Nuclear power brings both advantages and disadvantages, but the public debate is often polarized, with each side presenting its arguments as if no other viewpoint could be valid. These opposing perspectives draw heavily on historical events, but are also supported by substantial academic research. Notably, both views largely stem from a Western perspective, shaped by the interests of North American and Western European populations.
At the heart of this debate is the urgent need for a shift to renewable energy sources (RES) to combat climate change—a point on which both sides agree. The real contention lies in which types of RES the world should adopt in the coming decades. Proponents of nuclear energy present a largely static argument, while opponents insist that a sustainable transition can only happen through solar, wind, or other unconventional sources.
In the end, it boils down to financial considerations, with governments expected to bear the cost of transitioning to RES. Both sides have influential lobbies with vested interests, eager for a share of the enormous funding required to achieve global net-zero targets. This funding is estimated to be in the region of more than $5 trillion every year starting from 2025 to2050 – the targeted year by which the world is supposed to reach net zero status.
Detractors of nuclear energy argue not only about the environmental hazards and potential risks but also about the lengthy gestation period required for a nuclear power plant to become operational. According to Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Stanford University and a prominent critic of nuclear power, the planning-to-operation timeline for a nuclear plant can stretch up to fourteen and a half years. This extended period can significantly increase the cost of electricity by the time the plant is fully operational. By contrast, solar or wind farms typically take only five to seven years to begin supplying electricity to utilities.
Jacobson suggests that if this gestation period is factored into the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), nuclear energy costs about $172 per megawatt-hour (MWh), which he argues is far from competitive—especially when compared to an onshore wind farm's LCOE of $43/MWh or a solar farm's $41/MWh. He also highlights environmental impact of nuclear energy and the cost of managing nuclear waste, which adds significantly to the LCOE, driving it even higher. While these are compelling arguments, they reflect an American—and by extension, European—approach to addressing the energy crisis.
In the Indian context, the approach to nuclear energy differs significantly from that of Western countries. India favours small modular reactors (SMRs) with a maximum output of 300 MW, while the typical American reactor generates around 1,000 MW, with a minimum size of 540 MW—the same capacity as the reactors at Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) in Maharashtra. The primary advantage of SMRs is their shorter gestation period, generally between four and five years; in fact, TAPS became operational in just four years. Also compared to the United States the LCOE of the electricity produced through nuclear energy in India is in the region of $50 /MWh, which is economically favourable to the country.
Critics of the India’s Department of Atomic Energy’s policy argue that the cost of manufacturing and setting up four 250 MW SMRs is higher than constructing a single 1,000 MW reactor. However, the Indian government remains committed to this strategy. By installing multiple SMRs, considerable time savings are achieved, and as production scales up, costs are expected to decrease. Additionally, engaging multiple manufacturers in building reactors can further streamline timelines.
A compelling argument against establishing nuclear plants in developing countries is the risk of nuclear weapons technology falling into the hands of rogue regimes. One potential solution could be to have nuclear plants managed and controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Revenue generated from electricity sales could cover the cost of IAEA engineers and technicians operating the facility. While this is a preliminary concept, it might offer a way to prevent proliferation risks in the future.
South Asia, including India, has a unique advantage for harnessing non-conventional energy sources like wind and solar power, thanks to abundant year-round sunshine and extensive coastlines. While the region’s geography is well-suited for developing solar and wind farms, land availability presents a significant challenge. Large expanses of agricultural land, essential for feeding one of the world’s largest populations and providing direct and indirect employment to over 55% of people, cannot be repurposed for energy infrastructure. Furthermore, fragmented land ownership in India makes acquiring the vast areas needed for renewable energy projects particularly complex.
As a result, most solar and wind farms in India are concentrated in the western states of Gujarat and Rajasthan, where the barren landscapes of the Rann of Kutch and the Thar Desert offer suitable locations. On the eastern coast and in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, vast coastlines could support wind farms, though these areas are vulnerable to frequent and severe cyclones. Overall, securing extensive tracts of land for solar and wind energy projects remains a challenging task across South Asia.
Currently, around 22% of India’s electricity is generated through hydroelectric projects. However, two significant challenges limit the full utilization of hydro resources, especially in the Himalayas: the region’s high susceptibility to seismic disturbances and the extended gestation period—often over a decade—required to bring hydroelectric projects to full operation.
In the given circumstances, it’s crucial to select RES with careful consideration.
Just focussing on the disadvantages of nuclear energy may not be the most prudent approach for developing countries. Instead, governments in these nations should focus on a balanced mix of renewable energy sources, including electricity generated by nuclear energy from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), while also harnessing solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal resources as available.
Though the debate on nuclear energy may continue indefinitely, decisions about its use should be rooted more in practical considerations than in theoretical discussions.
