Skip to main content

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

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous 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
August 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more