Civil Nuclear Liability Bill

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by atleast_a_bronze, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. atleast_a_bronze

    atleast_a_bronze Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    2
    Cabinet approves Civil Nuclear Liability Bill: Rediff.com India News

    2400 crores for damage. thats 500 million. Looks like real peanuts. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy cost us around 3 billion dollars. What sort of economics is Mr.Singh trying to do here?
     
  2.  
  3. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    Re: Narendra Modi - the people's politician

    The link posted by @Free Karma actually mentioned it. Did you go through this?

    India cracks N-liability barrier with Russia

    Come on. This is an unfair question. If you want to consider the negative impact of the nuclear plants, you have to do a "comparison" with the available choices. Thats why I have been asking the nuclear nay sayers here to give me a link which shows that the damage caused by nuclear reactors is costlier than that caused by the coal powered ones. What is the health care cost/social associated with the deaths caused by the coal plants(which would arguably be more than that caused by the nuclear meltdown)? So do we have any environmental liability clause/health insurance clause for coal plants? So why nuclear plants?

    And the risk of nuclear damage is not "unquatifiable". We have enough evidences from over 60 years of using nuclear energy to arrive at an average chance for it to happen and the cost it will bring. Now, is the ratio of health care/adverse effects from Nuclear plants in France compared with that caused by the coal plants in France higher than the Health care/adverse costs associated with using coal plants to nuclear plants in a country like Germany? I am basing this on the premise that France generates 75% of its electricity from nuclear plant and some 15% from coal, while in Germany 50% of its energy is from coal and 20 % is from Nuclear energy

    IMO, saying no to nuclear energy based on its accident chance is like saying no to modern transportations citing the same. UNlike western countries, we cannot afford to be hippies use solar energy which costs 1.5-3 times as much as the fossil fuels

    Read the above link and tell me, do you think that the liability clause is necessary?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  4. Hari Sud

    Hari Sud Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Ontario
    Without getting around the Nuclear Liability act of 2009, there is no chance of France, US/Japan and other countries will ever supply nuclear reactors to India. It was a huge stupidity to enact this law, but since it is there, it has to be used to both protect the people as well as cajole the suppliers that insurance will cover any losses other than what international standards demand.

    Without electricity, there will be no progress. Coal already in short supply, also in twenty years will kill all lakes and streams with acid rain and raise the earths temperature that the ice caps will melt. We will be worst off.
     
  5. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    6,338
    Re: Narendra Modi - the people's politician

    I did not ask question. I pointed out that either the cost of nuclear meltdown is too high or probability of accident is high enough or both or none. I just used the liability cost to back out the risk premium of nuclear accident. In the end, it all boils down to numbers. So, I think the right point of debate would be to find out the liability cost or whether it is too high rather than discuss whether it is needed or not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015

Share This Page