India, June 25 -- India's quest for non-fossil fuel power generation has led to renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power. The budget for the current fiscal announced plans to have 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047. Apart from this, India is also targeting setting up five small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2033 for which the required research and development would be executed. SMRs are typically small reactors, in the range of 250-300 MW, whose components can be assembled at site. There are many advantages of SMRs, the most important being that they can be ramped up and down to smoothen the grid on account of intermittency of renewable generation, lowering the need for coal-based generation as the stabiliser. There are other benefits too, for example, lower gestation lag, smaller exclusion zone, usability in the off-grid mode, among others. SMRs are well suited for providing captive power to industries that need steady, high voltage power. SMRs are functioning in countries such as Russia and China though capital costs at present are prohibitively expensive for the Indian context. The design for SMRs is yet to be standardised but available literature seems to suggest that India is most likely to adopt the pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) technology. While India's nuclear mission plans to rope in the private sector, the current laws need to change for this to happen. The government has proposed amending the Atomic Energy Act 1962. Will the private sector only be a part equity provider or will it be allowed to operate the plant as well? Further, will foreign players also be allowed to invest? Many things will only be clear when the Act is amended. Globally, private sector participation in nuclear plants is a mixed bag. In the US, there are private players who are operators as well, under strict regulatory oversight. In Finland, there's the Mankal model - a cooperative where multiple companies can collectively invest in a nuclear plant. In France, the public sector leads the way and a similar situation also exists in some other countries that have varying degrees of private participation. In the UK, under the regulated asset based (RAB) model, a guaranteed return is provided to private investors in nuclear power. In India, the amendment of The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 is also under consideration, to make it less stringent in terms of liabilities stemming from a nuclear accident. At present, the Act states that each incident will cost the operator Rs 1,500 crore, over and above any other liability payable under any other Act. Liability laws were made stringent because of incidents such as the Bhopal gas tragedy. Accidents such as the Fukushima disaster further convinced the law makers that it was a step in the right direction. But the need to attract private investment has prompted a rethink here. Beyond amendments in the two Acts, galvanising the private sector for nuclear-sector roles will need resolving many other issues. After all, the vision is to scale up from 8 GW to 100 GW in the next 22 years. This means we need to add about 4 GW every year from now till 2047. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has announced a target of 50 GW. This still leaves half the envisioned capacity to be met by new entities. Providing a guaranteed return as done for other generators where tariffs are fixed on a cost-plus route may not be enough. The government may have to provide tax benefits, green bonds, and even viability gap funding (VGF). Another critical issue will be the supply chain. Apart from domestic feedstock extraction and management, procuring uranium from abroad will always be a headache given geopolitical uncertainty. Nuclear waste disposal, including sustainability and liability on safe disposal of nuclear waste, needs careful detailing. Most importantly, proliferation of nuclear energy can only take place under a strict regulatory regime that is currently lacking in India. The regulatory institution in India is the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), but is subordinate to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Thus, the Commission is the supreme body for nuclear matters. Ideally, the AERB should be above the AEC so that it can review decisions taken by the Commission. That will need a rejig of the underlying legal structure. Finally, India will have to take a view whether it should continue to have a single-part tariff for the nuclear sector (like renewable generation) or have a two-part tariff as in the case of conventional generators (like coal), since, otherwise, nuclear plants may get left out in the merit order dispatch regime. Capital cost of SMRs and imported reactors are going to be high, leading to high generation tariffs. The nuclear power vision needs to consider a gamut of factors before generation takes off....