“Nuclear” is a polarising word. It has passionate partisans who support it as well as those who oppose it. And each side overstates its reasons. The opponents always emphasise the dangers of managing the nuclear waste, and the drastic consequences of accidents. They always quote instances of people near nuclear reactors suffering from radiation-related health hazards. The other side responds by downplaying the dangers, and in its casualness displays unintended callousness. They say with the arrogance that comes with expertise that there is radiation everywhere, and the radiation that emanates from a nuclear reactor is neither more nor less than the “natural radiation”. Now, that is an attitude that does not help in addressing the genuine apprehensions of ordinary folk. The simple fact is that nuclear reactors come with advantages and dangers. There is no point in exaggerating them. Developing countries like India look to nuclear energy as part status symbol of development and as part necessity. And in the context of climate change and the need to decarbonise the energy sector, nuclear power with near-zero carbon emissions recommends itself as a viable non-fossil fuel energy source. The new twist in the climate change debate is that to move away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels is that the promise of renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, small and big hydro cannot offer the solution each on its own. There is a need for a reliable renewable energy basket, and nuclear power is seen as an essential element of this reconstituted basket. The constraints on renewable sources are technological as well as natural limitations. For example, there is a noticeable variation in solar and wind power. There is need for a continuous base to provide stability. Nuclear power is now on the offer as the stabiliser. The nuclear option is now served up in a new form — the small modular reactor (SMR). Unlike the regular nuclear reactor with its capacity of 1,000 MW electricity generation, the SMR’s upper limit is 300 MW. The second advantage is that the mini-reactor can be prefabricated in a factory and not necessarily on site as required in the big reactor. And this leads to the possibility that the SMR can be transported anywhere and placed in remote areas which cannot be easily connected with the power grid. Of course, these are the arguments of the pro-nuclear power lobby, and like good sales folk they tell half the story, and never the full one. What is missing in this renewed interest in nuclear energy option in its new design avatar is that the public is not fully informed about the need for the renewable energy basket. Governments are reticent and so are the lobbies of experts. Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman had announced in the July 2024 Budget speech the setting up of Bharat Small Reactor (BSR), a public-private partnership, unit. Budget 2025 has announced the ambitious goal of setting up of five SMRs by 2033. And in her Budget speech, Ms Sitharaman has pointed to achieve 100 GW electricity from nuclear reactors by 2047. The nuclear contribution will remain small because by 2047, India expects to achieve 2,100 GW of power, and the power demand will be 708 GW. What is interesting is the change in thinking about nuclear power, not just in India, but in other countries as well. Russia has already built and runs a SMR-type floating nuclear power plant (FPS), Akademik Lomonosov, in the Arctic Circle, and this has been in operation since 2020. It has two reactors generating 35MW each. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also announced a programme of SMRs. German engineering company Siemens has signed an agreement with Britain’s Rolls Royce to produce turbines for the SMRs. Italy, which had banned nuclear power plants through parliamentary legislation in 1985, has revoked it under right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and she is looking to nuclear power generation in a big way for Italian companies in Italy and abroad. Many countries are in the run to get their SMRs going, including Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States. India is in alignment with the new thinking and the new trends. The Indian approach is based on achieving Net Zero by 2070, and how nuclear power is essential to achieve the target. It is interesting that even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has focused on increasing renewable sources of power to reduce carbon emissions, with particular emphasis on solar power (solar power accounted for 90.7 GW of the 201.45 GW of renewable energy sources in October 2024) , there has been a quick rethink in the government about the renewable energy basket. In November 2021, the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India commissioned a report to be prepared by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, with one-third funding from the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The report was launched in April 2024. It was called “Synchirnising energy transitions towards possible Net Zero for India: Affordable and clean energy for All”. It is an exhaustive report which includes seven scenarios, three geared to GDP growth and four to Net Zero target, and it is recognised that “Net Zero is not possible without substantial nuclear power and Renewable Energy (RE) generation by 2070”, according to a Press Information Bureau (PIB) release. The report of the IIM-Ahmedabad teams needs to be read and discussed widely. The report is in the public domain but it has escaped public attention, which is understandable. The obligation to debate its points falls to the lot of the people engaged with India’s economic and social development and the challenges of climate change. The basis of the pathways to development traced by the report is based on the three Human Development Index (HDI) criteria of income, education and health, which is quite comprehensive. Their interrelations are obvious enough, but they are also complicated. So, nuclear power in the form of SMRs has to be placed in the complex scenario. This is indeed the time to think of ways and means, and also consider the alternatives. Dogmatic assertions by partisans should be considered as well. What is very important is public debate of the difficult and complicated issues. If a remote rural area is to have a SMR, then the people there have a right to know what it is all about.
Source link
