04-05-2006, 07:36 AM
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Questions emerge on Indiaâs nuclear power push
By Rajat Bhattacharya and Anirban Nag
Experts believe instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves that are cheaper in the long run and would do more to ensure its energy security
India could pay an exorbitant price and still fail to strengthen its energy security by accelerating the development of its nascent nuclear power industry with the help of the United States.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs pact with US President George W Bush last month, which promised to give India access to closely guarded nuclear fuels, was seen as the answer to the rapidly developing countryâs quest for unlimited energy supplies.
But dissent has begun to emerge as uranium fuel prices surge and questions about the hidden costs of decommissioning, waste disposal and insurance arise. Then there is the spectre of accidents and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants in one of the worldâs most densely populated countries.
Some say by pushing for nuclear power with US help, Singhâs government could be bartering one form of bondage, that to Middle East oil and gas suppliers, with another â that to a 45-nation club of nuclear fuel suppliers â to secure its energy needs.
âThe deal will help revive the decrepit US nuclear power industry but slow down Indiaâs own search for energy security,â said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.
âYet those pushing the deal fight shy of discussing the economics of generating electricity from high-priced imported reactors dependent on imported fuel. Creating a new Indian dependency on imports is not a path to energy security.â
Instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, driven in part by the soaring cost of natural gas and environmental penalties against using coal, he said India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves.
Both could be cheaper in the long run than investing the $50 billion needed to build as many as 25 nuclear power plants by 2020, and would do more to ensure its energy security.
Energy deficient: A shortage of energy has been Indiaâs Achillesâ heel since the country aimed to ratchet up economic growth in the 1950s. India currently imports 70 percent of its oil, mostly from the politically volatile Middle East. While China and India have similar coal reserves, among the highest in the world, China is producing its own resources four times more quickly.
The nuclear agreement, if approved by the US Congress, promises to end Indiaâs nuclear isolation and allow nuclear suppliers such as US-based General Electric, British Nuclear Fuels, Franceâs Areva and Japanâs Toshiba Corp to sell fuel and components to Indiaâs atomic power plants.
But nuclear power plants lose out to other forms of energy generation in terms of construction costs.
PS Bami, president of India Energy Forum, New Delhi, said the cost of building nuclear power plants works out to 60-70 million rupees ($1.6 million) per megawatt compared with 30-40 million rupees for thermal power.
He says the costs converge after a decade of generation.
In the long run, a study by Indiaâs Planning Commission found that the marginal cost of supplying nuclear power was higher than thermal power for atomic plants built in Indiaâs coal-rich eastern region and the riverine northern regions and was slightly cheaper in the countryâs south and west.
These studies exclude the additional billions of dollars required to dispose of nuclear waste and to shut down the facilities at the end of their 35-40-year life. Moreover, the price of uranium fuel has tripled in the past 18 months.
Chellaney adds that Indiaâs limited uranium deposits mean it will have to depend on imports from the club of 45 nuclear material suppliers for this critical nuclear fuel.
âThe global nuclear reactor and fuel business, controlled by a tiny cartel of state-guided firms, is the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract,â Chellaney said.
The United States halted the supply of fuels to Indiaâs two nuclear plants built by General Electric in the 1960s after the country conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974.
But Bami, who backs the US-India partnership, said short-term costs could not be the sole determinants for choosing energy sources for a country where energy requirements are growing at 10 percent annually.
âThe price of which commodity has not risen? We have to be practical,â he said.
âThe overall life cycle of a nuclear power plant is very competitive compared to a thermal plant. It could also prove to be a reliable source of energy once the agreement is approved.â
S Chandrasekharan, director of New Delhi-based think tank South Asia Analysis Group, said the US-India nuclear pact was beneficial but not sufficient to bolster Indiaâs energy security. âRight now, nuclear energy makes up only 3 percent and with nuclear fuel likely to be available, by 2010 India could raise it to 20 percent. This essentially means that India cannot live by nuclear energy alone,â he said. Reuters
Questions emerge on Indiaâs nuclear power push
By Rajat Bhattacharya and Anirban Nag
Experts believe instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves that are cheaper in the long run and would do more to ensure its energy security
India could pay an exorbitant price and still fail to strengthen its energy security by accelerating the development of its nascent nuclear power industry with the help of the United States.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs pact with US President George W Bush last month, which promised to give India access to closely guarded nuclear fuels, was seen as the answer to the rapidly developing countryâs quest for unlimited energy supplies.
But dissent has begun to emerge as uranium fuel prices surge and questions about the hidden costs of decommissioning, waste disposal and insurance arise. Then there is the spectre of accidents and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants in one of the worldâs most densely populated countries.
Some say by pushing for nuclear power with US help, Singhâs government could be bartering one form of bondage, that to Middle East oil and gas suppliers, with another â that to a 45-nation club of nuclear fuel suppliers â to secure its energy needs.
âThe deal will help revive the decrepit US nuclear power industry but slow down Indiaâs own search for energy security,â said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.
âYet those pushing the deal fight shy of discussing the economics of generating electricity from high-priced imported reactors dependent on imported fuel. Creating a new Indian dependency on imports is not a path to energy security.â
Instead of joining the global renaissance of nuclear power, driven in part by the soaring cost of natural gas and environmental penalties against using coal, he said India should tap more of its vast coal and hydroelectric reserves.
Both could be cheaper in the long run than investing the $50 billion needed to build as many as 25 nuclear power plants by 2020, and would do more to ensure its energy security.
Energy deficient: A shortage of energy has been Indiaâs Achillesâ heel since the country aimed to ratchet up economic growth in the 1950s. India currently imports 70 percent of its oil, mostly from the politically volatile Middle East. While China and India have similar coal reserves, among the highest in the world, China is producing its own resources four times more quickly.
The nuclear agreement, if approved by the US Congress, promises to end Indiaâs nuclear isolation and allow nuclear suppliers such as US-based General Electric, British Nuclear Fuels, Franceâs Areva and Japanâs Toshiba Corp to sell fuel and components to Indiaâs atomic power plants.
But nuclear power plants lose out to other forms of energy generation in terms of construction costs.
PS Bami, president of India Energy Forum, New Delhi, said the cost of building nuclear power plants works out to 60-70 million rupees ($1.6 million) per megawatt compared with 30-40 million rupees for thermal power.
He says the costs converge after a decade of generation.
In the long run, a study by Indiaâs Planning Commission found that the marginal cost of supplying nuclear power was higher than thermal power for atomic plants built in Indiaâs coal-rich eastern region and the riverine northern regions and was slightly cheaper in the countryâs south and west.
These studies exclude the additional billions of dollars required to dispose of nuclear waste and to shut down the facilities at the end of their 35-40-year life. Moreover, the price of uranium fuel has tripled in the past 18 months.
Chellaney adds that Indiaâs limited uranium deposits mean it will have to depend on imports from the club of 45 nuclear material suppliers for this critical nuclear fuel.
âThe global nuclear reactor and fuel business, controlled by a tiny cartel of state-guided firms, is the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract,â Chellaney said.
The United States halted the supply of fuels to Indiaâs two nuclear plants built by General Electric in the 1960s after the country conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974.
But Bami, who backs the US-India partnership, said short-term costs could not be the sole determinants for choosing energy sources for a country where energy requirements are growing at 10 percent annually.
âThe price of which commodity has not risen? We have to be practical,â he said.
âThe overall life cycle of a nuclear power plant is very competitive compared to a thermal plant. It could also prove to be a reliable source of energy once the agreement is approved.â
S Chandrasekharan, director of New Delhi-based think tank South Asia Analysis Group, said the US-India nuclear pact was beneficial but not sufficient to bolster Indiaâs energy security. âRight now, nuclear energy makes up only 3 percent and with nuclear fuel likely to be available, by 2010 India could raise it to 20 percent. This essentially means that India cannot live by nuclear energy alone,â he said. Reuters