#104 Next-Gen Nuclear?
#104 Next-Gen Nuclear?
Today, Miheer Karandikar talks about small modular nuclear reactors and developments in nuclear energy, followed by Arindam Goswami’s piece on the EV ecosystem. Lastly, we follow with a new section by Lokendra Sharma, which focuses on curating academic research outputs. In today’s edition, he provides recommendations that shed light on the many facets of disinformation.
Technopolitik: SMRs, the future of Nuclear Energy?
— Miheer Karandikar
A significant buzz around the world about nuclear energy has recently developed, specifically around SMRs.
On October 15, Google announced that it bought its first set of modular nuclear reactors, providing almost 500 GW of power from California’s Kairos Power. Microsoft also announced that it would buy energy from Three Mile Island, a nuclear plant that has been inactive for five years. On October 16, the US government announced a $900mn fund to build and deploy the next generation of small and modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).
There has been a buzz around this in India, too, though not as recently. Budget 2024 allocated Rs 24969 crore to the DEA for this purpose and aims to invest more than Rs 100,000 crore to develop Bharat Small Modular Reactors for research and development of SMRs.
So, what are SMRs? Small reactors are nuclear power plants with a generation capacity of less than 300 MW. Modular reactors are designed to be made in factories and assembled on-site. A combination of both is a Small Modular Reactor or an SMR.
SMRs have many advantages. Private players can set them up independently, so the government doesn't always need to be heavily involved. For example, Google is teaming up with Kaios Power in the US, which will build and operate its SMRs. Amazon is doing it with Dominion Energy.
A great example is how companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are looking at SMRs to fulfil the massive electricity demand generated by AI and cloud computing. Modular reactors can be factory-built, unlike conventional nuclear reactors built on-site, which means the construction costs are cheaper. They also need less frequent refuelling, which reduces risk.
According to one study, they are safer because they are less exposed to earthquakes and meltdowns than large ones. They can also be turned off and on safely, which large reactors can’t. However, a report highlights some problems, mainly because few countries, including the US, have developed a way to dispose of nuclear waste safely.
It also means they can be set up where large nuclear plants can't, and acquiring this land is much easier. This gives SMRs a diverse range of use cases.
One of the significant advantages of nuclear power plants is that they initially require much less capital investment.
This makes it easier for private players to set it up independently without the government's support. It also reduces their possible liabilities, which means they'll be more perceptive to SMRs. Unfortunately, they are not cheaper than large nuclear reactors and even renewable energy for per capita electricity production. Large-scale nuclear power costs between $141 and $233/MWh in 2030, with small modular reactors estimated to cost $230 to $382/MWh in the UK.
Nuclear energy is excellent for the environment, as it is virtually emissions-free. Nuclear energy causes 99% fewer deaths than any other energy source, including natural gas. In context, coal-based power plants in the country caused more than 46,00,000 deaths in the US between 1990 and 2020. India currently generates more than 90% of its electricity from coal, the most harmful source of emissions. Nuclear power can help mitigate the price fluctuations that other fuels can have, especially crude oil, as its supply is limited and heavily controlled. Nuclear power is better in some aspects than renewable energy because it is more dependable. It can generate energy 24/7 and doesn't require batteries, which saves emissions/dependency on raw materials. It also eliminates the dependency on the weather for generation, and there are no variations in generation based on time of the day, etc. This makes it more reliable, too. SMRs can also be set up on or off the grid, which means they can have use cases in remote areas.
This ties into two contrasting global trends. Countries like Germany, the US, Spain, Switzerland, etc, are phasing out nuclear generation, a trend we can observe over the last decade. In Germany, 2021 and 2023 saw three nuclear power plants shut down each. The US has seen the shutdown of at least four plants in various states over the last ten years, most of them full-size power plants.
Other European countries, such as Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland, have also shut down existing plants or scrapped plans to build new ones.
Much of this could be due to the plan made after the fallout of the Fukushima incident in Japan in 2011, when an earthquake caused severe damage to three out of six cores in the plant. The release of radioactive material and hydrogen created a humanitarian crisis in the country.
But commentators have called out how problems about nuclear power plants are blown out of proportion. Because incidents like these gain a lot of attention, people tend to overestimate the impact. Compared to fossil-fuel-based energy, the negative impacts (pollution) are much more dispersed and, hence, much easier to underestimate. However, the adverse effects of fossil fuels are decidedly more deadly. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), some countries have started building nuclear capacity again, and much of the growth has come from China and Russia.
What's in it for India? Like the world, India needs more renewable energy in all shapes and sizes, including nuclear energy. About 1% of India's total electricity needs come from nuclear energy. The NDA government has been bullish on nuclear energy, especially in the last 2-3 years. It proposes that India's nuclear capacity will increase from 7480 MW to 22480 MW in 2031. According to some estimates, India's total energy requirement will be 400 GW, which means nuclear energy will be 5.6% of total capacity in 2031 if the targets are achieved. However, building large nuclear plants in India has a long history. Almost all of the sites that have been proposed for nuclear reactors have seen protests against them. The main reasons have been unwillingness to give land and potential security concerns. SMRs can be a remedy for that. Their land footprint and security risks are much lower. Building three SMRs could mean fewer headaches for the government than building one large nuclear power plant, even though they will have the same capacity. Another potential advantage could be the entrance of private players.
Because the initial capital investment is lower, companies will find it more feasible to build SMRs. After the budgetary announcement, the Department of Atomic Energy started collaborating with Tata Consulting Engineers to develop the Bharat Small Modular Reactor. However, the government is funding this project. The better way to involve the private sector is to allow companies to build SMRs for themselves and permit them to sell back to the grid. This reduces their reliability on the national grid, especially when the demand is high (like data centres) and gives them another avenue to reduce their carbon footprint.
Many companies in the US are doing this. The electricity sector in India is highly controlled, with state discoms as monopolies, and more private sector involvement would always be welcome. Because the initial investment is low, the government could also find it more feasible to build these plants.
Currently, the government is investing ₹20,000 crores atleast for each sizeable nuclear power plant they build, with an average capacity of 2000MW.
There is, however, no real consensus on how expensive building an SMR could be. Almost ₹25,000 crore was allocated for the development of the Bharat Small Modular Reactor, but there are no official numbers on how much money will be needed to build one. There is likely to be some public-private partnership involved. Some estimates say large-scale nuclear costs are between $141 and $233/MWh in 2030, with small modular reactors estimated to be $230 to $382/MWh, but in the UK.
The bottom line is that SMRs offer many win-win situations, especially for India. How effectively the government collaborates with the private sector to develop an indigenous SMR will be seen. The government should allow the private sector to develop and employ SMRs by itself, and the private sector is likely to be willing to do so.
Technopolitik: Electrifying the EV ecosystem
— Arindam Goswami
India’s electric vehicle (EV) policy needs some “electrification”. The programmes and schemes we have, right from the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP) 2020 announced in 2013 to the recently announced PM Electric Drive Revolution in Innovative Vehicle Enhancement (PM E-DRIVE) subsidy scheme, aren’t ambitious enough when you get down to the details. They will not kindle technological development in this field in the true sense unless the focus is on value-addition, and not just manufacturing and assembly, though that could be the starting point for going up the value chain the traditional way.
The recently announced PM E-DRIVE scheme gives subsidies for electric 2-wheelers, electric 3-wheelers, e-ambulances, e-trucks and other emerging EVs. The announced subsidies will be reduced by half in the next financial year or have been capped at some amounts, which seems reasonable, though it has caused some disappointment. Electric cars already enjoy a reduced 5% GST rate and hence have been excluded from this scheme.
This scheme will replace the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles (FAME) India Scheme launched in 2015, though phase 2 of this scheme launched in 2019 had a larger outlay of around Rs. 10000 crores, same as the PM E-DRIVE scheme. The government’s stated aims behind this programme are varied – fuel security, pollution control, promoting sustainable transportation solutions, spurring investments in local EV manufacturing, and employment. PM E-DRIVE has a Phased Manufacturing Program (PMP) component, with mandates on local manufacturing of (EV) components, though there won’t be a need for domestic value addition, which is disappointing. The focus seems to be still on assembly, which doesn’t help in moving up the value addition chain, and on adoption. There is an emphasis on charging infrastructure creation, which is well-placed since that is a pain-point in the widespread adoption of EVs. Electrification of public transportation as part of this scheme could help spur some demand, with the initial focus on nine cities with more than 40 lakh population, namely Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Surat, Bangalore, Pune and Hyderabad.
However, reductions in subsidies could hurt demand going ahead. With limited resources available with any government, this would always be the case. But the allocation of just Rs. 10000 crores over 2 years seems a little less, considering that this is one critical sector from a climate change mitigation perspective, and has geopolitical ramifications because of the supply chain aspects.
The scheme would benefit from integrations with renewable energy initiatives for green charging, like solar-powered charging stations. We need to consider incentives for grid integration of EVs, which would help handle demand and provide stability to the grid. Such cross-sectional integrations would be important.
The focus must also be on battery-swapping technologies aimed at standardising batteries to address range anxiety and long charging times. However, this has to be done cautiously because this is a fast-evolving technology, and rigid standardising can dampen outcomes. We have had schemes around this too - Production Linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme for National Programme on Advanced Chemistry Cell (ACC) Battery Storage, which allocated ₹18,100 crore to establish 50 GWh of ACC manufacturing facilities, and had a local value addition component. The outcomes will have to be evaluated.
This entire sector has geopolitical ramifications. China is the world’s largest producer of EV batteries and major exporter of EVs and EV components. It controls majority of the world’s lithium and cobalt processing and other rare earth element production and processing. Hence, the Critical Minerals Mission announced in the budget this year and other such initiatives, including strategic collaborations with countries across the EV global value chain, assume increased significance. There is an acceptance of the importance of this. However, the details need a lot of work. For example, we don’t have details of the Critical Minerals Mission yet. Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes aimed at production targets will not provide the necessary fillip to this sector unless they have research and value-addition linked incentives. We have to focus on research and development (R&D) in this sector, and not fall behind on these aspects.
The key to success will be to focus on the complete EV ecosystem, and not just vehicle manufacturing. R&D is vital if we want to race ahead and not be relegated to playing catch-up later. That isn’t happening yet.
If you like the newsletter, you will love to read our in-depth research and analysis at https://takshashila.org.in/high-tech-geopolitics.
Demystifying Disinformation
Disinformation is back in the news yet again. An investigation by Global Witness has found that TikTok allowed for 50 per cent of ads containing election-related disinformation. This happened, the report noted, despite TikTok’s policy of banning all political ads. Global Witness submitted eight test ads to TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook to conduct the investigation. Facebook let one ad pass through, while YouTube did not let any pass. This development is bound to bring increased scrutiny over TikTok’s operations in the US, given the ongoing context of presidential elections and the 2024 US legislation that forces a change of TikTok ownership by January 2025. In addition, there has been news about the Russian disinformation campaign on Hurricane Milton and the US Department of Homeland Security Secretary’s statement that election and hurricane-related disinformation has been ‘extremely damaging.’ Then, across the Atlantic, there is a disinformation campaign — again attributed to Russia — in Moldova as it votes on whether to join the EU or not.
But what is disinformation? Why do actors mount disinformation campaigns, and how can these be tackled? To help arrive at answers to these and other questions surrounding disinformation, in this edition we recommend the following journal article as an essential backgrounder:
Jungherr, A. (2024). Foundational questions for the regulation of digital disinformation. Journal of Media Law, 16(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2024.2362484 (open access)
In this article, Jungherr first undertakes the (difficult) task of defining disinformation. Disinformation is often used interchangeably and confused with misinformation and fake news. But all of these terms are slightly different. Consulting with sources such as the American Psychological Association and National Library of Australia will give one a good idea about these terms: misinformation is false or misleading information not involving any element of internationality; disinformation is false or misleading information that an actor deliberately spreads with an intention; fake news is false or misleading information that is packaged as mainstream news. But Jungherr goes beyond this and provides a simple yet analytically sound framework to look at these terms. He notes that one ‘can identify three levels of the underlying phenomenon, that are intertwined and need untangling: information quality, intentionality, and labelling.’
While the above definition of disinformation may create the illusion of easy identification, Jungherr points out how difficult it is to identify disinformation, especially in circumstances ‘such as ongoing crisis events or matters of political opinion or competition, identifying factualness becomes harder.’ Which actor or authority should be entrusted to call out disinformation also strikes at the core of the epistemic strength or functioning of open democratic societies. He also argues that disinformation is not a neutral term, and in a politically polarised environment, applying the label of disinformation carries its own set of problems.
Jungherr then addresses foundational questions on the source, reach and effects of disinformation. He concludes the article by arguing: ‘Even in the US, the country with the strongest academic and public attention on public disinformation, the reach of digital disinformation appears limited and mainly restricted to people already willing to agree with the political slant in the presented information.’ He takes a counter-mainstream view that the claims of dangers arising out of digital disinformation are overstated and overhyped.
In addition to the journal article above, the following academic outputs can be consulted:
To understand methods — including kill chains — to counter disinformation in the Information Age, read this journal article: Dowse, A., & Bachmann, S. D. (2022). Information warfare: methods to counter disinformation. Defense & Security Analysis, 38(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.2117285
For an overall introduction to disinformation, including its history, read this book chapter: Bennett, W.L., Livingston, S. (2023). A Brief History of the Disinformation Age: Information Wars and the Decline of Institutional Authority. In: Salgado, S., Papathanassopoulos, S. (eds) Streamlining Political Communication Concepts. Springer Studies in Media and Political Communication. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45335-9_4