.jpeg)
The recent advocacy for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) by a member of NITI Aayog and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s (AERB) statements about Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs) have highlighted India’s commitment to expanding its nuclear power sector. However, these proclamations raise significant concerns, particularly when seen in the context of the country’s existing energy and environmental landscape. Two recent news reports exemplify this direction: one states that India's BSRs will not require new safety regulations, and the other discusses the expanded role of nuclear power in India’s energy mix.
In the public sphere, we frequently encounter assurances from officials about the safety and utility of nuclear reactors. However, there remains a persistent failure to address the complex, multifaceted concerns that civil society has raised for decades. The lack of transparency and engagement with public concerns, paired with a steadfast push for resource-intensive and untested nuclear technologies, is troubling for multiple reasons.
Major concerns with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in India
Several critical issues warrant serious attention before India rushes into the adoption of SMRs as a key energy solution. These concerns are highlighted in communications I sent to the Prime Minister and NITI Aayog, with additional appeals submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA). They represent deep-rooted apprehensions shared by many environmental and energy policy advocates.
1. Questionable justification for safety claims: Statements from AERB officials suggest that existing safety norms and regulations applicable to the current fleet of 220 MW Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) are sufficient for BSRs, which are smaller in size. However, this raises a fundamental question: if BSRs are simply downsized versions of existing reactors with similar safety standards, why the need for new SMR technology? If PHWRs have shown “good safety records,” this argument loses consistency, and it remains unclear what new advantages are expected from SMRs.
2. Conflicting goals in reactor sizing
The AEC has argued that SMRs, due to their modular design, offer safety and flexibility for smaller capacity installations (around 300 MW or less). Yet, simultaneously, the government has pursued the acquisition of six European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) of 1,650 MW each for the Jaitapur site. The inconsistency in advocating for both small reactors and large-scale installations is confusing, particularly given the heightened safety risks of larger reactors.
3. Overstated low-carbon claims: SMRs are often touted as a low-carbon energy source, supposedly addressing climate change by minimizing emissions. However, numerous experts question the feasibility of achieving significant climate impact through nuclear power alone. The scale of deployment required globally to offset emissions is enormous, and nuclear expansion in India cannot realistically make a meaningful dent in global carbon emissions within the necessary timeframes.
4. High cost per megawatt: The anticipated per-megawatt cost of SMRs is higher than that of large-scale reactors, and their power generation per megawatt is lower. This disparity leads to an undeniable increase in electricity costs from SMRs, making them economically disadvantageous compared to other renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
5. Persistent risk of accidents: Dr. M.V. Ramana, a noted expert in nuclear policy, has pointed out that SMRs carry the same risks as conventional reactors—severe accidents, radioactive waste, and potential nuclear proliferation. All reactors, regardless of size, share inherent hazards, making accidents possible with significant risks of radioactive contamination.
6. Expanded community impact: The rollout of SMRs could necessitate many more reactor sites across the country, increasing the potential for accidents and exposing larger numbers of communities to the risks associated with nuclear radiation. Although smaller reactors may seem safer individually, clustering them at a single site could exacerbate risks, especially if an incident at one reactor affects others nearby.
7. Comparatively high lifecycle costs: Lazard’s annual cost report and other studies indicate that the lifecycle costs of SMRs and nuclear power outpace those of solar and wind energy. Given India’s abundant solar and wind resources, prioritizing nuclear power without a thorough comparative analysis undermines public trust and fails to utilize the country’s limited resources in the most efficient way possible.
Conclusion: An irrational push for SMRs
In light of the challenges and the overall state of the Indian energy sector, NITI Aayog's endorsement of SMRs seems illogical, costly, and strategically misaligned. Without transparent, well-documented cost-benefit analyses, the push for SMRs can only be viewed as a questionable investment, particularly when clean, cost-effective, and scalable alternatives such as solar and wind are available.
The AERB, AEC, and DAE should proactively address civil society’s concerns, perhaps through structured dialogues and by publishing clarifications on their official websites. Years ago, a senior official from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre expressed interest in discussing the nuclear power policy with me, but this meeting never materialized. It is disappointing that India’s nuclear authorities are not more responsive to the legitimate concerns of the public. A transparent and inclusive approach is essential to ensure that nuclear power expansion is genuinely in the national interest.
---
*Power & Climate Policy Analyst, Karnataka. This article is based on the author's representation to Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Chairman, AERB, and Dr. Ajit Kumar Mohanty, Secretary, DAE & Chairman, AEC
Comments