Nuclear fears

After a glimpse into the future, perhaps it is not out of sync to think back on the past, especially the single-most disastrous event of 2011 - the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.

First, its unprecedented scope--three reactor partial meltdowns, two hydrogen explosions that destroyed outer containment buildings, and a raging fire in a spent-fuel pond--all beyond human control.

Second, badly amplifying that image, was the incompetence and haplessness of the corporate and governmental response. While the CEO of TEPCO, owner and operator of the reactor complex, reportedly fell into a fugue state, unable to make decisions and issue orders for days, onsite representatives of Japan's nuclear regulator fled the stricken reactors, only to be ordered back. No single voice took responsibility as the crisis unfolded.

All that gave credence to the anti-nuclear argument that all reactors are subject to unexpected mishaps, and that those operating and regulating reactors are not as fit to react in emergencies as one would like to believe.

Nuclear energy can do more than any other technology to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions; taking all environmental ramifications of competing technologies into account, nuclear is probably the cheapest source of baseload electricity; the volume of nuclear wastes is tiny compared to all the waste products of coal combustion; per megawatt capacity, the geographic footprint of reactor complexes is small compared to those of wind or solar complexes.

And yet, the even more obvious risks of nuclear energy have come to dominate perceptions in the rich countries. Nuclear will not make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in North America, Europe, or Japan. Only in fast developing countries like China and India are nuclear prospects still positive. And yet these are so densely populated countries that can ill-afford the outcome of nuclear disaster.

Opposition and fear of nuclear energy seems reasonable. How does one tackle a Kudankulam tussle?