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
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)