ARSHIYA
URVEEJA BOSE
Energy,
Resources & Environmental Policies
2nd
March 2005
Nuclear Energy in India:
Development, Performance &
Public Opinion
Abstract: The paper begins with an
evaluative summary of the energy profile and energy crisis in India. It then
provides a historical background on the development of nuclear energy and
assesses its progress. Finally, the paper ends with a synthesis of public
opinion and attitudes towards nuclear power as an alternate energy resource of
the future.
BACKGROUND:
India, the largest democracy in the world is a vast country on many terms, population, area, nature and resources being just few of the things that make it so diversified. India spans a land area of 2,973,190 square kilometers, or slightly more than one third that of the United States and consists of 35 administrative divisions, including 28 states and 7 union territories (Fig.1) India's currency, the rupee (Rs), has an exchange rate (as of February 2005) of about Rs 42.1 per U.S. dollar. The GDP is $2.66 trillion, which ranks it 4th among 212 countries and territories of the British Commonwealth (Power 1975).
In May 2000 the population of India, officially reached the 1.0 billion mark which means that India is the second most populated country in the world, exceeded only by China (Smith 1991). At a growth rate of 1.6% per annum, the country's population is projected to grow to 1.16 billion by the year 2010. The population density varies over the country. The density is high in the coastal areas and river basins and extremely low in the Himalayas and in dense forests areas.
India holds a unique position as a nation that is rushing towards economic development but still struggling for basic survival needs (Poneman 1981). With significant portions of the population lacking access to nutrition, clean water, sanitation, basic health care and education benefits, India continues to strive toward improving the quality of life for its citizens. The United Nations Development Program ranks India at a level of “medium human development” number 115 on the list of 162 countries (Poneman 1981). The Indian economy has made an enormous stride since Independence, achieving self-sufficiency in food for a rising population, increasing per capita GDP by over three-folds reducing illiteracy, creating a strong and diversified industrial base, building up infrastructure, developing technological capabilities in sophisticated areas and establishing growing links with an integrated world economy (Ministry of Power 2004).
THE ENERGY PROFILE & CRISIS:
India annually consumes about three percent of the world's total energy. The country is the world's sixth largest energy consumer. Continued economic development and population growth are driving energy demand in India faster than the energy generation. India’s energy generation is currently fraught with problems, from inefficient and underutilized power plants to lack of research initiatives. Moreover, industry cites energy supply as one of the biggest limitations on economic progress. The Ministry of Power estimates that in order to be consistent with the Government’s target of 8% annual GDP growth, the energy power supply will have to increase by more than 10% annually, which seems highly unlikely (Fig. 2). Sizeable foreign investment would be needed to achieve that kind of growth, and foreign investors have had substantial difficulties making projects happen in India due to extensive delays (Ministry of Power 2004).
Despite increases in energy use in India, consumption on a per capita basis is still low in relation to other countries. In 2000, India's per capita consumption was 12.6 million British thermal units (Btus) against a world average of 65.4 million Btus and a U.S. average of 351 million Btus. In 2004, the total energy generation in India was approximately 600000GWh for the year (Fig. 3). On the other hand the total consumption was about 355810 GWh for the entire year (Table 2). The industrial sector consumed the most energy, 33% and about 120447 GWh. Agriculture and domestic use of energy were roughly 25%. (Fig. 4). In the past, the Indian government has focused much attention on coal as the means to generate energy that meets the demands of the above sectors. Oil and natural gas have been downplayed somewhat because of uncertainty in global supply and price, and a heavier reliance on imports (Pachauri 2004). It is only recently that nuclear energy has been viewed as a potentially viable energy source for the future.
HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT:
India was the first country in Asia to develop a nuclear program. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1948, under the supervision of the Ministry of Atomic Energy, just one year after attaining independence. The goal of the Atomic Energy Commission, was to set up an institute to conduct research on nuclear phenomena. Their long-term dream was for India to achieve energy self-sufficiency and they believed that with domestic research, India would not have to look internationally for nuclear experts (DAE a). Today, nuclear power programs and research and development activities are under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister of India. The Prime Minister operates in coalition with the Atomic Energy Commission to formulate policies, safety standards and regulations (Beck 2002). The commission approves the construction of nuclear stations and has full executive powers to implement programs. There is no public participation at any stage of the decision-making process. The local people get news of a project only when they receive an eviction notice and their land is acquired for a project of “national importance.” (Ahmed 1998).
Since its inception, the Atomic Energy Commission has played an active role in the energy sector and has been responsible for the set up of many nuclear energy agencies including the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). NPCIL is a wholly owned enterprise of the Government of India under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy. It was created with the objective of undertaking the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the atomic power stations for generation of electricity (DAE b).
One of the first steps of NPCIL in the field of atomic energy was to carry out an extensive geological survey of the country to locate and evaluate resources of nuclear materials. The survey revealed that although India had vast thorium resources, the uranium deposits, by comparison were low. At the time of the first survey, Uranium-238 was estimated to amount to only about 15,000 tonnes (DAE b). In comparison, more than 300,000 metric tonnes were known to exist in the United States and Canada. Therefore, the choice of technology used to construct the nuclear plants and reactors were dictated by the main consideration that the nuclear processes needed to be capable of utilizing the limited uranium resource to the maximum extent possible (DAE b). Furthermore, the research and development team recognized that no matter how efficient the reactor system was, the potential for power generation from uranium in thermal reactors alone was not going to be very high. Consequently, the whole thrust of the Indian nuclear program has been on the utilization of thorium. It is only recently, in the past couple of years, that new discoveries of uranium have been made. The uranium reserves are now estimated to be much higher and anywhere between 30,000 and 70,000 metric tones (DAE a), shifting the programs’ interest to uranium-fueled nuclear power plants.
The Atomic Energy Commission was also instrumental in formulating the 15-Year Plan which proposed that India go in for massive new construction to bring the nuclear capacity to 10,000 MWe by 2000. The 15-Year Plan also included building uranium mines and mills to produce a lifetime supply of purified Uranium for all the reactors (DAE a). However, performance has not lived up to these goals. The Indian nuclear program has developed very slowly and painfully. Thirty-five years after the first reactor was ordered and installed, nuclear capacity is still well below the world average (Smith 1991). Nuclear power today accounts for less than two percent of the total energy generated in the country and has a quantitative value of 17720 GWh (DAE a). As of the mid-1990s, NPCIL’s losses were running at more than Rupees 10 billion (Pachauri 2004). Three fourths of these losses were due to defaults on payments by state-owned energy boards. The rest of the losses were due to poor performance of the nuclear plants. Not only did the nuclear projects take a long time to initiate, but the reactors were also built with poor and inefficient material. High fuel prices, limited research and development and delayed and expensive licensing processes all added to the company’s losses (Power 1975). Only in 1999, did NPCIL declare its first-ever dividend and the profits were returned to the Indian government. Projected Government spending on new projects for the current five-year plan (2002 - 2007), is $193.5 million, and five times more than the previous five-year plan (Ministry of Power 2004). The purpose of establishing NPCIL was in the hope that it could operate like a private company and raise capital from the market to fund further expansion. The anticipation was that there would be less government interference in day-to-day decision making. However, the last ten years have demonstrated, unequivocally, that nuclear power in a country like India cannot be sustained without massive government help (DAE b).
India is still the only “developing” country to have acquired the capability to design and build nuclear power stations and to provide fuel cycle services such as uranium mining. It is also the only country in the world to rely solely on medium-sized power reactors for its existing and future program (Agnihotri 2002). Today, NPCIL is operating fourteen nuclear power units at six locations and is implementing the construction of eight nuclear power projects. The existing operating power stations of the company are spread over the states of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and two projects in the state of Gujarat (Table 2 & Fig. 5).
NUCLEAR POWER: POLICIES & THE
LONG TERM VISION
Overall, the nuclear development program of the Government of India is the basic pursuit of expanding the generation of nuclear energy at viable profit margins (DAE b). The nuclear power program also advocates sustainability and envisages utilization of the abundant thorium reserves on a large scale.
In 1974 and 1999, India conducted nuclear weapons tests and faced severe opposition from the international community. As a result of conducting nuclear-weapons tests India was excluded from the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Consequently, India’s nuclear power program proceeds largely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries. Strategies have been directed towards complete independence in nuclear technology. Government policies have emphasized uranium exploration and mining, reactor design and construction, and efficient reprocessing and waste management (DAE b). Nuclear energy policies have also centered on making nuclear power more accessible for public use. The country’s nuclear programs as a whole, as well as its individual projects, are strongly related to civilian needs.
The outlook is improving for India's nuclear power industry. India has sufficient uranium reserves. The average capacity factor for India's nuclear power plants has been trending upwards during the past several years and now stands at about 85%. The Department of Atomic Energy plans to have an installed generation capacity of 20,000 MWe in the country by the year 2020 (DAE a). India is charging ahead with additions to its nuclear generating infrastructure, with several new units now under construction. On the charts is the largest nuclear power plant in the country of 1000MWe which is expected to be in operation by 2008. India is also working on a fast breeder program. Technology in the field of nuclear and atomic energy has already reached a stage of maturity. Further efforts have been proposed to be made to reduce the plant gestation period, reduce capital costs and improve designs and operating practices to achieve the highest possible efficiency. Specific aims of research and development are to develop plants having long design life, higher thermal efficiency and very high burn-up fuel (DAE b).
NUCLEAR ENERGY & PUBLIC OPINION
In the early days of the nuclear program, general public opinion was almost unanimous as to its desirability. This was the only government program to which people looked with pride. The public felt that the program’s success would show that Indian scientists and engineers were at the forefront of science and technology (Agnihotri 2002). However, this initial dedication towards nuclear energy has since then, had a history of opposition. Today, many Indians are highly skeptical about the Government’s policies and intent behind developing nuclear energy (Kapur 1970).
Ever since the international oil crisis in 1973, the Government of India has stressed the importance of nuclear energy in meeting the long-term needs of the industrial demand and anticipated shortfalls in fossil, thermal and hydro sources of energy (Ollapally 2001). This commitment has been complicated, however, by a very basic issue raised by the intelligentsia, scientific community and even the layman: to what degree is the growth of India’s nuclear energy program primarily intended to maintain India’s nuclear weapons option, or to what extent is India’s nuclear weapons potential merely an unintended spin-off from civilian nuclear energy development? (Ollapally 2001). Allegations of military motives behind India’s nuclear energy development rest mainly on the questionable viability of nuclear power as compared to coal-fired thermal and hydroelectric power available in India (Ollapally 2001).
Public opposition to nuclear energy has also been steered due to questions about safety issues associated with nuclear plants. Since India’s exclusion from the NPT, and no exchange of technology, reactor design etc. the general public has questioned the reliability of the nuclear reactors (Udaykumar 2002). It is possible that steel reactor vessels may become brittle due to neutron bombardment of the steel. Employees with NPCIL are worried that the nuclear plants are not equipped with the latest technology and infrastructure (Udaykumar 2002). A scientific study conducted around a power station has revealed appalling health consequences on the local population. A survey of 2860 people living on the periphery of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in central India showed the following:
- An extraordinary rise in congenital deformities
- A significantly higher incidence of spontaneous abortions and still births
- An increase in chronic diseases especially amongst the young
- More cancer patients and cancer deaths in villages near the plant
- A difference of more than 11 years in the average age of people who had died from one year to the next
Additionally, a recent study conducted around the Kalpakam nuclear plant revealed that a temperature rise of the sea due to radioactivity had affected fishing. The fisherman in Kalpakkam had been able to catch only dead fish and many fisheries were facing immense losses. Local fisherman protested, voicing their concerns about the radioactive levels in the sea water as well the irrigation, drinking water and the general health of the environment and the people near the nuclear plant (Hallam 1999).
Minor accidents have been commonplace in Indian nuclear reactors. However, in the last few years there have been a series of near misses at three different plants around the country (Udaykumar 2002). In one particular incident, there was a flood due to heavy monsoons at the Tarapur nuclear station. Now, everyone is scared of another Chernobyl disaster.
In a country like India where more than 50% of the GDP comes from agriculture, environmental issues are also a top concern. The problem of safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel has not been resolved even by highly technologically-advanced countries (Udaykumar 2002). Media reports and news of fervent public opposition to dangers of nuclear power plants that have led to limitations on the activity of plants in USA, Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden and Russia has had its influence on Indian environmental activists. Many suggest that India should learn from the experience in these countries and opt for energy alternatives that do not pose a threat to agriculture, environment and the health of the people (Udaykumar 2002).
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
There is no doubt that India, a country with a huge population encountering rapid economic growth, has an energy crisis. At present the country is said to be facing a shortfall of about 40,000 MW (Smith 1991). Conventional energy generation that involves burning of coal releases massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. This has a disastrous effect on our environment. Economic reforms that include privatization of coal mines and attracting foreign capital do not seem to be helping either the environmental issues or the energy power shortage in the country (Smith 1991). Still, the general public opinion seems to suggest that all these things do not necessarily mean that India needs to embark on costly and highly dangerous nuclear power generation. There are many viable non-conventional energy sources such as solar, wind and bio-mass that have not being exploited to their fullest potential (Hallam 1999).
The history of nuclear development in India reveals that for the most part, civilian participation, and the involvement of local people in the construction of nuclear plants has been neglected (Hallam 1999). In fact, the human-dimension of this energy issue, and the impact of nuclear energy power plants on local people has been completely overlooked and ignored in the policy, planning and decision-making process. With a history of public opposition to nuclear energy power plants and avid skepticism of the Government of India’s intentions behind nuclear development, it seems evident that if nuclear energy is to become dominant in the future, it needs to gain public favor. In a country with 1 billion people and its economy crucially dependent on the will of its labor force, nuclear energy seems farfetched unless policies, programs and initiatives approach the human-dimension and are holistic in their outlook.
APPENDIX:
Table 1: India’s Energy Consumption by
Fuel: 2004
|
Fuel |
Usage |
|
Coal |
6.68 |
|
Petroleum |
4.12 |
|
Natural Gas |
0.90 |
|
Hydroelectric |
0.79 |
|
Nuclear |
0.17 |
|
Non-Hydro Renewables |
0.01 |
|
Total |
12. |
Source:
Department of Atomic Energy (a)
Table 2: Operating Nuclear Power Plants in
India: 2004
|
Power Plant |
Owner |
Location |
No. of |
Total |
|
|
City |
State |
||||
|
Rajasthan |
NPCIL |
Rawatbhata |
Rajasthan |
4 |
740 |
|
Kaiga |
NPCIL |
Kaiga |
Karnataka |
2 |
440 |
|
Kakrapar |
NPCIL |
Kakrapar |
Gujarat |
2 |
440 |
|
Narora |
NPCIL |
Narora |
Uttar Pradesh |
2 |
440 |
|
Madras |
NPCIL |
Madras |
Tamil Nadu |
2 |
340 |
|
Tarapur |
NPCIL |
Tarapur |
Maharashtra |
2 |
320 |
Source:
Department of Atomic Energy (a)
Figure 1: Political Map of Indian States and Union Territories
(Power 1975)
Figure 2: Growth of Total Energy Generation
in India
Source: Ministry of Power
Figure 3: Mode wise Generation of
Electricity in India: 2004
Source: Ministry of Power
Figure 4: All India Electricity Consumption
Pattern by Industry: 2004
Source: Ministry of Power
Figure 5: Locations of India’s Nuclear
Power Plants: 2004
Source: Department of Atomic
Energy (a)
REFERENCES:
Agnihotri, A (2002). Out with thermal, in with nuclear power. The Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, April 22, 2002.
Ahmed, S (1998). Public opinion and nuclear option for South Asia, Asian Survey, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp727 – 744.
Beck, P. & Grimston, M (2002). Double of quits? The global future of civil nuclear energy. Sustainable Development Programme: The Royal Institute of International Affairs
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE
a), Government of
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE
b), Government of
Hallam, J (1999). Nuking the public interest? Indiatogether.org
<
http://www.indiatogether.org/stories/nukeTN.htm > Last accessed 3/3/2005
Kapur, A (1970). Peace and power in India’s nuclear policy, Asian Survey, Vol. 10, No. 9, pp 779 – 788.
Ministry of Power. (2004). Nuclear Power Generation Companies.
< http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp
> Last accessed 3/3/2005
Ollapally, D. (2001). Mixed
motives in
Pachauri, R (2004). An integrated energy policy is imperative for growth. Deccan Herald: 22 November 2004.
Poneman, D (1981). Nuclear policies in developing countries. International Affairs, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp 568-584.
Power, P (1975). The energy crisis and Indian development. Asian Survey, Vol 15, No 4, pp 328 – 345.
Smith, T.B. (1991). India’s electric power crisis: why do the lights go out? Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp 376 – 392.
Udaykumar, S.P. (2002). Taking the wind out of Nuclear. Indiatogether.org
<
http://www.indiatogether.org/environment/articles/nukealt.htm > Accessed 3/3/2005