Do we need to increase Nuclear Power Production?

The Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is visiting India between Dec 11-13^th, 2015 & a nuclear deal perhaps is in the offing. The former Economic Affairs Secretary, GOI, EAS Sarma, has argued against the deal reminding all the 99, well documented, potential  nuclear disasters & the 3 known ones: Three Mile  Island, US, in 1979, Chernobyl , Soviet Union, in 1986 & Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. He avers that when the Paris conference is underway & the voice of “green energy” & “Negawatts” (saved Megawatts) has reached a crescendo, opting for nuclear energy is preposterous. With safety in doubt & costs exorbitant, not to talk of the pain of the displaced families from the proposed plant sites, his is a rational argument against the deal that is reproduced below.

http://scroll.in/article/773920/nuclear-power-is-unsafe-and-too-costly-for-india-ex-power-secretary-eas-sarma-tells-modi-japans-abe

That begs the question: Do we need nuclear power?

As per Ministry of Statistics & Program implementation (MOSPI), India has an installed capacity of 2.84 lakh MW as on Mar 2014 of which thermal contributes 70.25%, hydro 14.24%, non-utilities 13.83% & nuclear energy 1.68%; while the installed nuclear power is 5780MW of which 1000MW is under commissioning, an additional 2800 MW is under construction.  

India has placed 22 nuclear plants under the supervision of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) as mandated under the Indo- US nuclear deal signed in 2009. Post the nuclear testing in 1998, India suffered sanctions that led to most of its plants running at less than its capacity because of shortage of fuel & this deal was meant to rectify the same. This was also meant to allow for installation of additional nuclear plants to provide clean energy to over 300 million people who still do not have access to electricity. But is nuclear the only route to alleviate the lives of people living in darkness?

Solar power was very costly in 2009 which is not the case now. An article in the Economic Times on Mar 17, 2014 states that conventional power is procured for under Rs 5/- per unit while solar power costs have dropped from Rs 17/- in 2010 to Rs 6.5/- when Himgiri Energy ventures agreed to supply at the said rate to the MP state grid; wind power has already acquired grid parity pricing & solar would achieve the same soon.

India has planned 175GW of renewable power by 2022 of which about 100GW is likely to be solar; this is against the installed capacity of 5GW by 2016, of which 2GW has come during the last 1 year. India has also launched the International Solar Alliance of over 120 countries at the COP 21 Paris climate summit, in Nov 2015. Both these initiatives shall drive economics of scale in solar, helping costs of solar drop below thermal & nuclear shortly making solar the preferred option.  Therefore, nuclear power is ruled out on the “cost criteria” for it would inflict a heavy burden on the consumers. Off course, questions on safety of nuclear power plants still persist & agitations of the “Kudankulam” kind would perhaps be seen wherever new plants are proposed.

Previous nuclear disasters were forgotten & it was widely assumed that safety has been restored through scientific innovation & IAEA regulation till Fukushima burst the dream in 2011. Most of the Western countries are therefore re-evaluating their energy policies. France whose energy requirements were once fulfilled to the extent of 75% by nuclear power has already started progressively shutting many of its nuclear plants.  Germany, another of the larger nuclear powers, had 22100 MW of installed capacity in the year 2000 which it has progressively reduced & plans to further reduce it to 4285MW by 2022. The engineering powerhouse that Germany is, they are now honing their skills on the technology behind dismantling of nuclear plants which they perceive as a lucrative potential business opportunity worldwide.  Incidentally, the costs of dismantling are higher than the costs of installation; as an example, the nuclear plant at Stade built in 1972 at a cost of 150 million euros, required about 1 billion euros to dismantle, after 31 years of operation.  The evidence piling up raises the big question: Why should India go against an international trend?

India is keen to secure uranium supplies for existing plants to sweat existing assets which makes a rational economic logic. However, that requires the membership of the 48 member NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group); surely countries facilitating such an entry would demand their pound of flesh which in this case is a favourable supplier deal to its local nuclear industry. Areva from France, GE & Westinghouse from US & Toshiba, Japan Steel Works & Hitachi from Japan are the most important contenders for supplying nuclear hardware; Russia too is keen to have a share of the pie. Therefore, while "safety" & "cost" criterions should ideally cross out additional incremental nuclear power as an option, it is a “necessary evil” & some compromise is, perhaps, necessary to keep friendly nations in good humour, to achieve our long term diplomatic goals. India therefore plans to only triple the nuclear capacity to 14600 MW by 2024; that would form a miniscule percentage of its total installed power capacity.

The other sane alternative - without increasing installed nuclear capacity - would have been to increase domestic production of uranium – through MOU with countries that have expertise or exploit further our known reserves of thorium & the unique nuclear fuel cycle that our scientists have championed; while the former is being attempted - though not with much gusto - the surprisingly weak policy push on the latter is often bewildering.

Conclusion

If India only triples its capacity to 14600MW then the blended cost of power in India would not be adversely affected thereby nullifying the “costly” logic. Nuclear equipment deals with companies in US, France, Japan, Russia et al perhaps are a quid pro quo for getting  the much needed nuclear fuel to help our existing plants run at full capacity; perhaps, some compromise & sacrifice is a good bargain.