Signaling its intent to fast-track India’s domestic nuclear power programme, the government on Wednesday approved a proposal to construct 10 indigenous units of pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs), each with the capacity of generating 700 Mega Watt (MW) of electricity, in a fully home grown initiative.
This takes the number of planned 700MW PHWRs in India to 14, four of which are currently under construction at Kakrapar Atomic Power Station in Gujarat and Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in Rajasthan. Currently, India has 12 operational PHWRs with significantly lower capacities of 100 MW, 200 MW, 220 MW and 540 MW. The PHWR in Kakrapar, which is expected to go in for trial runs in June, will potentially be India’s first 700MW PHWR to be commissioned.
PHWRs were initially developed in Canada with the experience it gained working with wartime allied countries in the 1940s and was known as CANDU. In 1956, it supplied a 40 MW CANDU reactor to India, heavy water for which was supplied by the United States (US). It was, allegedly, plutonium derived from the spent fuel of this reactor that India used to detonate its first nuclear device at Pokhran, Rajasthan in 1974.
How Are PHWRs Different From Light Water Reactors?
PHWRs reactors use heavy water as a neutron moderator and coolant and natural uranium as fuel, unlike Light Water Reactors (LWRs) which use uranium enriched up to 3 to 5 per cent as fuel and normal water as both its coolant and neutron moderator. Another major difference between the two is that a PHWRs produce more plutonium and tritium as a by-product compared to LWRs. Also, PHWRs do not need to be shut down for refuelling while LWRs are refuelled after shutdown.
Why Does India Choose Heavy Water Reactors?
India’s nuclear power program is currently based mainly on a series of PHWRs, some of which have been separated from reactors meant to feed the country’s nuclear weapons programme and placed under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). PHWRs have been chosen because of availability of fuel, indigenous technology and expertise, resources and the need for power generation infrastructure.
A PHWR uses unenriched natural uranium as its fuel, unlike LWRs. Having placed most its PHWRs under safeguards, Indian has made sure that it can use imported fuel in these facilities. In the most likely scenario, India will place some of the new PHWRs it is constructing under IAEA safeguards, ensuring continuous supply of fuel for them.
The use of PHWRs also brings other advantages. Because these reactors use natural uranium as fuel, they can be operated without constructing expensive facilities that are required to enrich uranium. The PHWRs are also more efficient than comparable LWR as they produce more energy per kilogram of mined uranium. These advantages make PHWRs ideal for India’s nuclear energy programme.
Opponents of PHWRs cite the high cost of heavy water as a drawback. But in view of the aforementioned fact that PHWRs produce more energy per kilogram of mined uranium as compared to LWR, the high cost of the heavy water can bee seen as a trade-off against reduced fuel costs.
Another important point that influences government’s choice is the presence of indigenous technology and expertise. The first two PHWRs were built in Rajasthan with Canadian collaboration and became operational in the year 1973 and 1981. Since then, India has invested in development of this design in a sustained manner, developing lower capacities of 100 MW, 200 MW, 220 MW and 540 MW before moving to 700 MW.
The choice also marks a response to the near collapse of Westinghouse, the US-based reactor maker that was set to sign a deal with India for the construction of six of its AP1000 reactors a single site in southeastern India. The firm, owned by Japan’s Toshiba, filed for bankruptcy in March, raising doubts about whether it can complete the India deal. GE-Hitachi and France’s state-owned Areva were also expected to build nuclear reactors in India, but financial troubles surrounding these reactor makers have further dimmed the prospects of international cooperation.
Therefore, switching to indigenous technology was the only reliable way forward.
However, this is the first time that the government has cleared the construction of 10 nuclear reactors in one go. With another four already under construction, why does India need 10 new nuclear reactors?
Why India needs more nuclear reactors?
Of India’s total power generation capacity of 326,848.53MW, two-thirds, that is nearly 217,492.26 MW, is fuelled by coal. Renewable energy accounts for 57,260.23 MW. Nuclear energy accounts for only 6,780 MW, that is 2.07 per cent of total capacity. Therefore, as India moves towards cleaner sources of energy, nuclear power plants can replace plants fuelled by coal and other polluting fuels.
Moreover, India has committed, under the Paris climate change accord, that by 2030, at least 40 per cent of its electricity will be generated from non-fossil sources. To replace coal using thermal plants with nuclear power plants, as France has done, India needs to construct these in large numbers. India’s plan to ramp up nuclear output to 32,000 MW by 2032 can contribute significantly.
But clean energy, although the most important driver, is not the only reason. Well over 300 million Indians live without electricity when the country’s per capita electricity consumption has reached 1010 kilowatt-hour(kWh). The per capita consumption in 2013-14 was 957 kWh in 2013-14 and is expected to rise to 5300 units of power. To keep up with this growth in demand, India will have to construct a large number of nuclear power plants.
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.
Globally, around 80% of wastewater flows back into the ecosystem without being treated or reused, according to the United Nations.
This can pose a significant environmental and health threat.
In the absence of cost-effective, sustainable, disruptive water management solutions, about 70% of sewage is discharged untreated into India’s water bodies.
A staggering 21% of diseases are caused by contaminated water in India, according to the World Bank, and one in five children die before their fifth birthday because of poor sanitation and hygiene conditions, according to Startup India.
As we confront these public health challenges emerging out of environmental concerns, expanding the scope of public health/environmental engineering science becomes pivotal.
For India to achieve its sustainable development goals of clean water and sanitation and to address the growing demands for water consumption and preservation of both surface water bodies and groundwater resources, it is essential to find and implement innovative ways of treating wastewater.
It is in this context why the specialised cadre of public health engineers, also known as sanitation engineers or environmental engineers, is best suited to provide the growing urban and rural water supply and to manage solid waste and wastewater.
Traditionally, engineering and public health have been understood as different fields.
Currently in India, civil engineering incorporates a course or two on environmental engineering for students to learn about wastewater management as a part of their pre-service and in-service training.
Most often, civil engineers do not have adequate skills to address public health problems. And public health professionals do not have adequate engineering skills.
India aims to supply 55 litres of water per person per day by 2024 under its Jal Jeevan Mission to install functional household tap connections.
The goal of reaching every rural household with functional tap water can be achieved in a sustainable and resilient manner only if the cadre of public health engineers is expanded and strengthened.
In India, public health engineering is executed by the Public Works Department or by health officials.
This differs from international trends. To manage a wastewater treatment plant in Europe, for example, a candidate must specialise in wastewater engineering.
Furthermore, public health engineering should be developed as an interdisciplinary field. Engineers can significantly contribute to public health in defining what is possible, identifying limitations, and shaping workable solutions with a problem-solving approach.
Similarly, public health professionals can contribute to engineering through well-researched understanding of health issues, measured risks and how course correction can be initiated.
Once both meet, a public health engineer can identify a health risk, work on developing concrete solutions such as new health and safety practices or specialised equipment, in order to correct the safety concern..
There is no doubt that the majority of diseases are water-related, transmitted through consumption of contaminated water, vectors breeding in stagnated water, or lack of adequate quantity of good quality water for proper personal hygiene.
Diseases cannot be contained unless we provide good quality and adequate quantity of water. Most of the world’s diseases can be prevented by considering this.
Training our young minds towards creating sustainable water management systems would be the first step.
Currently, institutions like the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) are considering initiating public health engineering as a separate discipline.
To leverage this opportunity even further, India needs to scale up in the same direction.