MAT 2012

Study the passage below and answer the questions.
PASSAGE - II
With will and vision, India's energy prospects can be changed from grim to
green, and the world will benefit as a result, At 571 kWh per capita, India's electricity
consumption is one-fifth of China's (2,631 kWh) and less than one - twentieth of
the USA's (12,914 kWh). India's electricity demand will only grow. Solar electricity
today at Rs.7.50 a kWh is economical compared with subsidised diesel generated
power at roughly Rs.15 a unit, but more expensive than coal - based electricity at
about Rs.6 And, in any case, India has ash - rich coal. What is the true cost of
coal - based power? Prices are distorted by subsidies, State boundaries, vote - bank
politics, and uncharged carbon - emission costs. Can India leapfrog into a clean - energy
future rather than extend the conventional grid with fossil fuels at its core? In a
nation blessed with abundant sunlight, to what extent should electricity be a networking
service at all? Could India tap ambient solar energy for most of its needs? India's
single - minded focus should be massive and rapid solar deployment, not only through
utility - scale solar plants, but also through distributed generation, household - by -
household, nationwide. Electricity in Indian homes should be roof top - to - room and
solar based with energy self - sufficiency as the goal; the grid can complement and
serve as back - up where available. Anchored with solar, the solutions may include
combinations with bio - diesel, batteries, wind, biogas, micro - hydro, etc. At night or
when the sun is behind clouds, alternative yet local sources can assure electricity.
Once solar energy takes root, India will need less of the colossal and wasteful transmission,
distribution and generation infrastructure except for industrial operations
such as running factories and trains.

Study the passage below and answer the questions.
Passage - III
The change in the Government's focus, from coveting the cash balances of
public sector undertaking (PSUs) to examining how these can be put to better use by
them, is a welcome development. In the current investment - starved environment,
there is certainly a strong macro - economic imperative for inducing PSUs to deploy
funds in capex programmes. But, from a shareholder's perspective- and that applies to
the Government as well - it is also important that funds in excess of their immediate
investment needs, estimated at over Rs. 1 lakh crore, earn a reasonable return. This is
made difficult by rigid and archaic investment norms. So, it is a double whammy,
wherein idle money of state - owned firms neither gets invested in projects nor generates
sufficient portfolio returns. The current guidelines on deployment of surplus
cash by PSUs decree that 60 percent of these should be parked with public sector
banks. The 'public sector' mutual funds requirement is outdated, when many of them
promoted by the likes of UTI, SBI and LIC have roped in foreign partners, making
these ventures little different from pure private sector fund houses. Now that the
investment guidelines are to be reviewed by a Government committee, it may be best
for the Government to just stipulate general prudential norms to be followed by PSUs.
These norms could emphasise safety liquidity of investments, their diversification
across asset classes and securities, and provisions against taking speculative bets, that
expose shareholder funds to capital loss risks.

Study the passage below and answer the questions.
PASSAGE - IV
The first requirement to ensure nuclear safety is technical expertise which
India has. No questions have been raised so far about the expertise in Department of
Atomic Energy (DAE). The first reactors were imported. Soon after commissioning
the original suppliers left leaving us to fend for ourselves. The reactors have been running
for decades without any serious environmental issues. More reactors have since
been built indigenously with enhanced safety features, and increased power rating.
Continuous monitoring of these shows negligible environmental impact compared to
that arising from natural background radiation. All of this as possible because of the
expertise available in DAE institutions. In the early years, there was self-regulation of
safety. It had to be so because there was no other group working in this field. It worked
very well. As the programme expanded, a full-time regulatory body was needed and,
so, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) came into being. Continuing
absence of education and research a nuclear technology in academic institutions meant
the AERB had to be staffed with experts transferred to it from DAE units. AERB also
had to rely on expertise in DAE for various kinds of analyses. This was facilitated by
the AERB being under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Information that ought
to have been disseminated in the first place was not available to the public. This has
naturally tended to imputed motives on attitude of AERB and DAE to safety. An independent
regulator is being demanded as the answer. Steps have to be initiated in the
direction now. Meanwhile, reliance on expertise in DAE institutions is inevitable. If
total independence now is impractical and expertise outside DAE is unavailable, only
total transparency on the part of AERB and DAE can redeem the situation. This had
not yet come about. If a larger contribution from nuclear energy is required, more
effort is needed to effectively answer public questions on plant safety and to dispel
needless fear of radiation. A brand new independent agency to be set up now to regulate
nuclear safety may please some people, but would find it difficult to cope with the
demands of an expanding programme with new designs.