Plan for setting up nuclear power plants in Sri Lanka

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.

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.

Building an average nuclear power plant takes about 5-8 years and costs 2 to 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 per cent. 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 per cent by 2030, and by 100 per cent 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.

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.

The Island