Nuclear power is one of the fastest growing power-generation industries in India. As of 2008, India has 17 nuclear power plants in operation generating 4,120 MW while 6 other are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 3,160 MW. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India plans to generate 20,000 MW of power by 2020. Currently, India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of nuclear power reactors.
India, being a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been subjected to a defector nuclear embargo from members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) cartel. This has prevented India from obtaining commercial nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant components and services from the international market, thereby forcing India to develop its own fuel, components and services for nuclear power generation. The NSG embargo has had both negative and positive consequences for India's Nuclear Industry. On the one hand, the NSG regime has constrained India from freely importing nuclear fuel at the volume and cost levels it would like to support the country's goals of expanding its nuclear power generation capacity to at least 20,000 MW by 2020. Also, by precluding India from taking advantage of the economies of scale and safety innovations of the global nuclear industry, the NSG regime has driven up the capital and operating costs and damaged the achievable safety potential of Indian nuclear power plants. On the other hand, the NSG embargo has forced the Indian government and bureaucracy to support and actively fund the development of Indian nuclear technologies and industrial capacities in all key areas required to create and maintain a domestic nuclear industry. This has resulted in the creation of a large pool of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians that have developed new and unique innovations in the areas of Fast Breeder Reactors, Thermal Breeder Reactors, the Thorium fuel cycle, nuclear fuel reprocessing and Tritium extraction & production. Ironically, had the NSG sanctions not been in place, it would have been far more cost effective for India to import foreign nuclear power plants and nuclear fuels than to fund the development of Indian nuclear power generation technology, the building of India's own nuclear reactors, and the development of domestic uranium mining, milling and refining capacity.
The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming year’s thanks in part to the expected passing of The Indo-US nuclear deal. This agreement is expected to allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity. If the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.
India has already been using imported enriched uranium and is currently under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, but it has developed various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a Thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of Thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that Thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a Thorium blanket is under construction at the Madras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
Uranium used for the weapons program has been separate from the power program, using Uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 metric tones of uranium per year. Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20GWe by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 metric tones of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tones), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.
Nuclear power plants
Currently, seventeen nuclear power reactors produce 4,120.00 MW (2.9% of total installed base).
Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity (MW)
Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
220 x 3
660
Kakrapar
NPCIL
Gujarat
PHWR
220 x 2
440
Kalpakkam
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
PHWR
220 x 2
440
Narora
NPCIL
Uttar Pradesh
PHWR
220 x 2
440
Rawatbhata
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
100 x 1, 200 x 1, 220 x 2
740
Tarapur
NPCIL
Maharastra
BWR (PHWR)
160 x 2, 540 x 2
1400
Total
4120
The projects under construction are:
Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity (MW)
Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
220 x 1
220
Rawatbhata
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
220 x 2
440
Kudankulam
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
VVER-1000
1000 x 2
2000
Kalpakkam
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
500 x 1
500
Total
3160
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Carbon Tax
CARBON TAX:Is Imposition of Carbon Tax An Effective Tool To fight Global Warming ?
What Is Carbon Tax ?
A carbon tax is an environmental tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The primary purpose of a carbon tax is to discourage the inefficient use of fossil fuels, which when burnt release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
Motive Of Carbon Tax:
In addition to discouraging the use of fuels that contribute to global warming, the intention of a carbon tax is to, by extension, encourage the use of non-combustion energy sources, such as wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear, which do not directly emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
Pertinent Questions That Government, World Regulators (UN,WTO,etc), Businessmen, Environmentalists, Economists, Citizens, and Humanity should try to address:
The main question confronting governments is: should governments adopt a carbon tax system as part of their comprehensive plans to combat global warming?
Additional questions help frame the debate: Is a tax a good way to incentivize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Can a carbon tax have a major impact on global warming? In this regard, how does a carbon tax compare to its main market-based approach - emissions trading or cap-and-trade systems?
What are the economic implications of a carbon tax?
Will it harm businesses and industries? Will it harm consumers?
Are emissions-trading schemes a more efficient and economically-friendly way to reduce emissions?
Is a carbon tax simple to understand and implement, particularly when compared to cap-and-trade systems?
Will a carbon tax require much government oversight?
How about a cap-and-trade system?
Is a carbon tax more feasible and manageable? How might the revenues generated by a carbon tax be spent?
Overall, is a carbon tax system fair? Can it be implemented equitably and without political biases?
Are there any other alternatives?
Examples of Countries practising carbon tax system:
While the European Union considered a carbon tax covering its member states, it ultimately initiated an emissions trading scheme in 2005. The United Kingdom, however, unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime. For the rest of the world, the question of whether to adopt any of these approaches, and which one, remains an open question.
Emissions: Is a carbon tax effective at lowering emissions and combating global warming?
Carbon tax adds a clear cost to pollution that incentivizes reductions: The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use them less and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and bio fuels. This approach also would affect all sources — not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions."
A carbon tax helps symbolize political will to fight global.
A carbon tax helps reduce emissions in all industries: A carbon tax applies to all industries, broadening the scope of emissions reductions. This compares favourably to emissions trading schemes, which sometimes only cover a select group of industries.
A carbon tax can be implemented immediately.
A carbon tax provides superior incentives for green innovation.
Criticism:
Cap-and-trade systems ensure emissions reductions to the set cap: In a cap-and-trade carbon market, total emissions are guaranteed to go down. The cap is the cap, and assuming some reasonably effective enforcement mechanism, not a pound more carbon can be emitted. A carbon tax, on the other hand, merely encourages people to emit less by making it more expensive to do so. And in the case of fossil fuels, people seem perversely resistant to financial incentives.
Carbon trading incentivizes companies to cut emissions: A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive.
Fairness: Is a carbon tax fair?
A carbon tax fairly treats all carbon emissions as "bad": A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis.
Revenue from a carbon tax can be used to fund global aid programs: The advantage of a carbon tax is that it generates revenue that can be used for good. It converts a social bad, pollution, into a social good.
Economics: Is a carbon tax economical?
A carbon tax is less volatile than a cap-and-trade system A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Additionally, predictability is a trait desired by corporations.
A carbon tax would better distribute the costs of carbon emissions A carbon tax will distribute the costs to all companies that emit greenhouse gases. It will not discriminate. There is much more room in a cap-and-trade system for discrimination.
Carbon taxes are simple and easy to understand Like most taxes, a carbon tax is very straight forward, assigning a specific cost to the emission of greenhouse gases
Criticism:
A carbon tax would damage an economy "Carbon tax to hit miners". The Australian. 5 Feb. 2007: "A $25 per tonne carbon tax would cost the state's alumina industry more than $200 million a year."
A carbon tax is "regressive". A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. Because energy consumption would be taxed equally across social groups with a carbon tax (it's a "flat tax"), the costs of the tax would disproportionately affect poor groups.
A carbon tax passes costs onto consumers. A carbon tax makes it more expensive for companies to do business. To compensate, businesses will raise the price of the products they are selling, which diminishes the pockets of the consumer. The consumer, therefore, pays a significant portion of a carbon tax. In this way, a carbon tax does not merely punish polluting businesses, but ordinary citizens as well.
A carbon tax requires substantial government monitoring In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every ton of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative burden. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system.
Conclusion:
Carbon Tax or NO Carbon Tax.....World or Humanity should understand the ramification of Global Warming and instead of debating, the matter concerning global warming, they should undertake steps to control Global Warming initially, and then gradually reduce pollution levels to zero. Otherwise, the writing is ON THE WALL and sooner rather than latter, there might not be any wall for us to write “GLOBAL WARMING”.
What Is Carbon Tax ?
A carbon tax is an environmental tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The primary purpose of a carbon tax is to discourage the inefficient use of fossil fuels, which when burnt release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
Motive Of Carbon Tax:
In addition to discouraging the use of fuels that contribute to global warming, the intention of a carbon tax is to, by extension, encourage the use of non-combustion energy sources, such as wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear, which do not directly emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
Pertinent Questions That Government, World Regulators (UN,WTO,etc), Businessmen, Environmentalists, Economists, Citizens, and Humanity should try to address:
The main question confronting governments is: should governments adopt a carbon tax system as part of their comprehensive plans to combat global warming?
Additional questions help frame the debate: Is a tax a good way to incentivize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Can a carbon tax have a major impact on global warming? In this regard, how does a carbon tax compare to its main market-based approach - emissions trading or cap-and-trade systems?
What are the economic implications of a carbon tax?
Will it harm businesses and industries? Will it harm consumers?
Are emissions-trading schemes a more efficient and economically-friendly way to reduce emissions?
Is a carbon tax simple to understand and implement, particularly when compared to cap-and-trade systems?
Will a carbon tax require much government oversight?
How about a cap-and-trade system?
Is a carbon tax more feasible and manageable? How might the revenues generated by a carbon tax be spent?
Overall, is a carbon tax system fair? Can it be implemented equitably and without political biases?
Are there any other alternatives?
Examples of Countries practising carbon tax system:
While the European Union considered a carbon tax covering its member states, it ultimately initiated an emissions trading scheme in 2005. The United Kingdom, however, unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime. For the rest of the world, the question of whether to adopt any of these approaches, and which one, remains an open question.
Emissions: Is a carbon tax effective at lowering emissions and combating global warming?
Carbon tax adds a clear cost to pollution that incentivizes reductions: The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use them less and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and bio fuels. This approach also would affect all sources — not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions."
A carbon tax helps symbolize political will to fight global.
A carbon tax helps reduce emissions in all industries: A carbon tax applies to all industries, broadening the scope of emissions reductions. This compares favourably to emissions trading schemes, which sometimes only cover a select group of industries.
A carbon tax can be implemented immediately.
A carbon tax provides superior incentives for green innovation.
Criticism:
Cap-and-trade systems ensure emissions reductions to the set cap: In a cap-and-trade carbon market, total emissions are guaranteed to go down. The cap is the cap, and assuming some reasonably effective enforcement mechanism, not a pound more carbon can be emitted. A carbon tax, on the other hand, merely encourages people to emit less by making it more expensive to do so. And in the case of fossil fuels, people seem perversely resistant to financial incentives.
Carbon trading incentivizes companies to cut emissions: A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive.
Fairness: Is a carbon tax fair?
A carbon tax fairly treats all carbon emissions as "bad": A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis.
Revenue from a carbon tax can be used to fund global aid programs: The advantage of a carbon tax is that it generates revenue that can be used for good. It converts a social bad, pollution, into a social good.
Economics: Is a carbon tax economical?
A carbon tax is less volatile than a cap-and-trade system A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Additionally, predictability is a trait desired by corporations.
A carbon tax would better distribute the costs of carbon emissions A carbon tax will distribute the costs to all companies that emit greenhouse gases. It will not discriminate. There is much more room in a cap-and-trade system for discrimination.
Carbon taxes are simple and easy to understand Like most taxes, a carbon tax is very straight forward, assigning a specific cost to the emission of greenhouse gases
Criticism:
A carbon tax would damage an economy "Carbon tax to hit miners". The Australian. 5 Feb. 2007: "A $25 per tonne carbon tax would cost the state's alumina industry more than $200 million a year."
A carbon tax is "regressive". A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. Because energy consumption would be taxed equally across social groups with a carbon tax (it's a "flat tax"), the costs of the tax would disproportionately affect poor groups.
A carbon tax passes costs onto consumers. A carbon tax makes it more expensive for companies to do business. To compensate, businesses will raise the price of the products they are selling, which diminishes the pockets of the consumer. The consumer, therefore, pays a significant portion of a carbon tax. In this way, a carbon tax does not merely punish polluting businesses, but ordinary citizens as well.
A carbon tax requires substantial government monitoring In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every ton of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative burden. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system.
Conclusion:
Carbon Tax or NO Carbon Tax.....World or Humanity should understand the ramification of Global Warming and instead of debating, the matter concerning global warming, they should undertake steps to control Global Warming initially, and then gradually reduce pollution levels to zero. Otherwise, the writing is ON THE WALL and sooner rather than latter, there might not be any wall for us to write “GLOBAL WARMING”.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
123 Agreement
123 Agreement: What is it?
Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, titled "Cooperation With Other Nations", establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation.Such an agreement is called a 123 Agreement. To date, the U.S. has entered into roughly twenty-five 123 Agreements with various countries.
India proposed for Indo-US 123 act in 2005 for the transfer of nuclear energy and nuclear fuels for civil use.
History so far……..
In the year 1968 NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) was signed between 5 nuclear power holding countries – USA,Soviet Union,Great Britain,France and China and some of other countries which do not had nuclear power.Their vision was to ensure that the devastating power should not be handed over to any other freak country.But this treaty had the seed of problems of the future.This treaty enabled the five nuclear power holding countries to test more ,but other countries lost that power.India did not sign that treaty for this kind of unequal conditions.
Activity by India :
India tested nuclear weapon POKHRAN-1 first in 1974.Immidietly other countries of the world formed a group named Nuclear Supplier’s Group(NSG) and excluded India from any kind of exchange of nuclear knowledge or nuclear fuels.Even after that India tested for the second time POKHRAN-2 in the year 1998.Whole world specially USA was against it.Indian PM Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee then announced a moratorium on nuclear test depicting that India already have enough nuclear knowledge.But after that also the banning by NSG was not lifted.
The after effect of 9/11……
India was also in a clear shortage of nuclear fuels as it was needed for production of power and India do not have enough nuclear fuel to serve its own long term needs.So after 9/11 while US was in a clear threat from terrorism and economic threat from china,they wanted to get India as a friend to capture the market of easten civilization .India also utilised this situation and in the year of 2005 in the US tour,Indian PM Mr. Manmohan Singh proposed for the supply of nuclear energy and knowledge to US. The Hyde Act, a 2006 bill that gave preliminary approval to the Indo-US pact, officially requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider the deal. But Congress cannot take up the agreement until the NSG passes it.
Response of rest of the world…..
America agreed to the proposed plan by India and requested the other countries to make an exception in case of India .But other countries of NPT and NSG strongly protested as India was still a country outside NPT ,and so it has the power to test nuclear weapon at any time.USA fought for India to these countries citing two main view points-
1.Economic point of view : India is a very fast developing countrywith mammoth population.So Indian market was very lucrative for every other country of the world.
2.Strategic point of view: India is out of NPT ,so other countries do not have any countrol over India,but after 123 agreement at least they will be forming some pressure over India.
Even after that 6 countries --- Austria,Ireland,Netherlands,Switzerland,Norway and New Zealand was against the notion of supplying the nuke power to India.
NSG’s Vienna meet…….
On 6th Septeber’08, at NSG’s vienna meet after strong arguments India got the waiver from NSG.Indo-US nuke deal got the approval of NSG..India became the first country of the world to get the NSG waiver without signing the NPT.
What India got?
1.The rare position of becoming the only country to get the waiver from NSG without signing the NPT.
2.The ever increasing demand of nuclear power in various fields of India seems to get a solution.
3.The mental step up to be a more important country.
4.Coming out of the brace in whch rest of the world used to put India and Pakistan within.
What India lose?
Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee has reiterated voluntery moratorium on nuclear testing,i.e India will not be able to conduct the nuclear tests anymore,though it is not mentioned any where in the NSG waiver that in case India does so, it will automatically end the waiver.So, the deal was clear a win win position for India.
What next?
The 123 agreement will be brought to US congress.The US congress will end on 28th of September’08.By US rule to say yes or no there should be a 30 days time limit.But there is US presidential election on 4th of November.There is not enough time to call for a new congree,so it’s a special request by US president Mr. George Bush to take the agreement to consider before 30 days .It is expected that on his US tour On 27-28th of September MR. Manmohan Singh will sign the agreement and make the deal final provided the US congress pass the agreement befor that.
Conclusion:
The need for the nuclear energy was inevitable.With the increasing demand of the power in India,it would have been a colossal problem to confront in future.So we definitely needed the NSG to approve the deal.Now presently India is at upper hand as for not signing in the NPT or CTBT(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty),but at the same time getting the approval of NSG.And we may hope for a better future economically too as India in turn taking a step now in becoming one of the global economic leader in coming years.
Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, titled "Cooperation With Other Nations", establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation.Such an agreement is called a 123 Agreement. To date, the U.S. has entered into roughly twenty-five 123 Agreements with various countries.
India proposed for Indo-US 123 act in 2005 for the transfer of nuclear energy and nuclear fuels for civil use.
History so far……..
In the year 1968 NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) was signed between 5 nuclear power holding countries – USA,Soviet Union,Great Britain,France and China and some of other countries which do not had nuclear power.Their vision was to ensure that the devastating power should not be handed over to any other freak country.But this treaty had the seed of problems of the future.This treaty enabled the five nuclear power holding countries to test more ,but other countries lost that power.India did not sign that treaty for this kind of unequal conditions.
Activity by India :
India tested nuclear weapon POKHRAN-1 first in 1974.Immidietly other countries of the world formed a group named Nuclear Supplier’s Group(NSG) and excluded India from any kind of exchange of nuclear knowledge or nuclear fuels.Even after that India tested for the second time POKHRAN-2 in the year 1998.Whole world specially USA was against it.Indian PM Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee then announced a moratorium on nuclear test depicting that India already have enough nuclear knowledge.But after that also the banning by NSG was not lifted.
The after effect of 9/11……
India was also in a clear shortage of nuclear fuels as it was needed for production of power and India do not have enough nuclear fuel to serve its own long term needs.So after 9/11 while US was in a clear threat from terrorism and economic threat from china,they wanted to get India as a friend to capture the market of easten civilization .India also utilised this situation and in the year of 2005 in the US tour,Indian PM Mr. Manmohan Singh proposed for the supply of nuclear energy and knowledge to US. The Hyde Act, a 2006 bill that gave preliminary approval to the Indo-US pact, officially requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider the deal. But Congress cannot take up the agreement until the NSG passes it.
Response of rest of the world…..
America agreed to the proposed plan by India and requested the other countries to make an exception in case of India .But other countries of NPT and NSG strongly protested as India was still a country outside NPT ,and so it has the power to test nuclear weapon at any time.USA fought for India to these countries citing two main view points-
1.Economic point of view : India is a very fast developing countrywith mammoth population.So Indian market was very lucrative for every other country of the world.
2.Strategic point of view: India is out of NPT ,so other countries do not have any countrol over India,but after 123 agreement at least they will be forming some pressure over India.
Even after that 6 countries --- Austria,Ireland,Netherlands,Switzerland,Norway and New Zealand was against the notion of supplying the nuke power to India.
NSG’s Vienna meet…….
On 6th Septeber’08, at NSG’s vienna meet after strong arguments India got the waiver from NSG.Indo-US nuke deal got the approval of NSG..India became the first country of the world to get the NSG waiver without signing the NPT.
What India got?
1.The rare position of becoming the only country to get the waiver from NSG without signing the NPT.
2.The ever increasing demand of nuclear power in various fields of India seems to get a solution.
3.The mental step up to be a more important country.
4.Coming out of the brace in whch rest of the world used to put India and Pakistan within.
What India lose?
Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee has reiterated voluntery moratorium on nuclear testing,i.e India will not be able to conduct the nuclear tests anymore,though it is not mentioned any where in the NSG waiver that in case India does so, it will automatically end the waiver.So, the deal was clear a win win position for India.
What next?
The 123 agreement will be brought to US congress.The US congress will end on 28th of September’08.By US rule to say yes or no there should be a 30 days time limit.But there is US presidential election on 4th of November.There is not enough time to call for a new congree,so it’s a special request by US president Mr. George Bush to take the agreement to consider before 30 days .It is expected that on his US tour On 27-28th of September MR. Manmohan Singh will sign the agreement and make the deal final provided the US congress pass the agreement befor that.
Conclusion:
The need for the nuclear energy was inevitable.With the increasing demand of the power in India,it would have been a colossal problem to confront in future.So we definitely needed the NSG to approve the deal.Now presently India is at upper hand as for not signing in the NPT or CTBT(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty),but at the same time getting the approval of NSG.And we may hope for a better future economically too as India in turn taking a step now in becoming one of the global economic leader in coming years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
