The energy that Pakistan needs

The current sorry state of global environment can be chiefly attributed to coal that has burned in the furnaces since the Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1700s. More than two centuries of relentless pumping of fumes in the atmosphere and we end up where we are today; facing severe environmental phenomena; cyclones, record-breaking heatwaves, unnatural rain spells, hot Octobers and cold Aprils! This is just a picture of what is happening in Pakistan. The worldwide situation is grimmer. No wonder climatologists worldwide, who had previously opposed nuclear power so adamantly, are now opening up to the idea that maybe it is in fact the only answer to the current environmental dilemma which can provide salvation to the human race.

One may ask how is it that nuclear power is better than other renewable resources such as wind, solar and hydro-power. Agreed they are possibly the most environmentally-friendly when seen from the perspective that they release zero carbon emissions. But, first and foremost, the nuclear power generation can take base-load which the other alternatives cannot. Base-load is crucial in order to have a sustained flow of electricity. A nuclear power plant (NPP) only needs to be shut down temporarily for around a fortnight or a month every one and a half years, for maintenance.

Additionally, all these other projects require investments and studies show that nuclear wins the cost-efficiency race without much competition from the rest. In 2014, Charles Frank, a researcher at the Brookings Institute, devised a cost-benefit analysis to study the comparative costs associated with installing all four aforementioned sources. These included all the costs covering pre-construction up till operational phases. The conclusion was that if all the costs and benefits are added up, “solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power.”

Cost is not the only factor going in favour of nuclear power. As alluded to earlier, nuclear fission ensures 24x7 supply of electricity which cannot be guaranteed by wind and solar. Furthermore, wind and solar also require back-up systems run by some conventional fuels to ensure supply of electricity in downtimes when there is no wind or sunlight. Then comes the issue of land-use; hydropower sources have a major limitation of geography, whereas wind and solar require large expanses of land and that too in remote areas. Preparation of land to be used for solar and wind farms involve processes such as clearing, compaction and ground levelling. These activities drastically affect native vegetation and wildlife, whereas compaction and ground-levelling significantly erode the fertility of the soil rendering it incapable for future vegetation. Increased runoff is an additional drawback preventing replenishment of groundwater through rain.

In contrast, NPPs require considerably lesser area of land to be constructed on. For example, a wind farm capable of producing 30-50MW electricity would require a minimum land area of approximately 350 square miles, excluding the buffer area. On the other hand, a NPP with a capacity of 1,200MW does not occupy any more than 50 acres of land, with a buffer space not greater than one square mile.

Finally, comes the apparently dreaded question, or rather questions. What happens when a nuclear power plant is hit by a calamity; natural as in the case of Fukushima or man-made? All the radiation would go into the atmosphere affecting living beings on a regional, if not global, level. There is so much risk involved; do we have any means to counter all these possibilities?

Firstly, Fukushima Daiichi accident was not so much a consequence of a tsunami but rather due to backup power failure because the generators were deluged. These issues can be taken care of. For instance, Pakistan’s two upcoming nuclear power plants in Karachi have faced some criticism, with a major argument being that an accident similar to Fukushima can happen considering the proximity of the plants to the ocean. The doom sellers have ignored to tell the masses about the additional safety features that have been incorporated into the design of these plants. Amongst these is the construction of the power plants 12 metres above mean sea level for blocking a projected nine metre-high tsunami wave that could hit the Karachi coast. Historically, the highest tsunami wave to have hit Karachi coastline was six feet. Double containment walls are also in the plan to prevent radiations from leaking into the surrounding environment in the extreme case that the power plant has been breached as a result of an accident. Special vents are also a part of the design which would moderate the daily release of radiations in the atmosphere, in such a way, that they do not exceed the natural background radioactivity levels of the environment. These are just a few of many safety measures in place.

As a concluding thought, we must be aware of the fact that too many catastrophes of today are also our own doing in one way. More burnt fossil fuels, more CO2 in the atmosphere, more sun rays absorbed, increasingly warm atmosphere and growing temperatures, and you have a recipe for disaster right there (pun intended!). However, what has been done is done, what we can do now is to see how the future can be made better. History has proven that many countries have used nuclear power as a way to cut back on carbon emissions, thereby contributing to an improved environment. The luminary in this regard is France which cut back on its greenhouse emissions by approximately 2 per cent yearly, when it swapped fossil fuels with nuclear fission as an electricity source, during the 1970s and 1980s. We must not rubbish the idea of exploiting wind and solar sources as means of generating power because these are good add-ons. However, for Pakistan, after hydropower, nuclear is the chief and the most sustainable solution to the country’s energy woes. Other alternatives can be mainstreamed into the country’s overall energy mix as it stabilises in the energy domain.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy’s first volt comes on grid at least a decade after the ground for a nuclear power plant has been broken. Had Pakistan ignored the pessimists in 2004, it would not have lost more than a thousand people to Karachi’s recurring heatwaves every year. This does not mean the detractors are entirely to be blamed; rather it is our collective loss, which could be prevented from happening in the future by making the right choices and taking some hard decisions.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 22^nd, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.