Nuclear energy is the better option for India

Nuclear energy is the better option for India

Sruthy Gopal & Priyanka Nair

  As a member of planning commission, representing the scientific community, Dr. Kasturirangan has the onerous task of finding out a consensus on matters of dispute between development lobbies and environmentalists. Here is excerpts from an exclusive interview with PRISTINE NATURE.

What are the initiatives taken by the Planning Commission for a better utilization of Science and Technology?

 You know science so far has been primarily research oriented with paper publications. But now we also want to see the impact of science in many other areas like health, energy, education and environment. There is also industrial research which creates innovations. Those kinds of things will go into industry which in turn will produce market and create wealth for the country.  We are trying to strengthen Science and Technology at the state level also with various initiatives in the twelfth five year plan. We also want to increase the GDP percentage from 0.9 percent to 1 percent during the twelfth plan. One percent will come from the corporate sector so that the overall increase will be 2 percent, which is a substantial one. So we think that at the end of the twelfth plan it will propel India in a new direction.

There is a criticism that the twelfth five year plan gives emphasis to market rather than on rural development. How do you react to this?

 No. If we pick up only the market part of it, it will only be the market phase of it. There are many phases when considering development. Market will increase production and therefore wealth is created. Once wealth is created, inclusiveness will come into the picture and we allow it to percolate down. So that’s what we are working on.

Certain initiatives like nuclear plants are being misunderstood by public. What is your take on that?

           

  Nuclear power stations are not new to this world. There are many countries which produce 60 to 75 percent of its power from nuclear plants. A large component of the power in Russia is from the nuclear plants while America’s is around 30 to 35 percent and some of the nuclear reactors have been working for 40 to 45 years except for Long Island. Even in Long Island, the death was only one or two and with Fukushima, the number was small. So if you look actually at the context of disaster in terms of endangering the health and so on, nuclear reactor is much safe today. You can never say it is 100 percent safe. Our job is to tell the level of risk involved rather than telling there is no risk involved. Once the public understands what it’s all about and knowing well that many countries have adopted it, the country should take up the nuclear program and nuclear power. It is a very important component for development.  We are already importing 80 percent of our oil from abroad. Huge amount of money will be spent on oil as well as coal. We need one more component which is environmentally friendly. The initial investment will be large but over 40 to 45 years the life of the reactor will be compensated and I think it will be a wise decision. The wisest decision doesn’t mean that today it will be wise. It has to be wise in the sense of looking at it over the next 30 to 40 years. Nuclear reactors and nuclear power will definitely score for India which needs tremendous amount of energy. It has to double the energy of what we have produced in the eleventh plan and without energy I can tell you it is the end of development.