Letters: The path to nuclear power

This refers to the report "India, Australia sign civilian nuclear energy deal" (September 6). If one reads between the lines, the Indo-Australian civil nuclear deal is much ado about nothing. It is reported that the agreement may take five years to fructify and even then, the flow will be notional. For 63,000 megawatt (Mw) envisaged by 2032, the natural uranium required is 2,000 tonnes a year, 30 per cent of Australian production of 6,350 tonnes of uranium in 2013. Indian domestic uranium at current production rates can sustain 10,000 Mw, even if it is committed only for electricity generation. Thus, it is doubtful if the notional flow of uranium planned after five years will meet the requirements. It is another matter whether the plans to add around 60,000 Mw by 2032 are realistic. The stated requirement of around 30 reactors in 18 years is not even arithmetically aligned; meeting that target would need at least 60 reactors in 18 years.

The fact is that the US has its own agenda in operationalising the nuclear agreement with India. It snugly operates through the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), which was formed in 1998 solely to prevent India from making nuclear weapons. Now, the NSG had stated that the minimum requirement for opening India to its fold is that we sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. India cannot agree to any of these at any time. Thus, the agreement between Australia and India could not be bilateral but trilateral, involving the NSG, since Australia is bound to the latter.

The US has often made its stand clear indirectly through the NSG regarding the condition that India sign the NPT for full-fledged co-operation agreements to fructify. It had covered the ground well through a clause in Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act, which makes it subject to the US President certifying annually that India has not diverted additional uranium for strategic applications. Since the Indo-US agreement was signed eight years ago, the US President has not been known to have made any such certification, and the US Senate can even consider the agreement void if required. It could consider any bulk import of Australian uranium as enabling India to commit more of its indigenous uranium production to weapon applications. Australia does not have any technological capability in the sector comparable to India, except that it happens to have plenty of uranium and is under the NSG umbrella. It also had to look to the US to wink at the deal, as is clear from the recent statement that it is cutting off uranium supplies to Russia in line with US wishes. No doubt, the path to realising nuclear electricity targets is full of ifs and hows, but let us keep our hopes flying and be content with umbrella agreements couched in diplomatic language.

M R Iyer, Mumbai

Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number