Activism is not about nay-saying only, civil society must provide solutions

Here’s something for the civil society to ponder over. India’s economy is not growing at a scorching pace but the country needs to rev up its energy production to keep pace with the escalating demand for it. The scene is bad already. The present installed capacity of 144,560 MW is not enough to meet the current requirement. And the demand is expected soar between 800,000 and 950,000 MW by 2030. By 2017, it would require to more than double the existing capacity. There’s no escaping this. As the manufacturing sector becomes more vibrant, it would seek more energy as would the domestic consumers. Above that the government would need to supply a great quantity of power to the rural areas. There’s a limit to which the country can use thermal power - it at present accounts for close to 65 percent of the country’s total energy production. Imported coal is expensive. The coal available abundantly in India has ash content and is highly polluting. Moreover, the mineral is not a renewable source. Close to 22 percent of the energy need is met with hydroelectric power, the generation of which cannot be scaled up at will. Other sources of energy—wind, solar etc.—are unreliable.[caption id=“attachment_127657” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Former president APJ Abdul Kalam. Reuters”]  [/caption] That leaves us with the option of nuclear power. It is expensive but clean energy. Its track record has not been all that perfect across the world but many Western countries have been using it successfully to meet 30 to 40 percent of their energy needs. India does not have too many options. If it has to keep to keep pace with the future, it has to embrace nuclear power. It has a good stock of thorium, which is an advantage. The civil society, of course, won’t allow that to happen. At Koodankulam, it has safety concerns, which is perfectly alright. It’s also concerned about the impact on the livelihood of the fishermen. No disputes here. The only problem is it won’t be convinced about any assurance on both the aspects. Former president Abdul Kalam has been ridiculed by the activists for suggesting that the nuclear installations are safe. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited has failed to convince them as have nuclear scientists. If they take their opposition everywhere, there won’t be no nuclear installation in the country, thus no nuclear energy. It’s still alright. But do they have any solution to offer on the energy front? How does the country manage its growing requirement without additional power? Some activists have suggested that the nuclear power plant at Koodankulam be converted to a coal-fuelled thermal power station. “It is possible. All they have to do is to shut down the entire reactor and set up a thermal power plant working on coal or gas,” Pushparayan, leader of the Peoples Movement Against Nuclear Energy, told DNA newspaper. ( Read complete story) But where does the coal or gas come from? Other civil society groups won’t allow coal mining to take place as it would impact the environment adversely. The argument: the green cover would be depleted because of rampant mining and the fauna and flora in the mining area—usually forests—would suffer. Some other groups would contend that mining activity would lead to the displacement of tribals and thus mean violation of their human rights. Both the arguments make sense. But they don’t provide an answer to the root question. The country cannot go on importing coal and gas; both are expensive. Probably these groups would suggest hydroelectricity. This calls for dams on rivers and manipulation of water sources. Some other civil society groups would find it difficult to accept. We have already seen protests over dams. So where does it all end? Nobody seems to have a clue. The civil society is too busy opposing everything to think in a constructive fashion. Consumed by short-term populists goals, it has stopped seeking practical solutions to long-term problems and challenges. It does not help that the government of the day is not competent enough to tackle the negativeness with strong efforts to convince the people of its intentions. But here’s a word of advice for the civil society: if it is so keen on participating in governance and other issues, all its factions must come together to develop a unanimous and unambiguous thought process. Being negative does not help.