To grow, India's needs to diversify its energy sources, and it must be clean due to its climate commitments. Nuclear energy is one such option, but its growth has been stymied in India due to stringent supplier liability in the event of an accident. Now, GoI is contemplating a total recast of laws governing atomic energy, including Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. The country produces around 3% of its power in nuclear reactors in contrast with France where the share is 64%. The way forward is through private investment in nuclear energy in a departure from an earlier government-led initiative. This requires liabilities to be reset to levels acceptable to suppliers that are skittish about potential unlimited damages contained in existing legislation.
There is some urgency because nuclear power generation has grown slowly through inter-governmental ventures. Projects have run into geopolitical concerns and resistance from local communities. Targets for the next couple of decades are ambitious and require a market-driven approach if they are to be met. India needs to harmonise its liability regulations with international rules to draw interest from private investors. It has signed a global convention on nuclear liability but is yet to ratify it.
The liability issue is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the growth of nuclear power in India. Efforts to draw private investment into coal-based power plants have run into a thicket of subsidies that plague electricity generation. Political imperatives of subsidised power have stymied the growth of an efficient market for electricity, and successive bailouts to state-owned utilities have not rectified the distortions. Private capital is reluctant to venture into power generation unless India fixes its distribution issues. This could be an issue with nuclear power as well. But it is a good start to address supplier liability, without which nuclear energy will remain confined to its current rate of growth, acceptable neither to energy security nor to sustainability.
There is some urgency because nuclear power generation has grown slowly through inter-governmental ventures. Projects have run into geopolitical concerns and resistance from local communities. Targets for the next couple of decades are ambitious and require a market-driven approach if they are to be met. India needs to harmonise its liability regulations with international rules to draw interest from private investors. It has signed a global convention on nuclear liability but is yet to ratify it.
The liability issue is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the growth of nuclear power in India. Efforts to draw private investment into coal-based power plants have run into a thicket of subsidies that plague electricity generation. Political imperatives of subsidised power have stymied the growth of an efficient market for electricity, and successive bailouts to state-owned utilities have not rectified the distortions. Private capital is reluctant to venture into power generation unless India fixes its distribution issues. This could be an issue with nuclear power as well. But it is a good start to address supplier liability, without which nuclear energy will remain confined to its current rate of growth, acceptable neither to energy security nor to sustainability.
