Certain events leave an indelible impression in public memory long after they are gone.

Nuclear Power: two words even today readily exhume the ghosts of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In 1979, the Three Mile Island accident in America miraculously escaped a disaster. Though the accident did not cause any death, it pioneered the worst fears of nuclear technology.

In 1986, luck eluded Chernobyl Power Plant in Ukraine when one of its nuclear reactors exploded. The immediate fallout consumed thirty lives. Several hundreds were soon hospitalised. It has affected tens of thousands of lives to date.

In 2002, the Tokyo Electric Power Company in Japan had to shut 17 of its nuclear reactors after it failed to accurately report cracks at its nuclear reactors. The company was suspected of deliberately falsifying 29 cases of safety repair records.

The September 11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York has further enriched apparitions of terrorists carrying out a nuclear attack.

Slumbering in the wilderness of scepticism for more than a quarter of a century, nuclear power has sprung back into life with a healthy dose of political interest. Concerns about global warming and shrinking energy resources have provided the much-needed tonic to revive the dying nuclear industry. Politicians, scientists, businessmen, and even some environmentalists have started to look at the nuclear option with a fresh pair of eyes. Nuclear energy has secured a new lease of life - a Renaissance of sorts!

Until the recent past the debate was about how to bid adieu to nuclear reactors. Now it is not just about reviving the existing ones but also about building new reactors. There are about 443 nuclear reactors in the world with an additional 25 reactors under construction.

Accompanying the growth of adolescent economies of China and India into maturity the demand for energy is all set to build up manifold. China, with 9 reactors already up and running and India with 15 fully functioning ones are planning to build more. France generates 78 per cent of its electricity through its 59 reactors. The United States, leader in supplies of commercial nuclear power runs 104 nuclear reactors. Besides, a host of several other countries remains comfortably warm to the prospects of nuclear energy.

A sense of assurance is sweeping across the nuclear terrain - partly because of the improvement in the efficiency of modern nuclear reactors and partly due to optimism that nuclear reactors can get better with advance in technology. The modern reactors, also known as third generation reactors are more efficient than their predecessors - they possess standardised design to minimise capital cost and construction time; longer working life; reduced possibility of meltdown accidents; economical fuel use and generate less amount of nuclear waste. The overhanging sense of optimism about what is called the 'fourth generation' (Generation IV) nuclear reactors - a much improved version of the third - promise much more. The fourth generation reactors profess to evolve to be "highly economical" with an "enhanced safety" design that will "minimise wastes" and be "proliferation restraint." The fourth generation reactors are not expected to be ready for commercial construction until 2030.

The development of Generation IV nuclear reactors is attentively nurtured under the aegis of The Generation IV International Forum (GIF). It is a ten-nation research programme comprising Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. A typically futuristic reactor, it has an innate safety feature that will allow the reactor to 'breakdown' safely. The safe 'breakdown' feature is the ability of a reactor to shut itself down automatically should its control systems cease working. It then allows the heat, produced by the reactions in its core, to dissipate without causing any hazard. It also prevents the escape of fuel and radioactive waste by putting them away in some form of receptacle.

There has always been a feeling of warmth towards 'nuclear energy' among Asian countries. Not necessarily in Europe. For more than two decades European countries turned their backs against nuclear power, in particular the Scandinavia, where environmental concerns rule the political roost. Sweden abandoned nuclear energy altogether. Finland's parliament delivered a thumping rejection when TVO, a utility company presented an application in 1993 to build a nuclear plant. In politics as well as in technology nothing remains static for a long time. After twelve years of hibernation, interest in nuclear energy revved up in Finland. In 2005, ironically, amidst environmental and energy worries, Finnish demonstrated that they were not finished with nuclear energy yet. TVO this time was granted permission to build an EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) nuclear plant in the town of Olkiluoto with the help of a French state-owned company, Areva, costing $3.6 billion.

The EPR is the world's first third-generation reactor comprising several active and passive protection measures against accidents. The EPR comprises four independent emergency cooling systems, each capable of cooling down the reactor should it fail; a solid leak-tight container built around the reactor; a containment to prevent the escape of molten core from the reactor and a two-layered concrete wall to withstand the collision of an airplane or terrorist attack. Areva is a one-stop nuclear shop whose activities range from mining and enriching uranium ore to make nuclear fuel, designing and constructing nuclear reactors, providing expertise to operating them to recycling spent fuel. The company also entered into a joint venture with an American company, Constellation Energy based in Baltimore, to build an advanced nuclear power plant. Encouraged by the prospects of EPR, France evinced keenness in building a similar reactor in Flamanville subject to getting through public scrutiny.

As many countries have woken up to the hazardous realities of a oil-rich but politically volatile Middle East they carefully whittle down their dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Japan, with 90 per cent of its oil coming from the Middle East, is reconsidering its heavy reliance on the crisis-ridden region. The British government, once avowed to abandon nuclear energy, too has reneged on its promise to switch back to nuclear power. Germany and Sweden are now considering the options of going nuclear, again.

In summary, global economic growth and the resultant demand for energy, the abiding fears of climate change, oil concerns emanating out of political instability in the Middle East as well as the existing nuclear reactors nearing the end of their lives and the need for replacing them, the future of nuclear energy looks more radiant.

New promises, old questions

Despite the hullabaloo surrounding the promise of stand-out nuclear reactors, the old questions still refuse to die. Nuclear energy is still haunted by questions of nuclear waste and cagey economics. Discounting safety concerns considering watertight security systems, maintenance protocol, regular inspections, reporting obligations and periodic monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Authority, permanent waste disposal still remains shrouded in controversy, and so is the question of nuclear economics.

For over five decades Britain has been generating a lot of nuclear waste without having a clear idea as to what should be done about its disposal. When Britain reprocessed nuclear waste it proved to be a sheer waste of money. And, the latest figure of cleaning up Britain's nuclear waste was estimated around a whopping $130 billion (£70 billion). In the meanwhile, the debate about dumping goes on with no clear solution in vicinity. By and large, the consensus is for geological storage - that is, depositing the nuclear waste several hundreds of metres deep underground. Geological dumping is considered safe in terms of security, protecting the public and the environment. But it is easier said than done. The exercise may take several decades to complete; technical problems may crop up during construction; or simply, the public may suddenly go berserk should a bad news greet them. Nevertheless, geological storage seems the better option but the politics surrounding it is keeping it in tenterhooks.

America, so far, has literally dumped its nuclear waste in swimming pools at nuclear plants. The idea of burying nuclear waste in Yucca Mountains in Nevada after showing initial promise now has run into a conflict of interest. It is opined that on current levels of nuclear use America would need nine more Yuccas this century. Consigning the current 77,000 tons of nuclear waste into the depths of Yuccas is not the only challenge. There is a growing opposition by Nevadans to bury all of the country's waste in their state as they are gripped by health concerns arising out of dumping nuclear waste in the mountains. The Yucca Mountain - located in a seismically active area and lying above an aquifer provides the main source of drinking water for area residents which they fear of becoming nuclear-contaminated. Outside Nevada too, several Americans are not comfortable with the idea of thousands of shipments of high-level nuclear waste travelling through the rest of the American states in barges, railroad and trucks.

Notwithstanding their cyclopean costs involved in the building, maintenance and waste disposal even the state-of-the-art nuclear plants remain less competitive vis-à-vis rival energy technologies such as gas and coal. Building a 1,000 MW nuclear plant would cost about $2 billion and take at least 5 years. A coal plant and a combined-cycle gas plant of similar capacity would cost roughly $1.2 billion with a build-time of 3-4 years and about $500 million taking less than 2 years respectively. When it comes to nuclear technology that is seeped in public fears and steeped in political controversy 5 years is a critically long time. The whole exercise is vulnerable to the vicissitudes of political and social sentimentalities. According to an estimate, a mere two-year delay in a nuclear project has the potential to wipe out 20-25 per cent of its value to investors.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a report published in 2003, revealed that the electricity generated by a nuclear power plant was about 60 per cent dearer than the traditional coal or gas plant. Since 2003, the prices of both coal and gas have shot up. Not because they are running out of stock but due to instability rocking the Middle East and its oil prices and Russia's obsession with petty politics with its neighbour, Ukraine. When a price-row between Russia and Ukraine prompted the former to cut off its energy supplies to the latter it invariably affected Western European countries which were receiving 25 per cent of their gas consumption from the Russian company Gazprom, as 80 per cent of Russia's gas piped to Western European consumers through Ukraine. At present, low interest rates in the developed world are attracting investments in giant projects such as building nuclear plants but the whole scenario may well change should the interest rates rise up in the future. Besides, the prices of both gas and coal may well drop in the future making investment in nuclear plants dearer.

With all purported benefits of nuclear energy, there are still questions that make some people squirm in their seats with discomfort. Nuclear energy, as a stop-gap solution to tackle global warming and as a buffer until renewable sources of energy grow in stature and in use, seems slightly more acceptable than living with it permanently amidst its technical uncertainties, social concerns, political controversy and economic ambiguity. Even then, nuclear power, as an alternative source of energy, remains far from convincing.