Establishing more nuclear plants and increasing share of nuclear power is a realistic approach. But going for 100 GW capacity by 2047 is risky

The enactment of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act recently affords us an opportunity to take a close look at the challenges in the power sector in the context of global warming and the growing importance of solar energy.

Ever since the invention of the incandescent light bulb by Thomas Alva Edison in 1879 and Nikola Tesla’s demonstration of the phosphorescent light bulb in 1893, electric power has become an integral part of modern society. With electricity heating our homes, powering our motors and running our machines, modern industry and economy are inseparable from electric power generation and distribution. For over a century, coal has been the chief source of electric power for the world. Natural gas, another fossil fuel, and clean hydropower, converting the energy of flowing water into electricity, have been other sources of power. With the advent of the atomic age, we learnt to control the nuclear fission chain reaction and produce electricity from the heat generated.

As of now nuclear energy accounts for about 9% of the global electricity generation. There are 440 operating nuclear power plants in 31 countries, with a total generating capacity of about 400 GW (400,000 MW). Nuclear energy accounts for about 20% of the carbon-free power today. The United States (97 GW), France (63 GW), China (61 GW), Russia (27 GW), and South Korea (26 GW) are the leaders in nuclear power generation. 

In terms of the share of nuclear power in electricity generation, France ranks first (67%). Among large economies, the nuclear share varies—the US (18%), China (5%), Russia (19%), South Korea (30%), and the UK (14%). Nuclear power share in Japan fell from 20% to 10%, and in Germany it fell from 23% to 0, as nuclear plants were shut down after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011.

Nuclear power is carbon-neutral and reliable and, therefore, has become the second most important source of clean energy after hydropower globally. With the dramatic rise of solar and wind power generation in recent years, there is greater urgency now to find stable, clean power sources without diurnal variation so that electricity supply is not interrupted. Given the objective of phasing out coal-fired thermal power stations to combat global warming, nuclear power is an attractive option. In 2008, India signed the 123 Agreement with the US, ending our nuclear isolation and providing access to technology and fuel. The India-US nuclear deal generated a lot of excitement about nuclear power as a future source of clean energy. But then, the Fukushima nuclear accident upended everything. On March 11, 2011, a 9.1 magnitude Tohoku earthquake and the resultant tsunami led to a series of events—power failure, damage to backup energy sources, failure to cool the reactors after shutdown, failure of containment, and release of radioactive contaminants. 

sOver 160,000 people had to be displaced, and the economic damage of about $180B was incurred as the cost of cleaning and compensation. This was the second worst nuclear accident after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

It is true that nuclear energy is reliable and for the most part safe. But while the risks of accident are low, the potential damage due to radioactive contamination is so great that societies are forced to rethink the role of nuclear power plants. The insurance costs and potential liabilities are very high, and, therefore, private investment is hard to come by. The capital expenditure is extremely high—reaching Rs 15-25 crore per MW. Most of the nuclear plants suffer significant cost and time overruns. Disposal of spent fuel is very complicated, costly, and potentially hazardous. Small modular reactors in rock cavities in 1.6 km deep boreholes are being considered to minimise safety hazards. But these are still unproven technologies. 

The SHANTI Act creates a regulatory framework for private power plants and caps the operator liability. There are concerns about the government assuming open-ended liability and the huge cost of power. A country of India’s size, with a potential global role, cannot ignore nuclear energy. At present, we have 25 nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 8880 MW, accounting for only 3% of the total electricity generated. If we exclude Germany, which has shut down all nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident, India has the lowest share of nuclear power among all G-20 countries.

Given that, establishing a few more nuclear plants and increasing the share of nuclear power is a realistic approach. But going for 100 GW capacity by 2047 is excessive and risky. If we lock ourselves into long-term power purchase agreements at a high cost of energy, and with unlimited liability embraced by the government, it could prove to be unaffordable. Over the last decade, solar power generation costs have plummeted. In recent bids, the price discovery is about Rs 2.50 per kWh. Costs of storage are falling rapidly and are now estimated to be about Rs 2.80 per kWh. Effectively, stored solar power supply is costing a reasonable Rs 5.50-6.00 per kWh. Considering that part of the solar power is to be consumed as it is generated, and charging of electric vehicles and running of irrigation and water pumps can be timed during daytime surplus power generation, the average cost of supply of solar power will probably be below Rs 4 per kWh. Solar power generation is getting cheaper with better technologies (e.g., perovskite), and batteries are getting better and cheaper. Pump storage projects are also in the pipeline, assuring stable and safe power, though these projects will take a few years to be completed.

Considering everything, we should aim at smaller nuclear power capacity, well below the 100 GW contemplated. We should, of course, fully meet our national security needs, but that is outside the scope of civilian nuclear energy. And we should be involved in the cutting-edge research in areas like thorium nuclear reactors and deep underground nuclear stations. But in respect of nuclear power as a major source of stable electricity, it would be prudent if we hasten slowly.