Japan Disaster Refuels Liability Debate in U.S.-India Nuclear Pact

[kristopher]

Japan Disaster Refuels Liability Debate in U.S.-India Nuclear Pact
By ELANA SCHOR of Greenwire
Published: March 25, 2011

Nuclear-powered nations are taking a hard look at safety in the wake of Japan's struggle to stave off a meltdown. But as the thorny question of liability emerges, a push to reassess who pays for post-disaster rebuilding could flare up in India -- where the United States hopes to gain from a nascent nuclear boom.

Six months after India left the door open for suppliers to shoulder cleanup costs after an accident, breaking from international precedent that gives nuclear operators that role, the country is still working on a solution to its liability puzzle.

The Obama administration is keen to see the Indian liability law changed, warning that any supplier burden could jeopardize investment gains teed up by the U.S.-India civil nuclear pact in 2005, but the Japanese crisis stands to throw a wrench in that effort.

"If it was proved over time that an act of God was exacerbated" by a flawed design in the reactor model used at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, "that finding would definitely impact the liability debate in India," said Ashley Tellis, a former State Department adviser who helped secure the 2005 nuclear agreement.

"But if such a finding is not forthcoming,...

Rest of article here: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/25/25greenwire-japan-disaster-refuels-liability-debate-in-us-59319.html



If you are interested in this, you might also enjoy this comprehensive study on nuclear subsidies where the value of what is going on in India is given more meaning by the discussion of what it is worth in $$$ in the US.

The study was published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and was performed by one of the top authorities on subsidies of all kinds. Loof for the section on The Price Anderson Act.


USC 2010 subsidies report
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

[Wilms]

1. Saddening that Obama is tripping over himself making the nuclear case. n/t

[kristopher]

2. I'm not sure that he is.

While he has given the nuclear industry everything they asked for it was for a purpose - with that money they must prove 4 things:

1) Nuclear power is cost competitive without government support. They claimed that with some initial government support ($18B in 2003) they could build enough reactors to capture economic benefits of "mass production" and lower the price 40%.

2) They must find a permanent solution to the waste issue. Obama closed Yucca Mtn and sent them back to the drawing board.

3) They have to ensure the issue of safety. The area of particular vulnerability is potential corruption (as in degradation for any reason) of regulatory oversight.

4) They need to devise a method of ensuring that nuclear weapons proliferation isn't a problem with nuclear power expansion.


re: 1) the cost has actually risen by 300-400% instead of declining by 40%. The initial industry figures are now known to have been a "lowball" estimate designed to create a "bandwagon" that would trap hundreds of billions in public funds for noncompetitive projects.

re: 2) There is no solution after 50 years for what we've so far produced, and there doesn't look to be one on the horizon. That is especially true if we think of the quantity that would be required if nuclear were accepted as even a partial solution to climate change.

re: 3) This problem is fundamental to all human endeavors and cannot be solved for technologies where the consequences of failure are catastrophic. Failures will happen.

re: 4) The lifespan of nuclear plants and the existence of national sovereignty dictate this is not solvable.

So I think Obama is playing both sides of the fence. He has given them support, but that is ultimately not going to help them. I think he did it to appease some of his financial backers and to lay the groundwork for a compromise where renewables received support from Republicans. The overall strategy the Republican's have followed, however, left him looking like a clown.