BW Communities

Frictions In Fission Clubs

BW Online Bureau Nov 08, 2014

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[Uranium Vs Thorium The unusual lull after the storm kicked up by the Indo-US nuclear agreement was disconcerting for India’s long-time ally Russia — until India appeased Moscow with a $8-billion order for four new nuclear reactors last week. That signalled New Delhi’s intent to slowly open up its nuclear power generation to the private sector — something that will principally benefit Russia’s rivals, the US, the UK, France, Germany and Japan, all among the world’s leading nuclear-reactor builders and suppliers. Now India must introspect on which nuclear fuel it will choose to achieve its goal of generating 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020 — uranium, which the whole world uses, or thorium, a fuel India can source locally and has technical capabilities in, but which remains unproven commercially? The choice will determine over Rs 1 lakh crore of immediate orders for equipment and project management services, a lifetime of maintenance services contracts and an opportunity to stamp the future of India’s ambitious civil nuclear energy programme with the technology’s supremacy. URANIUM VS THORIUM Unlike uranium, thorium cannot be readily used as weapon-grade fissile material Thorium reactors produce 70 per cent less nuclear waste compared to uranium reactors Spent fuel from thorium reactors is 90 per cent less radioactive than uranium spent fuel Thorium fuel is 5-10 per cent cheaper and less price-volatile than uranium fuel Thorium is three-four times more abundant on Earth than uranium As expected, the lobbies for and against thorium (which is on the verge of commercialisation) are going strong. “If anything is to be approved, it should be thorium,” says Seth Grae, president and CEO of US-based nuclear power consulting firm thorium Power. “India should use local thorium reserves. Compared to other extractions, thorium extraction is a simple procedure.” But as Grae admits, there are equally strong lobbies for uranium reactors that compel him to travel to India and neutralise their influence on the government every other month. Governments and regulators are often averse to new technologies in sensitive areas such as nuclear power because of apprehensions about the fallout of a mishap. The offices of Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy, and Kapil Sibal, minister for science and technology, did not respond to BW’s queries on the issue. The other lobby working against thorium is that of the established reactor builders, technology providers and nuclear-plant operators, who would rather milk their investments in uranium fuel technology they are currently using rather than spend millions on learning and ratifying a new technology. Areva India and GE India, subsidiaries of two of the world’s largest nuclear-equipment suppliers, refused to comment on the ‘sensitive’ nature of the queries about which technology they would back. The Thorium Edge Developments in nuclear technology have been static globally for nearly three decades. The US, for instance, has not set up a new nuclear plant in 29 years. But India’s new-found interest and China’s plan to raise its nuclear power generation target from 40 GW to 70 GW by 2020 have livened up the international nuclear industry. And thorium is back in nuclear debates almost 50 years after it was banished as an unviable technology. Ironically, the world’s first nuclear power plant at Pennsylvania in the US was built using thorium fuel. Although thorium is three-four times more abundant in nature than uranium, the West embraced uranium as the programme could double up for nuclear weapons too. Thorium, though, has several advantages (see ‘Uranium Vs Thorium’). In an environment of growing terrorist threats, its biggest advantage is that it cannot be readily used as nuclear weapons material. {mospagebreak} Who wants thorium reactors? Countries such as India and Australia, which have nearly 50 per cent of the world’s thorium reserves New technology suppliers and consultants Countries that wish to use nuclear technology for non-weapon use Who does not want thorium reactors? Governments and regulators unwilling to try out new technologies Incumbents and established nuclear reactor builders and technology providers Existing nuclear-plant operators who will need to spend more on learning and vetting technology In India, diehard nationalists fear the Indo-US nuclear deal could reverse over five decades of indigenous technology development, and shift the domestic nuclear programme’s focus from self-reliance to what could, in future, be a debilitating dependence on western technology. Their fear stems from the concern that the US and most other countries will sell light-water reactors (80 per cent of the world’s reactors run on light water) and related technology, while the entire Indian nuclear programme is built around the heavy-water technology that is better suited for thorium use. More than five decades ago when Homi Bhabha conceived the nuclear programme, it was tailored to eventually use thorium because India has 290,000 tonnes of thorium reserves — the world’s second largest behind Australia’s 300,000 tonnes. “There appears to be a deliberate move to scuttle the thorium-breeder programme because if we establish the commercial use of the thorium cycle, India would be a tremendous technology and fuel powerhouse for nuclear energy,” says former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board A. Gopalakrishnan, who had opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal. The US, at whom this volley is directed, applied the brakes on the heavy-water technology development more than three decades ago because it found light-water reactors more efficient. But India continued with the heavy-water reactors because they use natural uranium, while light-water reactors consume enriched uranium, which requires another set of complex processing. No other nation, except Russia and, to an extent, Germany, has since worked on heavy-water technology development. This is a fact that scientists believe, rather jingoistically, gives India an edge. After all, India is the only country to be setting up a 300-MW plant at Kalpakkam near Chennai that will be a stepping stone to commercial thorium power generation. It had been conceived after a trial-run in a 30-KW reactor, also at Kalpakkam. As the next step, a thorium reactor is currently being vetted at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Barc) in Mumbai for technology and design. The Indian Edge “India is ahead of the curve of almost everybody in thorium-fuel reactors,” says D.V. Kapur, director of Reliance Industries and former power secretary. “But, at what stage thorium reactors will be possible is still a question.” Thorium backers, however, believe that the Kalpakkam project, scheduled for commissioning in 2010-11, will be the first major technology demonstrator, and that India can begin developing larger commercial thorium reactors within 8-10 years. A two-year wait from now for a nuclear project that has an average lifecycle of 60 years is fair, they say. Besides, the Kalpakkam plant is being designed for an astonishing 100-year lifetime. The next best: a thorium plant is being trial-run in Russia for nearly five years. “Thorium utilisation was never a short-term option; 30 have been spent in developing an entire nuclear-fuel cycle all by ourselves under embargos,” says A.N. Prasad, a former director of Barc. “But the opportunity to lead the world will be gone if resources and infrastructure get diverted (towards uranium and light-water reactors). Though the government has not explicitly indicated it, but look at the implications.” The case being built up by the pro-thorium lobbies would be hard to set aside for its indigenous implications. Not to forget that the scorching global metal prices have already raised the cost of setting up a nuclear plant by up to 30-50 per cent in the past two years. With metal prices softening, that cost may come down a bit now but, for the moment, fully imported uranium reactors at a rupee-dollar rate of nearly Rs 50 per dollar will be nearly 20 per cent more expensive than normal. With the rupee continuing to slide, this will dissuade imports in any immediate nuclear reactor orders, hurting the uranium lobby for the moment. With inputs from Kandula Subramaniam 'rajeevdubey at abp dot in' (Businessworld Issue 16-22 Dec 2008)