Last week, Brussels hosted a first-of-its-kind Nuclear Energy Summit that was billed as the most high-profile international meeting on nuclear energy ever, boasting the attendance of representatives from 30 countries, including a few heads of state. This day-long meeting on March 21 was the latest in a series of efforts being made in the last few years to pitch nuclear energy as an important solution to global problems like climate change and energy security. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which organised last week’s event, called it a “landmark” and a “turning point” in the efforts to expand the use of nuclear energy for generating clean electricity. The meeting was not meant to produce any decisions or finalise any agreement. Rather, it was another attempt to build momentum for a greater acceptance of nuclear energy which many countries continue to have apprehensions about. Such apprehensions were aggravated by the Fukushima accident in 2011. The continuing crisis at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the first nuclear facility to have been caught in a dangerous armed conflict, has also been a source of grave concern. But global nuclear advocates, led by the IAEA, an intergovernmental organisation that works for the safe and peaceful use of nuclear science and technology, have been very active in the last few years in highlighting the potential of nuclear power to accelerate the clean energy transition that the world so desperately needs to achieve its climate change goals. The IAEA has launched an 'Atoms4Climate' initiative to talk about this and has begun an engagement with the climate community, especially at the COPs or the annual year-ending climate conferences. Two years ago, at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, IAEA set up a pavilion for the first time, and at COP28 in Dubai last year, about 20 countries pledged to work towards tripling global nuclear energy installed capacity by 2050. The case for nuclear energy The case for nuclear energy as a possible substitute for fossil fuels, at least for electricity generation, is not without merits. It is a clean source of energy with a minimal carbon footprint. There is negligible release of emissions during the electricity generation process. Even when the entire life cycle is considered – accounting for activities like reactor construction, uranium mining and enrichment, waste disposal and storage, and other processes – greenhouse gas emissions are only in the range of 5 to 6 grams per kilowatt hour, according to IAEA. This is more than 100 times lower than coal-fired electricity, and about half the average of solar and wind generation. Some independent studies have put the emission from nuclear life cycles at much higher levels, around 50-60 grams per kilowatt-hour in some instances, depending on the processes and energy used for extraction of minerals, construction and other activities. But in most cases, nuclear power plants are known to have substantially lower carbon footprint than solar or wind projects over their entire life cycle. The other great advantage of nuclear is its perennial availability, unlike wind or solar which are season or time-dependent. It is thus suitable for baseload electricity generation that solar or wind projects are unable to do unless breakthroughs in battery storage technologies come along. For these reasons, nuclear energy features prominently in most of the decarbonisation pathways suggested by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and others. IAEA says nuclear energy is already contributing very significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power generation results in avoiding emissions of more than 1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year, according to IAEA. In the last five decades, this has resulted in a cumulative avoidance of about 70 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. What explains the poor uptake of nuclear energy? But despite these advantages, there has been a serious lack of enthusiasm for the accelerated deployment of nuclear energy. Only 31 countries in the world use nuclear energy for generating electricity. And barely seven more are working towards joining this club. The number of operational nuclear reactors has actually come down in the last 20 years, from 437 in 2003 to 411 now, IAEA data shows. The average life of these reactors is more than 31 years, which highlights the fact that few new reactors have come onboard in the last decade. The total installed electricity generation capacity has shown only a marginal increase during this period, from about 360 GW in 2003 to 371 GW now. Nuclear energy accounts for less than 10 per cent of global commercial electricity generation, and its share has been declining for almost three decades now. Safety concerns are not the only reason for the poor uptake of nuclear energy in recent years, though those would be some of the most important, particularly after the Fukushima accident. Nuclear power also happens to be the costliest electricity right now. Nuclear reactors require high investments and technology base, take years to build, and have to operate under a variety of regulations and constraints, making them unattractive for countries wanting to quickly ramp up their electricity generation in an affordable manner. The kind of technology breakthroughs that have driven down the costs of solar and wind in the last decade, thus enabling rapid adoption, have not happened in the nuclear sector. The much-discussed technology of small modular reactors is far from being mature. It is hurdles like these that have worked against a rapid growth in nuclear energy in the last three decades. But the climate emergency is creating an opportunity for a greater push for nuclear energy. As IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi told The Indian Express in a recent interview, there was a growing realisation that without nuclear “you would never get anywhere near the climate goals. Nowhere near”. COP outreach Die-hard climate activists who have been demanding deep and rapid cuts in production and consumption of fossil fuels aren’t really great supporters of nuclear energy. The annual climate conferences have usually maintained a safe distance from the nuclear industry and its advocates. But that is changing. In the last five years, nuclear energy has progressively gained visibility at these conferences. IAEA has now begun participating in these like any other international agency with observer kind of status, organising side events and talks on the potential of nuclear energy. The Dubai meeting last year was particularly eventful. Representatives from 22 countries, including several that do not currently use nuclear-generated electricity, committed themselves to working together to achieve a tripling of global nuclear energy installed capacity by 2050 from 2020 levels. This is an extremely ambitious goal, though broadly in line with some pathways projected by the IPCC for achieving global net-zero emission levels by 2050. Even more significant was the fact that the final outcome from Dubai formally acknowledged nuclear energy as one of the zero, or low-emission technologies, that needed to be accelerated to achieve rapid and deep decarbonisation. This was the first time that nuclear energy was mentioned in any COP outcome. According to IAEA projections, before the tripling declaration, the total electricity generating capacity of nuclear power was set to grow by 22 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050 from 2020 levels. Tripling appears to be a herculean task right now. What is India’s position on nuclear energy? India, which currently has 23 operational nuclear reactors, does acknowledge the role of nuclear energy in its decarbonisation plan and is planning for a rapid expansion in the coming years, even though the share of nuclear energy in electricity generation is likely to remain extremely modest in the foreseeable future. The currently operational reactors have a combined installed electricity generating capacity of 7,480 MW (about 7.5 GW). At least ten more reactors are under construction, and the capacity is supposed to triple to 22,480 MW by 2031-32. The share of nuclear energy in total electricity generation capacity is just about 3.1 per cent, among the lowest in countries that do use nuclear energy. Only Brazil and Iran have a lower share of nuclear energy in their electricity generation mix. Even after expansion, this share is not expected to go beyond 5 per cent. Interestingly, India skipped the tripling declaration at COP28 in Dubai. It was not the only nuclear power-producing country to do so, several others also did not sign up. But India was very much part of the Brussels meeting last week, with Department of Atomic Energy Secretary Ajit Kumar Mohanty in attendance. Mohanty said that India was firmly of the view that “nuclear power is a clean and environment-friendly source of electricity, which is available 24x7, and can provide the country long-term energy security in a sustainable manner.” Mohanty talked about India’s ongoing efforts to triple its current nuclear power capacity by 2030, and said that the aim was for nuclear energy to have a “significant share in electricity mix of India by the year 2047”. He did not offer a target for 2047. Former head of the Department of Atomic Energy Anil Kakodkar believes that India wasn’t moving fast enough to expand its nuclear power sector. In a recent interview with The Indian Express, Kakodkar expressed surprise at India staying away from the tripling declaration at COP28 and said India had the potential, and also the imperative, to grow its nuclear energy sector at a much faster pace. “There is a perception that renewables will solve everything. In the short-term, that might be the case. But as our hunger for clean energy increases, the demand cannot be met without getting in nuclear energy in a big way. Every projection shows that,” Kakodkar had said.
