Promoting energy-efficient technologies to reach the Blue Map scenario of 50 per cent reduction from 2005 energy-related emission levels by 2050 is the aim of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, a non-government organisation advising 28 member-countries. Its executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, who in his earlier role as a Japanese diplomat oversaw the implementation of Japan’s international nuclear energy policy and led negotiations of bilateral nuclear agreements, spoke to Jyoti Mukul and Sudheer Pal Singh on India’s energy challenges. Edited excerpts:
IEA in its report has suggested that decarbonising the electricity sector will involve use of nuclear and renewable energy and increasing the share of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to coal plants. How do you compare nuclear versus renewable energy for a country like India?
We need all the options. India needs energy efficiency first. Then comes renewable energy, which has different applications; India has hydro and solar. In Europe and the US, maybe wind (energy) is more applicable. It depends on a country, whether it is willing to take the nuclear option. In our Blue Map scenario, half the power will be generated by renewable, the other half by nuclear and CCS. If we can do more renewable, you can have less nuclear and if you can do more CCS, you can have less nuclear. We feel nuclear is a very important option globally, if we have to reduce CO2 emissions by half till 2050.
Nuclear power must be as safe as possible. Safety is a major issue. Also, there is another consideration, the non-proliferation requirement. These two requirements are very important.
The Indian Parliament recently passed the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Industry is of the view that with the increase in liability, companies will be deterred from supplying equipment. Do you think the apprehension is correct?
It depends on how law is going to be implemented. For example, if a defect is found in the nuclear reactor or product, certainly supplier is responsible for that but if it because of human error of the operator then he may not be responsible. Already they have some responsibility resulting in regulation. One has to see how this legislation is interpreted and implemented. The industry response will depend on how it is interpreted.
What is the way out?
Nuclear power must be as safe as possible. Safety is a major issue. Also there is another consideration like non-proliferation requirement. These two requirements are very important conditions.
How should the issue of liability be addressed?
It depends on different countries. Certainly, if you need safer and better facilities, it may be one idea. But does it really help supplier to supply more and what is the cost implication of that? There are plenty of issues which could be considered in the implementation. A lot things could come up during implementation.
Would increase in liability increase insurance cost and consumer price?
If it is implemented as such, cost for the supplier could increase and that means cost to consumers could increase.
India is a price-sensitive market, where it is important to make power affordable for a large section that does not have access to electricity. How far is it feasible to reduce dependence on cheaper coal-based power generation?
It is an important point. To reduce coal power usage by using carbon capture storage on coal power plants, there is need for a carbon price or cost. The CO2 emission must be penalised by some measure—carbon tax, carbon price, carbon trade mechanism. CCS needs to be made viable. In a cost-sensitive market, it is a challenge but it is a necessary price to make this technology possible.
Do you think the methods adopted by the Indian government for cutting carbon emissions are good enough?
The Indian government is pledging improvement by putting up programmes for energy efficiency in buildings and developing solar priorities and nuclear (energy). There are plenty of programmes for making India move towards sustainability or a low-carbon economy. We are calculating these measures and their impact. It seems to us it is much more than India has pledged at Copenhagen. It can do more. Of course, negotiations are negotiations and we understand that but what India is planning to do for the future is much more. When you calculate the individual measures into one, then I think India can do more.
When it comes to reducing the emission level, do you think India should share the same targets as developed countries?
In our calculations in this model, Indian efficiency increase and new technologies can provide very low per capita intensity trajectory. In our assumption, India should start some kind of carbon trade measures around 2030. India needs some kind of measures to price carbon, eventually.
Gas and nuclear are increasingly becoming important for India but both these fuels do not compare too well with coal in terms of pricing. How can this be addressed?
This is the challenge for India. To make low-carbon options more viable, you have to put the carbon price (right) somehow, by a carbon tax or carbon trade mechanism or some kind of regulation to give more advantage to gas or renewable or nuclear. This depends on the development and potential. Each government should design support measures like feeding rates, carbon price or government R&D money. That kind of intervention is necessary to make a low-carbon power sector.
Are you saying the government should offer subsidy?
A kind of subsidy can be given. It depends on technology. For instance, in CCS or technology which is primitive, the government should provide R&D money. On the other hand, if wind technology is getting more commercially viable, you can do not only feeding tariff (rates) but do more tradable green certificates. Depending on the level of maturity, you have to design the right tools to support technology.
How important is price decontrol?
That is important. Energy efficiency is one of the major contributions to sustainability. Subsidy or price control disturbs the market pricing. Consumers must be given the correct signal from the market, otherwise efficiency gains will not materialise.
