Amidst all the brouhaha over the Kudankulam nuclear project, the Indian government is seeking to dismantle the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, proposing to abandon the long-standing independent regulator in favour of a new body directly controlled by the central government.
Critics have condemned the move, arguing the new regulator will be captive to government and unable to properly pursue safety concerns.
Presently, India has 20 operating nuclear power reactors, built, owned and run by the state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation. They provide about 3 per cent of the country's energy. But 44 more reactors are either slated for construction or already being built, and India is keen to attract foreign investment.
On the plans is the creation of five massive ''Nuclear Energy Parks'', each capable of producing 10,000 megawatts of electricity, three times the power used by India's biggest city, Mumbai. India plans to treble its nuclear output by the end of the decade, and to get a quarter of its energy from nuclear sources by 2050.
A group of eminent Indian citizens are challenging the new legislation in the Supreme Court, arguing a diminished and capped liability ''puts to grave and imminent risk the right to safety, health, environment and life of the people of India''. On another front, the law is also controversial over discriminatory compensation to be awarded to the poor or female victims of any nuclear disaster.
The opposition from certain sections of public to the Kudankulam plant arises out of the fears from the Fukushima disaster in which the emergency cooling system itself was damaged by the earthquake. But proponents say the plants in Kudankulam have a double contaminant system which can withstand high pressure and over Rs 14,000 crore has been spent already.
Is nuclear the way? When a nation like Germany sets out to shut down all 17 of its reactors, should India be looking to expand nuclear energy? is there a comparison?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment