Skip to main content

“A dependable and clean energy”–India PM on Nuclear Energy

In our year end wrap up, we more-or-less ignored international doings to stick with the domestic industry. That makes sense given NEI’s interests, but it does undersell the larger context of nuclear energy’s value. We can argue about the costs of building new facilities or the impact of natural gas all we want – and they’re important issues – but for much of the rest of the world, such as India, the reaction is a big “meh.”

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday strongly advocated nuclear power as a 'viable and clean option' for emerging India's growing energy needs. Addressing a gathering at Jassaur Kheri village of Jhajjar district after laying foundation stones of four projects, including Global Centre for Nuclear Energy and Nation Cancer Institute, Singh said the country was aiming to generate more than 27,000 MW of nuclear power in the next 10 years.

The juxtaposition of nuclear energy and cancer is awkward, but both centers are certainly excellent undertakings and employment and economic boons for Jassaur Kheri. Singh really isn’t mincing words here:

"Nuclear energy is a dependable and clean option to produce power. India is among the very few nations which have developed technology to install nuclear power plants and have achieved the capability to make nuclear fuel. Our aim is that in the coming ten years, we should achieve the capability to generate more than 27,000 MW of nuclear power," Singh stated during the occasion.

All this is gratifying to hear, but about what you’d expect at a groundbreaking – Singh says similar nice things about the cancer center – but why is he so pleased? That really is the crux of it.

The Prime Minister said as the country's population grows and more urbanization happens, the demand for power will also go up. Ensuring that there was enough power for our growing economy was the need of the hour, and while there were various sources like coal, hydro, wind, gas to generate power, nuclear energy was a viable and clean alternative, he said.

“A viable and clean alterative – the demand for power – population grows – urbanization.” These are the values. I’d throw in industrialization, too, but Singh has it exactly right.

---

So what is the Global Centre for Nuclear Energy?

The Center will have five schools for research into advanced nuclear technology, training and education, international seminars, and courses. Subject areas will include nuclear energy systems, radiological safety, applications of radioisotopes and radiation technologies, and nuclear security. India hopes to attract foreign visiting nuclear experts for international seminars, and is working with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency and Russia, in that regard.

Why Russia and not the U.S.? Well, the article explains that U.S. has bridled on an Indian decision to hold vendors rather than operators responsible for an accident. This doesn’t apply to Russia because its industry is state owned. I’m fairly sure Russia wouldn’t enjoy this proviso either, so I don’t think that’s it. Easier to conclude: why not Russia? It’s certainly a big nuclear player in its own right.

This story explains the India-U.S. kerfluffle in more detail. It discusses the liability issue and also growing differences about the way the U.S. is dealing with South Asia – notably India’s neighbors Pakistan and Afghanistan. This gets into the murkier realms of diplomacy that supersedes trade agreements, but still, let’s stick with: Why not Russia?

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Why Russia not the U.S.?"
Really the answer is easy. There is no American company that could sell India a reactor. Remember that Westinghouse is a Japanese company now.
Arun Sharma said…
Hi..
Nuclear energy is an option for clean, reliable energy. India is among the few countries that has developed a technology for the installation of nuclear plants and have achieved the ability to manufacture nuclear fuel. Our goal is that in the next ten years we achieving the capability to produce more than 27,000 MW of nuclear power, "said Singh on the occasion.Exel generator

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …