Make Public Nuclear Energy Cost Calculations

The following is the text of the letter written by CPI(M) MP Tapan Sen to the prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh on November 2, 2006.

IN the course of your reply to the discussion on Indo-US Nuclear Deal in Rajya Sabha on 17.8.2006, you had dwelt on cost-effectiveness of nuclear power when you said:

“….And, when it comes to energy security, widening our choices means that we should be able to make effective use of nuclear power. If the need arises, if the economic calculus demands that this is the most cost-effective means -- it is my belief that the nuclear order that prevailed in the world for thirty odd years, which has imposed restrictions on nuclear trade with India -- if this nuclear order is not changed, India's development options, particularly its quest for energy security will face, to put it mildly, a great degree of uncertainty….”

This was apparently in response to the observation of my esteemed colleague Sitaram Yechury that nuclear power is a costlier proposition compared to energy sources available within the country. In this connection I invite your kind attention to the studies conducted by MIT, USA in 2003 and University of Chicago in 2004, which clearly shows (see table) that nuclear power obviously is an expensive source of electricity compared to coal and gas.

LEVELIZED COST OF ELECTRICITY ESTIMATED BY THE MIT AND UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Generation Type	MIT Report (2003)	University of Chicago Report (2004)
Coal	4.2 cents per kWh	3.3 to 4.1 cents per kWh
Natural Gas (CCGT)	3.8 to 5.6 cents per kWh	3.5 to 4.5 cents per kWh
Nuclear Power	6.7 cents per kWh	6.2 cents per kWh

(Source: Science for Democratic Action, published by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research,

I have not otherwise come across any other data, which shows nuclear power as the most cost effective means in the economic calculus. As for USA, it has been more than 25 years since the last reactor was ordered for civilian nuclear industry. You had mentioned about some work done by Planning Commission on this subject when you said:

“…Things can change. And, I think, the Planning Commission have done recent work, and they have also come to the conclusion that having the nuclear option is something which will give us greater degree of security on the energy front…”

However, the Approach Paper for Eleventh Five Year Plan by Planning Commission does not deal at all with the issue of nuclear option as a cost effective means for energy security. I therefore request you to kindly direct Planning Commission immediately to make public whatever work they have done recently before concluding that nuclear power is most cost effective means to ensure energy security.

People's Democracy