians,
rather than a home-grown programme of information dissemination about nuclear issues by the government. That the latter should have been the case is a self-evident proposition, especially as India plans to increase domestic generation of nuclear power manifold in the next decade and beyond from the mere three per cent of the national energy mix at present. It is so obvious that it is trite to say that a better informed public is a better prepared public when things go wrong at a nuclear power plant. This is among the key lessons to emerge from Fukushima.
But it is amply clear this lesson has not been learnt. After Fukushima, there were two key official announcements from the government. The Prime Minister publicly called for a safety review of all our nuclear power installations. It was subsequently proclaimed quite blandly that our plants are safe. Following this, Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, Union minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh and Atomic Energy Commission chairman Srikumar Banerjee held a press conference on Tuesday to announce that India will go ahead with the proposed nuclear power stations at Jaitapur on the Konkan coast, although local residents have protested strongly against siting a nuclear power plant in the region. Ordinarily it would have been expected that the government would be more sensitive to people’s concerns on the safety aspect. If a detailed safety audit has been done, its findings should be put in the public domain. On Jaitapur, the government should give detailed explanations — along with technical data that would take on board citizens’ concerns regarding environmental degradation in that particular stretch of the coast, and anxieties about probable loss of life. If this is not done, doubts will linger and many are apt to take it upon themselves to fan such doubts.
In the last three decades or so, all we have been told from the government is that nuclear power is cheaper than its alternatives, and that it is clean energy, unlike fossil fuels. The first has been questioned by many, including in responsible quarters. The second is undeniably true. But in the event of an accident, all bets are off. Fukushima underscores that. It is therefore also necessary that the government place all the facts on these issues before the public. To fill the information gap, it must also be officially explained why our reactors are better placed to withstand accidents, including those arising from storage of spent fuel rods (as at Fukushima). Data about our reactors being more modern, and advantages accruing from this, if any, also need to be explained, besides the nature of the three-stage Indian nuclear programme, culminating in the use of thorium as fuel.
Given the sheer magnitude of this country’s energy needs to maintain a certain rate of economic growth and to meet the challenges of development, probably we need to have every source of power in our energy mix, including nuclear. For this to find willing acceptance within India, a lot of background work needs to be done by the government. At the moment the nuclear sector is a black hole, virtually mired in secrecy. One positive fallout of Fukushima has been that the government has decided to separate the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from the AEC so that the safety aspect can be monitored independently of the atomic energy establishment.