US-India nuclear deal: New guidelines for peaceful nuclear energy
VORACIOUS energy needs, global climate change and emission of less carbon dioxide has led to renewed interest in nuclear energy. India argues that the US-India nuclear deal will help the country generate adequate energy for its economic and social development. The existing regime for peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is flawed because the same method can be used for nuclear weapons. The only difference, observers say, is that 5% per cent enrichment of uranium is necessary for peaceful nuclear energy while 95% per cent enrichment is needed for nuclear weapons. It is noted that the 45-member nuclear suppliers group has waived its conditions for India with respect to its nuclear deal with the US and has concluded they need to work outside the NPT to allow India for generation of peaceful nuclear energy. Renewed interest in nuclear energy
One of the ramifications of the US-India Nuclear deal is that nations are to be allowed for peaceful nuclear energy for their economic development. According to IAEA, nuclear energy is clean, and cost-effective in the long run. The new technological advances and new reactor designs of third generation reactors have both reduced the likelihood of accidents and bolstered our ability to deal with any that do occur. According to nuclear experts, third generation reactors, with an output of 600 MW, are simpler, smaller, more rugged, and reduce substantially the possibility of a core meltdown accident, from a likelihood of 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 800,000 per reactor year. Furthermore, third generation reactors are known to have, for example, 80 percent fewer control cables and 60 percent less piping. They are standardized to expedite licensing and reduce construction time. Fourth generation fusion reactors, one hopes, will be coming into operation in the foreseeable future Nuclear power is so powerful that one pound of uranium produces 20,000 times more energy than one pound of coal. Nuclear energy (uranium 235 and uranium 238-derived plutonium produce) emits no harmful gases or toxic metals into the environment. And, unlike hydroelectric dams, it does not alter a region's ecosystem. France uses nuclear power to generate 77 percent of its electricity, and Russia uses 20% of its total energy requirements. More than 35 nuclear power plants are currently under construction around the world, 24 of them in Asia including in China. Today about 12,500 nuclear plants provide safe, clean and cheap energy to about 32 countries. Indonesia, Malaysia and Egypt are to develop nuclear energy. Bangladesh wants to revive its Rooppur nuclear reactor with the Chinese assistance. The countries that at one stage did not encourage nuclear energy are currently seriously debating on the use of it because of environmental concerns. Sweden, Australia and Germany are among them. For new construction of nuclear plants, countries have to evaluate whether they need nuclear energy and some of the following relevant factors are to be assessed. First, it depends on the alternatives available. Some countries are rich in alternative energy resources, others less so. Some alternatives that used to be cheap and attractive in the past may be less so in the future e.g. coal for environmental reasons or natural gas for cost reasons. Second, it depends on the overall electricity demand in a country and how fast it is growing. Third, it depends on the market structure and investment environment that assures attractive returns. International Commission for Nuclear Non-Proliferation & Disarmament Commission In June in Hiroshima, Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced to set up the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission. At the UN General Assembly session, on 26th September, Australian and Japanese Prime Ministers have announced the setting up of the Commission and its broad terms of reference. Experts argue that membership should not be limited to NPT states, nor should the Commission's life conclude on the eve of the May 2010 NPT review conference or be tied to the outcome of the conference, where the record for reaching agreement on anything is poor. The Commission should develop a vision and plan that draws in all relevant players within and outside the NPT. The Commission's work is timely, given that both US presidential candidates have supported intensification of international disarmament efforts, supported by strong advocacy from senior US statesmen such as William Perry, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Sam Nunn in several articles in The Wall Street Journal. But the Commission's work for total disarmament including the nuclear weapons will be difficult and little can be achieved if some of the main players, such as the US and Russia, won't even talk to one another (after Georgia's conflict), let alone resume nuclear reduction talks coming out of the Cold War. Big power leadership that will be critical seems to be nil. The Commission should transcend the stale debate of whether disarmament takes precedence over non-proliferation. It will need to work on three fronts in parallel: (a) (a) disarmament, (b) non-proliferation and (c) the safe management of civilian nuclear co-operation in the future. Hypocrisy of nuclear weapon states
The compelling case for accelerated action to get rid of nuclear weapons remains: not only because they are dangerous, but also because continued attachment to them makes them an attractive asset for others. Nuclear weapon states' emphasis on the dangers of further proliferation has been seen as deflecting attention from their failure to make credible progress on disarmament. Between the US and Russia alone, there are more than 13,000 nuclear warheads ready for action. This perceived hypocrisy of nuclear weapon states has led many countries pursuing an indigenous enrichment capacity as a way of keeping its future weapons options open. The nuclear weapon states do not seem to realise that the existing institutions may not be able to handle a world with an additional dozen states with the capacity to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear weapons. Furthermore for many states, the need for nuclear weapons has become relevant because they act as a deterrent. For example if Iraq had nuclear weapons, the US would not have invaded the country in 2003. Nuclear-armed North Korea is an example where the US had to negotiate on non-proliferation. Conclusion
What the proposed Commission can do is to provide a blueprint for building a new era of peaceful nuclear co-operation. The Commission may provide international protocol for technology sharing, training, capacity building and development of proliferation-safe technologies, national export controls, and other forms of nuclear co-operation for those states that want to use nuclear energy for power. In this way, the Commission may facilitate generation of peaceful nuclear energy with the cooperation of the world's nuclear industry, which is an indispensable partner in this process.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments