Is Nuclear Power Really A Viable Energy Source?
Gaargi Jamkar
SY BSc (22-25)
Reading Time: 6 mins
Whether it’s flash floods, wildfires, hurricanes, rising water levels or droughts and famines – these are all symptoms of a much bigger and more dangerous problem now known as Climate Change which spells out global catastrophe!
One of the most significant factors that has sped this phenomenon is the emission of greenhouse gases that trap and retain heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a no-brainer to conclude that we must replace greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels with renewable and clean sources at the earliest. Many scientists and experts have recommended employing Nuclear Power as an alternate and cleaner source to generate energy but I however have some strong opinions about that.
As a budding economist, I will try and show you the cost-benefit analysis of deploying nuclear power as a primary source of energy for humans. First things first, there is no denying that nuclear power and energy is greener and cleaner than burning fossil fuels. It has a low to zero carbon footprint and is a sustainable source of energy on which we can depend. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), over 80% of India’s energy needs are met by three fuels: coal, oil and solid biomass. Coal and oil contribute to the 2.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse emissions generated by our country. Studies indicate that every unit of nuclear power replacing coal-based power saves 1 kg of carbon dioxide emissions. Imagine how steeply this number would fall if coal and oil are replaced with nuclear reactor-generated energy!
Coming to the problems, the biggest of them all is the enormous upfront cost. These reactors are extremely expensive to build. While the returns may be very great, they’re also very slow. It can sometimes take decades to recoup initial costs.
The cost for setting up the 3rd and 4th unit of the Kudankulam Nuclear power Plant was 39,849 Crore rupees (2018)! . To give you a clearer picture, the Union Budget of 2023-24 allocated only 25,078 crore rupees to the Department of Atomic Energy. Thus even to set up the basic units of a power plant we are overspending. Keep in mind this does not include the operating costs of the plant – just pure capital costs for the foundation.
Another important point is that nuclear energy generation is not as labour-intensive as fossil fuel energy production. This sector is more dependent on the capital (nuclear reactors) as opposed to mining for coal which involves a high volume participation of workers. This being said, the nuclear sector has the potential to generate thousands of high-paying jobs for workers. Think about it like this – The coal mining jobs are an opportunity for skilled/semi/unskilled workers to seek employment, however, for nuclear energy production a very specific skill set is required to be qualified and employable for jobs. Thus the millions working in the coal mining or petroleum industry as daily wage workers could lose their livelihood in this transition of energy production. According to The International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology the coal and petroleum industry is the lifeline of over 5 million Indians who labour daily for a meagre salary. There is no guarantee that these workers will get jobs in clean energy production. The report went one step further and claimed that the cost of quitting coal would be $900 billion over the next 30 years in India!
Safety is a major concern in employing nuclear energy as well. The waste fuel from reactors is highly radioactive and if not disposed of properly, the radiation can affect generations for a long time (Remember, we have no cure for cancer). The chances of a leakage are always there which leads to catastrophic consequences. An interdisciplinary team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had estimated that given a three-fold increase in nuclear power from 2005 to 2055, and an unchanged accident frequency, four core damage accidents would be expected in that period!
Heightened geopolitical tensions and the current Russia-Ukraine have shown how politics and war are also a very real possibility in the near future. Amidst this scenario, it is risky to accumulate more nuclear power as it could lead to weapon proliferation and excessive stockpiling of nuclear ammunition. Thus under the name of defence and sovereignty, nations may use nuclear power against each other which would ultimately cause mass destruction. If you feel that is far-fetched, then think about terrorism. With a higher number of nuclear reactors present in countries, they may become ideal targets for terrorist groups to amplify the impact of bombings, intentional leakages, etc. The United States 9/11 Commission Report has stated that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for the attacks. If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage spent fuel pools, such an attack could lead to widespread radioactive contamination.
Thus, nuclear power and energy are scientifically viable and feasible to fight against climate change but economically exorbitant and politically dangerous. At a glance, it is a source of clean and affordable energy but with the context of war, international skirmishes, sky-high costs (not just money but livelihood of labourers), safety concerns etc we are forced to rethink the idea. Just because something is possible, it doesn’t make it practical.
