14 April 2025
Mint
Op-eds
If we are to avert climate catastrophe, we
must embrace all science-backed solutions, including those with complex
legacies
Awave of announcements on targets,
funding and commercial collaborations in the past six months signals a global
revival of interest in nuclear energy. India’s government has also announced a
target to increase nuclear-power generation capacity to 100 gigawatts (GW) by
2047, about 12 times the current level. Rightly so. Nuclear is the only
scalable, low carbon electricity source that runs 24/7 and can truly displace
coal and gas, which together account fora third of global greenhouse gas
emissions. But is this the sole driver of renewed interest in this 70-year-old
technology? What has changed— and what role might nuclear play in the world’s
energy transition?
A technology of peaks and pauses: Nuclear electricity first connected to the
grid in 1954 in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Its heyday stretched from the 1970s
to the 1990s, but growth slowed globally over the next three decades for three
key reasons. First, electricity demand plateaued in the West where most nuclear
capacity development was happening, reducing the need for new generation
capacity. Second, high-profile incidents like Three Mile Island in the US and
Chernobyl in the Soviet Union fuelled public opposition over safety and
environmental risks. Third, privatization of the power sector and the shift to
market-based electricity trading made nuclear’s long construction timelines and
frequent cost overruns financially risky. With regulators not guaranteeing
tariffs to ensure cost recovery, investment dried up.
In this period, nuclear deployment
continued mainly in emerging Asian economies—China, India and South Korea—where
electricity demand was rising. These countries also developed their own reactor
technologies and fuel mixes, helping diversify their supplier base. Facing
restrictions on access to technology and fuel, India perfected its pressurised
heavy reactor technology, originally secured from Canada.
Changing landscape: In recent years, global conditions have
shifted significantly. Electricity demand surged by 4.2% in 2024, among the
highest in two decades, requiring rapid capacity addition. Net-zero targets
compel countries to urgently replace fossil fuels with low-carbon sources that
can meet round-the-clock demand. While solar and wind are crucial, even with
4-5-hour battery storage, they cannot provide reliable 24/7 power without
expensive long-duration storage. Nuclear is now increasingly seen as a
practical option to fill this gap.
Supply constraints have eased too,
mitigating some of the risks that had slowed nuclear’s growth earlier. The
evolution from first-generation to fourth-generation reactors and global
cooperation among operators and regulators via the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and World Association of Nuclear Operators have boosted safety
standards.
Meanwhile, small modular reactors
(SMRs), often less than a third the size of traditional ones, are gaining
ground. These can be deployed at diverse sites and power specific high-demand
loads, such as data centres or industrial clusters. They are, however, a few
years away from commercial scale deployment. Equally, the experience of Japan,
South Korea and China shows that nuclear plants of even traditional designs can
now be built in much shorter time-frames of 3-5 years, reducing delays and cost
risks.
A complement but not a cure-all: Nuclear power currently contributes just
under 10% of global electricity. About 70GW of new capacity is under
construction, but even that may only lift its share to |2-13% by 2030. With
sustained investment, it could inch up to 17-18% by 2040. While this is
meaningful, solar and wind will still need to do the heavy lifting in meeting
global climate goals.
Nuclear isn’t a silver bullet, but it
is a critical tool—especially for countries where intermittent renewables alone
can’t meet baseload demand. Its potential, thus, lies in complementing other
technologies, not replacing them.
Proliferation concerns need perspective: Much resistance to nuclear stems from
concerns over proliferation and the risk of weaponization. Yet, countries with
nuclear power already account for around 70% of global emissions. Add those
building their first reactors—like Bangladesh, Turkey, and Egypt—and that
number rises to 75%. In short, MINT the countries that need to transition
fastest already have access to nuclear energy. Wider proliferation would not be
necessary to make a major difference to global emissions.
Nuclear supply chains are the next frontier: As with solar panels, electric vehicles and
semiconductors, a few countries dominate nuclear supply chains. Of the 52
reactors begun since 2017, 25 use Chinese designs and 23 are Russian. Over 99%
of uranium enrichment occurs in just four countries, according to the IAEA.
The bottleneck isn’t technical
knowledge; many countries have that. It’s scale, skilled labour and cost
efficiency. Differences in manufacturing scale can affect costs by 40-50%.
There’s also the issue of a fuel lock-in: different reactors use specific fuels
that only some countries supply.
Ongoing efforts by countries like the
US and India to localize and diversify supply chains are critical. In
particular, India is blessed with plenty of thorium, a metal that is an
effective replacement for the globally dominant fuel, uranium. Investments in
domestic equipment and fuel supply chains, particularly thorium, should mirror
the strategic investments seen in other clean-tech sectors.
A seat at the table: The world doesn’t have the luxury of waiting.
The choices we make over the next five years will shape the next 50. If we are
to avert climate catastrophe, we must embrace all science-backed solutions—even
those with complex legacies. Nuclear energy, with its risks and rewards,
deserves a central seat at the climate solutions table.
Urji Calculator