​At long last: On Kalpakkam reactor criticality, India’s regulatory regime Politics & News

The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, achieving first criticality is a genuine cause for satisfaction, albeit a measured one. A Parliamentary Standing Committee reported this year that the project’s final cost is ₹8,181 crore, more than twice the sanctioned amount. Criticality itself is at least 16 years behind schedule; the fast reactor fuel cycle facility is expected to be commissioned by 2029, over a decade late. Poor planning and flawed procurement, abetted by political insulation, are the causes of the delay. The PFBR is the first commercial-scale component of the second stage of India’s nuclear power programme. Its purpose is to use spent fuel, after reprocessing, from the first stage, and depleted uranium to produce more plutonium. In the final stage, reactors will use plutonium and thorium as fuel. The programme’s design is based on India’s abundant thorium deposits, but this sword cuts both ways. The nuclear establishment must also be scrupulous about the PFBR’s performance as it is prepared for commercial operation, and admit mistakes or under-performance plainly. The goal is not to use thorium at any cost but to achieve energy security and self-sufficiency. If the economics of solar and wind power render the current nuclear power paradigm a poor allocation of scarce public capital, that finding should honestly determine policy.

Nuclear power contributes around 3% of India’s electricity from 8.78 GW of installed capacity. The country has committed to becoming a net-zero economy by 2070 amid an energy demand growth that will be among the largest of any major economy over the next two decades. Nuclear power facilities are expected to consume 6% of the land area required for equivalent solar power generation per unit of electricity produced. Considering that India’s biodiversity commitments depend on not converting green cover, nuclear power offers a non-trivial path forward. Breeder reactors are more fuel-efficient, and will also extend the fuel cycle and reduce dependence on uranium imports. The challenge is to realise these merits without squandering time and public money. This means fixing the problems that the PFBR throws up during commissioning, and proceeding with the planned FBR1 and FBR2 units at Kalpakkam based on lessons learned, without the opacity that has prevailed so far. The PFBR also comes online alongside the SHANTI Act, private nuclear power operations, the advent of small modular reactors, and a new liability regime. Now is an opportune time for India to revamp its regulatory regime. So far, the AERB and the DAE have reported to the Atomic Energy Commission, which is thus both the promoter and the regulator of nuclear energy. The government must resolve this administrative short-circuit before any new complexities arise.