[sacw] Pakistan: Marching Blindfold Into The Nuclear Age

[Harsh Kapoor]

FYI
(South Asians Against Nukes)
________________________

MARCHING BLINDFOLD INTO THE NUCLEAR AGE

by Zia Mian

[Published as Perils of Going Nuclear, The News, 3 November 2000]

For fifty years, atomic energy commissions everywhere have promised that
nuclear reactors can supply abundant, cheap, safe electricity. This promise
has been broken so often in so many places that people have stopped
believing it. The high costs, safety problems, and terrible consequences of
nuclear accidents have led environmentalists, concerned citizens, and
governments around the world to start finding ways to end the nuclear age.
Pakistan seems dead set in heading backwards into the future.
The most recent sign of the waning of faith in nuclear energy came on 27
October when Taiwan announced that it had decided to stop construction of
its newest nuclear power plant. Key to this decision was the public
pressure against nuclear energy which helped elect Prime Minister Chang
Chun-hsiung in March of this year. Even though the nuclear plant was
one-third complete and had already cost $1.4 billion, the new Prime
Minister justified his decision by saying "We have to make a rational,
responsible and conscientious choice for the sake of Taiwan's posterity."
He went on, "I believe that today we can tell our children that we made a
brave and correct choice."
In August, in a very significant move, Japan's Atomic Energy Commission
called for the scrapping of government targets for nuclear electricity
generation, as well as lifting the target date for the commercialisation of
previously planned fast-breeder reactors. These steps came in response to
intense public fears over nuclear safety. These fears gained in strength
after the September 1999 nuclear accident at the Tokaimura uranium
processing plant. On 13 October 2000, Japan's official Science and
Technology Agency reported it believed 667 people had been exposed to
radiation; in addition to the two workers who died from the radiation, 56
people are estimated to have been exposed to radiation doses greater than
the annual exposure limit.
In July of this year, Turkey announced that it was cancelling its plan to
build its first nuclear power plant. In an interview with a Turkish daily
newspaper, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit explained that "The world is
abandoning nuclear power". Ecevit said Turkey would instead focus on energy
conservation and invest in natural gas, hydro-electricity, as well as solar
and wind generation. Money played a role: the nuclear plant was estimated
to cost $2.5 billion. But it was not just the cost; there were public
protests about the safety of the proposed nuclear reactor, especially the
possible danger of earthquakes at the site -- including concerns expressed
by leading seismologists.
While Turkey decided to not even start out on the nuclear road, in June of
this year Germany announced a plan to end its reliance on nuclear power,
and phase out its 19 nuclear reactors. The decision fulfilled a 1998
election pledge made by the coalition German Social Democrat Party and the
Green party. Even though nuclear power provides one-third of its
electricity, the pressure from environmentalists was sufficient to make
Germany the first major industrial country to take such a decision.
France, which is very heavily dependent on nuclear electricity, has also
begun to debate the future place of nuclear power. In May 1999, a study of
the future of nuclear energy was commissioned by Prime Minister Jospin and
the Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, a leader of the French Green
party. All the options studied show the share of nuclear power in France's
total electricity supply dropping from its present 80% to 50% or below. On
July 5 of this year, a colloquium on "Exiting nuclear" was organised at the
French National Assembly, which included the Minister of Environment, the
industry minister, and the chairman and chief executive of the French
national electricity company.
In the national dialogue that seems about to begin, the safety record of
the French nuclear complex shall be an issue. Over the last decade, the
number of safety-related incidents at French nuclear installations reported
to the national authorities has increased from just over 400 in 1990 to
over 600 in 1999, with the overwhelming majority of incidents (almost 500)
taking place at nuclear reactors.
There are growing problems also in the United States, which was initially
responsible for the exaggerated promise of nuclear energy. The watershed
was the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.
Seventy-four plants that were under construction at the time of the
accident were subsequently cancelled, while thirteen that were operating
have been permanently shut, and no new nuclear plants have been built in
the United States. Since 1984, safety related problems have led to 23
nuclear reactors having to be shut down for longer than a year. Six
reactors have closed since 1996 because they had become too expensive to
operate.
These are by no means the only countries that are turning away from nuclear
energy. Some countries, decided to do so long ago. Sweden voted in a 1980
referendum to close down the nation's nuclear plants: the Barseback 1
reactor was shut down permanently last November and the Barseback 2 reactor
is scheduled for shutdown next July. The Netherlands is unlikely to accept
any extension of the life of the country's only remaining nuclear power
station beyond 2004. The indignity marking the end of the nuclear age is
most evident in the Philippines which mothballed its Bataan Nuclear Power
Plant as soon as it was completed in 1984, and is considering plans to turn
the site into a liquefied natural gas-fired power station.
It is not just the high financial cost and safety problems of nuclear
energy that have become increasingly evident. The possible consequences of
an accident have grown more vivid and stark. In April this year, World
Health Organisation researchers reported new research showing that the 1986
Chernobyl disaster may lead to 50,000 new cases of thyroid cancer among
young people living in the worst-affected regions. The studies show that in
areas close to the accident over one-third of children aged under four on
the day of accident can expect to develop thyroid cancer.
In Pakistan, things are heading the other way. At the end of September, the
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission took charge of the Chinese designed and
built Chashma Nuclear Power Plant. While the PAEC takes pride in its new
reactor, China has announced that it will order no new nuclear power plants
at least for the next 3 years, because of the high cost of nuclear
electricity. PAEC has not revealed the final cost of building Chashma, or
the terms of the contract for its uranium fuel (supplied by China), or the
expected price of producing electricity. PAEC is also trying to keep the
Karachi Nuclear Power Plant working; the reactor started in 1971 and is
close to the end of the 30 years life for which it was designed. PAEC
refuses to make public its studies on the actual costs or safety of either
nuclear plant. Without these there can be no informed debate or
decision-making. We march blindfold into the future.

Zia Mian is a physicist at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,
Princeton University, Princeton, USA..