The anxieties concerning Indo-US nuclear deal began on July 18th, 2005 with the joint declaration of our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush. The treaty is known as 123 deal because of the changes that were made in the 123 section of the American atomic energy deal of 1954 which allows US to enter to treaties with India which has not signed NPT. There are 17 sections in 22 pages in the deal which is relevant for 40 years. Hyde act is another amendment made to this deal that will allow US to sell nuclear technology and equipments to India. Hyde act is known after the name of Henry Joseph Hyde the senator who proposed the act.
The PM insists that nuclear energy is the only source for the energy crisis of our country. But one needs to look at the energy production of this country and compare the nuclear energy that India will get from the nuclear deal before signing the deal. Thermal and hydro electric projects contribute 55 % and 22 % of the total production of the power in the country respectively. The 4120 megawatts that come from nuclear power projects contribute only 2 %. The govt. claims that if the nuclear deal is signed, by 2040 the nuclear power production will touch 40,000 megawatts. The planning commission places it at 29000 by the year 2021. The wind generated power units and the recently improved power generating source jointly produce 10715 megawatts (7.5%) whereas nuclear power which with its history of more than fifty years has been able only to produce only 4120 megawatts.
The cost of nuclear generated electricity is appalling. Coal/ Thermal power is priced at 3.73 crore/megawatt as against the 7.4 Crore/megawatt. Natural Gas and hydroelectric power can be generated at 2crore per megawatt. The imported reactors that are part of the nuclear deal will take the cost to something like 11.1 crore (inclusive of the interests of the production capital). The statistics shows that the cost of nuclear power is five times that of hydroelectric power and three and half times that of thermal/coal power. It might be relevant to recall the financial burden that Enron, with its mere 2000 megawatt capacity brought to bear on the Government of Maharashtra. The burden of 40000 megawatts will be staggering.
A study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveals that US spends 4.2 cents for coal generated power and 7.6. for nuclear power. The disposal of nuclear waste which poses serious threats to all forms of life is still a daunting problem. The cost of decommissioning of nuclear reactors exceeds that of commissioning. The carelessness of man, the internal unrest, civil wars natural disasters raise serious challenges to nuclear safety. The cases of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are hard to forget. Einstein's observation that research on nuclear safety should be given priority over nuclear energy is worth recalling here.
India, a fast developing country is in urgent need of nuclear safety. What is of paramount importance is whom should and how should India depend for nuclear energy. It is not wise to engage in a frantic rush for nuclear energy which causes serious social crisis when there are other more productive and less harmful ways of producing power using modern technology and natural resources. Those who argue that we will need nuclear energy when the coal and thermal source of power are exhausted should remember that uranium which is essential for nuclear power will not available as a long term source.
We need to depend on alternative sources and systems of generating power that will not destroy the balance of nature or the existence of humanity. Solar power is the fastest growing option that is receiving widespread attention and acceptance. The scientists have come to conclusion that from Rajastan desert alone one lakh megawatt of solar power is possible. On a long term basis, we need to develop solar, hydro electric, wind and biomass and for short term dependence we can look to thermal and coal. In Nepal alone, there is the possibility of producing 8000 megawatts of hydro electric power and our national hydroelectric corporation points out that we can make around 50000 megawatts of hydroelectric power. Many mini hydro electric projects and alternative systems and sources are possible. This being the situation, we need to think whether we should lead ourselves to a Gordian knot (Nuclear Deal) that America insists.
Another objection raised by those who support nuclear power is that coal/ thermal power generating stations will worsen global warming. There is no doubt that use of fossil energy will augment the green house effect. Just because India stops using such energy is not going to help. If India coal reactors emit 500kilos waste US reactors emit 5 tonnes. The statistics show that the major culprit of global warming is the US. The US has always resisted everything that is against their interests. The US had no qualms about walking out of the KYOTO agreement. Only selfish interest governs US in this nuclear deal. The Section 104(d) 5 (b) is ample proof that country's selfish concerns in this deal.
The above data proves without doubt that for power safety and environment protection we need coal based power generating stations and not nuclear power reactors. We need to rely on clean coal technology to reduce environmental pollution. A major chunk of the domestic power use is the electric bulb invented by Edison more than one hundred years ago. Such bulbs convert 90 % of electricity to light. The use of such bulbs in India is estimated at 100 crores. Replacing them with CFL bulbs will reduce energy consumption by more than fifty percent. You can save the environment from thousands of tons of carbon waste, and reduce electricity bill in households. The greater life of the CFL bulbs will also reduce E wastes. The total cost will be somewhere between 7000-10000 crores. Such being the case, to argue that nuclear power is the only solution is fooling oneself.
This deal which is supposed to be for power safety refers only to electric energy. Electricity forms only a portion of our energy consumption. Oil, natural gas and petrochemical products are not even discussed. The demand for oil and natural gas are on the rise day by day. 72 % of the petroleum consumption of our country is imported. According to the integrated energy policy report of the planning commission, by 2032, the demand for petroleum will rise from 33400 lakh tons to 4620 lakh tons and that of natural gas from 990 to 1840. These figures show that the Indo American nuclear deal will meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Before one enters into this deal, one needs to take into consideration some facts. India's share in world energy consumption is only a mere 2 percent. India stands first globally as the importer of oil. Nuclear energy meets only 3-5 % of the demands for energy as compared to 30 and10 % of oil and natural gas. In the future 40 % of the energy demand will be from oil and natural gas.
The pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan will be a partial solution to our demands. The project with an output of 250 lakh tons of natural gas would be a significant step towards saving millions of rupees. The figures furnished by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Resources are significant. The cost of one Billion Terminal Unit of Natural Gas (Iran Pipeline Project) is a mere 4 dollars as against the international market price of 14 dollar. The possibility of a very cost effective means of acquiring natural gas will be nullified by the Indo American Nuclear Deal.
American Business concerns give much importance to 123 deal. US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business federation in the world expects around 60 lakh crores from India as part of the Indo American deal. The business houses in India also expect crores of rupees from this deal. The big shots in the government also expect monetary gains from this deal. How can one claim that they are the followers of Gandhiji who insisted that all plans for development should be implemented without losing sight of the poorest sections of our country? That smiling toothless reverend old man sitting on the wall of ManMohan Singh's should be saying no to Indo American nuclear deal. Quit Nuclear Deal that is what that the great old man who passed away would be exhorting us to do.
The intention of the Indian Government is to amend the nuclear deal and open up the production of nuclear energy to private corporations. This will destroy the nuclear safety of our country. The possibility of uranium and plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out. It would be worthwhile to remember Einstein's words- it is dangerous to give greater powers to private agencies and corporations that do not have equally greater responsibilities"
The meager energy that we get through 123 deal is achieved at the expense of sacrificing India's sovereignty and integrity. It will be the end of our self reliance in the field of nuclear energy and it will offer shackles in the sphere of foreign policies. The question whether India should keep aloof from nuclear energy when China, Korea and France even with their energy resources from coal are favourable towards nuclear energy has also come up. It is not by quoting the example of France or China that India should take a decision, rather it should be based on the assessment of technological advances that India has achieved in the field of nuclear energy. Indian scientists have pointed out that the nuclear deal will destroy the second stage fast breeder technology that our country alone possesses.
India's voting against Iran can be seen only as a move to appease America. This is ironic since those who voted against Iran are the followers of Nehru who once reiterated to America that we are not international beggars. Such actions cause a blemish on the sense of justice that this country has always upheld. What is more essential for the power security and self sufficiency of the country is to use the energy that is available from oil and natural gas. It does not lie in buying reactors from GE or Westing House. To make it possible we need peace in the Asian region. The intention of the American Imperialist forces is to cause unrest. Do we need this deal that will sacrifice the sovereignty and international policies of our country?
The PM insists that nuclear energy is the only source for the energy crisis of our country. But one needs to look at the energy production of this country and compare the nuclear energy that India will get from the nuclear deal before signing the deal. Thermal and hydro electric projects contribute 55 % and 22 % of the total production of the power in the country respectively. The 4120 megawatts that come from nuclear power projects contribute only 2 %. The govt. claims that if the nuclear deal is signed, by 2040 the nuclear power production will touch 40,000 megawatts. The planning commission places it at 29000 by the year 2021. The wind generated power units and the recently improved power generating source jointly produce 10715 megawatts (7.5%) whereas nuclear power which with its history of more than fifty years has been able only to produce only 4120 megawatts.
The cost of nuclear generated electricity is appalling. Coal/ Thermal power is priced at 3.73 crore/megawatt as against the 7.4 Crore/megawatt. Natural Gas and hydroelectric power can be generated at 2crore per megawatt. The imported reactors that are part of the nuclear deal will take the cost to something like 11.1 crore (inclusive of the interests of the production capital). The statistics shows that the cost of nuclear power is five times that of hydroelectric power and three and half times that of thermal/coal power. It might be relevant to recall the financial burden that Enron, with its mere 2000 megawatt capacity brought to bear on the Government of Maharashtra. The burden of 40000 megawatts will be staggering.
A study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveals that US spends 4.2 cents for coal generated power and 7.6. for nuclear power. The disposal of nuclear waste which poses serious threats to all forms of life is still a daunting problem. The cost of decommissioning of nuclear reactors exceeds that of commissioning. The carelessness of man, the internal unrest, civil wars natural disasters raise serious challenges to nuclear safety. The cases of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are hard to forget. Einstein's observation that research on nuclear safety should be given priority over nuclear energy is worth recalling here.
India, a fast developing country is in urgent need of nuclear safety. What is of paramount importance is whom should and how should India depend for nuclear energy. It is not wise to engage in a frantic rush for nuclear energy which causes serious social crisis when there are other more productive and less harmful ways of producing power using modern technology and natural resources. Those who argue that we will need nuclear energy when the coal and thermal source of power are exhausted should remember that uranium which is essential for nuclear power will not available as a long term source.
We need to depend on alternative sources and systems of generating power that will not destroy the balance of nature or the existence of humanity. Solar power is the fastest growing option that is receiving widespread attention and acceptance. The scientists have come to conclusion that from Rajastan desert alone one lakh megawatt of solar power is possible. On a long term basis, we need to develop solar, hydro electric, wind and biomass and for short term dependence we can look to thermal and coal. In Nepal alone, there is the possibility of producing 8000 megawatts of hydro electric power and our national hydroelectric corporation points out that we can make around 50000 megawatts of hydroelectric power. Many mini hydro electric projects and alternative systems and sources are possible. This being the situation, we need to think whether we should lead ourselves to a Gordian knot (Nuclear Deal) that America insists.
Another objection raised by those who support nuclear power is that coal/ thermal power generating stations will worsen global warming. There is no doubt that use of fossil energy will augment the green house effect. Just because India stops using such energy is not going to help. If India coal reactors emit 500kilos waste US reactors emit 5 tonnes. The statistics show that the major culprit of global warming is the US. The US has always resisted everything that is against their interests. The US had no qualms about walking out of the KYOTO agreement. Only selfish interest governs US in this nuclear deal. The Section 104(d) 5 (b) is ample proof that country's selfish concerns in this deal.
The above data proves without doubt that for power safety and environment protection we need coal based power generating stations and not nuclear power reactors. We need to rely on clean coal technology to reduce environmental pollution. A major chunk of the domestic power use is the electric bulb invented by Edison more than one hundred years ago. Such bulbs convert 90 % of electricity to light. The use of such bulbs in India is estimated at 100 crores. Replacing them with CFL bulbs will reduce energy consumption by more than fifty percent. You can save the environment from thousands of tons of carbon waste, and reduce electricity bill in households. The greater life of the CFL bulbs will also reduce E wastes. The total cost will be somewhere between 7000-10000 crores. Such being the case, to argue that nuclear power is the only solution is fooling oneself.
This deal which is supposed to be for power safety refers only to electric energy. Electricity forms only a portion of our energy consumption. Oil, natural gas and petrochemical products are not even discussed. The demand for oil and natural gas are on the rise day by day. 72 % of the petroleum consumption of our country is imported. According to the integrated energy policy report of the planning commission, by 2032, the demand for petroleum will rise from 33400 lakh tons to 4620 lakh tons and that of natural gas from 990 to 1840. These figures show that the Indo American nuclear deal will meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Before one enters into this deal, one needs to take into consideration some facts. India's share in world energy consumption is only a mere 2 percent. India stands first globally as the importer of oil. Nuclear energy meets only 3-5 % of the demands for energy as compared to 30 and10 % of oil and natural gas. In the future 40 % of the energy demand will be from oil and natural gas.
The pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan will be a partial solution to our demands. The project with an output of 250 lakh tons of natural gas would be a significant step towards saving millions of rupees. The figures furnished by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Resources are significant. The cost of one Billion Terminal Unit of Natural Gas (Iran Pipeline Project) is a mere 4 dollars as against the international market price of 14 dollar. The possibility of a very cost effective means of acquiring natural gas will be nullified by the Indo American Nuclear Deal.
American Business concerns give much importance to 123 deal. US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business federation in the world expects around 60 lakh crores from India as part of the Indo American deal. The business houses in India also expect crores of rupees from this deal. The big shots in the government also expect monetary gains from this deal. How can one claim that they are the followers of Gandhiji who insisted that all plans for development should be implemented without losing sight of the poorest sections of our country? That smiling toothless reverend old man sitting on the wall of ManMohan Singh's should be saying no to Indo American nuclear deal. Quit Nuclear Deal that is what that the great old man who passed away would be exhorting us to do.
The intention of the Indian Government is to amend the nuclear deal and open up the production of nuclear energy to private corporations. This will destroy the nuclear safety of our country. The possibility of uranium and plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out. It would be worthwhile to remember Einstein's words- it is dangerous to give greater powers to private agencies and corporations that do not have equally greater responsibilities"
The meager energy that we get through 123 deal is achieved at the expense of sacrificing India's sovereignty and integrity. It will be the end of our self reliance in the field of nuclear energy and it will offer shackles in the sphere of foreign policies. The question whether India should keep aloof from nuclear energy when China, Korea and France even with their energy resources from coal are favourable towards nuclear energy has also come up. It is not by quoting the example of France or China that India should take a decision, rather it should be based on the assessment of technological advances that India has achieved in the field of nuclear energy. Indian scientists have pointed out that the nuclear deal will destroy the second stage fast breeder technology that our country alone possesses.
India's voting against Iran can be seen only as a move to appease America. This is ironic since those who voted against Iran are the followers of Nehru who once reiterated to America that we are not international beggars. Such actions cause a blemish on the sense of justice that this country has always upheld. What is more essential for the power security and self sufficiency of the country is to use the energy that is available from oil and natural gas. It does not lie in buying reactors from GE or Westing House. To make it possible we need peace in the Asian region. The intention of the American Imperialist forces is to cause unrest. Do we need this deal that will sacrifice the sovereignty and international policies of our country?
