Skip to main content

When Complexity Yields to Simplicity

manmohan_singh6 What’s the value of nuclear energy? Let’s let Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh tell us:

"Nuclear energy is vital to meeting our energy and developmental needs, particularly those of large, developing countries like India," Mr. Singh said.

We’d add that that’s a pretty good formulation for large, even smaller, developed countries, too. But what’s the occasion?

Addressing a function in New Delhi to honor Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. Singh said India is geared up for a major expansion of its nuclear program "in which international cooperation will be an important component."

Actually, Mr. ElBaradei has stepped down, which is most likely why he’s being honored just now. As for why India might be doing that:

The global Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008 lifted its ban on selling nuclear fuel to India, and, as a result, nuclear power is expected to rise to 40,000 megawatts of installed generating capacity by 2020.

The lifting of the ban was part of the negotiations undertaken by the U.S. and India to reach a new deal on the transfer of civilian nuclear technology. The deal, signed in October 2008, ended a 34-year U.S. moratorium on nuclear trade with India following India's first nuclear tests in 1974.

And that’s opened the wide world of nuclear technology for India. This action was only mildly controversial, because, although India has not signed onto nonproliferation agreements, it has also not shown itself to be a bad actor of any sort. While one might prefer fewer states to have nuclear weaponry than not, India sits between two nuclear states – China and Pakistan. This calculus led the Bush administration to conclude that India’s stewardship of its nuclear inventory need not preclude it from participating in the growing markets for nuclear technology.

But for it all to work, the IAEA had to weigh in – and it did, to India’s benefit.

And hence the kind words to Mr. ElBaradei.

Sometimes, the complexities of the world just yield to the simplicities on the ground. For a change, everybody wins.

Manmohan Singh. We note that he uses this open-hand gesture a lot. A nice alternative to all the pointers among American politicians.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Another interesting point from that address is that Singh stated that if India manages it's program well it could have 470 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 (greater than the current worldwide installed capacity).

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…