Indian Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors are Now Among the Best-Performing Globally, Says Anil Kakodkar

India is a non-signatory to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. This brought many restrictions on the civilian use of nuclear technology. This has been a basic political challenge for our nuclear-energy programme.

After India’s 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion, international embargoes tightened. Canada, which was collaborating with us on PHWRs [pressurised heavy water reactors] in Rajasthan, withdrew. We had to complete the reactors ourselves.

The 1998 tests further tightened embargoes, making progress difficult. We had to overcome external technology restrictions while developing reactors indigenously. This took time, but the result is a robust and reliable system. Indian PHWRs are now among the best-performing reactors globally. For instance, Kaiga Unit-1 once set a world record of 962 days of continuous operation.

Only Russia has one or two SMR prototypes. No SMR has been deployed commercially. SMRs can only be competitive if manufacturing is 100% in India and the order volume is large enough for mass production.

In contrast, BSR is based on the proven 220MW PHWR, which already has hundreds of reactor-years of operating experience. It is already commercially viable and can be gradually modularised.

SMRs are being hyped, particularly by Western vendors, because in their countries, the programme has come to a halt. Now they want to revive it. Larger the reactor, larger the financial risk because of the capital involved. So, it makes sense for them to talk about small reactors.

In Western countries, the additional electricity required is only to cope up with the capacity which will be phased out due to ageing because per capita energy consumption in advanced countries is not going to be higher.

So, they need marginal additions. They require a large order book which a country like India can offer. So, they're all descending on India and trying to brainwash us.

About 60–75% of new capacity should come from large reactors, especially the 700MW PHWR today, and later, fast-breeder reactors and thorium-based reactors.

That said, SMRs do have niche roles such as in hydrogen production, which is crucial for decarbonising industries. Centralised hydrogen transport is difficult due to technical challenges, so decentralised production near industries is attractive. But, as I said, that can be met with BSR right now.

Another niche area is retiring coal plants. These offer excellent brownfield sites with existing cooling water arrangements, power evacuation and railway line for transportation of coal. But since these sites are often near population centres, SMRs must meet extremely high safety standards.

Nuclear is as clean as any green energy and should be eligible for all forms of green financing.

The real challenge is policy uncertainty. Financial institutions see investment risks primarily due to unclear policies. To overcome this, we must build confidence among project developers, banks and investors.

Fukushima happened because of a tsunami which had a serious impact on the nuclear power plant and the locality. The casualties were all related to the tsunami. Yet the trauma in public perception was linked to the reactor, not the tsunami.

In the case of Chernobyl, there was a fire and a comparatively larger fallout. Studies conducted 10 and 20 years later showed that the majority of health effects were psychosomatic, caused by forced relocation, restrictions and resulting anxiety.

Scientific evidence shows that below a certain threshold, radiation has no harmful consequences. There is always some risk but there must be a balance of risk and benefits.

NPCIL [Nuclear Power Corporation of India] should be mandated to act as a mentor for other companies wanting to pursue nuclear power deployment.

NTPC [a thermal-power company] entering nuclear through joint ventures is a good step. It is also considering a standalone nuclear company, which is [a] positive [sign]. Similar initiatives could be taken by other energy PSUs.

We should allow companies to tie up with foreign suppliers, provided tariffs are competitive in the Indian market.

I have been championing that we should go forward within this framework. But Western companies face difficulty as the liability remains on their books. Financially, for companies, it becomes an untenable proposition. But the Indian Liability Act has been shown to be consistent with the Vienna Convention.

People suffering is not right. At the same time, the interests of companies also need to be protected because we want nuclear power to grow.