{"id":544,"date":"2014-04-28T11:48:42","date_gmt":"2014-04-28T06:48:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/?p=544"},"modified":"2014-08-31T14:16:47","modified_gmt":"2014-08-31T09:16:47","slug":"nuclear-power-plants-no-clear-answers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/2014\/04\/28\/nuclear-power-plants-no-clear-answers\/","title":{"rendered":"Nuclear Power Plants: No Clear Answers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/www.newslinemagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/000_Par7724968.jpg\" alt=\"NL magazine\" width=\"245\" height=\"146\" \/>It\u2019s  no secret that Pakistan is faced with an energy crunch of unprecedented  proportions. The present energy sources are not keeping up with the  growing demands of a burgeoning population, and this gap between demand  and supply is widening by the day. The crisis is so intense that it has  become an overarching issue that impacts development, as well as  politics. The 2013 elections were, in fact, contested on a two-point  agenda: combating militancy, and overcoming the energy crisis.<!--more-->In a country with as large and varied a geographical area as  Pakistan, there can be no silver bullet solution to any of its problems,  least of all energy generation, transmission and distribution. However,  inefficient planning means that with gas reserves depleting rapidly,  because of its indiscriminate use in the domestic and vehicular sector,  and imported oil prices getting out of reach, other means simply have to  be developed.<\/p>\n<p>Hydroelectricity, by far the cheapest solution, fell prey to  political wrangling, and fuel-powered plants have become too expensive  and inefficient to make business sense. Meanwhile, the increased use of  coal has been a case of \u2018one step forward, two steps back.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>Other alternative energy sources have not yet been developed at the  pace that they should have been. However, nuclear energy, which has  always played a miniscule part in the energy mix, has recently moved  centre-stage with the announcement of the K2 and K3 power plant  projects, to be constructed right next to the (soon to be  decommissioned) Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) on the shores of  Karachi.<\/p>\n<p>The KANUPP has existed since the 1960s. Its contribution to the  total energy output, along with the Chashma 1 and 2 plants, barely  amounts to three per cent.<\/p>\n<p>So, why then has the announcement of the K2 and K3 project got the  citizenry and the experts hyperventilating about a project that is  likely to add about 2,200 megawatts (MW) to an energy-starved country?<\/p>\n<p>The anti-nuclear lobby in Pakistan has always had its voices drowned  out, despite the fact that the institutions responsible for bringing in  and developing nuclear technology have never put on a public face and  have gone about their business. The benefits derived from this in the  field of agriculture and medicine are also known to the concerned  fraternities.<\/p>\n<p>So, what\u2019s all the fuss about? Is it because of the warnings  articulated by nuclear experts like Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy and Dr A H  Nayyar?<\/p>\n<p>Both experts have posed questions that have resonated with the  citizens of Karachi, who have amplified them by forming lobbies asking  for greater transparency in the decision-making process of projects that  are likely to have a significant impact on their lives.<\/p>\n<p>In Karachi, a city of almost 20 million people, a nucleus of a  citizens\u2019 group took shape under the aegis of the award- winning  documentary filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, architect Arif Belgaumi and  businessman Amin Hashwani. They were able to elicit the support of  environmental activists, representatives of coastal communities,  lawyers, media persons, and more importantly, people\u2019s representatives  from the National and provincial assemblies, belonging to the MQM and  PTI, the two parties claiments to the majority vote-bank in the city.<\/p>\n<p>In a related development, the International Union for Conservation  of Nature (IUCN) Pakistan, which has a membership of some of the leading  environmental organisations, and the Government of Pakistan, also met  and decided to call a meeting of its executive committee and gather  information before aligning for, or against, the project.<\/p>\n<p>On another level, Subh-e-Nau, an environmental organisation based in  Islamabad, also decided to take the issue to the people and broadened  the discourse, as the audience there saw the nuclear power plants more  in the context of an energy solution rather than a perceived threat, as  was the case in Karachi.<\/p>\n<p>To its credit, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) shed its  introverted approach, and decided to address the reservations, fears  and outright objections in an upfront manner by sending its project  management team to allay their concerns. It went a step further by  opening itself up to media scrutiny by arranging media trips to the  existing plant and briefed them about the proposed project.<\/p>\n<p>So what exactly are the fears?<\/p>\n<p>First and foremost, Karachi is a coastal city with one of the  highest population densities per square kilometre. At the same time, it  is located atop an active fault zone thus posing a danger in case of any  seismic activity. Adding to the fear are scenes of the recent disaster  witnessed at Japan\u2019s Fukushima nuclear plant, which remains etched in  the memory of many people.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.candu.org\/images\/kanupp_photo.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/www.newslinemagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/kanupp03-14.jpg\" alt=\"kanupp03-14\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\" \/><\/a>The  citizens question if a similar disaster could occur in the event of an  earthquake or a tsunami. The PAEC scientists present past trends and say  it is unlikely. However, nowhere in the world has seismology developed  to an extent where predictions about the timings, or the severity, can  be made. The PAEC says the structural strength will be enough to  withstand ground acceleration of 0.03g. The site is 12 meters above sea  level, while the expected tsumani height for Karachi is 2.8 metres.<\/p>\n<p>However, scientists agree that seismic data for Karachi does not go  far enough into history. Karachi lies approximately 150 km east of the  triple junction between the Arabian, Indian and Asian plates. A report  titled Seismic Hazard in Karachi, Pakistan: Uncertain Past, Uncertain  Future states that \u201ca review of the known historical data on earthquakes  within 500 km of the city shows that the historical record prior to  1800 is limited and unreliable.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While this may sound comforting, this comfort evaporates the minute  you throw climate change into the mix. The Intergovernmental Panel on  Climate Change (IPCC) report highlights the risks for coastal areas of  Asia.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn Asia, erosion is the main process that will occur to land as sea  levels continue to rise. As a consequence, coast-protection structures  built by humans will usually be destroyed by the sea while the shoreline  retreats,\u201d the report explains. \u201cIn some coastal areas of Asia, a 30 cm  rise in sea level can result in 45 m of landward erosion. Climate  change and sea-level rise will tend to worsen the currently eroding  coasts. In Boreal Asia, coastal erosion will be enhanced as rising sea  level and declining sea ice allow higher wave and storm surge to hit the  shore. The coastal recession can add up to 500 to 600 m in 100 years,  with a rate of four to six metres per year.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The report continues, stating that, \u201cthe coastal recession by  thermal abrasion is expected to accelerate by 1.4 to 1.5 times in the  second half of the 21st century, as compared to the current rate. In  monsoonal Asia, decreasing sediment flux is generally a main cause of  coastal erosion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The two-pronged effect of coastal erosion and rising sea levels is  something that can nullify the difference in sea level stated earlier.  Add to this the lethal mix of the increasing occurrence of storms and  cyclones, of which there have been three within the last five years, two  of them wreaking havoc on life, livestock and property.<\/p>\n<p>The level of comfort declines further, knowing that the National  Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) will be the responsible agency  tasked to evacuate in case of an accident. Going by its performance  during the 2010 floods, and the unlearned lessons of the 2011 disaster  in Badin and the adjoining areas, one would be apprehensive.<\/p>\n<p>Other than these external factors, the fact that China is building  these power plants also raises some red flags. While the Chashma plant,  which was built by the Chinese, has been running smoothly, the naysayers  caution that the ACP1000 system being proposed for the K2 and K3 plants  is untested technology. So are we to be the proverbial guinea pigs?<\/p>\n<p>These plants are not even operational in China, a country which is  aggressively trying to capture the nuclear power plant market of the  world.<\/p>\n<p>The soft loan of $6.5 billion to assist Pakistan in setting up this  project, which will be built with Chinese assistance, is to open a  window into this lucrative market.<\/p>\n<p>PAEC experts deny that it is an untested technology. They say it is  an upgrade of the existing technology. However, Dr Nayyer points out  that certain parts of these plants were not being manufactured by China.  While China imports these parts from Europe, a western embargo  restricts Pakistan from importing them. Thus, China will be  manufacturing the parts themselves, a project that they had outsourced  for their own country. How does that work in Pakistan\u2019s favour?<\/p>\n<p>Since the Fukushima disaster, many countries have begun to rethink  the use of nuclear power. Germany, for example, has taken a policy  decision to phase it out and replace it with alternatives, such as solar  power. The United States, too, has not built any new plants. The only  glaring exception is France, which has always been a maverick as far as  nuclear technology is concerned.<\/p>\n<p>Japan had the strongest reason to roll it back. However, the trade  deficit because of a fuel import bill to the tune of $12.9 billion at  the end of 2013 had forced it to go back to the nuclear option as it  was, after all, the source of clean, safe and uninterrupted energy  supply.<\/p>\n<p>It is this example that has been cited by the PAEC. The clean and  uninterrupted element takes on a whole new meaning when beset with  load-shedding and environmental concerns because of emissions from  sources of thermal power plants run on fossil fuel. But how clean is it  really?<\/p>\n<p>Pakistan\u2019s environmental laws make it mandatory for any  infrastructure project to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment, of  which a public hearing is an integral part. One of the first, and  insistent, questions when the debate on K2 and K3 began was whether the  project had gone through this process. And if so, as the management  insisted it had, where was the report, because no public hearing had  ever been conducted.<\/p>\n<p>It was then revealed that a hearing had indeed taken place, but \u2018in  camera\u2019 taking advantage of a clause in the Environment Protection Act,  which allowed such a hearing from experts for projects of \u2018national  importance.\u2019 This lack of transparency was explained by the chairman of  the PAEC as a necessary step because of the sanctions in the wake of the  nuclear proliferation scandal. According to him, they didn\u2019t want  agencies to come sniffing after them. The approval by the Sindh  Environmental Protection Agency has indeed been confirmed by it, though  the secrecy shrouding it hardly fosters confidence.<\/p>\n<p>In a seminar which included the Chairman PAEC, other nuclear experts  and public representatives such as Senator Mushahid Hussain and former  minister Javed Jabbar, architect and environmentalist Shahid Sayeed Khan  said: \u201cI have become less apprehensive about this programme. But  environmental issues have still not been answered. Is the plant leaking  radiation into the sea? They say no. But any facility can only take so  much. They say that the plant can withstand a direct missile attack or  an airplane crashing into it. But nature is a hundred times more  powerful.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>There does exist a study conducted by IUCN Pakistan\u2019s coastal  ecosystem, expert, Tahir Qureshi. However, that had recorded the effects  of KANUPP\u2019s warm water discharge on the marine life, and there is a  concern that this ecosystem that is rich in marine biodiversity, will be  adversely affected by the two plants.<\/p>\n<p>Having said that, Mahmood Akhtar Cheema, country representative of  IUCN Pakistan, appreciated the openness of the discourse by the PAEC,  calling for further interaction with the technical and environmental  experts, as well as greater transparency in the process of the approval  of projects that are being undertaken, especially near a densely  populated city such as Karachi.<\/p>\n<p>As far as technical competence and the past track record is  concerned, the PAEC as an institution does inspire confidence. The  safeguards of double containment in the new technology are said to make  it safer than the one at KANUPP. Its compliance record has met the  standards of international safeguards as well as of watchdogs such as  the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).<\/p>\n<p>However, whether Pakistan needs to invest in nuclear energy instead  of the cheaper hydropower projects which, in the words of former  ambassador Shafqat Kakakhel, \u201chave ancillary benefits and are huge  generators of employment,\u201d is a question requiring further debate.<\/p>\n<p>But the time for debate is over, as the die has been cast. Work on a  link road to keep the area accessible to beachgoers and communities  living in the surrounding area is almost complete, as is the boundary  wall cordoning off the almost 12 acre piece of land selected as the site  for its construction.<\/p>\n<p>It does not seem likely, despite public pressure, that the project  will be relocated. Even though, Dr Pervaiz Amir, an environmental expert  who is all for nuclear power plants, questions the proximity.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBy situating it further down the coast, the risk to Karachi\u2019s  population could be minimised, but that is not usually how PC1s are  approved in the bureaucratic circles,\u201d he says. \u201cThey would probably  have settled for this option just because of the cost of laying  transmission lines further away than this site.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It is good to see people like Dr Farooq Sattar and Raza Ali Abidi of  MQM, Samar Ali Khan of PTI and Senator Mushahid Hussain of PML-Q  actively taking part in the discourse. More public representatives need  to realise the fears and concerns of the residents of Pakistan\u2019s largest  city and demand adequate safeguards and transparency. So often in the  past, we have had to accept processes as fait accompli as they had gone  too far to be rolled back.<\/p>\n<p>This practice must be stopped and there must be a thorough and open  debate about all projects, even if the fears are unfounded in the  opinion of the experts.<\/p>\n<p>The openness and forthright manner being displayed by the rank and  file of the PAEC is refreshing, but this should have happened at the  conception of the project. In a democratic country, this amounts to  subversion of the citizens\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<h5>This article was published in <em>Newsline\u2019s<\/em> March 2014 issue with the headline \u201cNo Clear Answers.\u201d<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It\u2019s no secret that Pakistan is faced with an energy crunch of unprecedented proportions. The present energy sources are not keeping up with the growing demands of a burgeoning population, and this gap between demand and supply is widening by the day. The crisis is so intense that it has become an overarching issue that &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/2014\/04\/28\/nuclear-power-plants-no-clear-answers\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Nuclear Power Plants: No Clear Answers&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[134],"class_list":["post-544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pnc-web","tag-cec"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=544"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":547,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544\/revisions\/547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pnc.iucnp.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}