Opinion
Plan for setting up nuclear power plants in SL
An open letter to President Ranil Wickremesinghe
Recent articles in the local press have publicised the government plans for introduction of nuclear power plants to Sri Lanka with Russian support. A similar decision was taken way back in 2010, by the then President to bring nuclear power plants to Sri Lanka from South Korea. At the time, the APSL-UK responded to both GOSL and the IAEA Geneva, showing the unsuitability of installing nuclear power in Sri Lanka. This letter is a follow up to that communication from the APSL-UK highlighting the scientific, economic, and social reasons why nuclear power plants are not suitable for Sri Lanka.
(1) Is Nuclear Energy Clean or Renewable?
Nuclear technologists claim nuclear energy as a “Green Energy”. This is correct only during the power production period, but carbon dioxide is emitted during (i) uranium mining and purification, (ii) long years of building the power station with metal and concrete, and (iii) de-commissioning of the power station at the end of its lifetime. It also produces radio-active waste product which requires careful management over thousands of years. Therefore, in total consideration, nuclear energy is “Not a Green Energy”. Definitely it is not also a “Renewable Energy Source” like Solar, Wind and biofuel.
(2) Can Sri Lanka Afford Nuclear Plants?
Building an average nuclear power plant takes about 5-8 years and costs ~2-5 billion US dollars. Mini nuclear power stations may cost less but will be in the same order of magnitude.
In 2022, Sri Lanka was unable to pay back debt that fell due; which resulted in the country being declared bankrupt and the economy contracted by 9.3%. The country has to pay back between 5 – 6 billion dollars each year from 2023 to 2029/30. But so far, the govt has taken no steps to increase the country’s income. Taking on more loans is not in the best interest of the country. Given the public perception of corruption in the country, there is strong reason to believe that this proposal is motivated by the personal benefits that may be accrued by advisors, promoters, politicians and bureaucrats who have their own “selfish” agendas
The UK’s experience with Sellafield nuclear power plant during its current decommissioning shows that this process will take at least 30 years due to the clean-up of the radio-active surroundings; resulting in the cost of decommissioning running many times than that of the original commissioning cost. Therefore, nuclear waste processing will have to continue beyond the lifetime of the plant; but Sri Lanka has no facilities nor the know-how to carry this out.
This is a long-term plan at best unless we want to further increase the country’s external dependence. The country’s energy requirement is urgent and immediate. This can be achieved easily by developing the country’s renewable energy potential. Millions of jobs could be created at the same time. Our leaders have committed to UN climate treaties to
increase the renewable energy contribution (including hydro) by 70% by 2030, and by 100% by 2050. Nuclear is not even mentioned in these UN treaties.
We understand from the local press that Russia has promised to take back the nuclear waste. If accepted, this will embroil Sri Lanka in Russia’s geo-politics and compromise the country’s neutrality/nonaligned status. This is not advisable for Sri Lanka.
What would happen if Russia refuses to take our nuclear waste? In the case that Russia refuses to take back this waste, Sri Lanka will be in a catastrophic position. The life cycle of a nuclear plant starts when building work starts and ends after decommissioning has been completed. Sadly, those promoting nuclear plants only talk of the setting up costs and the lack of carbon emissions when producing energy, but do not refer to the enormous costs of decommissioning. The Sri Lankan economy is too small to invest billions of dollars towards nuclear power plants.
(3) Do we have the required infra-structure and human capacity?
Building and running nuclear plants in Sri Lanka requires high level infrastructure and the human capacity. Unfortunately, we do not have any of these at present. Sri Lankan society has trained a hand full of academics at PhD level in nuclear energy. Their duty should be to educate the leaders and the masses showing advantages and disadvantages of this technology for capacity building for future requirements. Having a few nuclear energy PhD holders in the country, does not fulfill the requirements for running nuclear plants in Sri Lanka. We will have to depend on Russian builders and well-trained Russian technicians to run these plants. They may train some Sri Lankans to carry out low-level activities, but this does not help employment creation in the country. So, in Sri Lanka, we do not have required infra-structure or the human capacity to build, run and maintain nuclear plants. Our young Sri Lankans are highly knowledgeable, and when trying to select a site for a nuclear plant, another country-wide unrest might develop. Sri Lanka has suffered several problems in the past and we should avoid any such unrest in our country. Imagine a nuclear accident in Sri Lanka and having to evacuate a huge fraction of the population to other parts. In an island nation with high population density, this will be un-imaginable. For the past 37 years, the Chernobyl accident resulted in a vast amount of land not being suitable for human habitation. For land-rich countries like US, Russia, China and India, these situations can be manageable, but Sri Lanka cannot even think about that situation.
(4). Do we have security and discipline required to run nuclear plants in Sri Lanka?
Nuclear plants for energy production are highly appropriate for well-developed countries with established high security and discipline. Nuclear plants must be protected from unfortunate terrorist attacks. However, natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis are beyond human control and all countries have to live with that risk. Sri Lanka has experienced a huge tsunami in the recent past and we should be fully aware of this natural disaster. Since we do not have the same level of high security, discipline and are at risk of possible natural disasters, we must avoid introducing these high-risk technologies to Sri Lanka.
(5) Can we manage nuclear waste and handle nuclear accidents?
Sadly, the Sri Lankan system cannot manage even our domestic waste, and we experience road sides full of waste, with waste mountains emerging at different sites in the country. How can we manage radio-active nuclear waste in Sri Lanka? Do we have to live with the promise of Russia taking our nuclear waste to their country? Any geo-political conflict in the future could put us in a real danger, living with cancer causing radio-active nuclear waste around us.
In addition to the un-satisfactory nuclear waste issue, three of the most recent nuclear accidents highlight the dangers of power generation using nuclear fission. Three-mile Island/USA (1979), Chernobyl/Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima/Japan (2011) accidents are some of the latest but there were three more nuclear incidents prior to these in the USA. Countries like USA, Japan, Ukraine/Russia with highest security couldn’t prevent these nuclear accidents. When the Fukushima accident happened in 2011 due to a natural disaster (tsunami), the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel made the decision to close down all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany. This is because, as a scientist with a PhD in Physics, she understood the damage it could do to the people in her country. This is a good example for authorities who make major decisions which have long term consequences for their countries.
(6) The way-forward with Renewables, without nuclear plants in Sri Lanka
A tropical Sri Lanka is blessed with numerous indigenous and safe energy sources in the country. A technology mix with Hydro, Bio-Mass, Bio-Gas, Solar, Wind, and limited fossil fuel can easily power Sri Lanka. With a well-planned strategy, renewables can be accelerated, and the fossil fuel can be gradually phased-out to solve the energy issue in the country as pledged by our leaders at Glasgow COP-27 Summit in 2021. In order to remove the problems of intermittency of Solar and Wind, green-hydrogen production using electrolysis of water is already coming. Green-hydrogen will be the energy storage and the energy career and can burn at any time when energy is required. It produces water vapour instead of emitting green-house gases, such as carbon dioxide. If we can spend 5 billion US dollars (the cost of one nuclear plant) towards renewables in the country, Sri Lanka will become a “Renewable Energy Island” attracting tourists from round the globe. Moving towards electric vehicles, like the rest of the world, would also allow Sri Lanka to reduce the import bill of petrol and diesel. High capacity, electricity storage battery systems are also being developed with new technology and are expected to be cheaper than the cost of nuclear plants.
Due to all of these reasons, Sri Lanka should not consider nuclear energy as a suitable power source, since it will likely create huge security, financial and technical problems in the coming decades. These will be in addition to all the other existing problems affecting the Sri Lankan economy and its social fabric at present. We should not make decisions for Sri Lanka due to external pressures from the outside These countries are mainly trying to sell their products and create employment for their people. If the technology is not right for Sri Lanka, we should say NO THANK YOU without any hesitation. Therefore, on behalf of all Sri Lankans who live within and outside the country we urge our authorities to consider all the points mentioned above before moving further with these plans.
I.M Dharmadasa; Professor Emeritus
Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom
(Ex-President of APSL-UK during 2009-2011, on behalf of the current APSL-UK executive committee). APSL-UK website: www.apsl.org.uk
Plans to resurrect the Nanu Oya – Nuwara Eliya rail track are welcome. The magnificent views from the train have been described by H W Cave in his book The Ceylon Government Railway (1910):
‘The pass by which Nuwara Eliya is reached is one of the most exquisite things in Ceylon. In traversing its length, the line makes a further ascent of one thousand feet in six miles. The curves and windings necessary to accomplish this are the most intricate on the whole railway and frequently have a radius of only eighty feet. On the right side of the deep mountain gorge we ascend amongst the tea bushes of the Edinburgh estate, and at length emerge upon a road, which the line shares with the cart traffic for about a mile. In the depths of the defile flows the Nanuoya river, foaming amongst huge boulders of rock that have descended from the sides of the mountains, and bordered by tree ferns, innumerable and brilliant trees of the primeval forest which clothe the face of the heights. In this land of no seasons their stages of growth are denoted by the varying tints of scarlet, gold, crimson, sallow green, and most strikingly of all, a rich claret colour, the chief glory of the Keena tree’.
However, as in colonial times, the railway should be available for both tourists and locals so that splendid vista can be enjoyed by all.
Dr R P Fernando
Epsom,
UK
If the people of this country were asked whether they want elections to the local government, majority of them would say no! How many years have elapsed since the local councils became defunct? And did not the country function without these councils that were labelled as ‘white elephants’?
If the present government’s wish is to do the will of the people, they should reconsider having local government elections. This way the government will not only save a considerable amount of money on holding elections, but also save even a greater amount by not having to maintain these local councils, which have become a bane on the country’s economy.
One would hope that the country will be able to get rid of these local councils and revert back to the days of having competent Government Agents and a team of dedicated government officials been tasked with the responsibility of attending to the needs of the people in those areas.
M. Joseph A. Nihal Perera
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
It is immaterial whether you like him or not but one thing is crystal clear; Donald Trump has shown, very clearly, who is the boss. Surely, presidents of two countries are equal; perhaps, that is the impression Volodymyr Zelensky had when he went to the White House to meet Trump but the hard reality, otherwise, would have dawned on him with his inglorious exit! True, the behaviour of President Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. Afterall, he was on a begging mission and beggars cannot be choosers! He behaved like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!!
Despite the risk of belonging to the minority, perhaps of non-Americans, I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words; however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign and that the American voters elected him decisively. When he lost to Biden, all political commentators wrote him off, more so because of his refusal to admit defeat and non-condemnation of his supporters who rioted. When he announced his intention to contest, it only evoked pundits’ laughter as they concluded that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Undaunted, Trump got the party to rally round him and won a non-consecutive second term; a feat achieved only once before, by Grover Cleveland around the end of the nineteenth century. His victory, against all predictions, was more decisive as he got more collegiate votes and, even though it does not matter, won the popular vote too which he did not get when he got elected the first term. Even his bitterest critics should accept this fact.
Zelensky was elected the president of Ukraine after the elected pro-Soviet president was deposed by a ‘peoples revolution’ engineered by the EU with the support of USA. After this, the EU attempted to bring Ukraine to NATO, disregarding the Munich agreement which precipitated the Russian invasion. He should have realised that, if not for the air-defence system which Trump authorised for Ukraine during his first term, Russian invasion would have been complete. It may well be that he was not aware as when this happened Zelensky may still have been the comedian acting the part of the president! Very likely, Trump was referring to this when he accused Zelensky of being ungrateful.
Zelensky also should have remembered that he disregarded requests from Trump, after his defeat by Biden, to implicate Biden’s son in some shady deals in Ukraine and that one of the last acts of Biden was to pardon his son and grant immunity to cover the alleged period. Perhaps, actions of the European leaders who embrace him every time they see him, as a long-lost brother, and invitations to address their parliaments has induced an element of the superiority complex in Zelensky that he behaved so combative.
Trump wanted to be the mediator to stop the war and spoke to Putin first. Instead of waiting for Trump to speak to him, egged on by EU leaders Zelensky started criticising Trump for not involving him in the talks. His remark “He should be on our side” demonstrated clearly that Zelensky had not understood the role of a mediator. His lack of political experience was the major reason for the fiasco in the White House and the subsequent actions of Trump clearly showed Zelensky where he stands! PM Starmer and President Macron seem to have given some sensible advice and he seems to be eating humble pie. In the process Trump has ensured that the European nations pay for their defence than piggy-backing on the US, which I am sure would please the American voter. By the way, though Macron talks big about defence France spends less than 2% of GDP. Trump seems vindicated. Of course, Trump could be blamed for being undiplomatic but he can afford to be as he has the upper hand!
Ranil on Al Jazeera
Zelensky has shown what not to do: instead of being diplomatic being aggressive when you need favours! Meanwhile, Ranil has shown what not to do when it comes to TV interviews. God only knows who advised him, and why, for him to go ‘Head to Head’ with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps, he wanted to broadcast to the world that he was the saviour of Sri Lanka! The experienced politician he is, one would have expected Ranil to realise that he would be questioned about his role in making Sri Lanka bankrupt as well, in addition to raising other issues.
The interview itself was far from head to head; more likely heads to head! It turned out to be an inquisition by Tiger supporters and the only person who spoke sense being Niraj Deva, who demonstrated his maturity by being involved in British and EU politics. The worst was the compere who seems keen to listen his own voice, reminding me of a Sinhala interviewer on a YouTube channel whose interviews I have stopped watching!
Ranil claims, after the interview was broadcast, that it had been heavily edited reduced from a two-hour recording. Surely, despite whatever reason he agreed to, he should have laid ground rules. He could have insisted on unedited broadcast or his approval before broadcast, if it was edited. It was very naïve of Ranil to have walked in to a trap for no gain. Though his performance was not as bad as widely reported, he should have been more composed at the beginning as he turned out to be later. Overall, he gave another opportunity for the Tiger rump and its supporters to bash Sri Lanka, unfortunately.
Medhi Hasan should watch some of David Frost interviews, especially the one with Richard Nixon, and learn how to elicit crucial information in a gentle exploratory manner than shouting with repeated interruptions. He does not seem to think it is necessary to give time for the interviewee to respond to his questions. I will never watch Al-Jazeera’s “Head to Head” again!
Ranil’s best was his parting shot; when asked by Hasan whether he would contest the next presidential election, he said “No, I will retire and watch Al-Jazeera and hope to see you better mannered”!
Harvard offers free tuition to families earning less than $200,000
Canada’s Carney makes statement by choosing Europe, not US, for first foreign trip
Cannes award-winning actress Dequenne dies at 43
-
Foreign News2 days agoSearch continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
Features5 days agoRichard de Zoysa at 67
-
News6 days agoAlfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Editorial7 days agoGhosts refusing to fade away
-
Midweek Review6 days agoRanil in Head-to-Head controversy
-
Features5 days agoSL Navy helping save kidneys
-
Features7 days agoThe Gypsies…one year at a time
-
News3 days agoDPMC unveils brand-new Bajaj three-wheeler