Skip to main content

U.S. and India to Announce Details of Bilateral Nuclear Agreement

From Bloomberg:
The U.S. will today announce details of a civilian nuclear accord with India, an agreement allowing power plants in the energy-starved nation access to fissile material and technology.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary for political affairs, will brief reporters from Washington on the just- concluded, so-called ``1-2-3 agreement'' at 8 p.m. India time, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi said in an e-mailed media advisory. Indian officials, including Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, will brief the local media at 6 p.m. local time.
We'll be keeping an eye on this story today.

Comments

Paul Nelson said…
I did not see any followup. But the New York Times kindly filled that gap, with an editorial published August 5, entitled "“A Bad Deal Gets Worse.” As they declined to publish my rebuttal following, perhaps you would be willing to consider? This is approximately 150 words, per their policy for letters, but I would be delighted to provide you an expanded version, if you would be willing to consider posting same.

An Imperfect Good Deal

Re “A Bad Deal Gets Worse” (New York Times editorial, August 5).

The agreement reduces India’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons, by placing its “civilian nuclear facilities under … safeguards in perpetuity.”

It ensures fuel for civilian nuclear energy. This reduces the risk some future government will discard that program, to focus India’s considerable nuclear capability on weapons.

The reprocessing arrangement will allow India to apply its existing reprocessing capability to dispose of spent fuel in the manner most appropriate to its situation. It also will provide incentive for India’s fast breeder reactors to be declared as civilian.

The agreement is a creative effort to bring India “in from the nuclear cold.” India will not accept nonproliferation measures (e.g., fissile-material cutoff) perceived as harming its deterrence toward two nuclear-armed neighbors.

The agreement is another of the choices between the unattainable perfect and some attainable good that mark the history of nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Paul Nelson is professor emeritus of computer science, nuclear engineering and mathematics at Texas A&M University, a fellow of the American Nuclear Society and Associate Director for International Affairs in Texas A&M University’s Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute. The opinions expressed are the authors’ personal views and do not represent official positions of any institution.

Phones: 979-845-4132 (O)
979-229-7421 (C)
1102 Woodhaven Circle
College Station, TX 77840

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…