Obama - Modi Nuclear Deal a waste - washington post
The White House is claiming victory for a breakthrough in the impasse with India over nuclear energy. Indian laws have held suppliers, designers and builders of nuclear plants liable in case of an accident and this made U.S. companies fearful of doing business there. During his recent trip, President Obama persuaded India’s government to create an insurance pool to compensate victims of a potential disaster and to cap the liabilities of companies supplying the technology.
This is hardly a victory for the United States or for India. It no longer makes sense for any country to install a technology that can create a catastrophe such as Chernobyl or Fukushima — especially when far better alternatives are available. Technologies such as solar and wind are advancing so rapidly that by the time the first new nuclear reactors are installed in India, they will be less costly than nuclear energy. Most importantly, the alternative technologies are cleaner and safer.
Take solar energy, which has become a political hot potato in the United States because of Obama’s support of solar companies that failed. Critics are arguing that solar is inefficient, too expensive to install, and unreliable, and will fail without government subsidies. They argue that after decades of development, solar power hardly supplies 1 percent of the world’s energy needs and that we need to double our bets on fossil fuels and nuclear. But they are simply wrong.
Solar power has been doubling every two years for the past 30 years — as costs have been dropping. At this rate, solar is only six doublings — or less than 14 years — away from meeting practically all of today’s energy needs. Even with this, we will be using only one part in 10,000 of the sunlight that falls on the Earth.
In places such as Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia and parts of the United States and India, residential-scale solar production has already reached “grid parity” with average residential electricity prices. In other words, it costs no more in the long term to install solar panels than to buy electricity from utility companies — without government subsidies. The prices of solar panels have fallen 75 percent in the past five years alone and will fall much further as the technologies to create them improve and scale of production increases. By 2020, solar energy will be price-competitive with energy generated from fossil fuels on an unsubsidized basis in most parts of the world. Prices will keep dropping and efficiency will keep increasing even after this. In the late 2020s, these will cost a fraction of what fossil fuel- and nuclear-based alternatives do.
This is the reality — believe it or not.
Yes, there is an issue of energy storage for when the sun is not shining. Batteries are expensive and their capacity is limited. But these technologies are also advancing rapidly. They will improve over the next decade to the point that storage devices will be economical and sufficient for homes and villages. For India, energy production using solar will alleviate the problems of its decaying national electricity grid. Energy can be generated and stored locally — at the village level.
Wind, biomass, thermal, tidal, and waste-breakdown energy, and a host of newer energy technologies are becoming increasingly practical to install worldwide. Wind power, for example, is already competitive with the cost of new coal-burning power plants in the United States.
The president should not be prescribing medicine that he would not take himself. The United States has not installed any new nuclear plants for more than 30 years. There would be massive public protests if any were even proposed — anywhere in the country. Germany is working towards phasing out all of its nuclear plants by 2022 and many other developed countries are looking to follow its lead.
So why subject India and other developing countries to these dangers?
India is still reeling from the Bhopal disaster of 1984, when a leakage of cyanide gas at the Union Carbide plant killed 5,295 people and left tens of thousands with permanent disabilities. The surviving victims are still begging for fair compensation. This was a chemical catastrophe; a nuclear one would be far more destructive.
Instead of trying to chain India to the past with technologies such as nuclear, he should help the country leapfrog into the future with clean energy. This will benefit not only India, but also the world. more
This is hardly a victory for the United States or for India. It no longer makes sense for any country to install a technology that can create a catastrophe such as Chernobyl or Fukushima — especially when far better alternatives are available. Technologies such as solar and wind are advancing so rapidly that by the time the first new nuclear reactors are installed in India, they will be less costly than nuclear energy. Most importantly, the alternative technologies are cleaner and safer.
Take solar energy, which has become a political hot potato in the United States because of Obama’s support of solar companies that failed. Critics are arguing that solar is inefficient, too expensive to install, and unreliable, and will fail without government subsidies. They argue that after decades of development, solar power hardly supplies 1 percent of the world’s energy needs and that we need to double our bets on fossil fuels and nuclear. But they are simply wrong.
Solar power has been doubling every two years for the past 30 years — as costs have been dropping. At this rate, solar is only six doublings — or less than 14 years — away from meeting practically all of today’s energy needs. Even with this, we will be using only one part in 10,000 of the sunlight that falls on the Earth.
In places such as Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia and parts of the United States and India, residential-scale solar production has already reached “grid parity” with average residential electricity prices. In other words, it costs no more in the long term to install solar panels than to buy electricity from utility companies — without government subsidies. The prices of solar panels have fallen 75 percent in the past five years alone and will fall much further as the technologies to create them improve and scale of production increases. By 2020, solar energy will be price-competitive with energy generated from fossil fuels on an unsubsidized basis in most parts of the world. Prices will keep dropping and efficiency will keep increasing even after this. In the late 2020s, these will cost a fraction of what fossil fuel- and nuclear-based alternatives do.
This is the reality — believe it or not.
Yes, there is an issue of energy storage for when the sun is not shining. Batteries are expensive and their capacity is limited. But these technologies are also advancing rapidly. They will improve over the next decade to the point that storage devices will be economical and sufficient for homes and villages. For India, energy production using solar will alleviate the problems of its decaying national electricity grid. Energy can be generated and stored locally — at the village level.
Wind, biomass, thermal, tidal, and waste-breakdown energy, and a host of newer energy technologies are becoming increasingly practical to install worldwide. Wind power, for example, is already competitive with the cost of new coal-burning power plants in the United States.
The president should not be prescribing medicine that he would not take himself. The United States has not installed any new nuclear plants for more than 30 years. There would be massive public protests if any were even proposed — anywhere in the country. Germany is working towards phasing out all of its nuclear plants by 2022 and many other developed countries are looking to follow its lead.
So why subject India and other developing countries to these dangers?
India is still reeling from the Bhopal disaster of 1984, when a leakage of cyanide gas at the Union Carbide plant killed 5,295 people and left tens of thousands with permanent disabilities. The surviving victims are still begging for fair compensation. This was a chemical catastrophe; a nuclear one would be far more destructive.
Instead of trying to chain India to the past with technologies such as nuclear, he should help the country leapfrog into the future with clean energy. This will benefit not only India, but also the world. more
Viewed by 570
Please spare some time to read below, 1. Modi’s first speech in Delhi - The only development he speaks about is of cheap and fast electricity meters. WHY? Because he knew well that AAP will be forced to come out and speak against BJP President’s (Dr. Satish Upadhyaya) links with power companies. Otherwise BJP would easily speak against AAP in elections declining any allegations whatsoever. 2. AAP forced to speak against BJP President – In response BJP removes Dr. Satish Upadhyaya from list of candidates to show that BJP actually cares of allegations made by AAP. 3. Enters Kiran Bedi – BJP gets Kiran Bedi to marginalize the Anna Hazare movement which forms the basis of AAP. 4. Kiran Bedi’s self-destruction – All her TV interviews so far have proved a disaster and clearly shows how she is incapable and highly immature to take on CM’s role and do real development in Delhi. 5. Enters Amit Shah and Arun Jaitley along with entire BJP high command – To show their might and unity within, Modi gets all the BJP brass together to support Kiran Bedi in Delhi elections. 6. 100+ Corporate Honchos join BJP – To further show the power of money, BJP gets its entire links in corporate sector to come and officially join BJP. 7. AVAM allegations against AAP – Same could have been highlighted by BJP, but BJP uses AVAM (which is supported by Shanti Bhushan and Shazia Ilmi of BJP from day 1). In India where there is so much of black money, should AAP not accept donations in hard cash? Most of the people do not offer white money because they do not have it. How can AAP show that in their accounts? Does Congress or BJP accept huge amounts in cash for party fund? If yes, do they show it on their website? That was the reason why BJP used AVAM to make these allegations. 8. AAP clarifies – AAP was made to spend full time in clarifying these allegations from AVAM. AAP was going extremely strong in campaigning but this put brakes on their campaign and gave negative publicity which could prove costly by deflecting the minds of middle class people. It is the middle class people who will be the key to success in Delhi elections. 9. BJP releases vision document – BJP finally releases the vision document just four days before Delhi elections. Earlier, BJP scrapped plans to release a manifesto due to differences between key state leaders over the demand for full statehood for Delhi. That lack of consonance - mainly a deep sulk among senior leaders over Ms. Bedi being picked to lead – had BJP worried as it battled a resurgent AAP, whose chief Arvind Kejriwal the party acknowledges is the man to beat. 10. Modi uses Media and calls AAP as fraudsters – Modi uses his Full Media Power to get the best from this negative publicity. He calls AAP as fraudsters even though BJP itself is FULL OF BLACK MONEY. This is done the very next day of AVAM making these allegations. There are still 4 days left and BJP has done the damage. I never in my dreams imagined that people of Delhi (in fact of entire India) could be fooled to this level by the Government and the Media. From today onwards I will surely say that BJP should never have come to the center. It is the biggest mistake in the history of Indian Democracy. more
Feb 03
It is success of BJP to let Obama to loot India. On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Amit Mishra wrote: > more
Feb 03
At least the AAP leadership is keen on Solar electricity for the Capital. Yes, till cheaper technology emerges, the problem of power storage, for solar electricity, will persist. So till such time affordable technology becomes available, solar generation will need to be dovetailed with coal driven energy to cover for non-sunlight periods. If Delhi presents a safe and inexpensive alternative that can be replicated elsewhere too. Rajasthan has installed solar plants, which can serve as an example. more
Feb 03
Due to these security concerns, nuclear reactor plants are setup in remote and isolated locations. In case of a catastrophe, it negates the leakage effect. Obviously there will be casualties in this scenario also, no matter how good is the technology for security implemented. But the real downside of this deal with US is that same feat could have been achieved by dealing with other nations which offer similar technology (like France, Russia, UK, etc.). The companies of all nations should be invited to bid for such nuclear reactor plants. Then only the quality of implementation will be good. In this deal, India bows to US by committing that India will invite mostly US companies to make the bids and hence they will have more chances of getting the contract. How advantageous it will be remains to be seen, because some US companies are good but their offerings are highly priced relatively (compared to other countries) ? Other downside is the dependence on US (which is the most expensive seller of defense) for other defense related items. Is it possible for India to acquire similar technology from other countries at a better price and quality ? That was another option which India could have availed if thought of and worked out a strategy in time. In this deal, overall gain is for US. It looks more like a pay-off to US for giving preference to India whenever required. How much that will help is yet to be seen ? more
Feb 03
