Q: We are always told that nuclear energy is part of the solution to the climate crisis. How much of a solution can nuclear offer, when, for a majority of the countries in the world, nuclear energy is not even an option? It does not even figure in the equation in more than half the countries.
You’re correct. As of right now, nuclear power is a component of the solution. It does not contribute to the issue. And that already marks a significant shift from the topic of conversation as usual (on nuclear). 25% of the clean energy produced globally now comes from nuclear sources. It is significantly worse in some nations. For instance, it makes up 50% of the clean energy portfolio in Europe. It is fifty percent in the US. That is a start.
Then, I would advise that one should consider all the major emitters (the locations from where the problem of global warming primarily originates), as we can see that each of these nations either already has nuclear power or is moving in that direction.Nuclear power plays a significant role in each of these nations. For instance, China is actively investigating nuclear. They are building 18 additional nuclear reactors as we speak. at an amazing rate. India is also raising the proportion (of nuclear energy in its energy mix). Nuclear energy is present in every major economy.
There is an increasing demand for nuclear energy in the nations where it has not previously been a possibility. And it is extremely fascinating that we are having this discussion in Egypt, a nation that is currently pursuing nuclear power. In Dabah, not too far from here, a sizable nuclear power facility is being built.
In a few years, a sizable portion of the nation’s electricity would come from nuclear sources. Other African nations, like Ghana, Kenya, and Namibia, are already cooperating with the IAEA on the nuclear route. There are numerous nations. After having doubts, South Africa has opted to grow (its nuclear sector) and pursue increased nuclear capacity. Argentina and Brazil are pushing for greater goals in the global south.
In light of this, I would conclude that nuclear power is expanding, albeit possibly not at the rate that is necessary (in light of climate change). According to the estimates, not from the IAEA, but IEA and even the IPCC, nuclear energy needs to more than double if we have to maximise the CO2 abatement. At least double, that is what the IEA says. Others say it should tripled or quadrupled.
But even without getting into that, which seems like a bit of fantasy at this moment, I can realistically say that in the next few years, we will see an expansion, clear expansion of the nuclear energy (across the world).
Q: From the climate change perspective, what is the best case scenario for nuclear energy? How much can be installed globally in time to help achieving the 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius temperature targets?
The capability for nuclear energy is now quite low on a worldwide scale. It makes up roughly 10–11% of the world’s energy resources, yet it still outweighs renewable sources. Given the enormous investment that is currently pouring into renewables, it could be surpassed. But realistically, assuming present plans in the United States, France, and the rest of Europe go at the same rate, nuclear energy may account for 20% of all energy consumed globally within the next ten years or so. We have significant nuclear investments across Europe, including in Poland, Hungary, and the entire eastern crescent, which may be influenced by geopolitical circumstances. However, nations without any nuclear weapons, like Poland, are also going nuclear. Poland has just announced a massive contract with WestingHouse which is interesting.
We see the trend is there, the conditions are there.
Q: Nuclear, traditionally, has had a handicap. In fact, more than one handicap. There have been concerns over safety, costs, pricing, waste disposal, investments. There are two parts to this question. In light of climate crisis becoming as urgent as it has, do you see some of the reservations on nuclear power melting away? And if it is not, then, how do you see nuclear competing with something like solar which has near universal acceptance?
Numerous things are present there. Half of what you refer to as handicaps may have to do with genuine circumstances or realities, and the other half may have to do with narrative. When it comes to what I refer to as narrative, an example would be when some people claim that nuclear waste is a major issue that the nuclear business is transferring to the next generation. That is wholly untrue. The management of nuclear waste is faultless and tame. This has never been an issue in the 70 years that commercial nuclear operations have existed. And it might keep going that way. And we will soon make a major transition into long-term storage facilities like those in Finland and Sweden. So that is a start.
Then, you have an issue, may be related with overruns and budgetary issues. Here, again, you have to may be finetune the analysis. Because whereas it is true, and one should not deny it, that there have been some egregious cases of overruns like in Finland and France etc, it is not the rule. These are exceptions to the rule. In fact, if you look at the average… cost overruns and delays also. Cost overruns may be depending on the country you are talking about. If you talk about China, they are cheaper, they are fast in constructing their nuclear plants. They resemble what we saw in America in the 1970s — every five years the addition of a new nuclear power plant. They take five years, and sometimes even less (to build). There have been some built in three and a half years. Frankly, there is nothing inherent that prevents the building of nuclear reactor within a very reasonable time frame which matches with what you are saying about the global climate crisis. Because when some people, detractors of nuclear, say may be it takes too long… may be it is good but it takes too long, it is actually false. It is not correct. If you are talking about abating CO2 by 2040 or 2050, well if you have ten more reactors in India in the next ten years, well that is excellent.
It may have more to do with some people’s possible ideological or economic motives that there is this ongoing shifting of the goalposts. So nuclear energy most definitely has a very obvious future. The question is whether the paradigm can be extended to developing nations and whether a nuclear matrix with the introduction of modularity, tiny, and modular reactors, will be more flexible for both industrialised economies and developing nations. Therefore, when individuals like Bill Gates discuss small and modular reactors, they are not necessarily thinking about Africa; he does not, of course, exclude Africa; rather, they are considering replacing coal plants in the US or in other advanced economies where technologies are already developed.
Q: When I talk about cost or time overruns, I also talk from the experience of India. In the last 8-10 years, three nuclear reactors have come online. And ten more have been approved. Our total installed capacity remains less than 7 GW. India’s massive expansion of energy sector is projected to involve 800-900 GW of installed capacity by 2030, may be 1,000 GW, of which about 50 per cent has to come from renewables. That is our commitment. That still leaves about 300-400 GW, or more, that must come either from fossil fuel sources or nuclear. After all the ten currently approved reactors come online, our installed nuclear capacity would still be about 62 GW. From that level, how do you see India reaching to 250 to 300 GW of installed capacity, which is what would be required if nuclear has to offer reliable baseload?
You’re right, of course. As you can see, the Indian situation is extremely unusual in many ways, including the nuclear sector. because there are so many distinctive aspects to your country’s diversity. India, unlike many other nations, has an amazing level of dynamism and a technology foundation that will enable it to accomplish this with ease once a decision is made. I can only think of a few nations—or maybe even fewer—that might have the ability to travel to the range you indicate.
My impression there is that there are a few important internal decisions — I cannot get into internal politics. I hope to be in India within the next few months, and I hope to be learning more from your government and your authorities about their plans but what we may be seeing is a steep increase in India, perhaps not as much as is needed, but the increase will be quite pronounced.
Q: Because it is such a large emitter, and because it is home to so many people, India is key to the success of any global effort on climate change. What do you think needs to happen in India on the nuclear side, keeping the climate solution in mind? What is your outlook for India’s nuclear sector, seeing through this climate prism?
First, I observe India’s percentage of nuclear weapons rising (in the energy mix). I also think of India as a hub for cutting-edge (nuclear) technologies. One of the few nations that has consistently investigated breeders, fast reactors, sodium reactors, and other technologies that few nations have been pursuing is India. This then is the whole picture. Whether India is considering tiny modular reactors is my main concern. I haven’t noticed any indications in that regard, and I’d really like to talk to the administration about it. Because I believe that the conditions in India, as well as the country’s topography, morphology, vast distances, and remote regions, are ideal for this kind of reactor. But it is still a decision for the government to make. But I see a very bright future for nuclear in India. Indeed.
Q: Since you mention it, it is pertinent to bring it up here. FBR has been under planning for decades now. It is still a technology in development. Do you think India needs to continue pursuing FBR? Is it a viable technology for India?
It is a workable technique. If there is going to be a significant push in that direction, I suppose it will need to be decided there (in the Indian establishment). There are no hints in that direction, in my opinion. I anticipate that more conventional reactors will incorporate more science. However, India has also been studying various topics for a very long time, like thorium. And it has been one of the thorium cycle’s loudest supporters. The issue is one of scale. Reality and the compelling need to decarbonize the matrix, in my opinion, may tip the scales a little further in favour of tried-and-true methods. I still need to learn more about that from the government, though.
Q: One of the big questions relating to nuclear in India, and I am sure this would be true of many other countries as well, is its cost differential with solar. Most of the investments are coming into solar. Also, in India’s case, nuclear sector is a state monopoly. Regulatory restrictions do not allow private investment. Do you think this has something to do with the relatively stunted growth of nuclear in India?
Your question would inevitably force me into the energy policies and regulatory structure in India, and I cannot pass judgment on that. But let me say that the situation in India is not incompatible with rapid growth. Let me put it this way. Rapid nuclear growth can happen under different capitalist or economic models. Take the example of France, or China, or Russia, India, or the United States (all major producers of nuclear power). I am mentioning five models which are very different from each other. There is nothing intrinsically emasculating in what India has that would prevent the growth of its nuclear sector.
Q: But where do you think can the investment in nuclear come from? It is a costly investment, and it is a risky investment, at least it is considered a risky investment because of legacy issues.
Big nuclear is possible in a variety of settings. Furthermore, I’m not really dodging your query. I’m observing the world as it is. You can see it by looking at the map. I mean, one response to your query might be that in order to attract nuclear investment in India, the market there needs to be liberalised. I won’t respond with that response. I can express my opinion about that. However, that does not preclude the possibility of other scenarios. Additionally, it depends on the types of partners India is considering. India has both domestic and international partnerships and development. India’s nuclear industry is quite varied. As diverse as India itself. So, I am not surprised. You have every kind of thing. It is very Indian.
Q: We spoke about the handicaps earlier. I would like to come back to that a bit. Considering what is happening in Ukraine, do you think the resistance to the deployment has increased because of that? Would the scepticism against nuclear going to increase?
No, no, no. Both techniques are effective. Think about Eastern Europe. For nuclear purposes, it has been used. Ukraine’s civil conflict. There is no doubt that it motivated Poland to make a final decision. Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine all outnumbered them. all of them. With Poland’s possible exception, many of them—almost all of them—are cooperating with Russia. What a paradox, huh? You must pass the analysis, in my opinion, for this reason. There is the Zaporizhzhia effect on the other side of this, on the one hand. I’m dealing with that right now.
Q: Zaporizhzhia. That was going to be my next question.
I’ll get to it right away. I can state that I am, of course, looking at it. I’m not viewing it from the perspective of the nuclear sector. We must avoid Zaporizhzhia because it is a play and a tragedy. Right. However, it is also clear that if there were, God forbid, a serious nuclear radiological disaster or incident in Zaporizhzhia, it may discourage people from wanting to build nuclear weapons. However, that would be a very severe issue in many civilizations and nations, particularly in democracies where people vote and you have to win over people to your cause.
Q: Does Zaporizhzhia continue to remain a big security concern?
It is bigger every day. Continued shelling. Regular interruptions of external power (which supports cooling systems). Would you have in India a nuclear power plant running like this. Let alone throwing a stone, and you would have a big problem. In India or United States, or in any country. But constant diesel generators running for a few hours, or may be some days… then you have the power back and there is a sigh of relief… but then it starts again three days later.
Q: What about the other nuclear installations and material in Ukraine? Are they safe?
The Ukrainian government has requested me to support three other nuclear power plants and we are supporting them as well. So, I would say it is operating well.
Q: Are they all safe then?
Yes. As safe as they can be in a war.
Q: Going back to your earlier remarks, are you suggesting that the kind of energy crisis that has been precipitated by the Ukraine war is encouraging some countries to opt for nuclear, overcoming their earlier hesitations, because they need stable, reliable source of energy supplies?
It is happening, yes. I wouldn’t say it is something to be celebrated. Just saying it is happening. Let me say it like this. It has operated like a catalyst. Something that accelerates something that was there already… and that was there, existing in reality. Or a highlighter. People realise that if energy security is a concern nuclear gives you the kind of autonomy, reliability you need.
Q: So, may be you would not liked it to happen this way, but this war is convincing some countries to go for nuclear energy.
May be it is just a factor of (matter of) speed but it (the need for nuclear energy) was already there. For all those energy planners looking at this seriously, at least in the industrialised countries, it was obvious before the war, and without the war, that without nuclear you would never get anywhere near the climate change goals. Nowhere near.
Q: What about the resistance from civil society? Governments were not opposed to nuclear energy in a big way in any case.
That too is evolving. There will be one. It will stay there forever. There is no denying it, yet attitudes also shift through time. In Germany, for instance, 65% of the population now supports nuclear power, but a year ago, the sentiment was the opposite. Therefore, nuclear energy is included in the party programme of the Greens in Finland. Therefore, events that were inconceivable in the past are now occurring. So, I believe that this will also change. People were not anti-nuclear thirty years ago. To be a little self-critical, this is the outcome of an accumulation of variables, an accumulation of false information, and an accumulation of the nuclear side’s opacity. unwillingness to engage in disputes, some contempt for environmentalism, and other factors like that. Now, everything has to be discussed.
Q: A few months ago, there was an incident in India about misfiring of a missile. Was that a cause of concern to the IAEA?
No.
Q: Did you take up the matter with the Indian government? Did you seek any information on the incident?
No, we didn’t.
Q: Did the incident raise doubts over the safety of nuclear material in India?
No.
Q: So, absolutely no concerns on that incident?
We are looking at the world. We are looking at the situations and of course we look with interest when a very important member state of the IAEA has issues. But it was never an issue of any specific concern for us.
Q: Are there any questions over the safeguards of Indian nuclear installations and material in general?
India has a unique set of circumstances because of the fact that it chooses not to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is a given. Which responds to a logic of factors beyond my remit. I would like India to be an NPT country. It is not. That being said, we have a very intense, very constructive relationship with India and we are really going to be working on increasing that in the coming years.
Q: Do you expect India to become part of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group anytime soon?
As you know the issue of Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, I worked on that. You remember I used to be the chair of the NSG. This (India’s membership) is still an ongoing discussion. My personal opinion as director general of the IAEA is not so relevant at the moment when we discuss matters of transfer of nuclear technology. But India is, was and will always be an indispensable player when it comes to nuclear.
Q: Do you think there are any good reasons for India not to be a part of the NSG?
I am sure my NSG colleagues are discussing and working on this.
