Nuclear Power for Sri Lanka ? – A reply

The Island

July 23, 2011, 12:00 pm


by Dr. Prinath Dias

This is with reference to the article written by Dr. A.C. Visvalingam, President of the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) titled "Nuclear Power for Sri Lanka?" which appeared on the 26th of June in the Sunday Island. This article makes a strong case against the use of nuclear power, but has used incorrect information in many of its arguments. The main purpose of this article is to correct the wrong information presented in the previous article and to provide some additional informationon nuclear power.

The Role of Nuclear Power

As I understand, the Government of Sri Lanka has not made a decision to use nuclear power but has decided to consider it as a possible option for generation of electrical energy in the future. Electrical energy is essential for the economic development of any country. Industrial development is impossible without a reliable and an economical supply of electrical energy. The current annual consumption of electrical energy per person in Sri Lanka is about 450 kWh, compared with 12,500 kWh in the USA, 8,300 in South Korea, 8,100 in Singapore, 3,500 in Malaysia, 2,000 in Thailand, 480 in India and 150 kWh in Bangladesh. These numbers clearly indicate the link between the level of development and the demand for electrical energy. Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia would not have been able to achieve the level of development they have achieved if they were unable to expand their electrical power generating capacity to meet the growing demand for electrical energy as a result of industrial / commercial growth.Even reaching a modest per capita consumption of 1000 kWh per person per year in Sri Lanka would require almost doubling the present electrical power generating capacity. At present the demand of electrical energy in Sri Lanka is increasing at a rate of about 8% per year. This could be expected to increase further if there is an increase in the rate of economic development.

At the early stages of developing our electrical power generating capacity, Sri Lanka heavily depended on hydro power supplemented by thermal power. Later on, thermal power produced in our gas turbine plants, diesel plants etc. became the main source of power. Even though the need to establish coal power plants to bring down the cost of electricity and to improve the reliability was recognized more than twenty years ago, the construction of the first coal power plant in Sri Lanka was extensively delayed due to wrong information provided to the public about the environmental effects of coal power. The CEB is now planning to construct several coal power plants to meet the rising demand for electrical energy. Coal power supplemented by other types of diesel plants, hydro power and renewable sources of energy such as wind energy can be expected to meet the demand for electrical energy in Sri Lanka during the next 10-15 years, depending on how fast our demand for electrical energy increases. However, whether coal power plants supplemented by the other sources of energy could continue to meet the demand for electrical energy beyond this time period is uncertain.

Coal power plants produce solid and gaseous pollutants, which could place a limit on the coal generating capacity in order to prevent environmental degradation. Coal and other fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide that contributes to the green house effect. Even though the amount of carbon dioxide produced in our power plants will have a minimal impact at global level, there is a possibility of the introduction of a "carbon tax" at international level in order to control climate change. If it happens, it could make coal power uneconomical. Renewable sources of energy possibly could make a bigger contribution, but at present they are much more expensive than the other sources of energy we use. In addition to the cost, the intermittent nature of these power sources has made it impossible to increase their share by more than 10% in order to maintain the stability of our electrical power transmission network. In view of the above, it would be prudent to be aware of the possibility of having to use a power source other than fossil fuels and renewable sources of energy to meet the demand for electrical energy in the future. The only feasible option that is presently known is nuclear power.

The need and the ability to use nuclear power will depend on, how rapidly and for how long the demand for electrical power will increase, which in turn will depend on the development polices of the Government, whether or not coal power can continue to meet the future demand economically without causing environmental problems, whether future technological developments will make renewable energy less costly and more reliable, whether Sri Lanka can overcome the constraints we would face in introducing nuclear power and whether the infrastructure required to support a nuclear power programmecan be developed.

As the article of Dr. Visvalingam has correctly pointed out, a nuclear power programme cannot be implemented without well trained personnel. Training of personnel and developing the infrastructure for a nuclear power programme require time. If there is a possibility of having to use nuclear power in the future, action needs to be taken now to provide a basic knowledge of this technology to the relevant personnel who could advice the Government on the need and advisability of commencing a nuclear power programme based on scientific and technological facts, rather than on incorrect information provided by mass media. This does not require a big investment and our Universities can play a major role in this regard. The assistance from the International Atomic Energy Agency of which Sri Lanka is a Member State also can be sought. It is also possible to undertake certain studies at this stage in order to be better prepared, in the event the need to use nuclear power arises in the future.

Incorrect Statements

As mentioned above, the article of 26th June by Dr. Visvalingamcontains some statements that cannot be considered correct. The very first statement which states that "China, France, India, Russia, UK, USA and a few other countries with enormous financial and technical resources ……… are going ahead with the construction of nuclear power stations……" is incorrect. At present 30 countries including Pakistan, Armenia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Mexico use nuclear power. Many of these countries do not have "enormous financial and technical resources". The total capacity of the 440 nuclear power plants in operation which generates 16% of electrical energy generated worldwide is 374,000 MW which is about 120 times the power generating capacity of Sri Lanka. (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/nuclearpower/ ). 65 new plants are under construction and several other countries including Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Bangladesh are at various stages of developing their nuclear power programmes.

Any country that decides to use nuclear power (or any other technology for that matter) would have to acquire the required scientific and engineering knowledge. Except for a very few, all countries that use nuclear power have acquired this technology from other countries. It is not necessary to totally depend on plant manufactures for human resource development, nor it is possible. Sri Lanka as a Member State of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations can seek the assistance of the IAEA, which has a comprehensive programme for helping Member States that have decided to use nuclear power, to do so. The cost of fuel is a very small component of the cost of generation and the cost of uranium is governed by market forces. It is not possible for any supplier to increase the prices arbitrarily.

Some countries have managed to develop the capability of constructing nuclear power plants and the statement about the funds spent on nuclear power plants remaining in such countries is correct. But all countries that use nuclear power do not have this capability. Even the countries that have developed the capability of building nuclear power plants had to depend on other countries in building the first few plants. In the case of Sri Lanka, irrespective of whether it is a hydro power plant, a coal power plant, any other type of thermal plant, or a nuclear power plant, the money spent will not remain in the country, since all our power plants have been and will be built by foreign companies.

Accidents

The information provided about nuclear accidents is also not quite correct. There had been three accidents in nuclear power plants that resulted in the release of radioactive material to the environment. The Three Mile Accident that occurred in the USA in 1979 released a minute amount of radiation and no person living in the vicinity of the plant received a radiation dose exceeding that of an X-ray examination.

The worst accident was the Chernobyl accident which occurred in April 1986 as result of the plant operators extensively violating the operating procedures while conducting an experiment with the power plant. A very large amount of radioactive material was released to the environment as a result. However, according to the Chernobyl Forum which comprises seven UN organizations (FAO, WHO, IAEA, UNSCEAR, UNEP, UNDP, UNOCHA) and the World Bank, up to mid 2005, (when the report was issued) this accident had caused 50 deaths. Another 4000 persons among those who were exposed to the highest level of radiation are expected to eventually die of cancer, which is a 3% increase of cancer deaths among this very large population. About 5000 children have been affected by thyroid cancer as a result of consuming milk containing radioactive iodine. They have been successfully treated and the survival rate is estimated as 99%.The Forum "did not find profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health". (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html).

These deaths are unfortunate and should have been avoided. But there are many human activities thatare not without risk. For example auto accidents kill 50,000 persons per year in USA and 2000 persons per year in Sri Lanka. Yet we continue to use them. There is certainly a risk in using nuclear power. The question is how this risk compares with the risks we normally accept in our daily life and whether the risk is worth the benefits. Isn’t nuclear power which will eventually kill about 5000 persons (in a period of more than 25 years) in the worst possible accident safer than automobiles that kill close to 100,000 persons worldwide every year?

The third accident was the accident at Fukushima which was caused by a massive earthquake and a Tsunami on the 11th of March. The amount of radioactivity released was less than that of Chernobyl and better precautions were taken by the authorities to mitigate the effects of the accident. The health effects of the accident are yet to be known, but can be expected to be less than that of the Chernobyl accident.

Even though the health effects of these accidents are not as severe as very widely believed, the economic cost of these accidents is very high. These accidents, in addition to making it impossible to use these power plants again, also have made it necessary to spend a large amount of money to contain the spread of radioactivity and to pay compensation for those affected. Even though the probability of such an accident is very small, a country like Sri Lanka would not be able to withstand such a high economic loss, if an accident occurs. This is a factor that needs to be very carefully considered in deciding to use nuclear power plants. The next generation of nuclear reactors is being built to be inherently safe. These reactors are expected to be accident proof and if they live up to the expectations once they are built and operated, they could be more suitable for countries like Sri Lanka.

In conclusion, Sri Lanka is not yet in a position to decide on whether or not it should or would have to use nuclear power in the future. This will depend on a number of factors that are unknown at present. Nuclear power is being considered as a possible option for power generation in the future. However, it would be necessary to create a group of persons who have the scientific knowledge of this technology, who could undertake the preliminary studies in order to collect the information required to advice the Government and the public on the pros and cons of nuclear power based on scientific information, rather than on the incorrect and misleading information provided through public media.

The statement that the CIMOGG does not claim to be an authority on nuclear power but has based its observations on common sense is well appreciated. I congratulate the CIMOGG on some very valid points raised. However, while common sense based on correct information could lead to the right decision, the opposite would be true if it is based on wrong information.

(The writer holds a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and is a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority of Sri Lanka. He has also served as a staff member of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations)