NOTE: Some content may not display correctly, including tables and figures. See PDF for full details.

A Strategy for Growth of Electricity Generation in India 

India is the largest democracy with nearly one-sixth of world population and low per capita income. In recent  years,  it  has  witnessed  an  impressive  growth  rate  in  GDP. Development aspirations of its populace  demand  that  this  growth  rate  be  sustained  for  a long enough time so as to enable them to have decent enough quality of life. This necessitates a matching growth in the availability of energy.  Further,  the  development process, is also driving, as expected, a shift in energy use  from  non-commercial  energy sources to commercial sources, particularly electricity. This phenomenon is similar to what has been witnessed by  the  developed  countries  in  the  west.  But  the  situation  in  India is more complex because of high density of population, continuing growth of population and demographic shift from rural to urban areas. 

PER  CAPITA  ELECTRICITY  CONSUMPTION  (kWh/YEAR) 

Electricity is the main  driving  force  for  development  in  today’s  industrial  world.  Per  capita gross national product is directly related to the per capita electricity  production  in  the country. Analysis of statistics also indicates  that  per  capita  electricity  consumption  is directly related to life expectancy. If one plots per capita consumption of electricity on  a logarithmic scale against life expectancy on a linear scale, one gets a very interesting S- shaped curve. India is right in the  middle  of  the  linear  portion  with  a  life  expectancy  of about 63 years  now.  This  means  that  any  additional  electricity  generation  in  the  country will lead to a sharp increase in life expectancy. With  increased  availability  of  electricity, smaller  towns  and  villages  will  have  safe  drinking  water,  better  sewage  treatment  facilities and better primary health care and all these have a very beneficial impact on all health parameters and on the ultimate health parameter, viz. life  expectancy. 

Let  us  look  at  some  statistics.    The  electricity  generation  in  the  fiscal  year  2001-02 was about 515 billion kWhr from electric utilities1 and additional about 120 billion  kWhr  were generated by the  captive  power  plants2. On per capita basis, this works out to 610 kWhr per year. In the countries comprising Organisation for Economic  Cooperation  & Development (OECD),  the  corresponding  figure is  about 10,000 kWhr3. If we consider that continuously improving energy intensity of GDP and the fact that  India  has  a  tropical climate, we would need per capita  electricity  generation  at  a  modest  level  of  about  5000 kWhr  per  year  to  reach  the  status  of  a  developed nation.   India’s population could rise to 1.5 billion by the year 2050. Therefore, the country has to plan to  have  total  electricity generation of about 7500  billion  kWhr  per  year  by  the  year  2050.  This  is  about  12  times the  generation  in  the  fiscal  year 2001-02.   Electricity generation of this magnitude calls for a  careful  examination  of  all  issues  related  to  sustainability  including  abundance  of available  energy  resources,  diversity  of  sources  of  energy  supply  and   technologies, security of supplies, self sufficiency, security of energy  infrastructure,  effect  on  local, regional and global environment and demand side management. 

The concept of sustainability calls for exploitation of  available  resources  to  improve  the quality of life of people  without  harming  the  interest  of  future  generations,  both  from  the point  of  availability  of  resources  as  well  as  degradation  of  environment   beyond   the inherent corrective capability  of  natural  processes.  While  environmental  burden  has  to  be kept within the limits of self-correction and geographically well distributed, development aspirations of people have to be given a place of  supreme  importance  in  all  decision making processes. After all “poverty is the biggest polluter” and is the source of several conflicts. 

While sustainable development  is  a  commonly  heard  term,  what  is  forgotten  is  that sustainable  development  requires  deployment   of   relevant   technological   options   and   this can come about only by  adopting  strategies  for  development  of  relevant  technologies. This is  not  an  easy  task  and  requires  long-range planning and that is what we have done in the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in India. We  have  adopted  a  strategy  for achieving a high degree of self-reliance by  carrying  out  research  and  technology development in a wide range of disciplines relevant to  exploitation  of  indigenous  nuclear energy resources.  1 Personal communication, CEA, May 2002.

2 PowerLine November 2002, page 10. This is based on the assumption that all captive power plants (Recognized and unrecognized) operated at a capacity factor of 50% in the fiscal year 2001-02.

3 World Energy Outlook – 2000 – Highlights, page 48, International Energy Agency, Paris.

exploitation is problematic because of a variety of reasons including  political  situation, difficult terrain and distance from electricity demand centres. In general, exploitation of hydro-resources is  handicapped  by  issues  like  displacement  of  people  and  possible  effects on ecology.  Non-conventional  sources  like  solar,  biomass  and  wind  will  play  useful  roles, but at the present level of technology development they can only complement electricity generation by base load stations based on fossil, hydro or nuclear plants. 

Our uranium deposits are limited, while thorium deposits are large.  Uranium-238,  the dominant  isotope  of  uranium  is  a  fertile  material  and  cannot  make  a  reactor  critical  by

4 Key world energy statistics, International Energy Agency, 2002 edition, page15.

itself. It has  to  be  converted  to  fissile  plutonium-239.  The  process  of  conversion  takes place in a nuclear reactor and spent fuel from thermal reactors contains plutonium-239. On discharge from the reactor, spent fuel can be dealt with in two ways. The first one termed ‘open cycle’, consists of treating the  entire  spent  fuel  as  waste  and  disposing  it  as  such. With this approach only a small fraction of the energy potential exploitable from uranium is utilised. To  avoid  this  colossal  waste,  a  closed  fuel  cycle  involving  reprocessing of spent fuel  to  separate  plutonium  and  uranium-238  has  to  be  pursued.  Besides  recovering valuable fissile material, reprocessing helps to sort out the  wastes  according  to  their activity levels and their decay period thereby assisting waste disposal and minimising environmental impact. Similarly thorium is  a  fertile  material  and  has  to  be  converted  to  a fissile material viz. Uranium-233. To ensure  long  term  energy  security  for  the  country,  we have chosen to follow  a  ‘closed  cycle’  approach.  Pursuit  of  the  closed  cycle  approach calls for setting up of reprocessing plants and breeder reactors. Closed  cycle  has  the capability to virtually de-couple energy supply  from  resource  related  constraints  for generations to come 

We, in India, have taken cognisance of these facts viz. our resource position and need for ensuring  long-term  energy  security  and  accordingly  formulated  a   three-stage   nuclear power programme. The first stage comprising setting up of  Pressurised  Heavy  Water Reactors (PHWRs) and associated  fuel  cycle  facilities  is  already  in  the  industrial  domain. The speed at  which  our  nuclear  power  programme  can  move  forward  is  no  longer  limited by technology or the country’s industrial infrastructure, but by  the  availability  of  funds.  At present, we have 12 such reactors in operation and six under construction, which include indigenously designed and developed 540 MWe units under construction  at  Tarapur.  The designs of these reactors have progressively evolved taking into account the needs for indigenisation, our own operating experience, operating experience in PHWRs outside  the country and progressive evolution of enhanced safety features.   We are now self sufficient in all aspects of PHWR technology. As we gain experience and master various aspects of the nuclear technology, performance  of  our  plants  is  also  improving.  Average  capacity factor of our plants have steadily risen from 60% in 1995-96,  to  about  90% in  the  year 2002-03. Nuclear power plants  have  so  far  produced  200  billion  units.  We  have accumulated  about  200  reactor-years  of  operational  experience   free   of   any   serious incident involving release of radioactivity to the environment.

KalpakkamReprocessingPlant,Kalpakkam,(TamilNadu)

Performance of Indian Nuclear Power Plants

Schematic of Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor

The third stage will be based on the thorium- uranium-233 cycle. Timely implementation of a programme for  thorium  utilisation  in  our  programme is very crucial to meet the increasing  energy demands in the country. A small beginning  has already been  made  by  introducing  thorium  in  a limited way in research reactors and in  PHWRs. With sustained efforts over  the  past  several  years, we have small scale experience over the entire thorium fuel cycle. A research reactor KAMINI is operating in Kalpakkam based on Uranium-233 fuel which is derived from thorium. This fuel was bred, reprocessed and  fabricated  indigenously.  An Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) has now

 been developed at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre  (BARC)  to  expedite  transition  to thorium based systems. The reactor physics design of AHWR is tuned to generate about 65% power from thorium and incorporates several advanced safety  features.  The  detailed project report of this reactor has been prepared and is undergoing a structured peer review before we launch its construction some time in 2004-05.

 As a next step towards self sustained thorium utilization with a potential for growth, a road map for the development of  Accelerator  Driven  System  (ADS)  has  been  prepared.  In  the ADS, high energy proton beam generates neutrons directly through spallation reaction in a non-fertile/ non-fissile element like lead. A sub-critical blanket can then further amplify this external neutron source as well as produce energy. Development of such a system offers the promise  of  shorter  doubling  time  with  thorium-uranium-233  systems,  incineration  of long lived actinides and fission products and can provide a robust technology base to large scale thorium utilization. As a first step towards realization of ADS, we are launching development of proton accelerator in the X five year plan. 

To jump start the nuclear power programme, two Boiling  Water Reactors were  set-up  at  Tarapur near Mumbai.  These  reactors  are still in operation with an impressive record of performance in  recent years. In a similar manner, as an additionality to the indigenous self- reliant three-stage  programme,  we are looking for likely  sources  for import of light water reactor technology. Such imports have to conform to the  latest  safety standards  and  should  be economically  attractive.  The   deal with the  Russian  Federation  for setting up 2 x 1000 MW units at Kudankulam is a  step  in  this direction.  Overall,  we  plan  to  have an  installed  nuclear  capacity   of about 20,000 MW by the year 2020 and this would include some plants based on advanced LWR technology (Table 2).

It is worthwhile to compare import of nuclear fuel with the import of  other  forms of fuel. Nuclear fuel contains energy in a concentrated   form thus requiring much less tonnage  for  fuel to be transported or stored. In the overall cost of electricity generated        from nuclear fuel, the  cost of fuel is a much smaller    component as compared to the other   components. This can be seen by the  data  in  the  Table  3. Further, the fuel discharged from a nuclear  reactor   can be reprocessed to recover plutonium, which can then be used in fast reactors to produce electricity. The cost quoted in the Table 3 assumes that the fuel is used in once through cycle and if one accounts for the recycle option, this would reduce by a factor of about 60. One may dispute the accuracy of these numbers, but one cannot dispute the order of magnitude difference between the characteristics of nuclear fuel  and  other  fuels.  Thus,  if  import  of  energy  is  a  necessity, from strategic considerations nuclear fuel is a preferable option. 

The comparative economics of nuclear power  plants  depends  on  local  conditions,  discount rates and availability of cheap fuels like coal and gas.   Wherever fossil fuels are available at reasonable  prices,  the  setting  up  of  thermal  power  plants  is  an  option  to  be  considered in any techno-economic analysis. Issues to be  considered  in  case  of  thermal  plants include  location  of  coalmines  vis-a-vis  load  centres,  coal  transportation,  availability  of railroads for transportation, sulphur and  ash  content  of  the  fuel  and  associated environmental  impact.  Hydropower  provides  low  cost  electricity  generation,   but   sites available  for  large  projects  are  limited  and  social  impact  is  very  high  due  to submergence of large areas. Gas prices are subject  to  fluctuations  due  to  market  forces  and  form  a sizable fraction of electricity cost produced from gas fired plants.  Therefore,  the  cost  of electricity generated from gas  fired  plants  can  vary  a  lot  depending  on  the  market conditions. 

Generally only direct costs are used in comparative assessment of  different  electricity options.  However,  the  opinion  is  building  up  in  favour  of  internalising   all   costs   of generation in any comparative assessment  of  energy  options  and  this  would  include,  inter alia, the  cost  of  impact  on  environment  and  health  and  cost  of setting up of infrastructure for fuel  transportation  which  is  often  subsidised.  The  largest  environmental  impacts associated with fossil fuels are carbon dioxide  and  other  forms  of  air  pollution  which  can cause chronic illness. The risks associated with these impacts affect the entire planet. In addition, the volume of waste generated  in  case  of  energy  generation  from  fossil  fuels  is quite large. Technically nuclear energy is far more benign and much of the cost is already internalized in financial plans.  For  example,  nuclear  power  operators  are  required  to provide funds for decommissioning of installations.   External costs have been estimated by a study conducted under  European  Commission’s  ExternE  project  results  and  reported  in 1998 are summarized in the Table 4.

 8 Adapted from European’s Commission’s ExternE project - 1998

To reduce the risk of global climate change,  industrialized  countries  have  made commitments to reduce GHG emissions under  a  protocol,  negotiated  in  Kyoto,  Japan  in 1997  as  an  addition  to  the  1992  United  Nations  Framework  Convention   on   Climate Change  (UNFCCC).    In  the  so-called  Kyoto  Protocol,  industrialized  countries  have  agreed to reduce their collective emissions during  the  period  2008-2012  by  at  least  5.2%  below 1990 levels. So  far  no  decision  has  been  taken  about  carbon  reduction  commitments  for the period beyond 2012, but  statements  have  already  been  made,  that  countries  like  India and China should also make carbon reduction commitments. It is pertinent to note that per capita carbon emission in India is 1.1  tonne  per  year,  it  is  2.5  tonnes  per  year  in  China while for the OECD countries, it is 10.9 tonnes per year. Therefore, while negotiating  at international fora we have to take a careful stand with regard to  accepting  any  carbon reduction commitments. At the same time, we have to adopt policies wherein  we  use advanced  technologies  so  as  to  minimize  carbon  emissions.  As  far  as  energy   is concerned, nuclear energy  produces  virtually  no  GHG  emissions  and  should  be  an important part of our strategy to reduce GHG emissions.

 Since the very  inception,  the  Indian  nuclear  power  programme  has  laid  a  strong  emphasis on nuclear safety and radiation surveillance in the environment. The essence of our safety

policy was spelt out by Dr Bhabha5 , when he said, “Radioactive materials and source of radiation should be handled in a manner which not only ensures that no harm can come to workers or anyone else, but in an exemplary manner so as to set a standard which other organisations in the country may be asked to emulate.” This  has  really  happened.  In  all industrial  development  programmes  in  India,  environment  monitoring  has   assumed importance  and  statutory  regulations  have  been  established.     Systematic  measurements of radiation levels in  the  environment  and  related  investigations  have  been  undertaken  by the DAE long before such regulations were introduced.

Concern for safety pervades all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, in the design and engineering, in plant operation, and in regulation of the nuclear  industry as a whole. In design and engineering, this  includes  adopting  sound  basic  designs,  adhering  to appropriate codes and practices, using fully tested materials and components, providing adequate margins and failsafe   arrangements, and facilitating   maintenance and  proper operation. Design of PHWRs in India has progressively evolved by our efforts in a manner that all attempts have been made  to  improve  plant  safety.  An  example  is  the  manner  in which reactor containment has evolved from the reactor  near  Kota  (RAPS)  to  those  at Kaiga. At RAPS we have a dousing tank, at Kalpakkam (MAPS) vapour suppression pool was introduced, at Narora partial double containment was introduced,  and  at  Kakrapar  full double containment was incorporated. At Kaiga, for the first time a high strength concrete has been used for the containment dome. In a similar manner, other  systems  such  as secondary shut down system, emergency core cooling system have been evolved so as to ensure plant safety under all anticipated operating conditions.

5 Dr Homi J Bhabha, The first Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission, India

Atomic Energy  Regulatory  Board  (AERB),  an  independent  regulatory  body  in  the  country, is responsible for licensing and  regulation  of  all  activities  related  to  atomic  energy.  To provide fillip  to  regulatory  R&D, AERB has  set  up  an independent  Safety   Research Institute (SRI) in 1998 at the IGCAR campus in Kalpakkam.   It is an ideal site as it houses a range  of  fuel  cycle  facilities like PHWRs, a fast reactor, a Uranium-233 fuelled reactor, fuel reprocessing plants, waste management  facilities  and  several  research  laboratories. SRI conducts a substantial part of the  research  programme  in  an  inter-institution  manner. Areas of research covered by SRI include nuclear plant  safety,  radiological  and environmental safety, fire and industrial safety.

With total protection  of  the  environment  as  the  overriding  consideration,  management  of the radioactive waste generated in the fuel cycle has received high priority in our nuclear programme right  from  its  inception.  Based  on  indigenous  materials  and  capabilities, technology has been developed and is in routine use for the management of low and intermediate  level  wastes   meeting  the  stringent  regulatory  requirements  and  standards. No waste in any physical form is released  to  the  environment  unless  the  same  is  well below internationally accepted safe levels. Treatment of reprocessing waste has received considerable attention because they contain nearly 99% of the activity  generated  in  the nuclear fuel cycle.   Based on years of development studies, a long-term action plan has been formulated for  the  management  of these wastes.  

In principle the Indian programme  envisages two distinct modes of  final  disposition  in respect of radioactive wastes:  

Ÿ Near  surface   engineered   extended storage for  low  and  intermediate  level wastes.

Ÿ Deep geological disposal for high  level wastes and alpha bearing wastes.

 A  waste  immobilisation  plant   for   the treatment of High Level Waste (HLW) has been operational at Tarapur for quite  some time and one  more  has  been  just commissioned at Trombay. One more waste immobilisation plant is being set up at Kalpakkam. Use of Joule heated ceramic melters for  vitrification  is  under  development. A  solid  storage  and  surveillance   facility (SSSF) has also been set up for interim storage of vitrified HLW.  

As  regards  ultimate  disposal,  considering the present small size of the  Indian programme, considerable time is available before the need for a  repository  would  be felt. However, studies on establishing a repository are being carried out in  an ongoing manner. An experimental research station was set up  in  an  unused  portion  of an underground mine located at Kolar near Bangalore.  In-situ experiments for examining the  thermal,  mechanical, hydrological and chemical behaviour of the host rock under simulated conditions have been conducted. 

High level waste disposal is often cited  as show stopper for nuclear power. However, technological   solutions    for    long-term storage of high level waste  do  exist  now and  what  remains   is   implementation. Several countries have taken steps in this direction.    Yucca    mountain,    Nevada    has been   approved   as   the   site   for national   repository   for   nuclear   fuel   and   high-level radioactive  waste  in  the  USA6 .   Finland  has  also  gone  ahead  with  legislative approval for setting  up  a  rock characterization  facility  at  Olkiluto  power  station7 .  Further R&D in waste transmutation should soon make high level waste storage a short term issue.

6 NucNet News No 254/02/A, 24 July 2002