“We’re on our 8th day of fasting,” said one of the students from Calicut University, Calicut, Kerela. “We don’t want nuclear to be a part of our future.” Several students including Abdul Rehman, Saji Mathew, Ramziya Rehmat, Tomy Jecob, Krupa and Divya, inspired by one of their professors came all the way from the southern state of Kerela up to the seat of power in Delhi to voice their concerns regarding the long-pending Indo-US nuclear power deal. They are members of the Students Against Nuclear Power (S.A.N.P) group.
The Indo-US Nuclear deal, also known as the “1, 2, 3″ Deal has been full of controversy ever since its inception. Though first started by the NDA government of the late 90s and early 2000, it has reached its final stages under the current UPA-led coalition. The deal is significant for many reasons but mostly for its implications of India finally being deemed a “responsible nuclear power” status by the US–bringing the country out of official isolation on the subject. It is important to note that India has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.
The deal is being mooted crucial for India in terms of energy security as the nation currently imports 70% of its oil, which is expected to go up to 90% by mid-century if not sooner. India currently lacks supplies of uranium and the deal would allow technology sharing and the ability to buy uranium from the global market for the very first time. India’s plans are to utilize home grown technology, particularly the fast-breeder closed
cycle process which involves enriching some thorium (of which conveniently India has some 30-odd percent of the global supply) with uranium to start the closed cycle. If India is to maintain its economic boom, it is expected that it will have to increase its energy production from the 125 gigawatts today to over 250 gigawatts by 2016. It is debatable however, how much of this will actually be achieved by boosting nuclear energy generation. Critics state that nuclear will still play a very small role in the over all energy mix.
Energy aside, controversy also exists around the fact that the agreement might
compromise India’s sovereignty over the rights to its own weapons program which technically is a separate entity all together. Regardless, the question of the hour is should India push through the nuclear deal without much debate (as the current administrations plan on doing especially before President Bush is out of office), will it herald yet another missed opportunity for India to follow a more genuine path towards carbon-neutral growth? Can a population of 1.03 billion people with really high density accept any form of nuclear melt down like 3-mile island or the one that happened in Japan more recently? Furthermore is nuclear the way we solve our climate challenge?
For the students, the purpose was clear: give the separate movements against nuclear from around the country a rallying point. I think they did just that. Many have come out in support. It was on the 8th day of fasting that I finally visited these brave youth. Leading leftist politicians arrived at the scene pleading them to stop the fast in assurance that they would carry forth the battle in parliament. ” Now that we have had our voices heard and helped unite the movement, we are going back and will carry on our struggle from Kerela,” stated the professor leading the students. I only hope that it is not too late.
Original posted at: whatswiththeclimate.org voice of the Indian Youth Climate Network.
Compared to some of the serious dam failures and coal mine accidents, TMI was relatively minor (i.e., small radiation release, no one killed, etc.). I would think that thorium would be an excellent transition energy source as it has already been used in reactors and it has greater proliferation resistance than other fuel cycles.
India’s only alternative is to burn coal. The danger there is enormous starting with greenhouse gases and moving on to emissions of mercury, uranium and thorium as gases and particulates into the environment. These students are hunger striking to burn more coal. Not very savvy on risk analysis.
There are two competing thorium designs. One that is a multi step process where thorium is bred to U233, which is then extracted and burned in a second reactor, its at least a decade off and India is perfecting it. Then there is a design that one that an American company has worked on for 13+ years and is to the point of commercialization, it would easily power the VVER-1000 reactors India is building on Indian thorium in very short order. The technology can’t be transfered in the absence of the 123 agreement. Thorium is safer to burn than Uranium on several fronts, its waste has an extremely short half-life, it melts at 500 degrees higher than uranium, it stays in the reactor for much longer between re-fueling resulting in much less waste by mass per unit output. Thorium is a great energy source, but India will have to wait until they have their own overly complicated system up and running.
And of course, there was the Shippingport core back in 1977-1982 that also bred U-233 from Thorium. It actually has more practical experience on the designs than most folks think.
Really, it doesn’t get any stupider. Why would a country want be left out of a global phenomenon, that too one which would be of great benefit to its progress! Its a shame that these people belong to my generation, I’d hate to associate myself with them.
Amy, I feel thats a pretty extreme view. I’m not saying I’m happy that the youth are protesting such a deal or using all their energy and putting their life on the line for something that I know they have no control over… but I think you have to respect that fact that they are passionate enough about a cause that they ARE willing to put their life on the line. Nothing surpasses that. I’m proud to be associated with them, even THOUGH I disagree with them–simply b/c i know nuclear is not the best answer for long term sustainability (tell me if this “global phenomenon” is going to last if India and China begin to eat up uranium from around the world as rapidly as they’re consuming coal)–it IS however in India’s best interest for GEOPOLITICAL reasons. For that reason, and THAT REASON ALONE–I would have this deal be passed. Thanks for your comments.
Communists of india have responded to the nuclear deal issue(of course issue made by them only) in a unexpected way. Communists of india have nothing to give to the nation. Then are like one who are always against the reforms carried out by any political party of india. Their main motive is to oust the two major political power of india and come to the power as 3rd front. They want to do this by first spoilin all the attempts of development of the nation by political parties like congress and denigrate the congress leadership both domestically and internationally. They want to follow the footsteps of its parent russia and china. Even russia which is rival of US has supported this deal. If foreigners can see the obvious benefit of the deal, then why left is becoming oblivious with this. If left is this much concerned with the deal then why dint it oppose the deal in its early stages. This volte face of left is only because it wants to bring bad name to india in world for its own certain motives. This imbroglio directed and produced by left is havin an impact on the sensex. Left must think for the energy needs indian developing economy require to sustain a consistent development. I cant figure out how they can reprimand such an important deal for their own political motive. With this progression of the deal issue, left has become a anathema Every indian whoever knows something about the deal hates the left. In this predicament situation, i would like to appreciate the role played by mr. Singh. It was only because of his stature and his stern attitude that made it possible to fetch the deal. If this deal is made all credits will go to mr singh only. I request the govt not to surrender to the unfair demands of left and try to extricate country out of the energy crisis.
There are many who support this deal, while many who oppose this deal. Those who are saying that the Left is opposing the deal, are not correct. The left has 9 points which they want to be addressed, some of them are:
1. Hyde Act, which is a US domestic act, put many Indian N-facilities under their jurisdiction, and therefore, will be able to force the US government to pressurise the NSG (which works on consensus) to stop supplying Nuclear Fuel to India, should India do something that the US does not like. For exmaple, the Indian Parliament condemned the NATO attack on Iraq without UN sanction. This shows India’s foreign policy is independent. It will not be any more with Hyde Act in place.
2. Australia, which has the highest known Uranium reserves, continues the sell Uranium to China, a clear proliferator, and US, which used N-Bombs on Japan, yet shows double standards towards selling Uranium to India. The 1-2-3 Agreement does not address that concern.
3. Indian army is deployed in Afghanistan and India send supplies to them via Iran. India is also building a railway line connecting Iranian shore and Iran-Afghan border. Iran can be a vital source for the Gas-Pipeline project, which will be beneficial to India. We need that energy resource, since we cannot run cars and buses with nuclear generated electricity. We need oil for that. Adopting an anti-Iran posture under pressure from US will hamper India’s energy security and military presense in Afghanistan.
4. India is still being judged from the fact that India is a NPT-non-signatory, which in itself is discriminatory.
5. The US is trying to sell India N-technology that is meant from Uranium Reactors, for which, India will have to spend her resources to buy or build reactors using Uranium. This would make India dependent on foreign Uranium imports.
6. India has 25% of the world knows Thorium resources, which, would be a better way to invest India’s resources on, than on Uranium based old technology, that the US is trying to sell.
7. To separate Civil and Military N-facilities in India will incur enormous cost, which, till date, has not been confidently estimated by BARC. That would be a great overhead on our economy. Not to mention the years, if not decades, it will take to complete the separation process.
8. Keeping the above in mind, opening up our facilities for foreign inspection will cause leakage of our N-secrets and will compromise our N-deterrent.
9. Many scientists in BARC have openly admitted their concerns regarding this deal, which has not been addressed by the government.
10. The deal will place many Indian facilities under foreign scrutiny for perpetuity, yet, there is not guarantee that Uranium will be made available to India till perpetuity.
True, we need N-power, but at what cost are we getting it?
we may need nuclear deal with US for many purposes like energy, geopoliticle strategy etc etc but it should not take away us from our basic tenants of NAM which remained our mark of identification & also helped us during testing times in the past 40 years. At the same time we must think about our neighbouring countries, how are they perciving the deal. It should also not act as a suger coated pill which will have long term adverse consiquences like that of east india company.
may be TMI was minor
but in us major nuclear explosiond have taken place which were 30 to 40 times more stronger than hiroshima & nagasaki atomic explosions
TO R MARGOLIS
i think there is no need of such a deal with sucha dangerous country instead developing technologies in our country and trying to effort money for developing individually is better than sigininig a deal.
whoa. hey y’all, nuclear power is scary, and it’s certainly not an answer to climate change.
“Adding enough nuclear power to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade or so, and, perhaps most significantly, squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change mitigation policies.”
http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm
No Coal, No Nukes, No Kidding.
http://energyjustice.net/nuclear
Sounds like NIRS does not know the difference between the RBMK and current designs. Modern reactors such as the AP-1000 or ESBWR (not to mention current light water reactors) cannot have run-away nuclear reactions like Chernobyl. TMI was much more localized because the driver of the accident was the decay heat rather than the chain reaction. It is physically impossible for a light water reactor to undergo a chain reaction explosion like a bomb [re: Sagar's comment].
I don’t believe I have claimed that nuclear has no issues, only that it is a strong contender for a transition source (especially if the energy storage technologies do not pan out).
I am glad our prime minister went ahead with this historic deal against all the bulwarks opposing it.Some of the obvious merits of the deal are:
1) India, a non-signatory of the NPT & CTBT gets the nuclear weapons states
status.
2) India can walk away from the deal & can conduct nuclear tests but will get
sufficient uranium fuel for its reactors to operate at maximum output
hitherto.
3) As per the separation plan, only civilian nuclear facilities will be
inspected by the IAEA.
4) This deal ends the 30 year of nuclear apartheid because of which India has
been isolated & deprived of the latest nuclear technology which would have
lended impetus to its long term nuclear plans.
Lets debate the issue of energy security.Nuclear power contributes less than
3% to our energy,meagre by any standards.Over the next decade this can
increase to upto 10%,still way less than oil & coal but substantial.Everyone
witnessed the way crude oil prices dealt a sever blow to our economy &
spurred inflation to double digits.Yes, agreed, to some extent this deal &
India’s proximity to US puts the IPI gas pipeline deal in jeopardy but
then we cant turn a blind eye to environment friendly nuclear energy.India
has 30% thorium reserves but is yet to develop the technology to harness it.
Once she does, we will have electricity cheaper than that produced from
coal.
The technology and the uranium fuel for its reactors would propel the
nuclear programme which has stagnated in the last 3 decades.India needs to
emulate France where nuclear power contributes 70% to its energy needs.
Guys..read about alternative energy sources.(not the general articles.) the scientific once and find out how much energy can be produces using them.Oil and nuclear power have been always projected as the main supplæies bcoz the ppl making money from them want to continue making money.If anybody of you find it diffcult to locate the related articles,please go to http://www.zeitgeistmonie.com and watch the sequel of the Zeitgeist Movie .Here,Jacques Fresco, explains of how the alternative enrgy can be used effectively.I wolnt be visiting the blog again.The ppl who find it difficult to identify with the youths striking here clearly don´t have insight into neoliberalism,free trade and free markets and the manipulative actions of the US till now and also the foreign policy of US.Also suggest you to read the essay by Noam Chomsky-”US Foriegn Policy”.Its really insightful and gives lots of facts.I hope we all together can build a better society for our children.