& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Not only fossil fuels
**We need to try out all possible options for developing a sustainable energy base. Presently, talks are ongoing for developing of a balanced mix for nuclear, coal, gas and import oil-based power but little has been done to reduce dependency on import oil based costly power generation.***
IT is little surprise that Japan is reversing its policy on nuclear power generation. Following the Fukushima disaster, the country had decided to take its nuclear industry offl ine to a great extent to perform (a) safety checks, and (b) to look at alternative sources for generating power. That experiment led to a romance with "renewables" and fossil-fuel. But the prohibi-
tive costs associated with generating power from renewable energy including geothermal to solar has proved uneconomical. That end users, viz. consumer were having to foot bills anywhere between 10-15% over and above what power cost prior to shutdown of Japan's nuclear industry has led to a general rethinking by Japanese policymakers. The other matter that came into consideration for this major change in policy was that the country was spending an additional US$40billion or so to import fossil fuels, not to mention the increased pollution.
Japan is not the only country that has rethought its nuclear options. Other major power users across the world are going for nuclear power coupled with renewable energy sources to combat greenhousegas (GHG) emissions.
According to the World Meteorological Organisation's (WMO) September bulletin, "the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, propelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide." WMO's data is supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 'Annual Greenhouse Gas Index' that state that carbon dioxide levels accounted for 80% of all GHG and 34% of the increase in 'radiative forcing' (which causes warming of the climate). Fossil-fuel based power such as coal and oil-fired power plants emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The Peoples' Republic of China has been experiencing the ill-effects of over reliance on coal-driven power plants and is also on a trajectory to large-scale nuclear power. It built its first energy reactor in 1985. Presently there are 14 nuclear reactors in operation, with another 27 under construction.
Matters become clearer when we look at Saudi Arabia, a country with enormous fossil fuel reserves has decided to go "nuclear". The kingdom hopes to generate 15% of its energy needs within the next 20 years. That translates into 18,000 megawatts (MW) of new power, all coming from 12 nuclear plants that will cost about $80billion. Saudi Arabia intends to invest three times that much ($240bn) into solar technology that will cut production costs by 50%. So, why are Saudis of all people investing so heavily in nuclear power and costly solar technology? According to Gulf Research Center, energy consumption stands at more than 200 billion kilowatt hours (kWhs) that translates into approximately 6,000 kWhs per person. With half of this amount being used for residential purposes and given the rate of urbanisation and population growth, the realisation is that those massive oil sup-
plies will not last indefinitely. Saudi Arabia utilises nearly a billion barrels of oil per annum to produce its electricity needs. When one factors in the oil needed to operate plants to desalinise sea water, one can understand why policymakers in the country are headed towards nuclear energy. With an excess of 0.5million sandy areas where the sun is not a problem, Saudi Arabia can afford to pour in billions into photovoltaic and solar technologies. And it is not only the Saudis who are going nuclear.
CO2 being one of the prime suspects for rise in GHG, being responsible for approximately 84% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 83% over the past five years, there are reasons to be concerned. WMO's Secretary-General Michel Jarraud states "we know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time".
Whilst resource rich countries in the Mid-East and Asian economic giants like Japan and China can afford to make investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear and solar technology, Bangladesh, unfortunately cannot. With the fast depletion of our natural gas reserves, the country is headed towards coal-fired power plants. Every industrialised country in the world has gone down this path and Bangladesh has no other choice. What can be done, however, is to choose wisely on the technology to produce electricity from coal. Therein lies the challenge. A failure to do so would result in disaster for the environment. The nuclear option has just been launched through a state-to-state contract with Russia for two power plants and it provides an alternative to mono sourcing of primary energy. Environmentalists in the country have for some years been advocating for the scrapping of both these technologies. Given the experience of Japan in recent times over the prohibitive costs of electricity produced from solar technology, the sad reality is that mass produced and affordable clean technologies are still some years off.
We need to try out all possible options for developing a sustainable energy base. Presently, talks are ongoing for developing of a balanced mix for nuclear, coal, gas and import oil-based power but little has been done to reduce dependency on import oil based costly power generation. The master plan envisaged coal to supply 50% of total power within 2030 but in real terms, no real progress has been made (except only the recent contract on 1,200 MW Matarbari import coal based power plant initiative with Japanese assistance). Policymakers have their work cut out. The time for dilly dallying on future energy supplies is long gone and tough decisions on coal need to be made today, not tomorrow.
The writer Is Assistant Editor, The Dally Star.