stop this misguided energy policy

Nuclear technology is dangerous. The world was reminded of this on March 3, when a fire broke out near the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant in Ukraine (Europe’s largest) during a military battle. Had the fire affected the cooling system, the plant’s power supply, or its spent fuel pool, a major disaster could have occurred. Fortunately, that didn’t happen.

Eleven years ago, the people of Japan were not as lucky. On March 11, 2011, several reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant suffered serious accidents following an earthquake and tsunami. Those reactors were quick”shut down“After the earthquake. But their radioactive core continued to generate heat and eventually melted as the tsunami knocked out the cooling system.

The tremors of the Fukushima disaster were felt beyond Japan and caused a decline in nuclear power in much of the world. Still, some policy makers push for the expansion of nuclear power, in response to climate change concerns.

Government of India on December 15, 2021 informed parliament That it plans to build “10 indigenous reactors … in fleet mode” and had granted “in-principle approval” for 28 additional reactors, including 24 to be imported from France, the US and Russia. Given global and national trends in the post-Fukushima nuclear industry, such a policy appears to be misguided; Nuclear power is neither an economical source of electricity nor a viable route to meet India’s climate goals.

Nuclear power plants are capital intensive and recent nuclear constructions have suffered large costs. A illustrative example is the VC Summer nuclear project in South Carolina (US), where costs rose so rapidly that the project was abandoned – after the expense of over $9 billion,

In contrast, renewable-energy technologies have become cheaper. Wall Street Company, Lazard, guess that The cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics and wind turbines in the US declined by 90% and 72%, respectively, between 2009-21. In 2020, the International Energy Agency designated solar energy as “new king of power,

This contradiction has hindered plans for the expansion of nuclear power. In 2008, the US government projected an expansion of nuclear capability. to 114.9 GW by 2030; In 2021, it predicted that capacity would shrink to 83.3 GW, This reflects a global trend: in 1996, 17.5% The world’s electricity comes from nuclear power plants; By 2020, this figure had dropped to about 10%,

After Fukushima, India has also had to cut its nuclear ambitions drastically. In 2008, Anil Kakodkar, the then chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, estimated that India There will be an installed capacity of 650GW by 2050, His successor, Sreekumar Banerjee, predicted in 2010 that the capacity would reach 35 GW by 2020. Today the installed capacity is only 6.78 GW,

unviable import

Such targets were based on the expectation that India would import several light-water reactors following the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. However, the deal did not lead to the establishment of a single new nuclear plant, over 13 years After that the conclusion was drawn. The worrying part of the government’s recent parliamentary submission is that these import plans have not been canceled, as is widely believed, and are still on the books,

Of the 24 foreign reactors with “in-principle” approval, six are of the VVER (Water-Water Energetic Reactor) design, with several operational problems at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu. The cumulative load factors for the two reactors in Kudankulam-1 and 2020 were correct 53% And 52%respectively.

Twelve reactors are proposed to be imported from the US, including at least six AP1000 reactors – the same design that was abandoned in South Carolina. Elsewhere in the US, the Vogtle project with two AP1000 reactors has gone ahead Over $30 billion from initial estimate of $14 billion,

The remaining six are of EPR designs that France has been unable to successfully complete in its home country. Single EPR plant now being built at Flamenville in France costing €12.4 billionFour times more than forecast when construction begins in 2007,

We guessed in 2013 That if the six planned EPRs at Jaitapur in Maharashtra had been constructed on time, these reactors would have cost at least ₹15 per unit excluding power transmission cost. Given the recent increase in costs, this is most likely an underestimate. Vogtle’s figures suggest that the proposed AP1000 reactors would produce electricity that would be similarly expensive.

Compare that figure with the recent low bids of ₹2.14 per unit solar energyand for ₹2.34 Solar-Wind Hybrid Projects, Even in projects with storage, bids are around ₹4.30 per unit, If nuclear power is to be sold at a competitive rate, it will have to be heavily subsidized by the Indian government, which operates all nuclear plants through the Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

understanding the risks

Safety concerns have led to protests against each planned reactor after the Fukushima accident. Vijay Rupani, the then chief minister of Gujarat, admitted in the state assembly in March 2018 that “locals turned against the Mithivirdi nuclear project” after the Fukushima disaster.

Contrary to the condescending opinion held by some nucleocrats, people’s concerns are not based on an irrational fear of nuclear power. In a densely populated country like India, land is at a premium and emergency health care is not equally available. Local citizens understand that a nuclear disaster can leave large tracts of land uninhabited – as in Chernobyl – or require a prohibitively expensive cleanup – such as in Fukushima, where the ultimate cost may be ultimately over $600 billion,

Concerns about safety have been raised by requests from multinational nuclear suppliers to indemnify them of liability for the consequences of any accidents in India. Under pressure from multinational manufacturers, India’s liability law already protects them to a great extent. but Industry objected to short window of opportunity Available to the Government of India to hold them in the account.

The message to local citizens is simple: Manufacturers don’t really believe their own claims about how safe their reactors are. If they did, they should have been prepared to accept responsibility for any failure, rather than insisting on the special legal system available to any other industry.

climate concerns

Climate change will increase the risk of nuclear reactor accidents. A day after the fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, a wildfire broke out at the Hanul Nuclear Power Plant in South Korea and President Moon Jae-in ordered “all round effort“To avoid accident in reactors there. In 2020, a typhoon caused Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant to cease operations in the US. The frequency of such extreme weather events is likely to increase in the future.

Therefore, nuclear power is not the right choice to “adapt” to climate change, which requires resilience in power systems. It is also not a suitable option for reducing India’s carbon emissions as it cannot be deployed at the required scale. Redirecting the resources spent on nuclear plants to renewable energy will yield quick results.

Given the inherent weaknesses of nuclear reactors and their high cost, it would be best for the government to explicitly cancel its plans for nuclear expansion.

Suvrat Raju and MV Ramana are physicists with the Alliance for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. Views expressed are personal