The Nuclear Dilemma: How Necessary Is Fission Energy For India's Net Zero Targets?

This is where nuclear energy comes into the picture. Over the past 6 months, the idea of "nuclear for net zero" has been gaining significant steam. 

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP 28 held in Dubai in December 2023, a coalition of 20 countries declared they would triple their nuclear capacity by 2050. Though India is not part of this coalition, it too has drawn up similar, if not more ambitious, plans for harnessing the atom to create energy.  

Nuclear energy had another spotlight moment when world leaders gathered in Brussels in March 2024 for the first nuclear energy summit ever held.

It was at this summit that India declared its plan to triple its nuclear energy capacity by 2030. This means India’s nuclear capacity, which currently stands at present around 7.5 GW, will be ramped up to 22.5 GW over the next 16 years. 

Demystifying Net Zero 

To understand where nuclear fits in the race to net zero, it is imperative to first know what net zero truly signifies. Net zero does not equate to zero carbon emissions. Net zero refers to a state where the amount of emissions produced and released into the atmosphere and the amount of emissions removed from the atmosphere are equal. This is why net zero is based on the twin pillars of reduction of emissions and removal of emissions. 

What this implies: there is no one-shot solution to reach net zero -- neither solar nor nuclear. We must minimise emission generation as far as possible while simultaneously removing surplus emissions through natural carbon sinks or technologies like carbon capture and storage. 

Where Does Nuclear Energy Stand? 

60 years ago, for the first time a nuclear power plant at Obninsk was connected to a power grid in the Soviet Union. 

The World Nuclear Association reports that today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries, with a combined capacity of about 390 GW. In 2022 these reactors generated approximately 10 per cent of the world's electricity. 

Unlike solar, wind, and hydro, nuclear energy is technically non-renewable. 

This is because nuclear energy is generated through the fission of uranium, which although currently abundant, is still an exhaustible source present in limited quantities. 

However, nuclear waste is a by-product of nuclear energy generation that can be recycled and reused as fuel to generate more energy. This brings nuclear energy nearly at par with renewables. 

India’s nuclear power programme is based on the principle of "reprocess to reuse". India has adopted a closed fuel cycle, where the spent fuel of one stage becomes the feeder fuel for the next stage.  

When it comes to emissions, nuclear power emits 4 times less CO2 than solar power, 2 times less CO2 than hydroelectricity, and the same amount as wind power. Further, 1 kg of CO2 emissions are saved every time a unit of nuclear power replaces an equivalent amount of coal-based power. 

This means that when India generates 37,456 million units of nuclear energy, it amounts to savings of over 37 million tonnes of CO2 in a year. 

The fact that nuclear power is a ‘low carbon’ energy source simply cannot be disputed. However, there is still hesitation to put nuclear in the clean energy category because of the radioactive waste produced. 

A clean energy source that produces toxic waste is indeed an intriguing paradox. 

What Do Opponents Of Nuclear Energy Say? 

A Wikipedia page on ‘anti-nuclear organizations’ is a testimony to the fact that nuclear power has its fair share of haters. These organizations include environmental, direct action, and consumer protection groups. 

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) claims that a nuclear path to net zero is a ‘false narrative’. On the heels of the first-ever nuclear summit held in Brussels in March 2024, WWF argued that "building nuclear power generation is too slow, too expensive and too risky". 

Greenpeace too has been vocal about its opposition to nuclear energy. According to the organisation, nuclear energy delivers too little to be considered worthy, is too expensive and too slow, creates huge amounts of toxic waste, and is dangerous and vulnerable. 

Chornobyl, Fukushima, and Kyshtym are three of the world’s worst nuclear disasters that serve as grim reminders of the devastating damage that can ensue in case things go wrong. 

Clearing Up The Misconceptions 

India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) clarifies certain misconceptions about nuclear energy. The Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) 1 and 2 nuclear power plants in Maharashtra are producing the cheapest source of energy all over the country at 92 paise/unit. 

Kudankulam nuclear power plant, India’s newest, generates electricity that is being sold at a very competitive price of Rs 3 per unit.

India’s sole nuclear power operator NPCIL is an AAA-rated company making commercial profit. This begets the argument that nuclear power is too expensive, and not commercially viable. This does not hold ground, at least in India. 

To the question of the large amount of radioactive waste generated as a by-product of nuclear energy generation, the DAE mentions that this negative externality is not applicable in India. 

"The quantity of waste from nuclear power plants in India is much smaller due to our adoption of the closed fuel cycle. We, therefore, treat our spent fuel not as waste, but as wealth", noted DAE.

On the issue of safety, DAE says, "It is unfair to blame nuclear power as perennially unsafe by citing the three accidents that have globally happened in the entire history of nuclear power plant operation. Thanks to the diligence of our scientists and engineers, we have a commendable record of operating our nuclear fleet for over 40 years without any serious incident". 

Moreover, India has a dedicated regulatory body -- the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, which is mandated to ensure that the use of ionising radiation and nuclear energy in India does not cause undue risk to the health of the people and the environment. 

When it comes to whether India should go for nuclear or not, the DAE sums it up in the best way possible: “It is a misplaced debate in India’s context whether we should have nuclear or solar or wind or any other resource. It is not an ‘either-or’ choice. We need all of them. The ‘either-or’ debate may suit the situation in rich countries whose energy demands have been long satisfied and who are looking to replace one type of energy with another, depending on pressure from local interest groups and the expediency of their domestic politics. This debate is not for India", 

India has set itself ambitious nuclear energy targets. The medium-term goal is to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2030. The long-term goal is 1 lakh MW of nuclear energy by 2047.  

These targets are a clear indication that India understands the crucial role nuclear power will play in its quest for energy security and net zero by 2070. This is the answer to the very question we began with -- nuclear option is indeed necessary for net zero in India.

(The author, an alumnus of IIM Kozhikode, is a specialist in public policy management. Views expressed are personal.)