There is a discernible upsurge in enthusiasm for nuclear energy worldwide. This enthusiasm is outcome of over two decades of disappointing growth, coupled with economic recession. Industry leaders are forecasting a nuclear renaissance. The `nuclear renaissance’ envisions a doubling or tripling of nuclear capacity by 2050. It is predicted that nuclear power would spread to new markets in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. A host of new fuel-reprocessing techniques and reactors would be developed.
The big push for nuclear power plants is expected in Asia, particularly from China, India, Japan and South Korea. In Europe, Italy is reconsidering nuclear energy. Besides, countries such as Germany and Sweden might delay or abandon phasing out nuclear power to meet climate change goals. Other countries (such as Canada, South Africa, and South Korea) have also planned to expand their programs to include uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, or both.
Over two dozen additional states mostly in developing countries, including Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, have ardent interest in taping nuclear energy to meet their power deficiency. It is predicted that if the demand for nuclear energy continues to rise, the number of states with nuclear reactors could double.
A contrary view, projected in International Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) World Energy Outlook 2008 is that it is not all hunky-dory with optimistic forecasts of growth in nuclear energy. The Outlook points out that expansion of nuclear energy hinges on designing proper policies and staying committed to it. Without policy changes, nuclear power’s share of worldwide electricity generation will drop from 15 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2030.
It is contended that the term “renaissance” might most aptly be used for the United States, where the prospect of building any new reactors is considered quite positive because no nuclear reactors have been licensed in about thirty years. Since 2007, fifteen applications for twenty-four new power plants have been submitted. It is expected that as many as thirty to forty-five new reactors would be operational by 2030. The denigrators of nuclear energy argue that the euphoria for nuclear power would peter out because of problems of nuclear waste disposal and prohibitive costs of reactors.
Pakistan’s need for nuclear energy can hardly be over-emphasised. It has, at present, a small nuclear power program with 425 MWe capacity that supplies only about 2.34 per cent of country’s electricity. It wants to increase the current capacity to 8,800 MWe by year 2,020 (900 MWe by year 2,015).
Pakistan has two pressurized-heavy-water reactors. One is the 125MWe Karachi Nuclear Power Plant. The other is Chashma Nuclear Power Plant with 325 MWe. Construction of Chashma-II is in progress with China’s assistance. The project is expected to be completed in year 2,011.
Because of political and feasibility constraints, it is not possible for Pakistan to tap new sources of hydel energy. As such, nuclear energy remains the only avenue to be tapped. The government is willing to design necessary policies and provide funds to implement nuclear-energy projects.
The benefits of nuclear energy outweigh its costs. That’s the reason the USA and India have signed the 123 agreement to benefit from cooperation in the field of civilian use of nuclear energy. Ignoring Pakistan’s dire need for energy, the USA has not signed a similar agreement with Pakistan.
Stephen Cohen, Brooking Institution’s South-Asia expert, echoed Pakistan’s principled position on civilian-use of nuclear energy while addressing the United States’ Homeland Security Sub-committee. Key points of Cohen’s address are: (a) The 123 agreement should have been criteria-based instead of one-time India-specific bonanza. The preferential benefits, envisioned in the deal, should have been extended to other eligible countries. Focusing, in particular on Pakistan, Cohen called upon Washington to offer a similar deal, akin to European Union’s criteria-based membership to the Union, to Pakistan.
Cohen suggested that because of Washington’s nonchalance to Pakistan’s request, Pakistan has been forced to seek nuclear cooperation with China. In his view, Pakistan could be offered civilian nuclear cooperation in exchange for some reasonable nuclear restrictions.
It is time the major powers shunned discriminatory policy towards Pakistan. To speed up industrial activity in Pakistan, the developed countries should extend cooperation in field of civil nuclear energy. Faster economic growth will provide jobs to frustrated youth. As such, the unemployed youth would no longer find the extremist ideologies alluring.
The big push for nuclear power plants is expected in Asia, particularly from China, India, Japan and South Korea. In Europe, Italy is reconsidering nuclear energy. Besides, countries such as Germany and Sweden might delay or abandon phasing out nuclear power to meet climate change goals. Other countries (such as Canada, South Africa, and South Korea) have also planned to expand their programs to include uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, or both.
Over two dozen additional states mostly in developing countries, including Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, have ardent interest in taping nuclear energy to meet their power deficiency. It is predicted that if the demand for nuclear energy continues to rise, the number of states with nuclear reactors could double.
A contrary view, projected in International Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) World Energy Outlook 2008 is that it is not all hunky-dory with optimistic forecasts of growth in nuclear energy. The Outlook points out that expansion of nuclear energy hinges on designing proper policies and staying committed to it. Without policy changes, nuclear power’s share of worldwide electricity generation will drop from 15 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2030.
It is contended that the term “renaissance” might most aptly be used for the United States, where the prospect of building any new reactors is considered quite positive because no nuclear reactors have been licensed in about thirty years. Since 2007, fifteen applications for twenty-four new power plants have been submitted. It is expected that as many as thirty to forty-five new reactors would be operational by 2030. The denigrators of nuclear energy argue that the euphoria for nuclear power would peter out because of problems of nuclear waste disposal and prohibitive costs of reactors.
Pakistan’s need for nuclear energy can hardly be over-emphasised. It has, at present, a small nuclear power program with 425 MWe capacity that supplies only about 2.34 per cent of country’s electricity. It wants to increase the current capacity to 8,800 MWe by year 2,020 (900 MWe by year 2,015).
Pakistan has two pressurized-heavy-water reactors. One is the 125MWe Karachi Nuclear Power Plant. The other is Chashma Nuclear Power Plant with 325 MWe. Construction of Chashma-II is in progress with China’s assistance. The project is expected to be completed in year 2,011.
Because of political and feasibility constraints, it is not possible for Pakistan to tap new sources of hydel energy. As such, nuclear energy remains the only avenue to be tapped. The government is willing to design necessary policies and provide funds to implement nuclear-energy projects.
The benefits of nuclear energy outweigh its costs. That’s the reason the USA and India have signed the 123 agreement to benefit from cooperation in the field of civilian use of nuclear energy. Ignoring Pakistan’s dire need for energy, the USA has not signed a similar agreement with Pakistan.
Stephen Cohen, Brooking Institution’s South-Asia expert, echoed Pakistan’s principled position on civilian-use of nuclear energy while addressing the United States’ Homeland Security Sub-committee. Key points of Cohen’s address are: (a) The 123 agreement should have been criteria-based instead of one-time India-specific bonanza. The preferential benefits, envisioned in the deal, should have been extended to other eligible countries. Focusing, in particular on Pakistan, Cohen called upon Washington to offer a similar deal, akin to European Union’s criteria-based membership to the Union, to Pakistan.
Cohen suggested that because of Washington’s nonchalance to Pakistan’s request, Pakistan has been forced to seek nuclear cooperation with China. In his view, Pakistan could be offered civilian nuclear cooperation in exchange for some reasonable nuclear restrictions.
It is time the major powers shunned discriminatory policy towards Pakistan. To speed up industrial activity in Pakistan, the developed countries should extend cooperation in field of civil nuclear energy. Faster economic growth will provide jobs to frustrated youth. As such, the unemployed youth would no longer find the extremist ideologies alluring.
Comments
Post a Comment