Nuclear Energy: Indian Ruling Class and Imperialism
[EDITORIAL NOTE: In this article the author has considered the interests of the imperialists and the Indian ruling class vis-a-vis the nuclear power in the present situation. In a society beyond the capitalist relations that blindly do not look at any opportunity from the viewpoint of profit, how and to what extent such an energy option may be harnessed keeping human safety and ecology under due consideration, depending upon the necessity - is not the subject of the present article.]
There are primarily three reasons why the communist revolutionaries of India need to delve into the issue of nuclear power. First, in the wake of the much publicised "global energy crisis" and depleting fossil fuel resources,[1] which apparently threatens the existence of human civilization,[1] the protagonists of the Indian ruling class in tandem with the imperialist forces are trying to convince us that there is "no alternative to nuclear energy."[2] In addition, the challenge posed by global warming has recently given a further boost to nuclear power, which is finding supporters even among prominent environmentalists.[3] Secondly, the Indian rulers have been forging ahead with their nuclear programme by signing a plethora of nuclear deals with the imperialists powers like the United States,[4] Russia,[5] France,[6] Canada,[7] and South Korea,[8] which are all designed to serve the general interests of imperialism and big capital. In certain cases they reflect quid pro quo deals in the world of international relations which formalizes the outcome of some skewed bargaining between the Indian capitalists and imperialist super powers. The complexity and far reaching consequences of these agreements warrant separate investigation, and hence will not be considered in detail in this article. Thirdly, movements against establishment of nuclear power plants in India (some of which emerged as a consequence of the above-mentioned agreements) seem to have gained momentum in the recent years and have so far been reasonably successful in putting up formidable resistance against the effort of the Indian ruling class to enforce their new civil nuclear programmes. Conscious workers therefore cannot remain silent spectators.
In this article we shall focus on two of the above issues - what should be the proletarian view point on nuclear power in the present context and what should be role of the communist revolutionaries and the conscious workers vis-?-vis the ongoing anti-nuclear struggles in India. The international nuclear deals and the general civil and military nuclear policy of the Indian state and its connection with imperialism will be dealt very briefly only in the perspective of understanding the above points. However, to start with we will first examine the basics of nuclear power generation and its current status in India since in some sort of spoonerism ("Barna Bipojoy" in Bangla) "Nuclear power" has mostly remained "Unclear power" with most of us who have not followed the nuclear issue on a regular basis.
NUCLEAR POWER: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
Almost sixty years have passed since US President Eisenhower made his historic address of "Atoms for Peace" at the Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in 1953.[9] This declaration marked the beginning of the use of nuclear energy for civil purposes. Since then nuclear power has been developed worldwide and, despite devastating accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and more recently at Fukushima in 2011, it has established itself as one of the major sources of energy supply. According to the 2010 report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 441 nuclear power plants are in operation globally in 29 countries producing slightly less than 14% of the world's electricity supplies and 5.7% of total primary energy used worldwide.[10] India has pursued a sustained nuclear power development programme and has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power plants, while seven other reactors are under construction.[11] Till 2004, India boasted of having the largest number of nuclear power plants under construction in the world.[12]
The dominant logic put forward by the imperialist forces and the Indian ruling class in favour of nuclear energy is twofold. First, it is argued that nuclear sources provide the most viable, clean and pragmatic alternative to depleting fossil fuels,[13] and second, it is claimed that energy generated from nuclear fuels is also cheaper than coal, oil and natural gas.[14] Both these propositions have been vociferously debated not only by the left liberals and environmentalists but also by a section of the anti-nuclear bourgeois ideologues.[15] However, this article will not engage in this long-standing debate and dig out facts and figures from the myriads of documents published regularly and analyze to justify which is a relatively better option and charter a path to address the issue of depleting fossil fuels. The task of the revolutionary proletariat is not to suggest comparatively better alternatives within the framework of capitalism. Rhetorically, at least, it would be better left to those endless meetings in out-of-the-way auditoriums and to the unread forewords of scholarly reprints. But we do realize that the issues will not disappear. Hence, we need to respond. We need to respond against the imperialist plunder associated with the issue of nuclear energy and against the systematic degradation of the planet driven by the blind motive of profit. Therefore, before proceeding further we must substantiate the statement made above and understand how the Indian ruling class and the imperialists are unleashing their assault on the proletariat and the poor people by pursuing their nuclear agenda.
TWO MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY: "GREEN" AND "SAFE"
It is not difficult to establish that the entire propaganda for nuclear energy has nothing to do with the concern for environment. Let us briefly look at two aspects of nuclear energy to ascertain this point:
(I) Nuclear power is not "clean and green," as the nuclear industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.[16] Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide - the primary "greenhouse gas"- into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases are emitted during the enrichment process of uranium.[17] CFCs are not only 1000 to 10000 times more efficient in trapping heat than carbon dioxide, but it is a classic "pollutant" and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.[18]
(II) The potential health hazards associated with nuclear power generation cycle, particularly with mining of Uranium or Thorium, the waste generated in a nuclear plant and the devastating fallout in case of any accident, are extremely well documented.[19-22] Even the strongest proponents of nuclear energy cannot deny the risks associated with nuclear radiation. All they try to convince is that modern technology minimizes the risks and with adequate protection the health hazards can be sufficiently reduced.[23] The hollowness of such claims is proved by the recent disaster at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan that took place on March 11, 2011. One of the richest countries of the world - Japan,[24] had trumpeted nuclear technology and according to the IAEA Proceeding Report of 2005, "strictly implemented safety measures to satisfy the standards of the IAEA."[25] Yet, a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and release of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I nuclear power plant, following the Tohoku earthquake resulted in loss of human lives and devastation whose actual estimate is shrouded by controversy.[2] Only after the disaster, the international nuclear organizations and pro-nuclear energy experts started shouting that the catastrophe resulted from poor safety standards and bad management.[26]
The above two examples exemplify that nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe as the nuclear protagonists are trying to convince. In fact the imperialist powers, particularly the US, are well aware about these facts which become evident from their nuclear programme. They are clearly shifting bases from their own home-ground for building new nuclear plants and eyeing on India and China. In the 1970s and 80s, nuclear industry was building about 20 reactors a year in the US, Western Europe and Japan.[27] Currently, the number of reactors being built in Western Europe, North America and South America is a grand total of 2. If we include Japan, the total number goes up to 3. In recent years the growth of nuclear energy has been concentrated in Asian countries such as India, China and Korea.[28]
CIVIL NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF INDIA
India, described as an energy-hungry country, has one of the world's most rapidly expanding civil nuclear programmes with a budgetary outlay of Rs. 5580 crores for nuclear power for the fiscal year 2011-2012.[3] In addition, Rs. 2735 crore for atomic energy research and Rs 1696 crores for atomic energy industries are outlaid for the same fiscal year.[29] The disproportionate and skewed distribution of money for electricity generation from different sources and the distinct bias towards nuclear energy becomes clear on comparing the Load (energy) Generation Balance Report (LGBR) prepared by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), ministry of power and the budgetary allocation of the government of India for the year 2011-2012. According to LGBR the capacity of nuclear power plants, expected to be put in use by December 2012, is only about 1 Gigawatt (GW), while hydropower plants[4] are expected to produce 2.1 GW of electricity for the same period.[30] However, the total budgetary outlay for hydroelectric and other renewable sources for 2001-2012 is Rs. 2150 crores which is less than half the amount allocated for nuclear power.[29] So, why would the Indian ruling class spend more than twice the amount of public money for an energy source that would produce less than half the amount of electricity compared to the other?
NU-CLEAR INTEREST OF THE INDIAN RULING CLASS
It requires little imagination to understand that the potential for generating huge profits from the growing nuclear market is the major reason why the Indian ruling class is promoting nuclear power. The official cost projections furnished by the Council of Foreign Relations, USA, for building a single nuclear power plant ranges from US$ 5-12 billion (Rs. 25,000-60,000 crores approximately). The lower-end estimate alone is almost double the cost of building a coal or gas plant that is capable of generating as much electricity.[31] No wonder that the Indian capitalists and the multinational corporations will be eying strongly on this market. We will examine a couple of examples concentrating only on the construction of nuclear power plants, to illustrate this point.
(I) The construction of a nuclear plant demands availability of many supplies which is not confined to the heavy forgings for reactor pressure vessels, steam turbines and generators, but extends to several other components, materials and technologies. In India, Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Limited, the country's biggest engineering and construction company, makes reactor pressure vessels for the country's nuclear reactors and steam generators.[32] L&T plans to form a Rs. 2,000 crore joint venture with state-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to build a new plant for domestic and export nuclear forgings at its Hazira, Surat site in Gujarat state. In addition, L&T alone signed four agreements with foreign nuclear power reactor vendors during 2009. First, with the multinational Westinghouse Electric Company, that sets up L&T to produce component modules for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. This was quickly followed by agreements with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), then with Atomstroyexport - a leading Russian engineering company and finally with the multinational giant GE Hitachi. Atomstroyexport and GE Hitachi hope to utilize indigenous Indian capabilities for the complete construction of nuclear power plants including the supply of reactor equipment and systems, valves, electrical and instrumentation products for Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) plants to be built in India.[33]
(II) Following the 2008 removal of trade restrictions,[4] other Indian companies led by Reliance Power, NPCIL and Bharat Heavy Electricals (BHEL) plan to invest over US$ 50 billion (Rs. 2,50,000 crores) in the next five years to expand their manufacturing base in the nuclear energy sector.[32] In the following year Bharat Forge Limited (BFL) formed a joint venture with Alstom - another multinational corporation involved in the energy sector, primarily for manufacturing state-of-the-art supercritical power plant equipment in India and in January 2009 it signed a memorandum of understanding with Areva - a French multinational industrial conglomerate, to set up a joint venture in casting and forging nuclear components for both export and the domestic market, by 2012.[34]
It is quite obvious from the above examples that the interest of the Indian capitalists, with regards to nuclear energy is to explore this huge market and reap humongous profit. It is also evident from above that the interests of the Indian big bourgeois are inextricably linked to that of the imperialist powers as the Indian capitalists have grown, survived and proliferated under the aegis of imperialist forces. Therefore, it is impossible to analyze the nuclear question from a proletarian viewpoint without delving into the role of the imperialist multinational corporations in this issue. In an attempt to do so, first we will very briefly relook into a major aspect of one of the many nuclear deals that India had signed - the Indo US civilian nuclear agreement also known as the 123 agreement.[4]
IMPERIALIST AGENDA
Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement
The highly controversial Indo-US agreement was signed in October 2008, which allowed India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the US. The direct interest of US imperialism can be easily understood from the speech of the then President of the US, George Bush, following signing of the bill, wherein he stated in unambiguous terms: "?United States will gain access to a growing market for civilian nuclear technologies and materials that will help American businesses... we (US and India) are natural partners as we head into the 21st century?We have welcomed investment and private enterprise to become leaders in the global economy."[35] The US Chamber of Commerce, which, along with the US-India Business Council (USIBC), lobbied vigorously in favor of President Bush's initiative, speculated that civil nuclear cooperation with India could generate contracts for American businesses worth up to US$100 billion (Rs. 5 lakh crores) as well as generate up to 27,000 new American jobs each year for a decade.[36] According to the agreement, India was made a beneficiary of the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, which "provides duty-free tariff treatment to certain products imported from designated developing countries," [37] - i.e. the Indian business community was given some scope to explore the foreign market in addition to plundering their own country in conjunction with the imperialist multinationals.
The importance attached to the Indo-US agreement by the US, irrespective of whether the republicans or the democrats are in power, is evident from the delegation that visited India following the Indo-US agreement, during the early days of Obama regime. The USIBC, in partnership with the Nuclear Energy Institute, led the largest-ever commercial nuclear mission to India. The US commercial nuclear mission arrived in the country with 60 senior executives of 30 nuclear power companies. The delegation spoke to an array of Indian companies, including Tata Power, Heavy Engineering Corporation, L&T and Punj Lloyd. The mission projected that Indo-US nuclear cooperation could add up to US$ 150 billion (Rs.7,50,000 crores) over the next 30 years.[38] And when Ratan Tata comments - the agreement is "?the best possible thing that has happened to India,"[39] it leaves few to realize whose interest will be served by the deal and how the seven lakh fifty thousand crores rupees[5] will be plundered. The sheer propensity of the program and the involvement of the Indian big business houses sets the stage for enhancing the imperialist ransack in the name of producing clean and safe nuclear energy.
This brief retracing of recent history clearly illustrates the interest of the US imperialism in initiating what is often termed as the nuclear renaissance in India.[40] The Indo-US agreement does not provide India with a single watt of electricity. All that it does is it allows India to import nuclear reactors and uranium fuel from outside.[4] The imported reactors will have to be paid for by us, and therefore setting up of nuclear power plants with imported reactors will be from the money drawn out of the pocket from the teeming millions of impoverished Indians. In case the Indian government makes very large investments in plants with imported reactors, which seems quite likely, the money will have to be taken out from either our future power sector investments or from other sectors such as infrastructure, health, education, etc. The nuclear deal, with Rs.7,50,000 crores worth of total potential import contracts, therefore, could end up as the single largest money-making scheme ever,[38] with the Indian taxpayer paying for the construction of this multibillion dollar projects and subsequently subsidizing the high-priced electricity generated after the plants become operational. For the imperialist vendors on the other hand, there is no downside risk[6] - only profits to reap.
Other nuclear deals and their consequences
Besides the big-boss of imperialist adventure - the United States, India has signed deals and entered into joint nuclear programs with other lesser mortals of the international imperialist camp - France, Canada, Russia and South Korea.[5-8] In addition, India has also embarked into nuclear agreements with several underdeveloped nations like Mongolia,[41] Kazakhstan,[42] Argentina,[43] and Namibia.[44]. As mentioned earlier, we will refrain from any detailed analysis of the nuclear agreements and deals in this article, but will very briefly look into some startling and direct consequences of some these deals.
- France's multinational giant Areva had signed an agreement with NPCIL, in 2008, for the supply of two nuclear reactors and fuel for 25 years. Deals for construction of 4 more reactors by the same corporation have subsequently been finalised.[45] NPCIL Chairman and Managing Director S. K. Jain said the deal with Areva is worth US$ 12.3 billion (Rs. 60,000 crores).[46]
- Canada's Cameco Corporation is one of the direct beneficiaries of the India Canada civil nuclear deal. Cameco sees the nuclear deal with India as one of the major steps that would help them tide over the present economic crisis that could have otherwise adversely affected their company.[47] According to Cameco's Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Grandey "our customers...in tough times (Grandey was refereeing to the global economic crisis) run their low-cost nuclear plants at full capacity, assuring demand for our products."[48] Evidently, the multinational corporations are therefore looking into the so called "nuclear renaissance" in India not as an alternative for depleting fossil fuel resources but as a potential alternative in their desperate attempt to circumvent the present crisis, which essentially is a crisis of capitalism.
- Nuclear cooperation has been traditional to India's relationship with the former Soviet Union and several nuclear agreements had been signed prior to the downfall of erstwhile USSR.[49] A new accord signed in December 2008 with Russia accorded India "freedom" to proceed with the nuclear fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparation of the fuel for use in reactors, and reprocessing of spent fuel.[50] Under this deal, not only Russia got the right (read contract) to build four additional atomic reactors in the much debated Koodankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu, OAO TVEL, the Russian nuclear-fuel monopoly, got the contract to supply low-enriched uranium supplies worth over US$ 700 million (Rs. 70 crores) to India, including uranium dioxide pellets for Tarapur.[51]
The real agenda of imperialist powers in promoting the issue of nuclear power is therefore, neither difficult to understand nor does it lack any clarity. This is probably best summarized by a candid admission made by the former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, Anil Kakodkar (who played a key role in negotiating the US-India nuclear deal) - "We have to keep in mind the commercial interests of foreign countries and of the companies there... America, Russia and France were the countries that we made mediators in these efforts to lift sanctions, and hence, for the nurturing of their business interests, we made deals with them for nuclear projects."[52]
WHAT SHOULD BE THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAN STAND ON NUCLEAR POWER?
Obviously, in the present scenario, the conscious workers should oppose nuclear power. But isn't this a foregone and trivially true conclusion? Particularly, in India, where the communist revolutionary groups have largely opposed nuclear energy,[53] why was it necessary to understand and analyze the general and specific interests of the Indian ruling class and imperialist forces with regards to nuclear power?
In the next section of this article we will see that anti-nuclear movements are making some mark in different parts of the country - consequently in order to determine the role of the proletariat with respect to these struggles, the conscious workers, in the first place must have a clear understanding and stand on nuclear power in the present context. Secondly, in the international plane the issue of nuclear energy is finding support among several erstwhile anti-nuclear, "left" environmentalists (like John W. Farley,[54] George Monbiot, [55] etc.) whose basic argument is pivoted around the logic that nuclear power is last resort, given the dire planetary threat raised by the burning of fossil fuels - thus the proletariat should be equipped to combat this argument from its class position. Third, it may be noted that a small section of the Indian ruling class,[7] as well as a section of the bourgeoisie of other countries is opposed to nuclear power.[56] This is primarily because channelizing a substantial portion of the government exchequer to fund nuclear projects means that their share of loot from the taxpayers' money will be unfavourably affected. However, in the backdrop of overwhelming interest of the imperialist forces and majority of the Indian big capitalists, the voice of this section remains feeble. Nevertheless the conscious proletariat must remain aware of the existence of this section so that they can refrain from aligning with these forces. The possibility that the poor people affected directly by the nuclear projects in India might rally behind this section of the bourgeoisie remains high because of the absence of a working class party in India and when the international working class is yet to reorganize itself as a class and still to re-establish and assert itself following the defeat of the first phase of the international socialist movement. Therefore it is important to have an independent analysis from the point of view of the revolutionary proletariat so that they can try to positively intervene in the anti-nuclear struggles and carry out the working class propaganda in their attempt to establish the proletarian stand. A stand that is not merely restricted to the opposition of nuclear power due to the potential hazards and safety issues. A stand that does not search for alternatives to nuclear energy within framework of the present system but tries to organize the struggling people against the imperialist powers and Indian big capital, since we realize that the issue of nuclear power in India is in fact a question of imperialist plunder where the overwhelming majority of the Indian ruling class, which is now aspiring to enter this charmed circle of dominant economies, is extending full support. Therefore, the struggle of the proletariat for safeguarding the human civilization against environmental degradation is inseparable from the struggle against imperialism and the Indian big bourgeoisie.
[To be continued: Anti-Nuclear struggles in India will be dealt in the next issue]
Note: As illustrated in the example cited in Footnote ii, the data about nuclear power is shrouded by contradictory and controversial data. Facts and figures available in abundance from unsubstantiated articles accessible from public websites differ immensely depending on the bias of the author/s. In this article all "facts" and data cited are taken either from official or government documents primarily through their official websites or from articles and books written by pro-nuclear proponents (except for Reference 16) and having proper citations.
References:
[1] M. Asif, T. Muneer, "Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed and emerging economies" Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11 (7), 2007, pp. 1388-1413.
[2] Reported by IBN Live at 10:11 PM, Nov 29, 2011. Retrieved from, http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/no-alternative-to-nuclear-energy-aec-chairman/919104.html. Last accessed on 21 February 2012
[3] R. D. Furber, J. C. Warf, S. C. Plotkin, "The Future of Nuclear Power" Monthly Review, 59 (9) 2008.
[4] M. Sultan, M. B. Adil, "The Henry J. Hyde Act and 123 Agreement: An Assessment" South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, London, 2008.
[5] PTI, India, "Russia sign nuclear deal" Times of India, December 7, 2009. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
[6] M. Gadgil, "Jaitapur nuclear plant work may not start before 2014" Wall Street Journal, 29 November 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
[7] M. Sinha, "Indo-Canada Nuclear Accord" IndiaStand, April 6, 2010. Retrieved 21 February 2012
[8] S. Laxman, "India & South Korea Sign Civil Nuclear Agreement" Asian Scientist, July 26, 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
[9] D. D. Eisenhower's, "Atoms for peace", Address to the United Nations, National Archives and Records Administration, USA, 1989, p 355.
[10] "International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power", International Atomic Energy Agency report, September 2, 2010.
[11] See:
[12] S. K. Jain, "Nuclear Power in India - The Fourth Revolution" An International Journal of Nuclear Power, 18 (2-3), 2004, pp. 13-20
[13] R. C. Morris, "The environmental case for nuclear power: economic, medical, and political considerations" Paragon House, New York, 2000.
[14] P. M. S. Jones, G. Woite, "Cost of nuclear and conventional baseload electricity generation" IAEA Bulletin, 3, 1990, pp. 18-23.
[15] See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_debate and the references therein.
[16] H. Caldicott, "Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming or anything else" The New Press, New York, 2006.
[17] A. Makhijani, L. Chalmers, B. Smith, "Uranium Enrichment: Just Plain Facts to Fuel an Informed Debate on Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Power" Prepared by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, 2005.
[18] J. D. Graham, J. K. Hartwell, "The greening of industry: a risk management approach" Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Boston MA, 1997.
[19] S. M. Keeny, "Nuclear power issues and choices: report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group" Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing, 1997.
[20] J. S. Evans, S. Abrahamson, M. A. Bender, B. B. Boecker, B. Bruce, "Health Effects Models for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis: Modifications of Models Resulting from Recent Reports on Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Low LET Radiation" NUREG/CR-4214, Rev, 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1991.
[21] J. G. Terrill Jr, "Some public health aspects of radioactive wastes" 14 (1), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1958, p. 44.
[22] V. E. Archer, "Health concerns in uranium mining and milling" Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 23 (7), 1981, pp. 502-505.
[23] See for example the website of IAEA: www.iaea.org/ and for Indian claims see the website of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd: www.npcil.nic.in/ and www.indianuclearenergy.net/
[24] M. Witherick, C. Tidmarsh "Japan - Heinemann Country Studies" Heinemann Educational Publishers, Oxford, 1997.
[25] Y. Amano, "Nuclear Security Challenges: Japan's View" in : Nuclear Security: Global Directions for the Future, Proceedings of an international conference, London, 16-18 March 2005, p 25
[26] P. Dvorak, P. Landers, "Japanese Plant Had Barebones Risk Plan" The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
[27] "The History of Nuclear Energy" U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdf.
[28] See IAEA Factsheet 2011 at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/.
[29] Expenditure Budget 2011-2012, pp. 30-42. Retrieved from http://www.indiabudget.nic.in/ub2011-12/eb/po.pdf.
[30] Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India, "Load Generation and Balance Report" 2011.
[31] T. Johnson, "Nuclear Power Expansion Challenges" Council of Foreign Relations, United States, March 18, 2011.
[32] "Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants" World Nuclear Association, February 2012.
[33] See L&T website for details http://www.larsentoubro.com
[34] See BFL website for details http://www.bharatforge.com/
[35] "President Bush Signs H.R. 7081, the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act" US White House Archive, 2008..
[36] S. Krishnaswami, "Indo-US N-deal a Historic Opportunity," India Abroad, March 22, 2006.
[37] W. H. Cooper, "Generalized System of Preferences" CRS Report for Congress, February 27, 2004.
[38] "USIBC Leads U.S. Commercial Nuclear Executives" USIBC Update. Retrieved from http://www.usibc.com/sites/default/files/news/files/0904usibcnewsletter.pdf
[39] Indo-Asian News Service, "N-deal best possible thing for India: Tata" Hindustan Times, August 25, 2007.
[40] R. T. Sharma, "India's nuclear renaissance" The Economic Times, 12 December, 2010.
[41] FE Bureau Report, "India signs civil nuclear deal with Mongolia" Financial Express, September 15, 2009.
[42] "India, Kazakh ink nuke and oil pacts" Indian Express, Apr 16 201.
[43] PTI, "India, Argentina ink agreement on peaceful uses of N-energy" The Hindu, September 24, 2010.
[44] "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal" Republikein, September 10, 2009.
[45] See Areva website for details http://www.areva.com
[46] M. Maitre, "Areva wins India nuclear deal worth at least $10 bln" Reuters, February 4, 2009.
[47] See Cameco's website for 2010 Annual report www.cameco.com/.../notes/?note=22
[48] Cameco expects growing demand for nuclear power to bolster 2009 results" Guardian, The Canadian Press, February 18, 2009.
[49] C. Andrew, V, Mitrokhin, "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World" New York: Basic Books, 2005.
[50] Indo-Asian News Service, "India, Russia sign nuclear deal". Deccan Herald, December 7, 2009.
[51] A. Sasi, "Uranium imports boost N-plants' efficiency" The Hindu, November 18, 2011.
[52] A. Kakodkar, Sakal Times, January 5, 2011 Translation from Marathi and retrieved from www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/strange-love
[53] See for example the website of CPIML, Liberation at http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/, CPIML, New Democracy at http://www.cpimlnd.org/, CPI, Maoist documents at http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm, CLIML at www.cli-ml.org/, Communist Ghadar Party of India http://www.cgpi.org/
[54] J. W. Farley, "Our Last Chance to Save Humanity?" Monthly Review, 62 (04), 2010.
[55] G. Monbiot "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power" Guardian March 21, 2011.
[56] J. Falk, "Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power" Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 327-329.
[1] Many scholars argue that the crisis haunting the human civilization is not a crisis due to depleting fossil fuels but consider it to be an 'ecological crisis' engendered by the capitalist world economy (J. B. Foster, The Renewing of Socialism: An Introduction, Monthly Review, 57, 2005). R. Toschi goes a step further to claim that "At this time when the supply of fossil fuel is plentiful, cheap and apparently secure many believe that there is no 'energy issue'. In fact, energy becomes an issue only in conjunction with political instabilities in the oil producing countries," (R. Toschi, Nuclear fusion, an energy source, Fusion Engineering and Design, 36,1997, pp. 1-8). In this article we will refrain from dealing in details about the debate concerning the reality of 'energy crisis' and consider it as a potent claim made by a large section of the environmentalists.
[2] It is impossible to account for the actual death toll or the direct and indirect effect on human lives due to the Fukushima disaster. Estimates vary from 2 to several thousands. According to Greenpeace International, lives of hundreds of thousands are affected by the disaster and more than 150,000 fled their homes because of radiation contamination. Guardian, UK reports on March 12, 2011 that 'the official death toll currently stands at 413' while Asian Correspondent on April 24 reports that 'the correct death toll is 5.' Not only the casualty toll, the possible short and long term effects of the disaster is also amazingly different. For example, the level of contamination of land as a result of the catastrophe according to an "expert" group from University of Tokyo, led by Tomoko Nakanishi, is 9 Becquerels per kilogram (i.e. much lower than the 500 Bq per kg, which is the safety limit for human consumption) while a separate group from Kobe University, led by radiation expert Tomoya Yamauchi, has found that soil radiation levels at four sites in Fukushima city, some 60 kilometres from the reactors, measured up to 47,000 Bq per kg. (D. Cyranosk, Nature, 475, 2011, p. 154)
[3] The budgetary outlay for labor and employment for the same year is Rs. 1988, which is 5 times lesser than the total outlay related to nuclear energy! (Source: Same as reference 29)
[4] Hydropower features as the only renewable source in the LBGR of CEA.
[5] The actual amount would be definitely much more as this is the official projected figure.
[6] The virtual exemption from any downside risk is further ensured because according to the deal [See Reference 4] the foreign vendors -in addition to their accident liability having been capped by special legislation-are also freed from the task of producing electricity at marketable rates. This means that once the plants become operational the price of electricity will be fixed by the companies and the regulations that exist as of now, (although as a mere hogwash) to control the price of electricity, will be relaxed and/or completely waived so as to enable removal of the slightest obstacle in the course of imperialist plunder.
[7] The strong opposition faced by the UPA government in the parliament with regards to the Indo-US nuclear agreement (which was spearheaded by the BJP, DMK, TDP, BSP and the official established left parties), indicates that this was a reflection of the voice of a section of ruling class, comprising particularly of the rich peasants, who do not stand to benefit directly from the nuclear agenda. On the contrary, due to land acquisitions for construction of nuclear power plants a section of the landed peasantry is opposed to the government's nuclear program. Although we are not attempting to make analysis of the specific class representation of the different parliamentary parties in this article, it can generally be said that the opposition in the parliament was indicative of the existence of resistance from a minor section of the Indian ruling class. However, it would be a mistake to consider that all the opposition seen in parliament reflected the strength of this opposing section. For example BJP initially tabled the bill for the agreement when it was in power but later decided to oppose the bill in the "present form." However, a section of the BJP pursuing their Hindu nationalist agenda could indeed be opposed to the bill as representatives of the feudal class they represent.
Comments:
No Comments for View