|
More than 20 years on, the word Chernobyl is still the single greatest threat to the global nuclear power industry's plans to set up reactors in a growing list of countries, Thailand being the latest.
Governments are falling in line with nuclear energy largely because it offers a sure and steady _ and non-carbon dioxide-emitting _ energy source. Looked at in one way, the fact that there has only been one accident of the magnitude of Chernobyl can be seen as a testament to the safety of the nuclear energy industry. It also should be stressed that, in the words of the World Nuclear Association, ''The disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators in the context of a system where training was minimal. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.'' The association also stresses that in recent years there have been many technological advancements in design and function.
It was announced this week that the contract to build a huge containment cover over the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster has been awarded to a French company, which will erect a giant arch-shaped structure of solid steel, 190 metres wide and 200 metres long at a cost of 48 billion baht, to replace the concrete casing put over the reactor after the 1986 accident. The project will take five years to complete. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said, ''Today is probably the first time that we can openly look into the eyes of the national and international community and say that a solution to the problem that has long been called the Chernobyl problem was formally found.''
Unfortunately, the statement is far from accurate. The containing arch will last for at most 300-400 years; the reactor and nuclear fuel will be highly radioactive for thousands of years. Around 95% of the fuel remains where it was in 1986. Construction of the arch will allow the decommissioning of the other three nuclear reactors that were not damaged in the accident. But here, too, the great unanswered question of the nuclear age rears its ugly head: How and where can the radioactive material be safely stored for so long?
No matter where one stands on the question of nuclear power in Thailand, everyone should be able to agree that it is a very important decision which should be considered carefully. Therefore, certain Democrat party politicians are wise not to commit to a policy decided on by the present interim government which will be out of power in a few months. Past and present experience shows that there is nothing as effective in mobilising public opposition in Thailand as power development projects.
True, the government has spoken well of the real need to find new sources of energy to feed the continued growth of the country, of educating the public and taking steps to assuage public fears on the matter, and carefully considering the best locations for any plants. However, this is not the same as allowing public participation in the actual choice, which is a cornerstone of the new constitution. The decision to go nuclear has been presented as a fait accompli _ a sure recipe for discontent.
Perhaps there is no better option for Thailand than nuclear power, and certainly there are some good arguments to be made that this is the case. But why does such an important issue have to be decided so hastily? In the 2007 Power Development Plan, the Energy Policy and Planning Office calls for nuclear power to contribute just 5% of the country's energy by 2020. So clearly there is no need for an immediate decision.
At the very least, proponents of nuclear power should be able to present a proper plan for (very) long-term disposal of the waste before any decision is reached. On the other hand, opponents should be able to show that there are good alternatives.
|
