MENU
Ajay and Amit argue that nuclear energy is far safer than commonly believed and explore how to create conditions for private investment in nuclear power in India.
Ajay Shah is an economist who has held positions at various government and academic institutions, known for his work on public policy and institutional reform. Amit Varma is a writer, podcaster, and the creator of "The Seen and the Unseen," one of India's most respected long-form conversation shows. Together, they host "Everything is Everything," where they explore big ideas through the lens of first principles, books, history, and lived experience.
Nuclear energy faces a perception problem. While people fear spectacular accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the data tells a different story. Nuclear power has killed fewer people in 60 years than coal kills in a single month, making it the safest form of energy known to humanity. Yet ideological opposition and regulatory barriers have prevented its widespread adoption.
Ajay and Amit examine why nuclear energy has disappointed globally, from capital intensity to safety fears, before exploring emerging solutions like small modular reactors (SMRs) that promise to revolutionize the industry through mass production. They argue that the path forward lies not in government mandates but in removing barriers that prevent private companies from choosing nuclear power based on business fundamentals. For India specifically, this means reforming five key areas: import restrictions, grid access, security protocols, international treaties, and liability laws.
The conversation builds toward a vision where private players can freely choose between solar-wind-storage combinations and nuclear baseload power, letting market forces rather than central planning determine the optimal energy mix.
Shah, Ajay, and Amit Varma. "The Case for Nuclear Electricity." Episode 78 of Everything is Everything. XKDR Forum, December 20, 2024. Podcast, video, 53:22. https://www.xkdr.org/viewpoints/the-case-for-nuclear-electricity-episode-78-everything-is-everything
The nuclear energy debate suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding about safety. When people think of nuclear power, they immediately associate it with nuclear weapons and recall dramatic accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. But this fear is not supported by the data.
Three Mile Island killed no one. Fukushima killed no one from the nuclear incident itself—deaths occurred from the tsunami and hurried evacuation. Even Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history, killed fewer people than coal accidents cause in a typical month. Nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per unit of energy generated of any power source.
The conflation of nuclear power with nuclear weapons stems from ideological packaging that emerged in the 1970s peace movement. As Amit explains:
"There are 24 countries in the world which have nuclear power, but they haven't built nuclear bombs. These are completely separate things. For some reason, in the '70s, in the peace movement, environmental movement, they got conflated."
France provides the clearest example of nuclear success. With 71% of electricity generated by nuclear power, France has carbon dioxide emissions per capita that are one-tenth the global average, with no safety issues and dramatically reduced costs.
Despite early optimism following 1945, nuclear energy has failed to live up to expectations worldwide. The technology has proven extremely capital intensive, with modern large-scale plants taking up to 20 years to build and costing thousands of megawatts worth of investment. When combined with construction delays, the economics simply don't work.
The safety perception problem deepened with each major accident. While Chernobyl could be rationalized as Soviet incompetence, Fukushima shattered that comfortable assumption. Angela Merkel, a PhD chemist and hardly a scientific lightweight, captured this perfectly when she called a meeting after Fukushima with a simple premise: "The Japanese are as good as us. So if a nuclear accident happened there, can it happen here?"
This logic led Germany to abandon nuclear power entirely, a decision that looks increasingly questionable from a 2024 perspective. The fundamental reasoning was sound—if highly competent Japanese engineers couldn't prevent an accident, what made Germans think they could?
The nuclear safety challenge breaks down into three core problems: radioactive materials that can travel thousands of kilometers as contaminated rain, chain reactions that can create runaway heating, and complex system interactions that magnify human errors unpredictably.
But these challenges are not insurmountable. As Ajay points out, we have extensive evidence of safe nuclear operation:
"All modern aircraft carriers have nuclear reactors on board, and they work very well. The safety characteristics have been excellent. All modern submarines have a nuclear reactor on board, and they work very well."
The key insight is that improved reactor designs can eliminate the chain reaction problem entirely. When safety incidents occur, newer reactors spontaneously shut down through physical forces like gravity that pull fissile material apart, making runaway reactions impossible.
This connects to a broader principle about technological progress. When Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" in 1965, he didn't argue for abandoning cars—he argued for making them safer. Revolutionary safety gains followed. The same approach applies to nuclear power: identify problems and engineer solutions rather than abandon the technology.
Nuclear power's cost problem has a clear solution: industrialization. The breakthrough insight comes from World War II manufacturing, particularly the Liberty ships program. When German U-boats were sinking hundreds of transport vessels, the Americans didn't just build more ships—they revolutionized shipbuilding itself.
Ajay describes the transformation:
"At the beginning of this journey, it took 270 days to commission a ship. And at the end of this journey, it took 35 days. At the end of this journey, in 35 days, from start to finish, you were rolling a ship into the sea."
The same principle applies to nuclear reactors. Instead of building artisanal 4,000-megawatt plants one at a time, the industry is moving toward small modular reactors (SMRs) of 50-100 megawatts that can be mass produced on assembly lines. A 50-megawatt plant can power approximately 25,000 households or run a large factory.
The vision is transformative: SMRs the size of large trucks that arrive fully assembled and ready to operate. Instead of decades-long construction projects, you simply install a prefabricated reactor like a diesel generator. This eliminates construction delays and enables the scale economies that drove solar power's dramatic cost reductions.
India's approach to nuclear power remains trapped in a 1950s mindset where only government can handle such technology. This assumption made sense perhaps in 1945, but is completely wrong today. The conflation of nuclear weapons (which require government control) with nuclear energy (which should operate like any other business) has created unnecessary barriers.
India needs to reform five specific areas to enable private nuclear investment. First, establish clear legal frameworks for private companies to import nuclear plants based purely on business considerations. A 50-megawatt plant costing $200-300 million represents a feasible investment for India's top 100 companies.
Second, allow nuclear generators to sell directly to private buyers without forcing expensive commitments on financially weak distribution companies. This follows the offshore wind model—if you believe nuclear can profit from evening peak pricing, you should be free to build it and find your own customers.
Third, develop security protocols similar to aviation, where private airports operate under government security oversight. The CISF already understands airport security; it needs to develop similar expertise for protecting uranium and nuclear waste at private facilities.
India must also join international nuclear governance systems. The International Atomic Energy Agency runs global standards for safety procedures, fuel handling, and waste management. Without signing these treaties and agreeing to international protocols, global suppliers won't sell fuel or reactors to Indian buyers.
The liability issue represents the biggest barrier. Current Indian law makes reactor vendors liable forever for any safety issues, regardless of operator error or maintenance failures. This is like holding Toyota responsible for every accident involving their cars, even decades after purchase.
As Ajay explains the international model:
"Step one, liability rests only with the operator. So if there is an accident and 100,000 people are affected, they go sue only the operator. But Tata Power and Tata Power alone has the ability to go to a foreign source of the reactor and say, you had design mistakes which caused this accident."
This creates clear accountability—victims sue the operator, and only the operator can sue the manufacturer for design defects. Until India adopts this standard international approach, no global firm will risk selling nuclear technology to Indian buyers.
The ultimate goal is not to mandate nuclear power but to create conditions where private companies can choose freely between solar-wind-storage combinations and nuclear baseload power based on their own business analysis of evening peak pricing and storage costs.
The complete transcript file is available to download below.
2024, XKDR | GSTIN: 27AAACX3640C1ZN
by Sane Difference
