By Santosh Kumar
The unfolding tragedy in Japan could not have come at a worse time for the world economy. Struggling as it was from the aftershocks of the financial crisis, it is now being hit by a double whammy. Uncertainties in the oil-rich Arab world, combined with shutdowns in nuclear energy production in Japan and Germany have driven up oil prices past $115 per barrel. India, China, Japan and west Europe, which are heavily oil import-dependent economies, are likely to suffer the most.
The nuclear meltdown has also brought the risks involved in nuclear power generation into starker focus. The costs of covering the risks from nuclear reactors are likely to surge and, in turn, affecting economics. Many countries have consequently started pulling back their nuclear energy programmes. German chancellor Angela Merkel ordered closure of old reactors and called for urgent crisis talks on the future of atomic energy. Switzerland put the renewal of three atomic stations on hold. Even China, halted approvals of fresh nuclear power projects. Safety concerns were raised in the US, Congressional hearings while examining the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although the administration has not made any policy changes yet.
India has up until now, confined itself to announcing a nuclear safety review. At present, India generates only 6,000 mw of nuclear power or 4.2 per cent of total power generation. But with $175 billion in planned spending, nuclear power output is expected to rise to 64,000 mw by 2032, accounting for 9 per cent of overall power output within 25 years.
The ambitious nuclear energy programme is open to questions in the wake of the Japanese disaster, although to my mind for the wrong reasons. Unlike Japan, India has wider options for choosing sites that are not prone to earthquakes or tsunamis. But other risks remain. This is a good opportunity to review our energy policy as a whole. Should we be putting so many eggs in the nuclear basket?
It goes without saying that we do need to step up our power generation capacity in order to sustain a growth rate of 8 to 9 per cent and ensure equity. According to the planning commission, India’s power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 mw from the present capacity of around 160,000 mw by 2031-32.
Ideally, the gap should be filled by renewable energy that does not deplete resources or harm the environment. It should also be domestically abundant so that we do not have to depend too much on overseas suppliers for energy security. Lastly, the cost of generation should be competitive. The silver lining in oil price escalation is that alternative sources such as solar, wind and bio (bio-waste and algae, among others) are becoming more attractive, if still in a supplementary role. Fusion could become a game-changing technology in the not so distant future. As far as present mainline generation modes are concerned, the one source that does meet these parametres is hydropower.
What is common to Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Switzerland and Venezuela? They all have mountainous regions that hold large water resources and they have used them optimally. They get their energy mainly from hydro projects and some use a large chunk to enhance their export earnings substantially.
India stands out as an underachiever. Despite being endowed with an estimated potential of over 150,000 mw of hydropower, more than 70 per cent is untapped. Special mention can be made of J&K, where only 10 per cent of the 25,000 mw potential of the Indus and its tributaries has been tapped due to road blocks imposed by Pakistan applying pressure under the pretext of the Indus Waters Treaty. The share of hydropower in India’s total power output has come down significantly over the years from 50.62 per cent in 1963 to less than 25 per cent at present.
One reason for the neglect could be fears of catastrophic floods if an earthquake hits a large storage dam, particularly since 57 per cent of India is in a high seismic zone. However, all hydraulic and hydropower structures have to now comply with IS 1893:1984 standard for earthquake-resistant design. This standard divides the country into five seismic zones for which there are different specifications. Failure of a dam in India due to an earthquake is therefore unlikely. Even in the massive earthquakes in Uttarkashi, Latur and Bhuj, dams survived, largely intact.
Social activists also allege that hydropower projects traumatise local communities. This is no doubt an important issue, but well within the challenge of good governance to address. Effective compensation and proper relocation and rehabilitation of the displaced are the key.
Moreover, multi-purpose hydro projects can help in better management of river waters, including irrigation and water availability in lean seasons, flood control and soil conservation. The floods in Bihar in 2008 are a prime example of the havoc uncontrolled rivers can wreak in the thickly populated Indo-Gangetic plain.
Apart from exploiting internal water resources, India must focus much more on the rich hydropower resources of neighbouring countries.
Regional hydro resources can therefore, meet up to half the projected energy gap 20 years down the line. The Great Bend of the Brahmaputra alone, as it falls from Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh, has a potential of 70,000 mw. Much of these potentials are far in excess of domestic requirements of the endowed areas. Hydropower collaboration can, therefore, be a win-win situation for all. India could import hydropower to meet its needs and advance an integrated Saarc power grid, especially in the bordering areas of energy-deficient neighbours. Exporting countries on the other hand, could earn substantial revenues to boost their economies. And yet, even a modest part of these potentials has not been actualised, except partially in Bhutan. Nepal, for example, has developed only 600 mw of hydropower capacity, a miniscule percentage of its potential. Not being able to effectively pursue its regional energy interests must count as one of the signal failures of India’s foreign policy.
The noise made by NGOs against building of dams seems to have led to a conspiracy of silence on the possibilities in hydro resources in India and its neighbours for closing the energy gap. Japan’s tragedy is a wake-up call. It is time to take a fresh look and act decisively.
The nuclear meltdown has also brought the risks involved in nuclear power generation into starker focus. The costs of covering the risks from nuclear reactors are likely to surge and, in turn, affecting economics. Many countries have consequently started pulling back their nuclear energy programmes. German chancellor Angela Merkel ordered closure of old reactors and called for urgent crisis talks on the future of atomic energy. Switzerland put the renewal of three atomic stations on hold. Even China, halted approvals of fresh nuclear power projects. Safety concerns were raised in the US, Congressional hearings while examining the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although the administration has not made any policy changes yet.
India has up until now, confined itself to announcing a nuclear safety review. At present, India generates only 6,000 mw of nuclear power or 4.2 per cent of total power generation. But with $175 billion in planned spending, nuclear power output is expected to rise to 64,000 mw by 2032, accounting for 9 per cent of overall power output within 25 years.
The ambitious nuclear energy programme is open to questions in the wake of the Japanese disaster, although to my mind for the wrong reasons. Unlike Japan, India has wider options for choosing sites that are not prone to earthquakes or tsunamis. But other risks remain. This is a good opportunity to review our energy policy as a whole. Should we be putting so many eggs in the nuclear basket?
It goes without saying that we do need to step up our power generation capacity in order to sustain a growth rate of 8 to 9 per cent and ensure equity. According to the planning commission, India’s power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 mw from the present capacity of around 160,000 mw by 2031-32.
Ideally, the gap should be filled by renewable energy that does not deplete resources or harm the environment. It should also be domestically abundant so that we do not have to depend too much on overseas suppliers for energy security. Lastly, the cost of generation should be competitive. The silver lining in oil price escalation is that alternative sources such as solar, wind and bio (bio-waste and algae, among others) are becoming more attractive, if still in a supplementary role. Fusion could become a game-changing technology in the not so distant future. As far as present mainline generation modes are concerned, the one source that does meet these parametres is hydropower.
What is common to Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Switzerland and Venezuela? They all have mountainous regions that hold large water resources and they have used them optimally. They get their energy mainly from hydro projects and some use a large chunk to enhance their export earnings substantially.
India stands out as an underachiever. Despite being endowed with an estimated potential of over 150,000 mw of hydropower, more than 70 per cent is untapped. Special mention can be made of J&K, where only 10 per cent of the 25,000 mw potential of the Indus and its tributaries has been tapped due to road blocks imposed by Pakistan applying pressure under the pretext of the Indus Waters Treaty. The share of hydropower in India’s total power output has come down significantly over the years from 50.62 per cent in 1963 to less than 25 per cent at present.
One reason for the neglect could be fears of catastrophic floods if an earthquake hits a large storage dam, particularly since 57 per cent of India is in a high seismic zone. However, all hydraulic and hydropower structures have to now comply with IS 1893:1984 standard for earthquake-resistant design. This standard divides the country into five seismic zones for which there are different specifications. Failure of a dam in India due to an earthquake is therefore unlikely. Even in the massive earthquakes in Uttarkashi, Latur and Bhuj, dams survived, largely intact.
Social activists also allege that hydropower projects traumatise local communities. This is no doubt an important issue, but well within the challenge of good governance to address. Effective compensation and proper relocation and rehabilitation of the displaced are the key.
Moreover, multi-purpose hydro projects can help in better management of river waters, including irrigation and water availability in lean seasons, flood control and soil conservation. The floods in Bihar in 2008 are a prime example of the havoc uncontrolled rivers can wreak in the thickly populated Indo-Gangetic plain.
Apart from exploiting internal water resources, India must focus much more on the rich hydropower resources of neighbouring countries.
Regional hydro resources can therefore, meet up to half the projected energy gap 20 years down the line. The Great Bend of the Brahmaputra alone, as it falls from Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh, has a potential of 70,000 mw. Much of these potentials are far in excess of domestic requirements of the endowed areas. Hydropower collaboration can, therefore, be a win-win situation for all. India could import hydropower to meet its needs and advance an integrated Saarc power grid, especially in the bordering areas of energy-deficient neighbours. Exporting countries on the other hand, could earn substantial revenues to boost their economies. And yet, even a modest part of these potentials has not been actualised, except partially in Bhutan. Nepal, for example, has developed only 600 mw of hydropower capacity, a miniscule percentage of its potential. Not being able to effectively pursue its regional energy interests must count as one of the signal failures of India’s foreign policy.
The noise made by NGOs against building of dams seems to have led to a conspiracy of silence on the possibilities in hydro resources in India and its neighbours for closing the energy gap. Japan’s tragedy is a wake-up call. It is time to take a fresh look and act decisively.
No comments:
Post a Comment