Going Nuclear!

By N Sathiya Moorthy

The recent statements by Cabinet spokesman, Minister Bandula Gunawardena and Prof S.R.D. Rosa, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Atomic energy Board (SLAEB) that the nation intends going nuclear not very long from now should trigger a series of far-and-against debates in the public space, starting possibly with the social media.

In a nation and region where protests were launched earlier against oil exploration in the Gulf of Mannar, shared with neighbouring India, the government especially should not leave anything to chance or behave as if they had not expected it all.

Suffice is to point out that independent of the Indian infra-investor Adani Group's expected forays in Mannar and Pooneryn, both in the Tamil North, that the projects could impact marine life and worse, and that the Tamils of the East had earlier staged demonstrations against Indian public sector NTPC's now-aborted thermal power-plant in the East, there should be certain clarity that 'green protests' of the kind known no ethnicity or ethnic divisions.

Incidentally, across the Palk Strait, in southern Tamil Nadu, socio-political protests are dime a dozen when the talk is about nuclear power-plants, like the Russian-built units in Koodamkulam, closer to the Sri Lankan coast, hydro-carbon exploration in Neduvasal and the like – all getting an undesirable and inexplicable fight in the name of the 'Tamil identity', which it is not – unlike the 'Jallikattu protests', which came up in between.

Long dream

For Sri Lanka, going nuclear is a long dream, and a long-term dream, going back as far as 1969. A more focussed approach commenced in 2010, when the government declared that it was working towards adding nuclear power to the nation's 'energy mix' in about 20 years, or by 2030. At the time, the goal was for 1,000 MW of nuclear energy, though no time-frame was fixed for reaching there.

If there is thus one thing that has continued uninterrupted between then and now, despite the vicissitudes of politico-electoral changes and chances, it is this. However, the current goal is less ambitious, in terms of plant capacity. Around 300 MW seems to be the current target for the first phase (granting there would be others to follow).

Yes, in 2015, the government signed an MoU with neighbouring India, to study nuclear energy related issues and concerns, during President Maithripala Sirisena's maiden visit to the northern neighbour after coming to power. Earlier some noises could be heard also in 2012, but before that in 2010, then Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka made a quiet stop-over at India's Kalpakkam atomic power plant, off Chennai, while on his way back from an official visit to New Delhi. Then Minister for Science & Technology, Dr Tissa Vitharana, also was known to have studied such options and possibilities.

With the result, when the present government is talking about going neutral, no one needs to claim it is a sell-out or an unthinking decision. Even now, the Cabinet has begun well to set up multiple committees to study various aspects of nuclear power-generation, partners and international commitments vis a vis the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), whose officials have been talking to Sri Lankan officials, from time to time. The government is also to become signatory to the required international conventions in this regard.

From Russia, with love?

According to media reports, Russia is the preferred supplier for fuelling the nation's nuclear ambitions. The new Russian ambassador, Levan Dzhagaryan, seems to have been fired up to do it for Sri Lanka, after having helped Iran do so during his inexplicably long 11-year posting in Tehran, earlier. Amb Dzhagaryan is reported to have been meeting ministers and officials concerned in this regard, since his Colombo posting commenced some months ago, and has also been facilitating more frequent visits and interactions between his nation's Rosatom State Nuclear Energy plant-manufacturers and SLAEB.

News reports also claim that more than a land-based plant, three barge-based off-shore plants, in which Russia also has expertise, is under consideration. Amb Dzhagaryan is quoted as saying that they could 'begin with two, then four, then six...' He seems to thus imply that sky is the limit, once the nation decided on the nuclear power option.

Minister Bandulla Gunasekara said, yes, nuclear plants are expensive, but he also called the Cabinet decision in the matter, 'historic'. That the installation cost is also very high goes without saying. Indications are that Moscow would also fund the project, obviously on a credit basis with a 15-year grace period. It is said that the government is studying Rosatom's arrangement with another South Asian nation, Bangladesh, where they are building the two-reactor, 2.4-GW rooppur nuclear power plant (R-NPP), possibly to understand the nuances.

That way, Russia with nuclear power-plants in India and Bangladesh may be the best choice for Sri Lanka to make, when the decision is to go nuclear. Incidentally, according to reports, India is also partnering with Russia in setting up the Bangladesh n-plants, as it could well cut down costs even while having proven expertise and installation by Russia. According to SLAEB's Rosa, Russian technologists would also operate the Sri Lankan n-plants for three years, during which time, they would train local counterparts.

Hazardous or what

Even without nuclear reactors and a nuclear discourse, the nation has been in the global news charts through the past months and years. In the immediate context, the unprecedented economic crisis, attributable to China's dragon –hug of the past decade and more, has been analysed both nearer home and afar with equal interest and concern. For long, going possibly to historic ages, Sri Lanka's geographical locale has always made it a regional centre for geo-economic, then geo-political and then geo-strategic considerations.

Now, with talks of a Russian nuclear reactor would cause eyebrows to be raised, lips to be twitched and hands to be cupped around, from Washington to London, Canberra to Tokyo, Paris and Berlin. Even Sri Lanka's China friends would be asking questions of themselves – as to why and how they missed it, little acknowledging that their major aim was 'land/territory grabbing' and increasing the nation's indebtedness, not productivity, in any way.

That having been said, there are the traditional questions of nuclear hazards and safety-concerns, citing the disastrous examples of the Three Mile Island (US, 1979), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, now Ukraine, 1986) and Fukushima (Japan, 2011). Volumes would be written in local newspapers, web sites and the social media, hailing the virtues of 'green energy' sources like wind, wave and what not.

The problem for Sri Lanka is that it is committed to zero carbon-footprint by 2050. It may or may not happen, it may or may not also be the best way for the world to fight global-warming. The fact is that every nation needs an 'energy mix', which should include every form of energy source, without relying on any one or two – as all of them could fail at different points in time.

Sri Lanka has had the experience of failed monsoons in consecutive years drying up hydro-power, once the only source of energy, coal-fired power-plants face global-extinction owing to climate-consciousness, even wind energy has failed, as Tamil Nadu, until recently the single largest producer of wind energy, in India, found out from year to year. Wave-energy too can upset marine lives, according to some studies.

For now, Russia is said to have undertaken the re-processing of nuclear waste from a Sri Lankan project. Scientists have also reportedly concluded that the hazards from every energy source are the same or similar to those from any other. This includes the costs, hazards and time required for de-commissioning nuclear power-plants at the end of their life-time.

Maybe, the government should study these things with the post-tsunami public sentiments, which were easily whipped up, post-Fukushima and could be done likewise as and when the nation begins considering one of its own, and more seriously than at present. That way, convincing itself first and educating the masses, urban and rural, elite and illiterate, should be the government's first major task, if the decision is to go nuclear, still!.

(The writer is a policy analyst & political commentator, based in Chennai, India. Email: )

MENAFN06032023000190011042ID1105717463