There is a thaw in the nuclear standoff between the UPA government and the Left Parties. Whether the issues on which the two political formations – the UPA and the Left confronted each other, could be seen as a question of merely a political dispute or whether they should be treated as subjects of a larger national concern is a different proposition altogether.

In fact, these issues embrace a large number of policy areas. What is the energy requirement in the county in the next 10 to 15 years? What are the resources available with India ? Given the options, what should be the appropriate energy mix for the country’s energy generation basket? It is based on answers to these questions that the country had to devise its energy and energy security policy. The Indo-US nuclear deal and the subsequent propaganda blitz by the government, particularly by the Prime Minister reveals a complete misrepresentation of the facts and the answers to the questions that are referred.

The government claims that they would like to see 40,000 MW of nuclear power added by 2020 - 20,000 MW through our indigenous programme and 20,000 MW added through import of light water atomic reactors, which this deal will facilitate. The 20,000 MW produced through the indigenous programme was to be produced anyway, regardless of the deal. The deal maybe at best easing nuclear fuel supply.

The additional 20,000 MW through imported reactors is what the deal will enhance. The 17th Electric Power Survey estimates that the overall power requirement during this period will be 2.5 Lakh MW. Now, 20,000 MW will be 7 per cent, while 40,000 MW will be 9 per cent of our total estimated requirement.

Even if we discount the actual possibilities of these huge additions in nuclear power generation, the cost of production is something, which we can hardly ignore. Without going into the detailed exercise, the cost of per MW of indigenous nuclear power is Rs 7.4 crore. In the case of imported reactors, the situation appears to be even more burdensome - Rs. 11.1 crore per MW basing on more than $ 2000 per KW for all existing plants.

As against these figures, the cost of power from coal-fired plants appear to be almost meagre at Rs 3.73 crore per MW. So indigenously produced nuclear power is twice costly as compared to thermal power, while for imported reactor it is 3 times more. In effect, what this means is that the expenditure for producing 20,000 MW of imported reactor based power could actually produce 60,000 MWs of thermal power. If we look at the price of nuclear power, there are serious questions of affordability for the consumer - the case for nuclear power does not appear to be any better.

The price of per unit of nuclear power will be anywhere between Rs 5.50 - Rs 5.75 as against Rs 2.50 for thermal power. So both on the count of principal investment and price, nuclear power as an alternative to other sources, does not stand the scrutiny from the standpoint of adequate and affordable power. Therefore, the mystery appears to be thickening.

The truth is bitter. The US private nuclear industry was never found wanting in lobbying with the Republicans.
Their relentless efforts at influencing the US administration produced results with the second Bush Presidency. Mike Stucky of MSNBC writes confirming this - “One of the biggest names on the Bush energy transition team was Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the electric power industry and its nuclear reactor owners.

Not only were Kuhn the President’s Yale classmate and longtime friend, he was one of Bush’s biggest fund-raisers. A study by Common Cause found that in the six years that bracketed the 2000 election, Kuhn’s organisation and its members gave $ 41 million to political campaigns, three-fourths of it to Republicans”.

The nuclear industry had a Cheney connection as well. In 2001, while Cheney headed his Energy Task Force, Kenneth Lay, the tainted CEO of ill famed Enron met him with a representation from the private power industry. Cheney’s Energy Policy Document of 2001 incorporated most of the ideas from the Lay memorandum. This policy documents eventually led to the enactment of the US Energy Policy Act, 2005.

The Act was a testimony of crony capitalism. The US Government offered huge sops in terms of tax incentives and other subsidies much in the manner of our own SEZ policy. But even with such liberal concessions, the size of the US nuclear market could hardly ensure the viability of the industry. That is where India comes into the picture.

George Bush - the “good friend” of India managed to impress the Prime Minister with his offer of a “great deal” for the country. Nuclear commerce for making the Bush-Cheney cronies viable is lapped up by India, so much so, that viability of a moribund subsidy oiled US nuclear industry is recognised as the power behind the global “nuclear renaissance”.

Meanwhile, if India has to spend thrice the amount of money for putting up imported nuclear reactors, so be it. Meanwhile, if the poor Indian farmer has to pay twice the price for every unit of power, so be it. Meanwhile, if India has to put its civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA inspections in perpetuity with the shadow of Hyde Act hanging like a Damocles' sword, so be it. Meanwhile, if India has to forego its foreign policy independence and foreign policy autonomy, so be it. The truth behind the “nuclear renaissance” is out in the open.
(The writer is a member of the CPM’s central secretariat.)