------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/1TwplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Dawn [Pakistan] 25 July 2004 Another nuclear white elephant By Zia Mian and A.H. Nayyar Bearing in mind the fact that the Chashma-I nuclear power plant has proved nothing to write home about, there seems to be little justification for the Chashma-II project. Are all things nuclear above the law? Pakistan has signed up to buy its second Chinese-made nuclear power plant. This new plant will be identical to the earlier reactor at Chashma, designed and built by the Chinese, on the banks of the Indus River, about 30 miles from Mianwali. The project has been given the go-ahead despite the fact that the experience with the first reactor has not been encouraging. Economic factors related to the project are dubious and many questions that were raised about the safety of the Chinese design and the location of the first reactor at Chashma remain unanswered. The deal for the Chashma-II nuclear power plant was signed in May this year. It is said that the reactor will be built in less than seven years, with some reports suggesting it might start operating by 2010. But building a nuclear power plant is no simple matter. There were similar claims about the Chashma-1 plant. When the Chashma-1 contract was signed at the end of 1991, it was thought that the reactor would start operating in six years. But it took almost nine years before it was finally handed over by the Chinese to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) in late 2000, and it was only formally inaugurated in early 2001. It is quite likely that the schedule for Chashma-II will slip too, and it may be closer to 2015 before the reactor starts producing electricity. Economics factors related to nuclear electricity are quite mysterious in Pakistan, since the PAEC cloaks itself in secrecy and seems reluctant to give away any kind of detailed accounts. But it was reported that the Chashma-1 reactor cost somewhere between $600 million and over $1 billion. Some informed sources suggest the actual cost was about $1.3 billion, that is, approximately double the cost that was originally claimed. This is a staggering figure considering that the plant was designed to produce only 300MW, meaning over $4 per MW of electrical power capacity. For comparison, this is more than twice the cost for every megawatt of electricity generating capacity from the Ghazi Barotha hydroelectric project inaugurated by President Musharraf in August 2003. It has been reported that Pakistan has budgeted Rs54.392 billion for the Chashma-II reactor. As with Chashma-1, the actual final cost is likely to be higher. The operating costs of nuclear reactors (per unit energy produced) are invariably higher than those of a thermal power plant. This is true in Pakistan's case. Thus the electricity produced by nuclear power plants is bound to be costlier. While China designed and built the Chashma-1 project, which the PAEC now operates, it is Wapda that has to buy electricity (to distribute it for domestic use etc). In 2003, Wapda complained publicly that it was being forced to pay almost twice what it should for electricity generated through Chashma-1. The electricity that Wapda produces and buys from independent power producers is much cheaper than what is being charged by the PAEC for Chashma-1. The dispute over price between them was eventually settled after the government intervened and forced Wapda to pay some extra amount. Wapda officials have argued that this is causing them an annual loss of Rs3 billion. One senior official is of the view that the Chashma-1 plant is "going to eat our revenues for decades". There is no reason to expect that electricity generated by Chashma-II will be any cheaper. But whatever the cost may be, Wapda and electricity consumers will have to pay. Wapda officials have also protested that the Chashma-1 project is not a reliable one, compared to its own power plants or the ones run by commercial independent power producers. They say the plant has been frequently shut down without any prior warnings and requires long maintenance periods. For instance, according to the PAEC's own reports, in 2002-2003, the project remained out of operation for nearly 175 days. In one incident, it took the authorities 33 days to repair a breakdown. Part of the problem is that Chashma-1 is one of those plants that are called 'turn-key' projects. The design is Chinese and all the major components were made in China. All Pakistan did was pay for it and turn the key to start it. The Chashma-II plant will be the same, because the PAEC is not involved in the basic design and engineering work. Therefore, if something goes wrong they will not be able to fix it. In such a situation, Chinese engineers have to be called upon to fix the plant. They charge extra for this, of course. There is little incentive for them to let Pakistani engineers take part in the repair work. So the PAEC remains dependent on Chinese expertise. This is a more serious problem than it may appear. While the PAEC is clearly operating a reactor of which it has very little experience, it is also not clear whether China has the required competence. Chashma-1 and Chashma-II plants are based on a Chinese prototype reactor that was built in 1990. Owing to serious design problems, China decided not to build any more for itself. Instead, it first sold one copy, and now a second, to Pakistan. The original Chinese reactor (at Qinshan) suffered an accident in 1998. The reactor had to be shut down for a year. China could not fix the problem, and had to contact a US company to do the repair work. This included redesigning one part of the reactor. Tens of millions of dollars were paid to the American company. If China cannot deal with problems at its own indigenously designed reactor, it is by no means clear that it will be able to fix all the problems at Chashma-1 or Chashma-II. Perhaps the PAEC expects the Americans to come and help. Other problems include the location of the reactors. It is close to the banks of the Indus River in an area where there may be earthquakes and where the properties of the soil may make the effects of an earthquake more severe than otherwise. An accident, God forbid, would have very serious consequences. In case of a large release of radioactivity, as happened at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, Pakistan could face catastrophic problems. Estimates suggest that in the long-term there could be over 12,000 cancer-related deaths, and perhaps three times as many cases of cancer. There would also be radioactive contamination of the land, the Indus River, and possibly the groundwater. The effects, as at Chernobyl, could last for decades. These are grave risks to run. They seem foolish given that both projects are small power plants, together making up just over three per cent of the already installed electricity generating capacity in the country. Reducing the enormous power theft in the existing electricity distribution system (about 40 per cent) could easily save more electricity than would be produced by both these nuclear plants. Similarly, investing the same amount of money in electricity conservation, for example by making motors, fans, fridges and lights more efficient, would go a long way to removing any need for these plants altogether. Poor economics, uncertain safety and potential environmental dangers that have surrounded the Chashma-1 plant, all suggest that there needs to be a serious public debate before the Chashma-II project is allowed to become a reality. The same demand was made about Chashma-1. In 2000, a coalition of Pakistani environment groups and other NGOs wrote to President Musharraf asking him to stop work on Chashma-1 until there had been a detailed public environmental impact assessment of the plant. They argued that people are entitled to know and decide the dangers that will be run in their name. This kind of public assessment is required by the law, under the 1997 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act. But since the Chashma-1 plant was almost operational, the PAEC refused to admit that any public assessment was needed or possible, and the government just went along. The environmentalists were ignored. It is not too late to do the right thing about the Chashma-II Nuclear Power Plant. This project is still on the drawing board and there is still plenty of time for a public environmental impact assessment. It remains to be seen if all things nuclear prove to be beyond the law, beyond public debate and beyond reason. _________________________________ SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN): An informal information platform for activists and scholars concerned about Nuclearisation in South Asia South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List: archives are available @ two locations May 1998 - March 2002: <groups.yahoo.com/group/sap/messages/1> Feb. 2001 - to date: <groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/messages/1> To subscribe send a blank message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> South Asians Against Nukes Website: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org -- SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN): An informal information platform for activists &amp; scholars concerned about the dangers of Nuclearisation in South Asia SAAN Mailing List: To subscribe send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SAAN Website: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/saan [OLD URL: http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html ] SAAN Mailing List Archive : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/ ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SAAN compilers. aterials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SAAN compilers. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
