Fission statement

Obama and Modi want to sell nuclear power to India that is too dangerous and expensive even for US

Only two new nuclear plants are being built in the US and even they are way over budget.

The recent “breakthrough” in the nuclear talks between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama has raised more questions than answers. The biggest question of them all is the issue of the liability nuclear equipment suppliers will have to face in case of a nuclear disaster. There is word that an insurance pool will be created to indemnify foreign suppliers and cover the liability. So let us look at this issue of the nuclear insurance pool more closely and then examine the nuclear industry in the US.

Last year, before the Russian corporation Rosatom and Nuclear Power Corporation of India finalised the framework agreement for building two additional reactors at Kudankulam, the Department of Atomic Energy claimed that the General Insurance Corporation had offered an insurance package to the Russians. However, a Right to Information application to the GIC revealed that no such offer had been made.

Unidentified officers at the Department of Atomic Energy subsequently told the press that GIC’s initiative had not worked out and that the Finance Ministry had been approached to help with the formation of the nuclear insurance pool. Over the course of over one year, seven RTI applications were filed, three to GIC and four to the Department of Atomic Energy, United India Insurance and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. The replies to each only added to the mystery of the nuclear insurance pool.

In an article dated 26 September, 2010, former IRDA Chairman J Hari Narayan said: “We are awaiting the Nuclear Bill becoming a law. Then we would provide the framework for providing insurance cover for nuclear accidents.” Four years later, in an RTI reply dated 8 September, 2014, the insurance regulator said, “IRDA as on date had not prepared any draft framework for providing insurance cover to Indian Nuclear Plants.”

The United India Insurance went a step further and stated in its RTI reply dated 12 September, 2014, that it had not provided any capital for the pool, nor had it received any communication from the GIC about the pool. It did however mention that the matter was in the development phase, as opposed to the claim in the media that the nuclear insurance pool was at an advanced stage.

Funding the pool

In a recent press briefing, Joint Secretary of Ministry of Corporate Affairs Amardeep Singh said that the GIC and other Indian nuclear insurance companies will raise Rs 750 crore ($125 million) for the insurance pool, while the remaining Rs 750 crore will come from the government. It is unclear how the government would fund this pool now given that it had declared its inability to do so earlier. Two options are considered as possibilities: providing catastrophe bonds or sovereign guarantee.

Catastrophe bonds, or cat bonds, are generally offered for a specific set of risks generally linked to natural disasters. There is little experience in this decade-old field to support a risk related to human error – an inherent risk in nuclear power plants.

As for sovereign guarantees, the reality is that it is not unlimited so providing it to one project would reduce the availability of funds for another project. Also, rule 3(3) of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Rules, 2004, limits the volume of sovereign guarantees undertaken in a financial year to 0.5% of the GDP. India’s GDP currently stands at $1.8 trillion – 0.5% of this would amount to a little over $9 billion. Providing sovereign guarantee to nuclear plants would reduce the volume, if needed, for other infrastructural development projects, such as the Japanese high-speed bullet train Shinkansen.

Whichever way the pool is funded, there is also the issue of the liability’s size. For the sake of comparison, let us look at the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, which has cost more than $100 billion. According to a Japanese National Diet report, that accident was caused by a fault in design. Since General Electric supplied those reactors, the fault therefore lies with the company. But, in the absence of supplier liability, the Japanese taxpayers have had to pay for the accident.

The proposed Indian nuclear insurance pool of Rs 1,500 crore ($250 million) would cover only about 0.3% of the cost of the Fukushima disaster. It is understood that Rs 1,500 crore is the limit set in the Nuclear Liability Act, but it is important to note that the Act was passed by the Parliament before the Fukushima accident. In the light of that tragedy, the government must relook at the limit.

Nuclear industry in US

The Indian government must also consider the fact that nuclear power in the US is on the decline. Nuclear-generated electricity today accounts for less of the US energy mix than it did before the highly-touted “nuclear renaissance”. As former chairwoman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Allison Macfarlane, an Obama appointee, said last month: “The predicted nuclear renaissance did not materialise.” In fact, more new nuclear reactors have been cancelled in the US than are under construction. So, nuclear corporations want to sell to India those same reactors that are too expensive to find buyers in the US.

There are only two new nuclear plants (four reactors) under construction in the US. Both these are past schedule and each more than a billion dollars over budget. In South Carolina, the site of two Westinghouse AP1000s, these costs translate into a tenfold rate increase for local consumers. South Carolina ratepayers are now shelling out $500 more per year for electricity than they did five years ago merely to pay for the new nuclear plant. The current estimate for the two reactors is $11 billion ($1.2 billion over budget) and it is hard to believe costs will not rise. The cost for the same reactors across the South Carolina border, in Georgia, is already $14 billion ($2 million for every day of delay).

This abysmal track record mirrors the history of nuclear construction in the US. The first 75 nuclear reactors experienced $100 billion in cost overruns. And those cost increases occurred before the meltdown at the Three Mile Island caused nuclear construction to become even more cost prohibitive. The supposed nuclear renaissance was premised more on industry propaganda than progress in controlling nuclear power costs. No-one in the US is now ordering new nuclear reactors and those that have are likely experiencing buyer’s remorse.

Future is renewable energy

In the US, as in India, the future of electricity is not nuclear. It is renewable energy. Solar, especially rooftop solar, represents an existential threat to the monopolistic model of producing electricity via large base-load electric plants like nuclear reactors. As nuclear power plant costs continue to rise, the cost of solar power is dropping precipitously. According to a recent report of Deutsche Bank, solar power will be cost competitive in the US next year and in 80% of the rest of the world, including India, in 2017.

Obama and Modi should have focused their efforts on fostering the revolution that is occurring in renewable energy. It is better for their people, their pocketbooks and the planet. If Obama and Modi want to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, they need to support solutions that are fast and affordable. Nuclear power is neither.

Rather than bow to the demands of foreign corporations, India should stand firm. If nuclear power was as safe and green as its proponents contend, then India’s liability law should not have been an issue. But the truth is that it is not. One need only look to Japan to see that now, a few years after the Fukushima disaster, radiation from the triple meltdowns is still leaking into the Pacific Ocean. The only thing green about nuclear power is the foliage growing in the abandoned villages that surround Fukushima.

The authors work with the non-governmental environmental organisation Greenpeace.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

How sustainable farming practices can secure India's food for the future

India is home to 15% of the world’s undernourished population.

Food security is a pressing problem in India and in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), it is estimated that over 190 million people go hungry every day in the country.

Evidence for India’s food challenge can be found in the fact that the yield per hectare of rice, one of India’s principal crops, is 2177 kgs per hectare, lagging behind countries such as China and Brazil that have yield rates of 4263 kgs/hectare and 3265 kgs/hectare respectively. The cereal yield per hectare in the country is also 2,981 kgs per hectare, lagging far behind countries such as China, Japan and the US.

The slow growth of agricultural production in India can be attributed to an inefficient rural transport system, lack of awareness about the treatment of crops, limited access to modern farming technology and the shrinking agricultural land due to urbanization. Add to that, an irregular monsoon and the fact that 63% of agricultural land is dependent on rainfall further increase the difficulties we face.

Despite these odds, there is huge potential for India to increase its agricultural productivity to meet the food requirements of its growing population.

The good news is that experience in India and other countries shows that the adoption of sustainable farming practices can increase both productivity and reduce ecological harm.

Sustainable agriculture techniques enable higher resource efficiency – they help produce greater agricultural output while using lesser land, water and energy, ensuring profitability for the farmer. These essentially include methods that, among other things, protect and enhance the crops and the soil, improve water absorption and use efficient seed treatments. While Indian farmers have traditionally followed these principles, new technology now makes them more effective.

For example, for soil enhancement, certified biodegradable mulch films are now available. A mulch film is a layer of protective material applied to soil to conserve moisture and fertility. Most mulch films used in agriculture today are made of polyethylene (PE), which has the unwanted overhead of disposal. It is a labour intensive and time-consuming process to remove the PE mulch film after usage. If not done, it affects soil quality and hence, crop yield. An independently certified biodegradable mulch film, on the other hand, is directly absorbed by the microorganisms in the soil. It conserves the soil properties, eliminates soil contamination, and saves the labor cost that comes with PE mulch films.

The other perpetual challenge for India’s farms is the availability of water. Many food crops like rice and sugarcane have a high-water requirement. In a country like India, where majority of the agricultural land is rain-fed, low rainfall years can wreak havoc for crops and cause a slew of other problems - a surge in crop prices and a reduction in access to essential food items. Again, Indian farmers have long experience in water conservation that can now be enhanced through technology.

Seeds can now be treated with enhancements that help them improve their root systems. This leads to more efficient water absorption.

In addition to soil and water management, the third big factor, better seed treatment, can also significantly improve crop health and boost productivity. These solutions include application of fungicides and insecticides that protect the seed from unwanted fungi and parasites that can damage crops or hinder growth, and increase productivity.

While sustainable agriculture through soil, water and seed management can increase crop yields, an efficient warehousing and distribution system is also necessary to ensure that the output reaches the consumers. According to a study by CIPHET, Indian government’s harvest-research body, up to 67 million tons of food get wasted every year — a quantity equivalent to that consumed by the entire state of Bihar in a year. Perishables, such as fruits and vegetables, end up rotting in store houses or during transportation due to pests, erratic weather and the lack of modern storage facilities. In fact, simply bringing down food wastage and increasing the efficiency in distribution alone can significantly help improve food security. Innovations such as special tarpaulins, that keep perishables cool during transit, and more efficient insulation solutions can reduce rotting and reduce energy usage in cold storage.

Thus, all three aspects — production, storage, and distribution — need to be optimized if India is to feed its ever-growing population.

One company working to drive increased sustainability down the entire agriculture value chain is BASF. For example, the company offers cutting edge seed treatments that protect crops from disease and provide plant health benefits such as enhanced vitality and better tolerance for stress and cold. In addition, BASF has developed a biodegradable mulch film from its ecovio® bioplastic that is certified compostable – meaning farmers can reap the benefits of better soil without risk of contamination or increased labor costs. These and more of the company’s innovations are helping farmers in India achieve higher and more sustainable yields.

Of course, products are only one part of the solution. The company also recognizes the importance of training farmers in sustainable farming practices and in the safe use of its products. To this end, BASF engaged in a widespread farmer outreach program called Samruddhi from 2007 to 2014. Their ‘Suraksha Hamesha’ (safety always) program reached over 23,000 farmers and 4,000 spray men across India in 2016 alone. In addition to training, the company also offers a ‘Sanrakshan® Kit’ to farmers that includes personal protection tools and equipment. All these efforts serve to spread awareness about the sustainable and responsible use of crop protection products – ensuring that farmers stay safe while producing good quality food.

Interested in learning more about BASF’s work in sustainable agriculture? See here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.