Let's not turn our back on nuclear energy.

Though it has quietened down now, everyday we were bombarded with inputs on India's nuclear power program and how risky it was to the Indian public.
I listened in on many talk shows where matters are discussed with more heat than light. With about 158 television news channels in the country broadcasters often sacrifice facts at the altar of extreme sensationalism.
I also received a barrage of emails from people asking me to send this or that petition to the Prime Minister of India against adopting nuclear power etc.

Most people live overworked lives. It is easy to be swept by the crowd and follow the seemingly general consensus on matters. I decided to step back and make an unbiased analysis which I share with you.

India is a nation in dynamic growth. It is likely to grow at approximately 8.5% to 9% this year. As a rapidly developing industrial nation India will need to generate huge additional amounts of energy to maintain that growth trajectory.

All is not well in the energy sector. Dominated by state owned enterprises and infrastructure both quantity and quality of electricity is in a sad state.
Electricity shortfall averages about 22% between generation and demand and the gap is widening by the day. India needs to get its power generation and energy requirements satisfactorily met.

Energy can come from a variety of sources, Oil, Coal, Gas, Hydro, Solar, wind, bio gas etc. Each energy source has some advantages and some disadvantages.

The coal based power plants spew out wide range of pollutants and add significantly to green house gasses which leads to global warming. In addition to this coal has small quantities of Mercury in them. By itself the content is small but with the large quantity used in Thermal power plants the contamination to the air, soil and water sources is significant. It is highly carcinogenic and is a highly potent but silent killer.

Oil fired plants have less discharge of suspended particles but generate equal or higher amounts of green house gases. Large amount of oil is imported and works against India's energy security interests. The oil based plants are expensive to operate and compromises India's strategic leverage by making us overly dependent on imported fuel.

These two fossil fuel based thermal power plants generate nearly 71% of India's power output.

Leaving aside the Chernobyl (formerly in the USSR)incident which resulted in 56 direct deaths and a large number of people affected along with flora and fauna there have been no other serious mishaps.

The famous three mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 in Pennsylvania ( USA) caused no loss to humans or animals or to the environment. Nevertheless it led to the nuclear industry being stopped dead in its tracks in the United States.

Paul Slovic an international authority on risk perception wrote in the prestigious journal 'Science' wrote abut how humans frame their assessment of danger. Normally the thought of a nuclear plant blows up creates images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where nuclear weapons were used in warfare. The image is extremely horrifying and saddening.

Yet experts have determined that nuclear power plants are so much safer than everyday acts like driving, riding a motorcycle, drinking alcohol or smoking.
In terms of risk, Nuclear power is even less dangerous than riding a bicycle or walking in the streets of our towns and cities.

Like a train accident or an airplane crash, where large number of people die at one time compared to a handful of people in automobile crashes, nuclear plant failures are perceived incorrectly as extremely dangerous.

Drinking or driving or living close to towers with mobile phone transmitters are something people feel they can control. The public has little understanding or sense of control over nuclear power plants so they see them with great suspicion.

Politicians, the coal and oil lobbies, NGO's etc. all have their own agendas and they may not always be in favour of appropriate development. They have a vested interest in opposing the use of nuclear energy.

France generates 75% of its power from nuclear energy. using second and third generation technology without a serious mishap in the past 55 years. It has one of the lowest cost of power production in Europe and is a net energy exporter, in spite of having no natural energy sources of its own.

Nowadays the use of fourth generation nuclear power plants based on proven technologies like pebble-bed reactors are highly cost effective and extremely safe. The pebble bed reactor uses only 9% Uranium 235 and 91% Uranium 238 , it is impossible to use the fuel for making atomic bombs. In addition pebble-bed reactors are meltdown proof.

Nuclear plants built as per second generation design are comparatively extremely expensive , but fourth generation plants are quite economical. With India's strong engineering capability coupled with its ability to bring down costs to fraction of what it costs in Japan, Europe or America, it is a good and viable option. (An analogy can be drawn from the fact that designing and developing a new car in India costs about a tenth to an eighth of what it costs company in developed economies.)

Nuclear power does not generate green house gases nor other toxic products in large quantities.

Managing disposal of large spent fuel rods in deep underground storage is a nightmare. However fourth generation pebble-bed fuel is encased in thick silicon carbide shells which will be able to prevent leaching or leaking of uranium for more than a million years. Thus making them incomparably much safer than everyday things like driving a car.

It is high time we look at environmental issues, national and strategic issues and take decisions in a rational manner rather than become one in the frenzied crowd.

India should adopt nuclear power to offer a better quality of life.