Subscribe to Desicritics
Why the Nuclear Deal is Bad for India
Venkatesh Sridhar
For the past 2-3 weeks, there has been one issue that has dominated much of media attention in India. That singular issue is the Nuclear Deal between US and India. Now, everyone knows what I feel about the Left, but this time strangely I agree with them that India should not sign the deal as it is not in India's interest to do so, though I have strong factual reasons to do so unlike the more ideologically bent opposition of the Left.
The reason why this post comes so late in the day - now that it's almost a given that the Government of India (GoI) will go ahead with the deal despite the opposition to the deal by its coalition partner; the Left with the PM now officially going to the G8 meet, is because I have spent a lot of time in finding out information and framing a fact oriented opinion.
My opposition to this deal centers on the following grounds, questions which the media has not bothered raising and neither the opposition:
1. Shift of dependencies: Oil & Gas is a form of energy that is used worldwide in everything from agriculture to electricity generation. Oil is controlled by a cartel called OPEC. For nuclear energy creation, you need Uranium, India does not have enough Uranium resources so India needs this deal for access to Uranium. Now, that would mean being dependent on another cartel - the NSG - Nuclear Supplier's Group. Will this provide energy self independence?
2. Why rely on another nation?: Do you know that another fission material that can be used for generation of Nuclear Energy is thorium, India has 24% of the world proven thorium reserves in the world. India is conducting cutting edge research on how to use thorium in producing nuclear energy. This research will lose its importance and significance when you are going to be getting the Uranium from somewhere else. Now, why should you spend strategic forex reserves outside of the country to benefit another nation. If India needs nuclear energy so much (India does need alternative forms of energy as India will be short of 412 gigawatts by 2050 and the need to import 1.6 billion tonnes of coal will be needed to fulfill this energy) then India can increase the allocation in the budget to thorium research and increase the strategic importance.
3. Minor benefits in the short term: India currently produces 4000 MWe of nuclear energy after this deal, it will rise to 20,000 MWe in a DECADE, yes in a DECADE. So, it is not a short term solution to the energy crisis in India. Also, construction of a nuclear reactor is a time consuming process.
4. Water usage in nuclear energy production: Nuclear energy, though considered one of the cleanest forms of energy, you require a lot more water - which is another resource that is depleting worldwide - for production and storage.
5. Strategically swallowing a bullet: Let's get to strategic issues, as per the Hyde act as amended by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US (Bills: H.R. 5682 and S. 3709, a comparison of the two can be found here) and passed in the final version clearly dictates the following if you go through the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006:
i. India's ties with Iran. As per Section 105 (8) of H.R. 5682 as passed by the Senate (with text of S. 3709 as engrossed amendment), Requires India’s full & active participation in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions (source). So, this puts us in a bind w.r.t to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which will provide us with much needed cheap gas. Because, if construction begins in 2009, the gas can be supplied starting September 2012 (source). According to Jorge Hirsch - a physics professor at the University of Chicago, who initiated a letter to George Bush Jr., to prevent the US from adopting a hawkish stance towards Iran which will inevitably lead to use of Nuclear weapons against Iran - feels that unlike Russia and China, "India could indeed be bought off by US incentives like the nuclear deal, because its shortsighted leaders don't recognize that they are committing national suicide by entering into this nuclear deal with the US." (emphasis mine).
ii. In an event of a nuclear test by India, the US President will have the right to end the deal on the spot and demand return of the materials supplied and guess who wanted this clause in the bill - Senator Barrack Obama of Illinois and the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for the President of United States of America. From the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006, this is what Barrack Obama said:
Mr. OBAMA. On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies? (emphasis mine)
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 agreement would still have to meet the requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear
explosive device the United States shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated. (emphasis mine)
Read it again, this is the Democratic Presumptive Nominee for the post of the President of the United States of America asking very clearly whether the US has the right to end this deal and ask for return of supplies if India does a nuclear test. Based on his question, what do you think he would do if he was the President and India does a nuclear test. Do not forget as of today he has a 50% chance of being the US president considering that only he and McCain are realistic candidates to be the President.
6. Lag in gaining benefits from this deal: India will have to wait for some years before it can actually get to use the Nuclear energy, I believe a reasonable time frame will be 5-10 years - considering that it involves going to so many governmental organizations, the NSG, the IAEA, the time it takes to construct additional nuclear reactors. Now, meanwhile our dependency will not reduce on Oil and Gas. Iran who has been a longtime friend of India. India and Iran have long cordial relations. India and Iran are talking with regards to a gas pipeline from Iran to India. The act of signing the deal means that India will have to forego this deal, read point 5(i). Period.
7. Economic costs: Commercially, the cost of producing Nuclear energy will be high considering the capital cost of setting up the Nuclear reactor, understand that you cannot produce electricity till the reactor is completely up which means the cost of production can vary anywhere between US$ 2,950/kWe to to a Moody's Investors Service (read para 9 in the link) conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe. According to a BusinessWeek report, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt." For further information go to the wikipedia entry on economics of nuclear energy). There are a few costs no one is willing to factor in. Who will pay for the costs of ensuring compliance and the safeguards and all other reporting elements that are critical to the functioning of the deal after signing it. It is common sense that it will cost more.
8.Alternative energy creation: India has a stated goal of achieving energy independence by 2012, don't see that happening with this deal for reasons explained above. India introduced the Jatropha incentives to encourage production of bio diesel using Jatropha seeds. Jatropha can grow in the wastelands. GoI has already identified 400,000 sq.km. of land where Jatropha can be grown. A much more prudent and truly long term solution to India's energy crisis than the Nuclear deal, as India is a big consumer of diesel especially in rural areas.
9. Safety considerations: The world has already seen the impact of two major nuclear accidents, the famous Chernobyl disaster in former Soviet Union and current Ukraine and the Three Mile Island disaster in the US. Just as the Richter scale is used to measure the magnitude of Earthquakes, there is the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). Chernobyl was rated 7, a non nuclear event that can be rated 7 is the Bhopal disaster in India and Third Mile was rated 5. Now, India's nuclear reactors are close to two major cities in India - Mumbai (Tarapore) and Chennai (Kalpakkam), as the Chernobyl disaster The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5,000 square kilometres. Imagine the damage it will cost if something goes wrong. Thank God, nothing has gone wrong so far, but still it should be an important consideration. India has not framed a Nuclear liability framework, what if something goes wrong, who will bear the brunt of clean up work, the economic cost and other such issues. We have not learnt our lessons from the Bhopal disaster as the clean up work continues to be stuck. Yet, the Government is silent on this issue.
Now, Dr. Manmohan Singh, may go right ahead and sign this deal, because he is hell bent on this deal as he views this as his personal stake being on the line plus this is the legacy he wants to leave behind, as he has nothing much to show as being the Prime Minister, except maybe be known as the most compromised Prime Minister.
Also, he has chosen a very good time - there is about 6 months left for the next General elections in February 2009, and even if his Government falls, it would take the Election Commission atleast 6 months to prepare itself for elections. As an economist he knows that India's inflation problem - which will be a key poll issue cannot be solved in the 6 months timeframe without compromising serious growth, hence he has sensed his opportunity and decided to push for it regardless of the Left's threat to withdraw support.
As I have outlined, overall it is not in our interests to go ahead with the deal and if the PM does sign the deal, the legacy he would leave behind will not be of securing India, a place as a Nuclear Weapon State but it will be of selling India's nuclear independence.
Rajendra Kumar
URL
July 3, 2008
01:35 PM
I don't agree with the views of author that the nuclear deal is bad for India. Deal does not stop India using Thorium in future or present reactors. Its better to depend on two energy cartels rather than just on one. Deal will give many other advantages to India in acessing dual use technologies. As far as Iran gas is concerned, India is going all out for the pipe line and Americans know it fully well. Infact Americans are using India to bring Iran into its fold through backdoor diplomacy. USA will never like to have Iran into opposite camp. India can alwaqys detonate a nuclear device if there is need. Deal does not prohibit that. In theory USA can take back what all it sullied, but in practice its never possible. At best they can stop future supplies. Let us not worry about hypothetical issues. By that time India will be much more stronger to deal with such issues.
Man Singh
URL
July 3, 2008
02:44 PM
USA should offer partnership in NASA and ISRO, agriculture sector and Hi tech defence manufacturing.
Work on Thorium based reactor has been slowed down during Manmohan era under written/unwritten instructions from the government of India.
USA or UK will never help any country. For them their national interests are supereme.
We also should have same attitude. Defuinitely something is very much needed to protect ourselves from Chinese dragon.
China has stronger army thne India and there are around 60 members of Parliament loyal to China working always in the chinese national interests.
Yes I am talking about communists. They never speak a word on 115 time violation of LOC by chinese red Army.
China is more dangerous then Pakistan.
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 3, 2008
05:18 PM
@Rajendra - I have quoted and linked you to the US Congressional Records that clearly point out that the US President has the right to ask for the nuclear supplies to be returned plus the deal goes kaput if India detonates the bomb.
If you still make the claim that India can go ahead with the deal, I am sorry you are gravely mistaken and have clearly not gone through point no: 5 (ii).
Please read the article, go to the link - which is the official digital record catalogue of all official US records.
Janaki
July 3, 2008
09:38 PM
Don't forget India has a Billion ++ people. I don't think pipeline from Iran or coal power would be sufficient to met our energy needs. Coal and bio-diesel are not clean forms of enery. This article in my opinion is very short sighted. I think INDIA should pursue every source of energy possible. I would rather prefer to have an aliance with a Domacratic country (US) than with a troubled state (IRAN).
Chandra
July 4, 2008
02:32 AM
Janaki
You make an interesting point. Nobody is disputing that there shouldn't be nuclear power as an alternative source. What we are disputing is why we should behave the way the US wants. An example is the vote against Iran. Personally, I donot care one way or the other but what bothers me is we voted against Iran BECAUSE of US pressure. A country of 1 Billion must have more balls than that.
Chandra
July 4, 2008
02:44 AM
Sridhar
While I oppose the deal I donot find merit in many of your arguments
1. Shifting in dependencies
2-3-4 or 5 cartels makes no difference. Unless we generate power on our own, nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately, our political structure and environment prevent this from happening. So our dependence to foreign power sources is inevitable. Practically speaking, better be dependent on multiple cartels rather than single. You can play one cartel over the other.
Secondly, NSG is not a cartel. Unlike OPEC which controls volumes of production, the NSG does not. The NSG determines what to sell and to whom and under what conditions. They donot determine volumes
2. Thorium Power
How many people do you know want to become nuclear scientists in India? Hardly any!!!
The ISRO has massive attrition. The reality is that we donot have too much of a scientific pool to hope for a Thorium based miracle. Setting up private nuclear plants would increase job prospects, better money and eventually would result in more scientists getting interested in this area.
3. Not a Short term solution
Agreed. But you cannot criticise a Govt for having a long term solution. Afterall, we criticise a Govt for never following a long term vision. The short term solution is to fix the problems with - providing land for more thermal power projects, increasing efficiencies of current power plants, reducing distrubution inefficiencies, upgrading infrastructure
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 4, 2008
03:28 AM
@Chandra and others:
I do not oppose using Nuclear Energy but I oppose the deal in its current form and the concessions that we make to the US which compromise our long term view.
India's energy situation calls for us to have short, medium and long term strategy as it is extremely critical for our economic growth.
Your point regarding setting up private nuclear plants is misplaced as the nuclear energy will be produced only by the PSU - Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and now recently formed Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI), a wholly owned Enterprise of Government of India under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy(DAE). So, how do you think it will improve the job opportunities. Another argument I made in the same point is if India wants Nuclear energy then India should increase the strategic importance and the budgetary allowance for increased research into thorium as a fuel. As per the NPCIL profile on its website, the capacity of thorium based reactor is 1,55,502 GWe per year compared to 42,559 GWe per year in Uranium based reactor.
You talked about shift in dependencies - well, if you read point 1 and 2 it would have shown that i wanted us to be self dependent which we can be if we use thorium as we have 24% of the world's proven thorium sources.
By not doing anything to improve your distribution framework of electrical energy how does it matter what energy you produce, because there occurs massive leakage in distribution of the electrical energy in our current distribution schema of things.
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 4, 2008
03:41 AM
@Janaki,
I can use the same argument that we are a billion ++ people whose energy needs will not be met by signing this nuclear deal alone.
It has to be a comprehensive solution that encompasses all forms of energy.
I am not opposed to use of nuclear energy but I am opposed to the Nuclear deal in its current form and shape that compromises too much from India's side in the long term. Also, I want India to create a nuclear safety framework on the lines of what they have done in the US and UK. Till then sorry I believe our infrastructure is not ready for nuclear energy.
With respect to your statement that you would rather side with a democratic country - the US vis a vis Iran is a valid point, but you tend to forget the tainted history of the US, which though maybe a democracy has killed more civilians than Iran itself.
I believe we should be much smarter than making deals based on forms of Government, do you mean to say India should only deal with democratic forms of Government than the major oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, UAE etc do not fall under that category.
India should make a deal only on the merits of a relationship. The US is in cahoots with a military dictatorship in Pakistan till it suited it, now that the country devolved into anarchy, they tout the virtues of Democracy in Pakistant, give me a break, if the US can and has proven itself to put its sovereign interests over and above even moral interests then why should India, which is morally superior considering we have not been to war and neither was our freedom struggle worn via war, not put its sovereign interest above everything else.
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 4, 2008
04:09 AM
@Chandra:
I forgot to reply to your point about the NSG. The NSG supplies nuclear fuel, the NSG controls who can have the nuclear fuel, the NSG may not control level of production, but by creating haves and have nots in the nuclear fuel area, aren't they then a cartel that can control prices?, its a monopolistic cartel what makes you think it is any different from OPEC?
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 4, 2008
04:14 AM
@Rajendra:
You mentioned in your comment that and I quote, "Deal will give many other advantages to India in acessing dual use technologies."
You are wrong and seem to be misinformed, remember that the nuclear deal is a civilian deal and the reason why IAEA safeguards need to be followed is because of this fear of dual use technology. Dual use does not mean that you can use both Uranium and Thorium, dual use means that the nuclear fissive material can be used for both peaceful and military purposes. And as part of the reporting requirements required as per the agreement mentions very clearly that the nuclear supplies that are provided by the US and other NSG member states will be for peaceful nuclear energy creation alone and cannot be used for military purposes.
So, can you tell me from where you got the information that the US will supply India with dual use technology?
Ruvy
July 4, 2008
07:29 AM
I found this article extremely interesting, and as I read through its thoroughly done points, one question crystallized in my mind.
Does India have any means to develop energy (other than nuclear) that would enhance her independence from foreign cartels? I'm talking about solar energy, wind energy and energy derived from water flow.
commonsense
July 4, 2008
07:49 AM
yes, we do produce a lot of hot air. at least i do.
commonsense
July 4, 2008
07:50 AM
yes, we do produce a lot of hot air. at least i do. i'm thinking of producing balloons too. so i guess, i think too. and i guess too.
Chandra
July 4, 2008
01:02 PM
Sridhar-7
The Govt does have plans to allow private sector particpation in Nuclear power. The Tatas for example are in the process of creating a JV with Areva of France.
NSG donot control prices as much as they wish to. Speculators determine prices
rgds
Kiran Varanasi
URL
July 4, 2008
01:13 PM
For a sustainable energy primer, please read this. Each human being requires about 125 KWH of energy per day to lead a decent life.
With 1billion+ people, nuclear energy is essential for India in the long term. When you accept this, you have to accept a few other issues.
1) Breeder reactors need Plutonium.
Thorium is the firewood, plutonium is the matchstick.
We don't have enough plutonium in our country. The only way to do it is through running the current PWHRs and LWRs for about 25 years. We don't have enough Uranium in our country to run them. So, we have to import Uranium.
2) N-Deal has nothing to do with short term energy needs.
Simply, that's it. For the short term, we have to burn some coal and import oil and natural gas from Iran. And we are gonna do that. Criticizing nuclear energy for its short term costs is stupid.
3) Uranium costs are negligible.
The major costs of nuclear power are in the construction of plants. The nuclear fuel itself is extremely negligible, even imported Uranium. Having already built nuclear plants, running them at 40% capacity is extremely stupid.
4) Toeing US line never happens.
What does US have as bargaining chips to make India toe its line ? The threat of terminating nuclear supplies ? This threat is neglible because nuclear power will never be a lifeline for Indian power, in the next 25 years. Now, you see, we currently suffer severe sanctions from the US already. What difference does it make in the future ?
India will never support a US attack on Iran.
Kiran Varanasi
URL
July 4, 2008
01:18 PM
This online book does cost analysis for sustainable energy in UK. With a similar population density, this is equally valid for India.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA4/
ryan
July 4, 2008
10:39 PM
What INDIA NEED now is another SAM PITRODA.
He at the slap of the technology power - single-handedly developed much needed Coputer for Indian strategic needs.
Not only that the pride and momemtum he put forward in 1980s gave the IITs and other leading institution impetus to develop present IT-software talents and hence the much shoughted economic boom.
Need SAM - the other SAM -
Rgds/
go india
July 5, 2008
04:36 AM
anybody know abt 3 stage nuclear program, which needs uranium at initial stage to activate the usage of thorium.So we are seeking the NSG
Another main piont behind this deal is,it's a bilateral deal between india & US only,so the US cannot pressurise other nation like russia ,france (which are friends of india) to halt the supply of Uranium.thats the point behind this deal.we neednot depend on Uranium for long time as the third stage of our nuclear program is nearing.
PornCornBusta aka PCB!
URL
July 24, 2008
06:35 PM
Where is our indigenous nuclear research going, is it going the same as the indian made fighter/combat jets which do not take off even after 20 odd years of research. I mean is there no accountability in India's research centers?.
Self help is the best help
ajay
July 25, 2008
12:34 AM
1) Shift on dependencies? It is a great thing that we are moving away from the Opec cartel. Whats the problem here?
2) The nuclear agreement lets India continue its research on Thorium based reactors. So this has not been compromised.
3) Minor benefits in short term? Agreed, but so what?
4) Water usage is a good point, but safe recycling of heavy water technology is available.
5)Regarding India's policy towards Iran is open to interpretation. It is not binding upon India to vote against Iran, all it has to do is make Iran toe the line of the international community. This has always been India's stand and I do not see that being compromised though India did choose to vote against Iran recently.
The author conveniently forgets that India hosted the premiere of Iran recently and also rebutted the US when it chose to suggest what India and Iran should discuss. So has the sovereignty been compromised?
Also, a physics professor choosing to indulge in comments on Indian politicians must surely be dismissed as being condescending.
6) Lag in gaining benefits in short term. Yes you made the point earlier, we will have to wait till this bears fruit. Long term planning is good!
7) Economic costs are prohibitive only while setting the plant up. Running costs are much lower compared to thermal plants, this is including the safety costs.
8) This is my favorite! You are advocating bio diesel as an alternative. This means using agricultural land to grow fuel. The US with large land mass can afford to do it, not India which is not exactly flush with land. The US which is trying this has been harshly criticized for using crops to create fuel while a good number of people in the world are starving.
9) Safety. Of course, but France depends on nuclear energy for 30% of its energy. Korea is starting to have more reactors too. Safety is a difficult question, but with India coming more under the purview of the IAEA inspections, it will only improve the safety standards.
kerty
July 25, 2008
08:07 AM
One should look at how Iraq and Iran have been prosecuted that has nothing to do with nuclear capabilities or ambitions of these nations, but everything to do with geo-political ambitions of USA. India has escaped such political blackmail from USA because India has maintained its independence in nuclear matters and kept the intrusive npt/ctbt regime at bay. I do not think India has gained anything by giving away its trump cards.
This episode reminds me of how our small minded princes during post-Moghul era signed off far-reaching treaties to foreigners for short-term transient considerations, only to find such one-sided treaties come back to haunt them within few years. It ushered in 200 years of utter slavery, where foreign powers dictated life in India and India remained merely a labor and consumer colony licking boots of whoever threw a small crumb at it. It seems congress specializes in bargaining away all the trumps cards India manages to create for Congress's own political survial rather than using the power it has to create more trump cards with which India can maintain independence among international sharks.
Add your comment