Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, in her budget speech, has announced a ₹20,000-crore Nuclear Energy Mission for R&D into small reactors and reiterating the (new) target of 100 GW of installed nuclear power capacity by 2047.  

The government wants to operationalise five small modular reactors by 2033. To enable private sector participation in SMRs, the government also intends to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act.  

The new Mission and the mention of nuclear power in the budget speech, which follows similar mentions in the budget speech of July 2024, underscores the importance the government gives to nuclear energy.  

The budget announcements can be broken into three elements – the target, SMRs and the amendments to nuclear law. 

100 GW by 2047 

The ‘100 GW by 2047’ is a reiteration of the latest target that the government has been speaking about in recent times. But nuclear power capacity targets have been swinging wildly over the last several years. 

First, the former Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, used to speak of 35 GW by 2022 and 60 GW by 2032.  

Then, under the new government, the target was revised to 63 GW by 2032. This target was mentioned by Minister Jitendra Singh, as late as on April 28, 2016, in a reply to a Rajya Sabha question. However, the target was revised downwards to 22,480 MW by 2031-32 (Rajya Sabha, August 8, 2024). Alongside, the government began speaking of 100,000 MW by 2047.  

Today, India has nuclear power capacity of 8,180 MW. If India achieves 22,480 MW by 2031-32; it would need to add 77,520 MW in 15 years – a tall order, going by India’s nuclear power track record. 

Mission for SMR

The budget speech mentions the government’s desire to “operationalise” five small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2033. In her budget speech of last year, Sitharaman mentioned Bharat Small Reactors (BSR), to mean India’s indigenous SMRs. The semantic shift from BSR to SMR might mean that all the five reactors may not be indigenous. 

BSRs are likely to be India’s Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors’ (PHWR), modified with features (such as ‘passive safety’). India has expertise in PHWRs, with 20 of them in operation, of which 15 are ‘small’ (220 MW). This gives an opportunity to assume leadership in SMRs, with rich export possibilities.  

In addition, the SMRs (or BSRs) could be built to handle newer fuels that may have thorium. India has the world’s largest reserves of thorium—a million tons. One such new fuel is ‘ANEEL’, which is a mix of Uranium enriched to higher levels (between 14 and 19 per cent) and thorium. As such, it gives the country an option to plunge into thorium, without having to wait for a sequential 3-stage plan, which, even after seven decades, seems to be stuck between the first and second stages. 

One has to wait for the details of the Nuclear Energy Mission to see how it takes the SMR movement forward. 

Nuclear law 

The Atomic Energy Act needs to be amended to allow private sector participation in nuclear energy. By all accounts, this will be done.  

Amending the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act is contentious and calls for tip-toeing through a legal minefield. The very mention of the amendment has got the Opposition up in arms – Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, has already posted on X saying, “To appease Mr Trump, the FM announces that the Act will be amended.” 

The CLND Act is meant to govern who will pay in the case of a nuclear mishap – the government, the plant operator or the equipment supplier. As it stands today, the operator’s liability is capped at ₹500 crore, beyond which the government will pay. However, this cap could be raised or altogether removed by the government. The international Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage says that the operator’s liability is “absolute” -- the operator is responsible irrespective of whose fault.  

The operator (which has been the public sector NPCIL) is allowed to add a clause in the agreement with the equipment supplier for “recourse”, which the global equipment suppliers, such as Westinghouse, do not like. In the absence of such a clause, the equipment supplier becomes liable if the mishap could be traced to a fault in the equipment. 

The government is also reported to be thinking of setting up a Nuclear Audit Authority, which might need to be anchored in some legislative provision. 

Related Topics