Nuclear summer

According to an April 2009 assessment at the World Nuclear Organization, India has set a nuclear power development target of 40 GW over the next several decades. Some indications of the seriousness of the nation can be seen in the deals signed in the last few months.

Like, last November Russia inked a huge deal with India to build four new reactors at Kudankulam with a combined generating capacity of 4,400 MW. Areva signed a deal in February 2009 for at least two 1,600 MW EPR reactors plus fuel to run them for 60 years. GE-Hitachi signed an agreement with Indian companies to build reactors in March 2009.

What are the hurdles on the nuke road? And what must be done to convert intentions into realizations? As we have earlier posted here, the nuclear sanctions have meant that the country has been caught in a technology warp with most reactors sporting old designs and operating at half capacities. A monopoly of the government, the nuclear arena will open out to foreign players and private participation if expectations that the atomic act will be revised come true.

It could well be worth the time for those concerned to take a few leaves from the Chinese tactics. Players must negotiate for transfer of design information even as they allow outside participation; opt for standard design that could result in high efficiencies in maintenance and construction; include training of staff as part of the deal in building reactors, so on.

However, it is still unsure how willing the government and scientific community will be to suspend uranium enrichment capability or spent fuel reprocessing, and opt for total fuel import. Will smaller reactors that are cost-effective and quicker to build be a better option? Is it better to borrow from available technology instead of self-reliance? Is it feasible to achieve the 40 GW target?

Another interesting study on nuclear power with some relevance as India rushes into the nuclear game: MIT just updated its seminal 2003 study on the role nuclear power could play in America’s energy mix. The upshot: No real progress in the U.S. Building nuclear plants is still a lot more expensive than building coal- or gas-fired plants, and nuclear-generated electricity is still more expensive than either fossil-fuel option: 8.8 cents a kilowatt for nuclear versus 6.2 cents for coal and 6.5 cents for gas.

Nuclear plants have a history of running behind schedule and facing cost overruns. Solving the “risk premium” that penalizes nuclear power requires building a few plants on time and on budget, MIT says.

The MIT study is bullish about uranium supplies, reiterating its earlier view that supplies will support the construction of at least 1,000 reactors. It’s less optimistic about fuel reprocessing, citing both sketchy economics and questionable environmental benefits.

The situation is no better in Europe, according to Steven Thomas, a professor of energy studies at the University of Greenwich in London: Finland cannot complete its new reactor; the U.K. has yet to get started on any projects; and a new nuclear reactor in France, after 18 months of construction, is 20 percent overbudget and requires complete subsidy by the French government.

Nor has there been a solution to the issue of nuclear waste. In the U.S., the plan to use Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert as a repository for spent nuclear fuel rods is in limbo, opposed by the Obama administration. Reprocessing nuclear fuel, currently underway only in France, has proved prohibitively expensive, and it raises concerns about the proliferation of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Ultimately, the M.I.T. authors warned, "if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation."

Do you think where the mighty have stumbled, India must explore? Is it worth the money and time?