Is Nuclear Power good for France? List of French Nuclear Installations

(original post and ongoing comments)

The beautiful nation of France. CIA World Factbook - France

—–Original Message—–

From: Therese Delfel

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:56 PM

To: Ed Ring

Subject: Nuclear Programs

Dear Ed Ring

Thank you for your reply which shows you care about your readers’ views.

Ecology can be defined via very simple,
“hands-on” questions:

1. Is the process taken from A to Z to assess what impact it leaves on the Planet?

2. Is the process at all necessary / acceptable / economically viable?

3. Is the process placed in perspective, i.e. after-effects over years or centuries taken into account?

In all three questions, nuclear energy falls short of providing any satisfying answer. All figures and examples to follow are for France but the dynamics are very much the same in all developed and developing countries.

From A to Z, Nuclear Power’s impact, economic viability and after-effects:

- Uranium is NOT a renewable source of energy unless it is enriched, and then only partly renewable and then it is a … WAR product.

- Uranium does NOT guarantee economic independance: France imports all of its uranium.

- The transportation is NOT safe and nor are the plants no matter how modern and upgraded they are. And what technology could safeguard them against earth quakes or terrorist attacks?

- If the cost of implementing and dismantling the plants is taken into account (at present financed by tax-payers), nuclear energy is the MOST EXPENSIVE energy and absolutely not competitive against market prices.

- It generates a traffic and transportation unacceptable in terms of safety and ethics (hundreds of lorries crisscross France every day with their loads of nuclear fuel and waste). Like your children to be on their routes?

- 20% of total energy production is sold to neighbouring countries and 30% of total energy consumption could be… saved in an energy-saving program! Which means that already now, the 80% nuclear part could be reduced to less than 30% in grand total production.

- Testing in the Pacific was more than “a mistake”: it was criminal BUT every single country that operates nuclear plants HAS TESTED its bombs (be it in deserts or in oceans).

- There is NO “safe storing” in caves: it will leave 24 generations with our poisoned heritage, i.e. where we found breathtakingly beautiful tombs, precious stones and ores, they’ll find neatly layered waste in landfills and deadly nuclear waste that will kill for … 2,000 years! Would that be the definition of safety and the ethics of ecology?

- Ethically acceptable is when we know how to responsibly handle what we produce (and not hope others will learn at their own expense): would you give your baby a sharp knife in the knowledge that some day it will know how to use it? (this point is true for genetically engineered crops by the way).

- “We” is a commodity all too easily used these days: where “I” make mistakes (or worse), “others” should sort them out as “we” are all part of the big human family? What sort of “evolution” is that? This present generation is responsible for what it itself produces, consumes and destroys (even though everything is more subtle and intricate, the basics remain the same).

But my actual question is: why do you present nuclear generated cars as the alternative to biofuels ? There is NO link! (and the rush for biofuels is solely dictated by profit making, nothing to do with ecology at all… though the original idea may have been along the right line). We have reached a point where the question is not where to find more (of whatever, be it petrol, water, or anything else) but how to consume less!

Where is France bound? Will the earliest, biggest adopter of nuclear power determine it was folly? Are better sources of energy ready to replace nuclear power?

The technology for solar powered vehicles is as (if not more) advanced as so called biofuels (that I just as strongly oppose both because of rainforest destruction and because of impoverishment of local ethnicities AND promotion of GE crops).

Car sharing, public transportation and energy saving programmes are THE future of our planet (if there is one! For instance, who could pretend he cares about the environment when he sits all by himself in a powerful car and blows into the atmosphere the worth of hundreds of gallons of petrol over and over again? Figures in France show that the traffic would be cut down to one third of its present state if cars were shared and efficient public transportation systems implemented, i.e. no new destructive road networks, one third exhaust fumes and noise left, two thirds of petrol consumption redundant, etc.

Another example: passive houses (gradually implemented especially in Germany and Northern countries) consume zero energy (neither nuclear nor coal !) and even produce some that can be stored (or sold but not for profit).

To sum up my position: I just as strongly oppose biofuels as nuclear energy (for whatever purpose) AND genetically engineered crops for that matter, I actively support rainforest and biodiversity protection as well as fair exchanges with local ethnicities (see WildAid’s “Surviving Together” program, the Wildlife Alliance actions, etc.), I am a tireless advocate of solar energy (in every single possible context and country), of efficient energy-saving and car-sharing programs, of the building of “passive houses” and honestly, I have little hope that the governments, industrial barons and financial tycoons will ever care about the Planet if they don’t make a profit out of it but I do find it really difficult to cope with people who advocate greenwashed ecology.
And I do think that Dr Ed Wheeler’s article presents a dangerous and false view on Ecoworld’s website and that it should at the very least be counterbalanced by facts that prove his view mere greenwashing (and I am sorry but I cannot accept that Ecoworld should, implicitely or explicitely, endorse it. Even though I accept your apologies in his stead, you do advocate nuclear energy yourself!

So all in all and though I respect everyone’s opinions, I strongly believe that the only actual human evolution ever will be for everyone to assume their opinions in their full implications and effects and I’m not sure whether such articles as Dr Wheeler’s contribute to the spreading of more responsible ecology or rather to an urge for greenwashed consumption (that gives an easy “good conscience”)… and THAT is a heavy responsiblity in itself.

Best regards

Therese Delfel

May I add and insist that France is but one country, absolutely similar in its destrutive ways to all the developed and developing countries, better in some ways, worse in others but definitely in the same boat, so best not to take other countries as examples for making things worse or the worst.

Narora Atomic Power Station, Units 1 & 2 220 Megawatts each, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh (map of all India’s nuclear installations)

Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Units 3 & 4 220 Megawatts each, Chittorgarh, Uttar Pradesh (map of all India’s nuclear installations)

With a growing economy, an increasing population, mounting energy demand, limited availability of conventional sources, and a strong consensus for environmental protection, India is harnessing energy ranging from jatropha biodiesel to atomic power.

Efficient, reliable and environmentally sustainable energy supplied to each household at the least possible cost is a dream of India’s government. While successive federal governments have been seeking energy security by 2012 for India, the current Scientist-President Abdul Kalam goes further to prescribe “Energy Independence” by 2032.

Energy independence is now India’s first and highest priority. To address this critical challenge, the base of the country’s energy supply system has steadily shifted from non-renewable to renewable sources as well as towards development of nuclear energy sources. Is India taking the right path to meet the energy requirements by emphasizing nuclear energy? Without nuclear energy, are there enough alternative energy sources to limited fossil fuels to meet future demand?

India, hosting fifteen percent of the world population and on track to replace China as the most populous country on Earth, ranks sixth in the world in terms of energy production. Experts believe demand for energy will soon surely be a defining characteristic of India’s life in the new millennium as India’s economy continues to grow at an average of 8 percent per year.

Though commercial primary energy consumption in India has grown by about 700 percent in the last four decades, India’s present level of energy consumption, by world standards, remains very low. The current per capita commercial primary energy consumption in India is about 350 Kilograms of Oil Equivalents per year (kgeo/yr) which is well below that of world average of 1,690 kgeo/yr. By 2010 per capita energy consumption is expected to increase around 450 kgoe/yr. Compared to this, the energy consumption in China is 1,200 kgeo/yr, Japan is over 4,050 kgeo/yr, South Korea is 4,275 kgeo/yr, the US is 7,850, and the OECD countries together average 4,670.

INDIA’S PRESENT ENERGY BASE

Coal has been and is the primary energy source in India as it accounts for 55 percent of India’s energy production (see Table-1). This abundant fossil fuel, which within India accounts for 247.85 billion tonnes of reserves as of 2005, can last for some 80 years at the current level of consumption. If domestic coal production continues to grow at the current rate of 5 percent per year, however, India’s total extractable coal reserves would run out in around 40 years.

Table 1: INDIA’S ENERGY CONSUMPTION (HISTORY)

(Data units “million tons equivalent in oil” or “MTEO”) Source: BP Statistical Year Review 2005

With only half a percent of global reserves within India, oil nonetheless constitutes over 35 percent of the primary energy consumption in India. India’s present level of oil consumption is about 114 million metric tons of oil equivalent out of which India produces 25 percent i.e., 29 million metric Tons (MMT). India’s per capita consumption of oil and gas is one-third the global average. The reserves of crude oil are merely 739 MMT, which can sustain the current level of production for 22 years.

India’s Production of natural gas, which was almost negligible at the time of independence in 1949, in 2006 is at the level of around 87 million standard cubic meters per day (MMSCMD). Natural gas constitutes about 9 percent of India’s energy production, as compared to about 25 percent in the world. India already imports 20 per cent of its natural gas and this is predicted to go up to about 75 per cent by 2020.

INDIA’S ENERGY FUTURE

To encourage next generation fuels and increased use of renewable sources of energy, India is probably the only country in the world with a full-fledged ministry dedicated to the production of energy from renewable energy sources, the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (http://mnes.nic.in/). As prescribed by the President of India, power generated through renewable energy technologies is targeted to reach 20 to 25 percent of total energy generated compared to the present 5 percent (See Table-2). The government is promoting the use of ethanol made from sugar cane and bio-diesel extracted from trees that are common in many parts of India, such as Jatropha, Karanja and Mahua. India’s Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources has put forward a goal for the nation to produce 60 million tons per year of bio-fuel.

Table 2: INDIA’S ENERGY CONSUMPTION (PROJECTION)

(Data units “million tons equivalent in oil” or “MTEO”) Source: Draft Report of the Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy, Planning Commission, Government of India

India to-date has a total installed capacity of 870 megawatts based on biomass combustion, gasification and biomass cogeneration. Over 55 megawatts of the total was set up in the country just in 2005. India’s government is already promoting biomass based technologies in selected villages for meeting energy requirements, such as cooking, motive power and electricity generation under various schemes. Biomass gasifier based electricity generation projects adding a total capacity of 423 megawatts were sanctioned during 2005-06 to states like Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Paradesh, and Pondicherry under the Biomass Gasification Programme.

By mid-2005, India’s installed capacity of wind power had reached 3,740 megawatts. The present exploitable potential has been estimated at 14.5 gigawatts, when taking into consideration the grid constraints in the potential states. India’s wind power projects are mostly set up as commercial projects through private investments. According to a report by the American Wind Energy Association (http://www.awea.org/) India currently ranks fifth in wind energy production, which is first place among developing countries. Under the wind resource assessment programme of the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, so far a total of 211 sites have been identified in 13 States and Union Territories that are considered suitable for setting up wind power projects.

India is endowed with enormous economically exploitable hydro potential, assessed at about 84 gigawatts. To-date only around 18 percent of India’s hydro-electric potential has been harnessed. The sharply falling share of hydro in total energy production - from 46 percent in the 1970s to about 25 percent today - is cited as a serious problem confronting future development of hydro power. Opposition to large hydro infrastructure projects has been intensified because of the Indian government’s poor track record of resettlement and rehabilitation of the people displaced by these projects. Currently this opposition has effectively put a halt to future projects.

Rajasthan Atomic Power Station New Units Under Construction

NUCLEAR POWER
IN INDIA

While India is amongst the top 10 countries of the world in terms of production of electricity by hydro, coal, oil and gas, it is nowhere near the top 10 with respect to nuclear power generation.

In spite of India becoming the sixth nation to become armed with nuclear weapons, after the 1998 nuclear tests, the contribution of nuclear power to India’s overall power generation is negligible, even less than what wind energy generates.

Since the much debated high profile July 18 2005 Indo-US Joint Statement on civilian nuclear cooperation in Washington last year, there has been a renewed interest on nuclear energy put forward by the pro-nuclear lobby in India.

From the perspective of India’s government, Indo-US cooperation will give new life to its nuclear program that has been handicapped by limitations of technology and fuel. While Western countries - with the exception of France which is unabashedly pro-nuclear power - are hesitantly moving towards further development of nuclear energy, the developing countries, especially India and China, are quickly gearing up to add nuclear energy to feed their rapidly growing economies. According to official announcements, China will be adding 40 gigawatts of nuclear power in the next 20 years while India adds 20 gigawatts.

“It is perfectly clear that atomic energy can be used for peaceful purposes.” Jawaharlal Nehru (on right), 1954

Historically, development of India’s nuclear technology has treaded carefully between the elusive thin line of civilian and military purposes.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India said in Lok Sabha (India’s Lower House of Parliament) on May 10, 1954, “It is perfectly clear that atomic energy can be used for peaceful purposes…it may take some years before it can be used more or less economically.” Experts believe that nuclear power, theoretically, offers India the most potent means to achieve long-term energy security. In practical terms, however, nuclear power may lack the logical preconditions, at least for India, to become their major source of independent energy.

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), (http://www.dae.gov.in/) under the direct control of the Prime Minister of India has formulated an approach and perspective on the nuclear energy resource. Their three stage nuclear program calls for setting up of natural uranium fuelled Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) in the first stage, Fast Breeder Reactors utilizing a uranium-plutonium fuel cycle in the second stage, and Breeder Reactors utilizing thorium fuel in the third stage. India’s natural uranium deficiency has resulted in a commitment to this ambitious, technically challenging three-stage program designed to exploit the country’s thorium reserves, which at an estimated 290,000 metric tons are the second largest in the world.

India’s Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace

According to the Indian government’s official view, nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the nuclear fuel cycle. This self-sufficiency extends from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste management. The Atomic Energy Establishment was set up at Trombay in 1957 and renamed as Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) (http://www.barc.ernet.in/) ten years later. The first PHWR, the Rawatbhata-1 that had Canada’s Douglas Point reactor as a reference unit, was built as a collaborative venture between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (http://www.aecl.ca/site3.aspx) and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) (http://www.npcil.nic.in/). It commissioned in 1973 and was duplicated Subsequent indigenous PHWR development has been based on these units. The Rawatbhata-2 that commissioned in 1981 was also built by Canada. The NPCIL is responsible for design, construction, commissioning and operation of thermal nuclear power plants. The ten 220 MWe PHWRs (202 MWe each) were indigenously designed and constructed by NPCIL, based on Canadian design.

Table 3: INDIA’S NUCLEAR REACTORS - CURRENTLY OPERATING

Today 3,360 megawatts of India’s electricity capacity is nuclear. Source: Nuclear Power Corporation of India

There are 15 nuclear power reactors in operation in India, 13 of which are PHWRs (See Table-3). Since 1969, when India’s first nuclear reactor was commissioned for power generation, the total amount of power generation till 2005 is peeked at 3,360 megawatts. Among these PHWRs, the RAPS-1 reactor in Rajasthan has been virtually non-operational since its commissioning in December 1973. In addition, eight nuclear power reactors are currently under construction, five of which are PHWRs (See Table-4). Their total amount of power generation is expected to be 3,920 megawatts. There are 8 reactors to be established in the near future adding another 6,800 megawatts of capacity (See Table-5). Between 2010 and 2020, construction of four 220 megawatt PHWRs, ten 700 megawatt PHWRs, three 500 megawatt FBRs and up to six 1,000 megawatt VVERs is projected, adding about 20,000 megawatts, half from PHWRs. India has achieved maturity in the first stage of this program, construction of PHWRs. The beginning of the second stage of the program has been made with the commencement of construction of a 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu in 2003. The third stage of the program will be launched after a sizeable base capacity has been built of the second stage reactors.

The two Tarapur 150 megawatt Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) built by GE on a turnkey contract before the advent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were originally 200 megawatts but were de-rated due to recurrent problems. They have been using imported enriched uranium. However, late in 2004 Russia deferred to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and declined to supply further uranium for them. Then in March 2006 Russia agreed to resume providing a fuel supply.

Table 4: INDIA’S NUCLEAR REACTORS - UNDER CONSTRUCTION 2006

India is adding 3,128 megawatts of nuclear power, nearly doubling their output. Source: Nuclear Power Corporation of India

Russia is supplying the country’s first large nuclear power plant, comprising two VVER-1000 (V-392) reactors, under a Russian-financed US$ 3 billion contract. The units are being built by NPCIL. Russia will supply all the enriched fuel, though India will reprocess it and keep the plutonium. The first unit is due to be commissioned late in 2007. These are apart from India’s 3-stage plan for nuclear power and are simply to increase generating capacity more rapidly.

In 2005 four sites were approved for eight new reactors. Two of the sites - Kakrapar and Rawatbhata, are to have 700 megawatt indigenous PHWR units, another is to have imported 1,000 megawatt light water reactors alongside the two being constructed by Russia at Kudankulam, and the fourth site is greenfield for 1,000 megawatt LWR units - Jaitapur in the Konkan region. Acquisition of any further light water reactors depends upon international political approvals.

Table 5: INDIA’S NUCLEAR REACTORS NEW SITES APPROVED 2006

India has already approved construction of new nuclear reactors adding another 6.8 gigawatts. Source: Nuclear Power Corp., India

India’s long-standing civilian nuclear plans call for extensive reprocessing of spent fuel from current reactors to harvest plutonium. The plutonium would then be used in a new generation of reactors to breed uranium-233 from blankets of thorium that would surround the plutonium fuel. Many decades into the future, the dream is to have a thorium-based fuel cycle that would ensure India’s energy independence into the distant future. However, anti nuclear experts believe that the long-term nuclear energy strategy is so technologically and economically dubious that no outside observers think it is viable.

Despite concerns against nuclear energy coming from the anti-nuclear establishment as well as civil society organizations in India, today there is a consensus across the major political parties that given India’s existing and future energy needs, nuclear power provides a potentially attractive alternative. But nearly 60 years after its inception, the nuclear establishment in India has failed to deliver what the pro-nuclear lobby had promised. At this point, even if a 20-fold increase takes place in India’s nuclear power capacity by 2031-32, the contribution of nuclear energy to India’s energy mix is, at best, expected to be 5-6 percent.

In 1954, India’s Atomic Energy Commission declared that nuclear plants would provide 8,000 megawatts of electricity by 1980-81. Yet by 1970, only 420 megawatts of electricity were coming from nuclear plants. In 1971, Vikram Sarabhai, the chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Committee sought to bring Indian nuclear planning down to earth and scaled back projections, saying that by 1980-81, India would be producing 2,700 megawatts of electricity from nuclear plants. Thirty-five years later Indian nuclear plants are producing roughly 3,360 MW of electricity. But undaunted, the Indian pro-nuclear lobby now proclaims that India will produce 24,000 MW of nuclear power by 2010 and 50,000 MW of electricity from nuclear plants by the year 2030!

Nuclear Fuel Bundles

The fact remains that despite its great size, India has the misfortune to have been poorly endowed with natural uranium. It has been estimated that these modest reserves of about 70,000 metric tons will suffice to produce no more than approximately 420 gigawatt-years of electric power, if used in the PHWRs currently operating or under construction. On the other hand people won’t let the government dig new uranium mines, so even these modest reserves may never be fully exploited.

India still faces severe challenges regarding the operational safety of all kinds of nuclear installations, from uranium mines to nuclear power stations. While the government boasts that the management and disposal of waste has been carried out fairly satisfactorily, there remain severe criticisms on the over all activities of nuclear energy. Public protests against Uranium Corporation of India Ltd’s (UCIL) (http://www.ucil.gov.in/) have prevented it from opening up any new mine since 1985.

In last six months in 2004, UCIL has tried thrice to set up new uranium mines in Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya and Jharkhand but hasn’t got permission anywhere.

The Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya governments have agreed to UCIL’s proposal in principle, but have withheld permission because of public pressure and nuclear activist campaigns focusing on UCIL’s poor safety record in Jaduguda in Jharkhand.

Independent studies have alleged that irresponsible handling of uranium ore had put some 50,000 people in Jaduguda at risk and caused genetic deformities in the area. Though Domiasat village in Meghalaya’s West Khasi Hills contains India’s largest and richest uranium reserve, UCIL officials are not welcomed by the indigenous communities in the Domiasat.

There are also serious problems to do with treating and disposing of the large volumes of highly radioactive waste generated not only by nuclear reactors but also by plants that extract plutonium or produce nuclear fuel. There is also the question of cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors after their useful life. Safety of nuclear reactors has also become an issue of concern.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) (http://www.aerb.gov.in/) had revealed about 130 incidents where safety had been compromised in various nuclear reactors, particularly Narora 1 and 2 and Kaiga. Also, there is a tremendous pressure on nuclear reactors safety from outside like terrorists attacks.

The Coalition of Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) (http://www.cndpindia.org/), a coalition of scientists, educationists, human rights activists, civil society organizations and so on, constituted in 2000 in response to nuclear weaponisation by India and Pakistan, calls for total nuclear disarmament in India as well as in the rest of the world. The CNDP does not accept the argument for nuclear energy put forward by atomic scientists as well as decision makers. While the option for nuclear energy is very expensive, the Indian government has restored faith in the DAE by allocating huge investment by ignoring various social issues like education, health etc.

President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (2nd from left), visiting an IITF exhibit in New Delhi in 2003.

Developing nuclear energy will be a slow, expensive and uncertain challenge at best. To increase the potential of nuclear energy, India has to look into outside help. Foreign involvement in nuclear power plant construction will diminish India’s ambition of energy independence if India takes the path of nuclear.

The real solution to India’s energy needs can come only when opting for energy sources that have low-impacts on the environment, low costs, and are easily available. Renewable energy has the potential to fulfill these critera. Renewable energy has the potential to bring true energy independence to India.

About the Author: Avilash Roul has been writing, advocating, researching, and creating knowledge on Environment and Development in various English Daily media since 2000. He has worked with Down To Earth (fortnightly magazine published in New Delhi, India) for the last three years. He has also contributed a Sunday column in New India Express on the environment and development. Right now Mr. Roul is working as an Assistant Coordinator for the Bank Information Center (www.bicusa.org), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization that advocates for the protection of rights, participation, transparency, and public accountability in the governance and operations of the World Bank, regional development banks, and the International Monetary Fund.

One kilogram of uranium fuel yields 20,000 times more energy than one kilogram of coal (photo: US EPA)

When I declare that the U.S. desperately needs to become more like France, some of my friends get upset. But hold your anger, keep eating your Freedom Fries, and let me explain. The real reason to emulate the French is that 75% of their electrical power use is derived from nuclear reactors.

The U.S. right now generates about 50% of its electric power from coal and only about 15% from nuclear reactors. No new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the early 1970s, thanks in part to misguided environmental activists reacting to the Three Mile Island (3MI) meltdown, but also to really cheap natural gas and oil in the 70’s and 80’s. We will never see cheap oil and gas again thanks to huge increases in demand from India and China that is here to stay. We need to start building new nuclear power plants and catch up with our erstwhile friends those French, without whom we never would have won the American Revolution.

While the only by-product of a nuclear power plant that finds its way into the surroundings is hot water, coal fired plants spew out about 90% of all the pollutants given off by power production in the U.S. These include sulfur dioxides (acid rain), various nitrogen oxides (read smog), mercury, lots of carbon dioxide, (greenhouse gas, anyone?), and more radioactive gases than the virtually zero amounts given off by nuclear plants. Even relatively clean natural gas fired power plants still release significant amounts of pollutants and lots of carbon dioxide.

Opponents of nuclear power always point out that operating nuclear reactors create radioactive gases that are released into the atmosphere. Not true! The radioactive gases generated by a nuclear reactor are held in holding tanks until they decay into harmless, non-radioactive gases. Only then are they released into the atmosphere.

One large nuclear plant easily equals the 1.2 gigawatt output of Hoover Dam (photo: Idaho National Labs)

Along with coal, another energy choice we might consider in lieu of nuclear is hydroelectric. Building big new dams is probably even more expensive than building new nuclear plants, but the advantage is there is no waste or emissions at all. In the bargain, however, we lose all those wild rivers that rafters, kayakers, and myriad wild creatures love so much. In addition, we create huge new lakes that not only ruin the local environment, but also give jet boaters a place to zoom around in and make lots of noise. Let’s not forget about what dams do to migrating fish populations such as salmon. As for “green” dams? Well if you think a regular dam costs a lot…

Remaining alternatives to nuclear power, such as wind and solar, are promising technologies but can’t offer constant baseload power generation like hydroelectric and nuclear power. Moreover, solar power is still far too expensive to be developed on a scale sufficient to replace coal or nuclear power and meet growing worldwide energy demands. Also, windmills, as do new oil refineries and nuclear plants, evince the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) response. It is estimated that photovoltaic solar power costs about 23 cents per kilowatt hour (could get cheaper as new technologies evolve), while conventional coal and natural gas plants cost about half that. Nuclear power weighs in at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

I was against the widespread use of nuclear power back in the hippy sixties and seventies for the usual reasons at the time: China Syndrome meltdowns, what to do with radioactive waste, Homer Simpson like reactor workers, and poor regulation and corruption. That was then, this is now. Several icons of the environmental movement, apostates like me, believe that the aforementioned nuclear power problems have been solved. Nuclear power is simply the most environmentally friendly way to generate electrical power, cleanly and economically.

The Three Mile Island accident could not have happened in today’s modern nuclear power plants (photo: US EPA)

No less a luminary than Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, recently endorsed developing nuclear power.
In his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Energy and Resources, he said he now believes that the majority of environmental activists (his former friends) have become so blinded by their extremist policies that they fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure America’s growing energy needs. His testimony in essence boils down to that we need to get away from the fossil fuels that are responsible for most all of the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions we are inundated with, and get with nuclear power that is clean and safe.

Other pioneering environmentalists have also embraced nuclear power, including Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, and James Lovelock, who put forth the Gaia theory (basically, Earth is a huge living, self-regulating organism in itself). Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore went on to say, “The industry is mature. Problematic early reactors like the ones at Three Mile Island (3MI) and Chernobyl can be supplanted by new, smaller-scale, meltdown-proof reactors like the ones that use the pebble-bed design. Nuclear plants are high yield, with low cost fuel that offer the best avenue to a hydrogen economy.” Well said, Mr. Moore. So let us now visit the questions of 3MI and Chernobyl, and what is “pebble bed”, anyway? And lastly, the big gorilla always put forth by nuclear opponents, what to do with all that dangerous radioactive waste from a reactor’s spent fuel rods.

US EPA

In 1979, at the 3MI nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., a reactor overheated and a partial meltdown of the uranium core occurred. Hydrogen gas was released raising fears of a BIG explosion that would release radioactive water, solids and gases into the atmosphere. The crisis lasted 12 days, and some radioactive water and gases were released, while thousands of people were evacuated from the area (for you trivia buffs, the movie, “China Syndrome” was released just days before the real thing happened at 3MI). The explosion never happened, but the incident effectively ended construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. Various celebrities and politicians at the time demanded the shutdown of all nuclear plants and predicted cancer epidemics of every kind. Well, after 25 years, no other such accidents have occurred and no adverse health effects on the people exposed to the radioactive materials have emerged. The whole incident was due to human error. The operators reacted to a completely manageable problem with safety valves by shutting down the emergency cooling system, ultimately causing a reactor to overheat, resulting in the infamous meltdown. Wrong move, Homer Simpson and pals!! Anyway, the incident caused the industry to fix some design flaws, and actually give plant workers rigorous training, MUCH more rigorous than before the accident.

Chernobyl from orbit. The dark elongated area area is the 12 kilometer long cooling pond. The reactor complex is just to the left of the pond (photo: NASA)

O.K., but what about Chernobyl, the poster child for nuclear power opponents? The worst nuclear reactor accident in history occurred there, and the Ukrainian city is to this day a ghost town. In April of 1986, engineers (probably including “Homeri Simpsonov”) disabled emergency backup systems and then proceeded to test one of the plant’s four reactors. Who knows why? They only succeeded in initiating an uncontrolled chain reaction in the core of the reactor, which resulted in blowing up the whole containment building. This “minor misjudgment” on the part of the plant workers resulted in about 8 tons of highly radioactive materials being spewed all over Eastern Europe and beyond. About 35 people were killed immediately from the explosion itself and acute radiation poisoning, while hundreds of others suffered from severe radiation sickness (the unlucky ones, as it is a slow, painful death).

Nuclear energy experts I have talked to say such an accident is impossible for reactors of the design used in the rest of the world. Only the old Soviet Union used the Chernobyl design, which is fatally flawed and susceptible to such accidents even when the engineers working there know what they’re doing. In the 20 years since, there has been a large rise in thyroid cancers in people who were heavily exposed, especially in children. This is predictable because ingested radioactive iodine from the explosion is all concentrated in the pea sized thyroid gland. The good news is that it is one of the most curable of cancers. The cancerous gland is surgically removed and a thyroid hormone pill must be taken for the remainder of one’s life. Even better, no increase in any other types of cancers has been detected in the exposed population (yet).

US DOE

Now for the big gorilla, what to do with highly radioactive, long half-life, spent nuclear fuel. For the conventional nuclear plants that are operating today all over the U.S., the answer is Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The area has already been subject to about 900 nuclear bomb tests, NIMBY doesn’t apply because nobody lives anywhere near there, and the area is so arid that there is virtually no groundwater for any potential waste to leech into, even if the containers of the waste do fail in only 500 years or so. It has been approved by the government as a very, very, long-term safe disposal site for all nuclear waste, but its status is now in limbo because of all those former friends of Patrick Moore. Opponents cite the danger of vehicles transporting encapsulated waste being involved in some accident that might release radioactive waste all over the place. Firstly, transport will be by rail, not trucks, so the NIMBY folks needn’t worry about a truck hauling radioactive waste driving through their neighborhood. According to one of my favorite columnists, George Will, in the last 40 years more than 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been transported more than 1.6 million miles in the U.S. Of those shipments, 4 rail and 4 highway accidents have occurred with no failure of any of the nuclear containers. Sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Yucca Mountain is being developed as a central repository for America’s nuclear waste (photo: Sandia)

At present, radioactive waste is stored at hundreds of temporary sites around the country. How secure are those sites against a possible theft by some terrorist determined to set off a “dirty bomb” in Manhattan? Nellis Air Force Base, next door to the Yucca site, will supply ample security. Because nobody lives anywhere near the site, a terrorist would have a hard time explaining why he just happens to be in the area, maybe counting mutant gila monsters (from all those nuclear bomb tests), or even house hunting? Finally, we could again follow the lead of our European friends, and use new technologies to re-cycle nuclear waste. They have been doing it for years, why not us? Perhaps because it’s cheaper to mine new uranium? The process ultimately reduces the amount of waste by about 80%. We recycle paper and aluminum, why not uranium?

Finally, let’s consider why newly built reactors should use that pebble bed reactor design as an alternative to conventional nuclear plant designs. The pebble bed uses pool ball sized uranium fuel, not rods. They produce less waste material, and are more easily disposed of. The most important thing is this: if the engineers running a conventional plant are abducted by terrorists or aliens, the reactor might eventually overheat, meltdown, and explode, just like Chernobyl. The pebble bed reactor would shut itself down! Accidents such as occurred at 3MI and Chernobyl are impossible! In addition, helium is used as the coolant instead of water, yielding hydrogen as the by-product, which could be recovered to power fuel cells for the hydrogen economy of the future.

International Atomic Energy Agency

America’s politicians and regulators need to drastically reform the process that a company must go through to get government approval for new construction. It would take about 2 years to build a new nuclear reactor and get it up and running. It now takes about 11 years to go through all the government red tape, paperwork, hearings (featuring eco-radicals screaming and obstructing at every turn), environmental impact statements with more words than the entire encyclopedia Britannica, and other political baloney that it would take to get approval, before construction can even begin. Saving the planet today starts with using nuclear power instead of coal, as the transitional fuel to the tomorrow’s totally clean and sustainable energy economy, whatever it may be.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor:

Let me first thank you for an informative and thought provoking article about nuclear power from an environmental point of view. As one of many “environmentalists for nuclear power” I appreciate the way that you have provided a new way of looking at old issues. I laughed out loud at the following comment with regard to using hydroelectric damns for power production:

“In addition, we create huge new lakes that not only ruin the local environment, but also give jet boaters a place to zoom around in and make lots of noise.”

As one of the kayakers that loves wild rivers, I appreciated your point of view.

I also enjoyed reading about pebble bed reactors, a technology that I have studied intensively for the past dozen years.

One minor correction - though pebble bed reactors use helium for coolant, and though it is possible for them to be used in a system that produces hydrogen, they do not produce hydrogen as a “by-product”.

In other words, there is no chemical or physical process that is an inherent part of the closed cycle helium cooled pebble bed reactor that results in hydrogen production. The helium remains helium throughout the cycle, and all fission products remain locked inside the pebbles. As in other nuclear power systems, the only real byproduct that is normally emitted is heat.

Hydrogen production is often mentioned in association with pebble bed or other high temperature gas cooled reactors simply because it is a process that can be aided with a heat source in excess of 800 degrees C. Conventional water cooled reactors do not reach that temperature.

Any kind of electrical power reactor can be used to produce hydrogen from water by using electrolysis, but many observers think that process is not efficient enough for wide scale use.

Keep up the good work, I am going to point to your article from my Atomic Insights Blog.

Best regards,

Rod Adams

Editor, Atomic Insights

www.atomicinsights.com

www.atomicinsights.blogspot.com

India’s youth inherit a nation with a rich heritage of democracy and diversity

India is very keen to secure overseas energy resources,

in order to meet its accelerating energy demands. As a result, Indian energy corporations have emerged as significant rivals to established Western multinational energy companies in the overseas oil and gas markets. However, inadequate diplomacy and weaknesses in the structure of the domestic energy industry have plagued their efforts.

While Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar is seeking to restructure the domestic energy sector in order to boost its overseas competitiveness, this is unlikely to lead to any major privatisations. Aiyar has imparted new momentum to India’s energy diplomacy, leading to breakthroughs with energy-rich regional neighbours, such as Iran and Burma. These projects promise to boost the prospects for peace with Pakistan and ease long-standing tensions with Bangladesh. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s visit to Delhi in early 2005 to sign a bilateral agreement on energy cooperation and the activities of Indian energy corporations in Kazakhstan show the growing reach of India’s energy diplomacy, which may soon involve greater cooperation with China, Russia and Iran.

Chavez’s visit follows Caracas’s offer in 2004 to India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) of a share in the production and exploitation of five Venezuelan oil fields. It also underlines the growing overseas activities of Indian energy corporations as Delhi searches for ways to meet accelerating domestic energy demands.

Over the last 20 years, India’s domestic production of oil has stagnated while its consumption of petroleum products has almost trebled. India imports 70% of their oil, which has had a significant impact on the balance-of-payments position. Indeed, last year’s rise in international oil prices has taken the current account sharply into deficit after several years in surplus.

In the next ten years, even if the latest series of domestic oil exploration discoveries (for example, by UK-based Cairns Energy in Rajasthan) are fully exploited, India will still struggle to keep its imports down at current levels. Domestic demand for petroleum products is increasing relentlessly at 5% per year.

The Ganges delta from space India has abundant sun, adequate water, but scarce conventional energy resources

Meanwhile, demand for natural gas, which stood at 0.6 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 1995 had reached 0.9 tcf by 2002 and is expected to touch 1.2 tcf by 2010 and 1.6 tcf by 2015. Domestic sources of supply met over 90% of demand as late as 2003. However, despite the increased reserves discovered by recent exploration, the country will need to import up to one-third of its projected consumption needs by 2015. Moreover, volatilities in the international gas market threaten not only India’s balance-of-payments position, but also the underlying growth rate of its industrial and agricultural sectors — where gas is a fast-rising substitute fuel and is used extensively to produce chemical fertilisers.

India: Energy Reserves:

OIL (billion barrels) 1983: 3.6, 1993: 5.9, 2003: 5.6

GAS (billion cubic metres) 1983: 460, 1993: 720, 2003: 850

In 1998, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party-led government conducted nuclear tests, it also inaugurated a new policy of securing the country’s future energy needs. The government broadened its engagement with multi-national companies, widening opportunities for them to participate in oil and gas exploration within India and proposed building up a buffer stock of oil to protect against market volatilities.

Nevertheless, the foremost aspect of this strategy involved encouraging leading public-sector energy companies — such as ONGC — to secure energy resources overseas by participating directly in the global energy market.

A legacy of changing the world peacefully: The Raj Ghat Memorial for Mahatma Gandhi Photo: Michel Dalle

In recent years, India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation has bought equity stakes in oil fields in Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Angola, Burma, Sakhalin in Russia, Vietnam, Iran and Syria.

Other Indian public-sector undertakings have become involved — not only in acquiring exploration and exploitation rights, but also in establishing sales outlets for Indian petroleum products and in offering a variety of technical services.

In the gas market, the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) has started to invest heavily in equity stakes in liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants in Oman and Iran, and is building port facilities and pipelines at home to handle large imports. GAIL is also pursuing plans for direct pipelines from neighbouring Bangladesh, Burma, Iran and even Pakistan.

However, the success of the new energy strategy has thus far been limited by two main factors:

In more developed oil markets, it has brought India into direct conflict with leading multinational corporations and the policies of Western governments (especially those of the United States), which support them. Thus, while Saudi Arabia is by far India’s largest supplier of crude oil, Indian companies have made little progress in acquiring rights in the Saudi oil industry.

Saudi Prince Abdul Aziz Al Saud visits with India’s President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

Instead, Indian companies have had to pursue opportunities in regions on the margins of the global energy market. This has led ONGC to pursue rights in countries such as Burma, Sudan, Libya, Russia, Iran and (pre-US invasion) Iraq — where political instabilities and other pressures have often disrupted its activities. ONGC’s investments in Iraq are now of doubtful value while cost factors have risen sharply for its investments in Sakhalin — not least because it has had to make large loans to its failing Russian partners.

Indian companies have also had to compete with other ‘late-comer’ national oil companies also seeking to improve their country’s energy security. In particular, ONGC has faced stiff direct competition with the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which is much larger and more active. Until 2003, India’s international spending on oil rights was just 3.5 billion dollars, while that of CNPC was over 40.0 billion.

Recently, in both Angola and Sudan, ONGC has lost bids for oil-prospecting rights to CNPC and, in Sakhalin, it was obliged to offer Rosneft a 2 billion-dollar ‘loan’ simply to keep its place in a market where CNPC had already offered Yukos 4 billion. These competitive pressures have pushed Indian companies ever further towards the peripheries of the global oil market — in recent months, even towards Ecuador and the Ivory Coast. Domestic problems. Three main domestic factors have constrained the oil industry’s ability to secure investments abroad:

The large amount of bureaucratic red-tape surrounding Indian PSUs has proved a significant disadvantage. One of the reasons why ONGC lost out to CNPC in both Sudan and Angola was because it had to wait to have the financing for its bids cleared by Delhi.

Successive Indian governments have exploited PSU energy companies to fulfil their political mandates and to ease their own fiscal difficulties. Until recently, the government administered petroleum and gas prices to keep them at artificially low levels — and, although these mechanisms have now been removed, pressures continue to be exerted on PSUs to hold down their prices and thus their profits.

A legacy of love inspiring surpassing beauty: The Taj Mahal Photo: Michel Dalle

Even where PSUs make significant profits, they can rarely be kept for corporate investment strategies. In recent years ONGC and the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) have had to declare very high dividends which — because the Government of India holds more than 80% of their stock — have disappeared into the public treasury.

The public-energy sector is plagued by a lack of organisation and coordination. This has largely been because the government has encouraged energy companies to operate independently. Thus, they rarely cooperate and frequently compete against each other. For example, ONGC has recently been seeking to enter the domestic market for processed petroleum products, while IOC — most of whose business is based in that market — has started prospecting for oil rights overseas. This has led to duplication of functions and effort. Nevertheless, to a degree this may prove advantageous because success in the international market for oil rights can depend on offering diversified services. This may explain why IOC has been successful at acquiring exploration rights in countries where it also provides petroleum products and distribution services, while ONGC has been unable to do the same.

In response to this last problem, Aiyar has called for a restructuring of the industry through the creation of one or two petroleum ‘giants’ out of the dozen or so PSUs that currently occupy different segments of the market. However, his proposals contradict the government’s policies of pursuing economic liberalisation and increasing the influence of market forces over corporate performance.

India’s Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar

The implications of Aiyar’s position came out most clearly at recent meetings with the Iranian authorities during which he convinced the latter to grant exploration rights to ONGC in return for signing a large LNG import contract, which will be administered by GAIL. Aiyar has now become central in coordinating policy among the supposedly autonomous corporations that make up India’s oil and gas industry. In this respect, liberalisation and privatisation in the industry remain distant prospects.

In contrast, the gas sector has attracted significant private and foreign investment. This has largely been because its late development has meant that the state has struggled to retain its authority over the internal structure of the gas industry. Reliance Industries — India’s largest industrial conglomerate — has made major gas discoveries, especially in the Krishna-Godavari basin. Furthermore, Shell has become an important player in the LNG market and British Gas in the supply of intra-state pipelines. These private interests have started to challenge the control of PSUs in several areas.

For example: Reliance is threatening not to develop its holdings in the Krishna-Godavari basin unless GAIL concedes its current statutory monopoly on inter-state pipeline connections; while Tata Industries and GAIL are in open competition for access to neighbouring Bangladesh’s gas supplies.

However, as the competition between Tata and GAIL suggests, private-sector interests will have to find a means of compromise with the public sector. This is because the solution to India’s energy problems lies overseas and thus can only be tackled through diplomacy — a prerogative of the state. In this respect, India’s neighbouring countries possess the resources to meet its energy shortages. However, Delhi’s diplomatic relations with them have traditionally been difficult:

For more than a decade, Iran and India have agreed in principle to the construction of a pipeline bringing natural gas to India. However, the pipeline has never gone beyond the planning stages, largely because it has to pass through Pakistan, whose hostility to India has precluded construction. Dhaka doubts. Bangladesh has been prepared to frustrate the development of its own gas industry rather than agree to selling gas to India, which is essential to justifying investment costs. Instead, India has been obliged to pursue an import strategy based on LNG, whose costs per unit of gas are at least 60% higher.

Nevertheless, over the last year, there have been breakthroughs on several fronts:

Burma

With strong government support, GAIL has brokered agreement with Burma for a gas pipeline to India — which Bangladesh has finally agreed to join, largely for fear of being left out. A network of pipelines around the northern Bay of Bengal is now in prospect. Iran. More significantly, the new climate of negotiation between India and Pakistan has promoted the revival of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. While India remains cautious — and thus far has pledged no active investment — Aiyar has agreed (on behalf of GAIL) to take the gas on a cash-on-delivery basis, which will improve the prospects of financing the project.

Pakistan

In other moves, Pakistan — which faces its own energy problems — has opened its domestic petroleum product market to international investors, including, in principle, Indian investors. Both Reliance and Indian Oil are considering bids in Pakistan’s market.

Besides helping to solve India’s energy shortages, if these projects come to fruition, they could significantly diminish tensions between the countries of the region. For example:

Pakistan may hesitate to promote hostilities against India, which could see it lose potential revenues in excess of 1 billion dollars — earned from transit duties from the Iran to India pipeline — and, in turn, harm its own domestic petroleum market; while Bangladesh’s traditional suspicion towards India could evaporate if Dhaka were to gain from several billion dollars per year in gas revenues through its cooperation over the pipeline from Burma.

Learn Much More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

India 2020 by A.P.J Abdul Kalam

Energy projects have the capacity to exert much wider influence. While China and India have been in open competition for energy resources, there are signs that they are beginning to appreciate how far they share common interests against the multinational corporations and Western governments, who currently dominate the field.

Russia, Iran & China

Furthermore, leading energy suppliers, such as Russia and Iran, are also encountering deepening difficulties with the same multinational corporations and governments. An energy axis between Iran, Russia and China is already starting to form — centred on the Caspian region. India’s energy diplomacy is beginning to draw it towards this new axis where its PSUs have also been active in seeking investments in the Kazakhstan oil and gas industries. To this extent, India’s quest to secure overseas energy resources could lead its future diplomatic trajectory even further afield.

India’s energy diplomacy is promoting a restructuring of its domestic oil and gas industry, though public-sector interests are likely to remain dominant. This is largely because of the growing importance attached by the government — especially under Aiyar’s guidance — to energy diplomacy as means to promote regional stability. Nevertheless, tough overseas competition has obliged Indian energy diplomacy to concentrate on the newer energy markets of the Caspian and Central Asian regions.

About the Author:
Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

EMAILS TO THE EDITOR

—–Original Message—–

From: Laxman Behera - Jawaharlal Nehru University

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:05 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: India Energy Update - Lessons from PetroKazakhstan Deal

Editor:

The “unconditional” final order of October 26 by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Canada, in favour of China’s China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has dealt a severe blow to the last Indian hope of getting PetroKazakhstan from the Chinese hands. The defeat in securing an important energy deal does not auger well for India’s energy security concerns considering its growing energy needs. The event reminds how vulnerable India is in competing and securing depleting international energy sources. At the same time it opens up for a greater debate on Indian energy minister’s fervent argument that Asia’s two emerging economic giants should co-operate rather than compete in securing international energy deals. The event also reinvigorates the debate on reevaluating India’s energy policies that are being pursued over a long period of time.

Kazakhstan’s importance to world energy markets is growing because of the changing geopolitical factors in the international scene. Apart from this, its oil and gas sector is in seventh place in the world in terms of explored hydrocarbon reserves. According to latest EIA (USA) estimates, Kazakhstan’s estimated proven and probable oil reserves stood at approximately 29 billion barrels and about 70 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of proven gas reserves. Oil and gas being the prime movers in Kazakhstan’s foreign revenue sources, it depends heavily on external finances to develop its resource bases. This provides much needed opportunities to countries like India and China, who are desperately trying to diversify their sources and enlarge their supply bases for their energy security, to step into this land-locked Central Asian country.

One of the largest foreign energy companies operating in Kazakhstan, PetroKazakhstan, a Canadian oil company with all its assets in the Central Asian State and with proved and probable oil equivalent reserves at approximately 550m barrels, accounts for about 12 percent of oil production in the country. PetroKazakhstan produces 150,000 barrels per day and importantly, owns the best (Shymkent refinery) of only three oil refineries in Kazakhstan. In June 2005 PetroKazakhstan announced it had been approached for a possible takeover or merger, sending stock prices up significantly. The most frequently mentioned possible suitor was India’s ONGC with its partner, steel mogul, Mr. L. N. Mittal who offered around $3.9 bilion against China National Petroleum Corporation’s (CNPC) $3.6 billion. However, on August 22, 2005 the company declared that it has reached an “agreement whereby a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNPC will offer US$55.00 per share in cash for all outstanding common shares of PetroKazakhstan. The aggregate value of this transaction is approximately US$4.18 billion.”

The fact of the matter remains is that India was not outbid by the CNPC in a ‘fair auction’ as “rules were changed mid-way through the bidding for the Canadian-based company, which helped China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) win control of the group.” More importantly, China won despite initial Kazakh inhibitions of a Chinese takeover. What clearly underlined the whole Kazakhstan event is that Indian diplomacy failed to its Chinese counterpart in clinching this important deal. The failure came at a time when India and its partner have significant presence in Kazakhstan. China went ahead with the deal after signing with Kazakhstan government an agreement whereby some equity of around 30-33 per cent would be transferred to the state-owned KazMunaiGas after the sale is completed by the end of October. The last Indian aspirations of reversing the company’s decision bit dust when the Canadian court approved CNPC’s acquisition agreement.

India’s failure at the hands of China has clearly marked a ‘low point’ for Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar who, for some time now, has been strongly advocating closer cooperation between India and China in securing energy supplies in international markets. Kazakhstan is not the first instance where India was defeated to China. It had also lost oil bids in Sudan, Angola, Indonesia and Ecuador to China. The minister should know that in international deals, especially the energy deals, which are now closely associated with national security, are purely guided by self interest. Besides, Mr. Aiyar is among few who believe that Chinese companies would share their real business plans with their rival Indian counterparts. It is worthwhile to mention that China’s desire to acquire foreign resources - a recent example being China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s (CNOOC) exorbitant bid for Unocal - is something that is beyond the issue of only energy security. Besides, even if India cooperates with China the former has always to play a second fiddle to the latter in securing outside energy sources. More importantly, despite Indian cooperation there are possibilities of competing against China in some cases. So, why can not India build partnerships with other countries for bidding foreign sources to ward off such possibilities? In this regard, India has an energy partnership with Japan which needs to be strengthened.

Of course, what clearly lacked in the Kazakhstan episode was that India’s energy policy was not fully backed by an adequate dose of foreign policy. When securing international energy sources has become a part of the national security the government needs to be proactively involved. Besides, India has to do a lot more in the domestic front. It has to scrupulously accept that there have been severe bottlenecks in the structure of the domestic energy sector and these needs to be sorted out. Similarly, India’s bidding capacity is very poor compared to that of China or other countries. Until 2003, its international spending on oil rights was mere $3.5 billion against over $40.0 billion by CNPC of China. To improve the bidding capacities several energy entities, both private and public, have to come together to form a large-equity based company to compete in international markets.

CNPC won PetroKazakhstan right from under the nose of Indian company despite its initially higher first round bid. The defeat is not about the cooperation/competition but about the problem in Indian policies. The concerned minister should understand this very clearly and while dealing with Chinese authorities next month in China, he should act wisely. If these problems are not sorted out first, then many PetroKazakhstans will follow. Unfortunately, oil reserves are finite and India and China being energy-hungry neighbours will have to compete against each other for dwindling resources.

Laxman Kumar Behera

Senior Research Scholar

Center for West Asian and African Studies

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi