India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Pratyush »

The post above yours. However, the SoKo option may not provide the dividends sought by the current Indian govt. Because of SoKo's dependence on the US.

But still it a good move. All the more so because the Russians have already volunteered the production of a large no of reactors in the country and the domestic industry is maturing.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Exactly, if SoKo is dependent on USA then what is the point dealing with SoKo. Better to stop export and import thorium and complete the thorium cycle ourselves.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SSridhar »

In this trade-centric world, especially when economic revival is the mantra, no country is willing to let go of an opportunity to sell products and services, more so when a massive country like India is the recepient. One needs to get the first mover advantages to open up the doors. SoKo will definitely be tempted by the grand opportunity presenting itself to them now, for which they have been lobbying for quite some time now. If SoKo is dependent on American components to effect a sale of a few reactors, then it is all the more reason to tempt SoKo with the offer. Let a friend like SoKo put pressure on the US. We must play one against the other as others have been doing. With our growth, markets and size, we must exploit this leverage of pressure that we can bring to bear on others, to the hilt. It is up to SoKo to get things done because they have been pestering us for a while and it also sends a signal that diplomatic double game can be played by India as well (as the deal with Putin just ahead of Jan. 26 visit of Obama shows). We cannot be for ever shackled by ghosts that we see in every dark corner.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by abhishek_sharma »

The MEA spokesman posted this link (in Hindi) on teetar.
प्रवक्ता ने कहा कि विदेश मंत्री व कोरियाई नेताओं की बातचीत में परमाणु उर्जा क्षेत्र में सहयोग पर भी चर्चा होने की संभावना है क्योंकि दोनों देश इस क्षेत्र मे अत्याधुनिक प्रौद्योगिकी वाले रियेक्टर बनाने सहित संभावित सहयोग के क्षेत्रों को पहले ही तय कर चुके हैं.उल्लेखनीय है कि दक्षिण कोरिया के साथ 2011 में परमाणु सहयोग समझौता हुआ था। लेकिन अब तक िसे अमली जामा नही पहनाया जा सका है। इस इरादे से पिछले महीने ही दक्षिण कोरिया के एक परमाणु दल ने मुम्बई का दौरा कर आपसी सहयोग के मसलों पर बातचीत की थी.
This says that India and SoKo might discuss issues relating to nuclear energy. They had an agreement on nuclear cooperation in 2011, but it has not been finalized/operationalized. Last month, a technical team from SoKo visited Mumabi to discuss these issues.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ May be of interest is South Korea's expertise like fast reactors of the type KALIMER (It is a sodium cooled, metallic fueled (U233/Pu/Zr -- Thorium type - research and data is of interest to India), fast neutron - Advanced Burner Reactor..

Meanwhile for interest - per recent report - for the first time China's fast neutron reactor(CEFR) has been successfully tested/operated at full capacity
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Kakkaji »

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project's first unit to start commercial operation tonight
CHENNAI: The first 1,000 MWe unit of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) is expected to start its commercial
operation at midnight tonight, a senior official said.

"The first unit of KNPP would go for commercial operation tonight at 00.00 hrs exactly," KNPP Station Director R S Sundar told.

Though the unit has been running at full capacity of 1,000 MW since last ten days, the commercial operation would get KNPP better tariff from the grid, he said.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chetak »

Kakkaji wrote:Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project's first unit to start commercial operation tonight
CHENNAI: The first 1,000 MWe unit of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) is expected to start its commercial
operation at midnight tonight, a senior official said.

"The first unit of KNPP would go for commercial operation tonight at 00.00 hrs exactly," KNPP Station Director R S Sundar told.

Though the unit has been running at full capacity of 1,000 MW since last ten days, the commercial operation would get KNPP better tariff from the grid, he said.
TN has already made a bid to grab an extra 100-150 MW of un allotted power from this reactor like it managed to get from the first reactor.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SSridhar »

I read somewhere that KKNPP has been producing 1000 MWe since December 10 though official commercial production would be from tonight.
Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Ashokk »

Kudankulam Nuclear Reactor Starts Generating Electricity Commercially
New Delhi: A little after midnight India's largest nuclear reactor at Kudankulam started generating electricity on a commercial basis. The 1000 MW reactor made with Russian assistance had been limping, generating electricity only on an experimental basis after its turbine suffered a damage a few months ago. After repairs today it is generating full 1000 MW of power.

The 1000 MW of electricity will provide much needed relief to Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Karnataka and Kerala where power output will be augmented. The reactor made at a cost of over Rs. 8000 crores has been much delayed and activists have called it 'unsafe'.

India has recently signed a deal for importing another 14 reactors from Russia.

The second 1000 MW unit at Kudankulam is likely to come online in 2015.
rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by rajrang »

India has tremendous potential for solar and wind as shown by the following two example links:

750 GW for solar:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/29/ind ... ed-750-gw/

2000 to 3000 GW for wind:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/03/21/wi ... -in-india/

Compare the above two sources with the total installed electricity capacity in India of 230 GW.

Both the above technologies have clearly come of age and are being commercialized.

So, should India go slow on nuclear, instead grow the wind and solar opportunities rapidly over the next 20 years or so?

At the risk of opening old debates why did the previous Government have to rush into nuclear deals giving energy shortage as the reason? Was there a different reason? Surely the policy makers would have been aware of the above trends in wind and solar? They say hindsight always has wisdom, but the nuclear deals were not so long ago.

Admins - I apologize if this is OT, then, perhaps we need a new thread for renewable energy sources.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SSridhar »

Resolving the nuclear liability deadlock - Anupama Sen, Arghya Sengupta, The Hindu
On January 26, Barack Obama will become the first U.S. President to attend India’s Republic Day celebrations. It will also mark nearly 10 years since the first announcement on the India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement. In contrast to those heady days when the promise of nuclear power meeting India’s gargantuan energy needs was in the air, the present situation is bleak. A target of installing 63 Gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032 has been reduced to 27.5 Gigawatts and none of the landmark deals envisaged has been struck. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010 which contains a speedy compensation mechanism for victims of a nuclear accident has been deemed responsible for this deadlock. Specifically, provisions on recourse liability on suppliers (Section 17(b)) and concurrent, potentially unlimited liability under other laws (Section 46) have been viewed as major obstacles in operationalising nuclear energy in India and bilateral relations with key supplier countries.

A question of recourse

Under Section 17(b), a liable operator can recover compensation from suppliers of nuclear material in the event of a nuclear accident if the damage is caused by the provision of substandard services or patent or latent defects in equipment or material. This is contrary to the practice of recourse in international civil nuclear liability conventions, which channel liability exclusively to the operator. Specifically, it contradicts Article 10 of the Annex to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), an international treaty which India has signed.

“U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit is an opportunity to address misgivings over the nuclear liability law and to also meet foreign governments and the supplier community halfway on the issue.”

That Section 17(b) is contrary to the global norm is undeniable. However when the global norm itself is inequitable, there are justifiable reasons to depart from it. The inclusion of Section 17(b) recognises historical incidents such as the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 for which defective parts were partly responsible. The paltry compensation paid to the victims was facilitated by gaps in legislation and an extraordinarily recalcitrant state machinery. This is not a peculiarly Indian phenomenon — accidents such as Three Mile Island occurred partially due to lapses on the part of suppliers. More recently, forged quality certificates were detected for parts supplied to nuclear plants in South Korea. That Section 17(b) incentivises supplier safety and reduces the probability of a recurrence of such instances is equally undeniable.

A step too far

India can retain Section 17(b) while ensuring compliance with its international legal obligations in two ways. First, the CSC allows countries to make reservations to certain provisions in treaties despite being signatories to them. India could make a reservation to Article 10 of the Annex to the CSC since it satisfies the requisite criteria for making a valid reservation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thereby excluding its application. Second, Article XV of the CSC implies that the rights and obligations of States under general rules of public international law are exempt from the application of the CSC. One such principle of international law is the “polluter pays principle” — applicable both to the state and private entities. The principle comes into operation via the mechanism through which compensation can be recovered from a polluting entity for the environmental harm it causes. Exercising either of these options will allow India to retain Section 17(b) without violating the international treaty regime.

However in pursuing the safety of supply, Section 17(b) goes too far in keeping liability for suppliers entirely open-ended. If liability on suppliers is unlimited in time and quantum, the possibility of getting adequate insurance cover will reduce. Even if such insurance is available, it could make nuclear energy economically unviable. To address this, Rule 24 of the CLND Rules dilutes the right of recourse conferred by Section 17(b) by limiting compensation payable by suppliers to a specified amount and for a specified time period. Both these are made standard terms of the contract entered into between the supplier and operator.

Though the end that Rule 24 seeks to achieve is justifiable, the means adopted are questionable. Rule 24 arguably violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India because there is no specific power in the CLND Act to limit liability in the manner that Rule 24 does. Further, the terms of the contract potentially dilute Section 17(b), which gives operators an untrammelled right to proceed against the supplier by way of recourse. It is a basic principle of law that a contract cannot violate the provision of a statute — if it does so, it is opposed to public policy. For these reasons, Rule 24 should be deleted. The limitation on time during which the supplier can be held liable should be inserted by means of a provision in the main Act. This will ensure that not just the end but also the means of limiting liability are legally tenable.

As far as the limitation on the amount is concerned, without Rule 24, the liability for each supplier potentially extends to the general liability cap of Rs.1,500 crore. If all suppliers have to be insured up to this value, insurance costs will be unnecessarily pyramided. To address this, countries with a history of nuclear power have in place mechanisms to provide for insurance coverage through international insurance pools where insurers, operators and states share the risks of an accident, providing access to a wide pool of compensation. There are about 26 such pools in existence, which also provide reinsurance to each other. Insurance pools typically require members to be signatories to an international convention (such as CSC), and to allow reasonable inspections of their nuclear installations.

While provisions for the creation of a domestic insurance pool for operators exist in Sections 7 and 8 of the Act and Rule 3, they need to be made explicit and amended to include suppliers in order to prevent the pyramiding of insurance premiums. This is particularly relevant to India’s domestic nuclear suppliers who would otherwise need to individually take out coverage, which would be prohibitively expensive. In order to access international reinsurance pools, the Central government could utilise the provisions in Section 43 and 44 of the CLND Act (Power to Call for Information from Operators) to establish a satisfactory inspections regime.

Sanctity of a special mechanism

Finally, Section 46 of the CLND Act contradicts the Act’s central purpose of serving as a special mechanism enforcing the channelling of liability to the operator to ensure prompt compensation for victims.

Section 46 provides that nothing would prevent proceedings other than those which can be brought under the Act, to be brought against the operator. This is not uncommon, as it allows criminal liability to be pursued where applicable. However, in the absence of a comprehensive definition of the types of ‘nuclear damage’ being notified by the Central Government, Section 46 potentially also allows civil liability claims to be brought against the operator and suppliers through other civil law such as the law of tort. While liability for operators is capped by the CLND Act, this exposes suppliers to unlimited amounts of liability. Obtaining insurance coverage for any future liability costs on account of claims by victims in such a case would be next to impossible.

Section 46 should thus be limited to criminal liability, and should clarify that victims who suffer on account of ‘nuclear damage’ can institute claims for compensation only under the CLND Act and not by recourse to other legislations or Courts. A clarification issued by the Attorney General’s office, if not an amendment to the law itself, will provide much needed assurance to suppliers while furthering national interest.

The issue of the liability law has, for far too long, been a thorn in India’s bilateral relations especially with the United States. Mr. Obama’s visit provides a historic opportunity to address these misgivings and meet foreign governments, as well as the entire supplier community, Indian and foreign, halfway on the issue. This will signal the seriousness of the Government of India in setting its own house in order and put the ball firmly in the court of the supplier community. By putting in place such a comprehensive, fair and pragmatic legislation on civil nuclear liability, there is no reason why India cannot reap the long-term benefits of civilian nuclear energy and resolve a prickly foreign policy issue, the time for whose resolution has come.

(Anupama Sen is Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and Arghya Sengupta is Research Director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. They are co-authors of a report, “Operationalising India’s Nuclear Agreements: Issues and Solutions on Nuclear Liability”.)
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by VinodTK »

Who is killing India's nuclear scientists?
'Forensics experts say in all such unexplained deaths of scientists and engineers involved in the nuclear programme, fingerprints are absent, as also other clues that would assist the police in identifying the culprit(s).'

Prasanna D Zore/Rediff.com reports on a petition that demands a Special Investigation Team probe the mysterious deaths of India's nuclear scientists.

Based on the data compiled under the Right To Information Act by activist Chetan Kothari, about the deaths of various personnel working for India's nuclear establishment, over a four year period between 2010 and 2014, Kothari through his advocate Ashish Mehta has claimed in a Public Interest Litigation that 'Over the last few years, a number of India's nuclear scientists have been dying under mysterious circumstances and the police are classifying them either as 'unexplained' or suicides.'

The PIL -- a copy of which is available with Rediff.com -- appeals to the Bombay high court to constitute a Special Investigating Team to probe these deaths and find out if India's premier nuclear establishments have been following protocols and standard operating procedures when it comes to the safety of their employees.

"The data compiled by my client using the RTI Act clearly shows that the reasons for many deaths cited by the various respondents have been categorised as 'unexplained'. The number of deaths are not only shocking but there is lot of mystery surrounding these deaths," says Ashish Mehta, the advocate for the petitioner.

"The PIL appeals to the honourable high court to constitute a SIT, under the court's supervision, comprising of competent, high-ranking and experienced scientists and investigators so that the nation comes to know about the causes of these mysterious deaths," Mehta told Rediff.com

Citing a number of deaths of key nuclear engineers and scientists, the PIL states that the government and the defendants have not taken these deaths -- often under mysterious circumstances -- seriously and made no efforts to find out the truth behind them.

'It is very pertinent to note that there are parallels here with the numerous attacks on the Iranian nuclear scientist community', the petition notes, but 'the same cannot be said for the Indian government, as the Indian government is not making any noise about the whole thing.'

'Once the "unexplained" rubber stamp has been approved, government bodies don't tend to task the authorities with investigating further', the petition states.

Buttressing its claims the petition cites, among others, the mysterious deaths of two high-ranking engineers who worked on India's first nuclear-powered submarine, the INS Arihant, seen in image above.

The petition states:

'Recently, two high-ranking engineers -- K K Josh and Abhish Shivam -- on India's first nuclear-powered submarine were found on the railway tracks by workers. They were not hit by any train, but yet were dead. Reports claimed they were poisoned elsewhere before being placed on the tracks to make the deaths look accidental or suicide.'

'They were pulled from the line before a train could crush them, but were already dead. No marks were found on the bodies, so it was clear they hadn't been hit by a moving train, and reports allege they were poisoned elsewhere before being placed on the tracks to make the deaths look either accidental or like a suicide.'

'The media and the ministry of defence, however, have described the incident as a routine accident and didn't investigate any further. This far, there have been no reports of the police having identified any of the perpetrators of the murders of personnel whose brainpower has been crucial to the success of several key programmes.'

'In any other country, the murder of two Engineers connected to a crucial strategic programme would have created a media storm. But it's rather shocking why such a thing is not happening here. However, the deaths of the two were passed off both by the media as well as by the ministry of defence as a routine accident, with only the ordinary police officer tasked with investigations into the cause of death. The inquiries went nowhere.'

'When nuclear scientist Lokanathan Mahalingam's body turned up in June of 2009, it was palmed off as a suicide and largely ignored by the Indian media.'

'In April of 2011, when the body of former scientist Uma Rao was found, investigators ruled the death as suicide, but family members contested the verdict, saying there had been no signs that Rao was suicidal.'

'If the deaths of those in the community aren't classed as suicide, they're generally labeled as "unexplained." A good example is the case of M Iyer, who was found with internal haemorrhaging to his skull -- possibly the result of a "kinky experiment," according to a police officer.'

'After a preliminary look-in, the police couldn't work out how Iyer had suffered internal injuries while not displaying any cuts or bruises, and investigations fizzled out.'

'On 23 February 2010, M Iyer, an engineer at BARC, was found dead in his residence. However, as is usual in such cases, no arrests were made and the investigation ran into a stonewall.'

'Forensics experts say that in all such unexplained deaths of scientists and engineers involved in the nuclear programme, fingerprints are absent, as also other telltale clues that would assist the police in identifying the culprit.'

'These indicate a high degree of professionalism behind the murders, such as can be found in top-flight intelligence agencies of the type that have been so successful in killing Iranian scientists and engineers active in that country's nuclear programme.'

'The killer had used a duplicate key to enter the house and strangle the engineer in his sleep. Interestingly, efforts were made by some of the investigating police officers to pass the death off as a suicide. Finally, the Mumbai police decided to register a case of murder.'

'According to the Government of India, over just a three-year period, there have been at least nine unnatural deaths of scientists and engineers at just BARC as well as the Kaiga nuclear facility, of which two have been categorised as suicide, with the rest unexplained in terms of bringing to book those responsible.'

The petitioner expressed shock at the government's indifference to such valuable assets.

The petition states:

'The most pressing issue isn't who might be behind the murders, but that the Indian government's apathy is potentially putting their high-value staff at even greater risk. Currently, these scientists, who are crucial to the development of India's nuclear programmes, whether for energy or security, have "absolutely no protection at all, which is quite amusing for people who are in such a sensitive programme.'

"All these deaths under mysterious circumstances clearly indicate a conspiracy by foreign hands who want to create impediments in India's nuclear programme and weaken India's security," says Kothari about what prompted him to file a PIL of this nature.

"The government has so far never instituted a fact-finding mission to ascertain this, turning a blind eye to this disturbing chain of events," adds Kothari.

Pressing for the constitution of an SIT, the PIL says, 'The Government of India is certainly not taking this matter seriously, and that is both saddening and deeply disturbing from a national security perspective. As the new government is in place, it is important that this neglected issue is directed by this honourable court to be looked into very seriously by the Respondents and remedial steps must be taken forthwith'

The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

'The media and the ministry of defence, however, have described the incident as a routine accident and didn't investigate any further. This far, there have been no reports of the police having identified any of the perpetrators of the murders of personnel whose brainpower has been crucial to the success of several key programmes.'
If any nuclear scientist was a traitor, and selling secrets to enemy nations, such an outcome is highly likely. one would think the Indian govt. is not that clueless to not take such deaths seriously if it was done by enemies of the state. Nothing will be revealed in any RTI. This could also indicate that enemy states are actively working on recruiting people in the Indian nuclear program to turn traitors. I am not saying that these gents were not murdered by foreign entities, but that the tepid response of GoI entities to these murders may not be a matter of being uninterested, as it would seem at face value.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Just when some progress was being made per news reports about Jaitapur clearing bureaucratic hurdles...
Notwithstanding PM Modi's nuke push, Shiv Sena to oppose Jaitapur plant
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chetak »

Amber G. wrote:Just when some progress was being made per news reports about Jaitapur clearing bureaucratic hurdles...
Notwithstanding PM Modi's nuke push, Shiv Sena to oppose Jaitapur plant
The russians had vowed to teach the people who stirred up the koodankulam issue a lesson. This is payback as promised and well deserved too. Serves the frogs right.

Lets see how passionate udayakumar or whatever his name is, is in opposing this reactor or even greenpeace or the church for that matter
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Lot similar - new tech + big size, opposition from locals. Wonder how much of new and next gen nuclear tech can we absorb instead of focusing on say Thorium cycle for once.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

Excellent interview. Why can't "Make in India" apply to nuclear reactors? Indeed, why not?

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/india ... 150114.htm
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

'm keeping my fingers crossed!
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by PratikDas »

Breaking news...

Image
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8243
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

India & US reach civil nuclear deal
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

do we have any official detailed texts
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8243
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

^^Saik see the Indo-US thread
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

vishvak wrote:Exactly, if SoKo is dependent on USA then what is the point dealing with SoKo. Better to stop export and import thorium and complete the thorium cycle ourselves.
:?:

kerala sands are precious..

a move to make 500mw and 1000mw AThWR is the way to go for the future.. that is the vision by bhabha, and we can't dump it after spending huge time and money.

american reactors and australian nuke cakes might come as a fine option, but at what costs? BARC should start analyzing now.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

M R Srinivasan (first nuclear reactor in india - Apsara fame) is getting Padma Vishushan this 26th.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Karan M »

Tuvaluan wrote:
'The media and the ministry of defence, however, have described the incident as a routine accident and didn't investigate any further. This far, there have been no reports of the police having identified any of the perpetrators of the murders of personnel whose brainpower has been crucial to the success of several key programmes.'
If any nuclear scientist was a traitor, and selling secrets to enemy nations, such an outcome is highly likely. one would think the Indian govt. is not that clueless to not take such deaths seriously if it was done by enemies of the state. Nothing will be revealed in any RTI. This could also indicate that enemy states are actively working on recruiting people in the Indian nuclear program to turn traitors. I am not saying that these gents were not murdered by foreign entities, but that the tepid response of GoI entities to these murders may not be a matter of being uninterested, as it would seem at face value.
So you pretty much come up with a theory that describes these people as traitors and then say, I am not saying these people were traitors and only that explains GOI's tepid response as versus their usual sloppy incompetence as was evident throughout the past 8 years under the UPA. Brilliant.
As if a GOI which didnt give a darn when RAW employees fled abroad, when rampant corruption by arms agents compromised Indian security, would suddenly start killing its own citizens because they were traitors.
Its not bad enough these people died. Your theories are even better.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

KaranM:
So you pretty much come up with a theory that describes these people as traitors and then say, I am not saying these people were traitors and only that explains GOI's tepid response as versus their usual sloppy incompetence as was evident throughout the past 8 years under the UPA. Brilliant.
The UPA did manage to get some things right, and the bureaucracy used to work in the first term until it completely stopped working in the second term. Did not mean to sound like I was accusing any of the victims of the crowd as being traitors or otherwise -- just saying (a) govt. is not monolitic (b) parts of the govt. can function even if other parts don't (c) given the same situation, govt. entities can respond differently at different times depending on the people involved in the govt. Just stating the obvious for the sake of clarification. Not intending to get anyone's goat by accusing anyone of being a traitor.

Surely the govt. was not a 100% basketcase during the UPA regime even if it was directionless due to lack of leadership from the top -- parts of the govt. still did the best they could given the circumstances. Don't want to go OT since this is the nucular thread.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by arun »

What our Foreign Secretary Ms. Sujatha Singh had to say about operationalising the Civilian Nuclear Deal with the US followed by what was asked and said on the topic in the Q&A session that followed:
Foreign Secretary (Shrimati Sujatha Singh): ……………………… There have been significant and substantive outcomes on the strategic, civil nuclear, defence, energy, and economic sides. I will go straight to the civil nuclear side where we have broken the logjam of the past few years.

You would recall that during the Prime Minister’s visit to the US in September 2014 the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to implement fully the US-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement, and established a contact group on advancing the implementation of civil nuclear energy cooperation in order to realise early their shared goal of delivering electricity from US-built nuclear power plants in India. Based on three rounds of discussions in the Contact Group, we have reached an understanding on two outstanding issues namely civil nuclear liability and the administrative arrangements for implementing our 123 agreement. Let me underline, we have reached an understanding. The deal is done. Both these understandings are squarely within our law, our international legal obligations, and our practice.

Insofar as liability is concerned, during the Contact Group meetings the Indian side presented our position concerning the compatibility of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which we have signed, and responded to questions from the US Members concerning this position.

The idea of the India Nuclear Insurance Pool as part of the overall risk management scheme for liability was also presented to the US side. Based on the presentations by the Indian side and the discussions thereon, there is a general bilateral understanding that our law is compatible with the CSC.

Many of you would be aware that we had not yet finalised the administrative arrangements for the 123 agreement which we signed in September 2008. We have finalised it now. The administrative arrangements text that we have agreed with the US conforms to our bilateral legal arrangements as well as our practice on IAEA safeguards. ………………………….
Question:On the nuclear deal, in simple words what has been achieved?

Joint Secretary (D&ISA) (Shri Amandeep Singh Gill): The answer is very simple. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have a deal, we have reached an understanding on civil nuclear liability and finalised the text of the administrative arrangements to implement the 123 agreement.

Question:Madam, what are the assurances that were given on the liability front, particularly the American concerns on section 46? Also, is there any kind of memorandum that the Attorney General would have to give to the Americans because that is something that the While House briefing has just indicated?

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): Not section 46 but section 17 of the law has been discussed with the US side in the Contact Group, and the presentations we have given to the US side clarify and underline that these two sections are in conformity with the CSC. Now you mentioned about the memorandum. That is work in progress.

Question:I want to know if the Americans have accepted the same kind of arrangement we have with French and the Canadians.

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): There is no administrative arrangement that we require with France. We have an administrative arrangement with Canada and that has been the template for finalising our administrative arrangement with the US.

Question:There was a tracking clause that America was raising that they will track whatever nuclear things are going to us. What is the development on us? And is there any insurance cap in that?

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): The text we have agreed with the US conforms to our bilateral legal agreements with the US which are: the 123 agreement and the arrangements and procedures on reprocessing. The text also conforms to India’s practice of IAEA safeguards. So, that is the current practice of safeguards in India.

Question:You spoke about the idea of insurance pool to address the liability issue. Could you spell out the specific? What is this insurance pool, because there have been speculation all along as to what has been agreed to in today’s meeting.

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): The insurance pool or what would be called the India Nuclear Insurance Pool is a risk transfer mechanism which is being formed by GICRE and four other public sector undertakings in the general insurance business in India. These companies would together contribute Rs.750 crore to the pool and the balance capacity would be contributed by the government on a tapering basis. So, this is the general shape of the pool. It is similar to 26 such international pools around the world. The details, for example, of the premiums are being worked out. And the United States has committed to work with India to share information and best practices on the formation of this insurance pool. The important thing for you to note is that this is a complete risk management solution for both operators and suppliers without causing undue financial burden.

Question:Given that the two companies that are already supposed start those first nuclear reactors in India are tied up with Japanese companies, are these deals really going to have to wait for the Indo-Japan civil nuclear deal to be completed before we complete ours, and are we going to ratify the CSC now?

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): Let me take your second question first. We have signed the CSC and we are committed to ratify the convention. On your first question about the supply chain situation with regard to Westinghouse and GE, there are alternatives available, and we do not think that the absence of an agreement with Japan is an obstacle to taking forward civil nuclear cooperation with the United States.

Question:Madam, the Americans have been crying that they did not get a level-playing field. Have you been able to give them a level-playing field in civil nuclear cooperation today? And here onwards it would really depend if their companies are able to sell you reactors at a price which is comparable to other reactors? Techno-economic cooperation is the way forward?

Foreign Secretary: We have always had a level-playing field. I do not see what the issue is over here. I will ask Amandeep to elaborate on that if he wishes.

Joint Secretary (D&ISA): On the techno-commercial aspects, that is something for our companies to see. These reactor projects have to be viable in terms of both capital cost and per unit energy cost, and that is something that our companies will work out. But the other two hurdles, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned, the policy hurdles, we have cleared them today. …………………..
From here:

Transcript of Media Briefing by Foreign Secretary on President Obama's visit to India (January 25, 2015)
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

Just an FYI - Sujatha Singh is daughter of former IB Chief TV Rajeshwar - from Tamil Nadu IPS.
Mrs. Singh is an absolutely no nonsense type...
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chetak »

JE Menon wrote:Just an FYI - Sujatha Singh is daughter of former IB Chief TV Rajeshwar - from Tamil Nadu IPS.
Mrs. Singh is an absolutely no nonsense type...
wasn't she a favorite of the termite queen??
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

^^Bureaucrats do what they have to do. Their lives depend on the whims of politicians. Better to bend and stay in place and do at least some good, than break and end up "signing chits somewhere". In general.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Prem Kumar »

Does the "collective insurance pool" mean that Indian PSUs will collectively share the risk but the Supplier is still off the hook? If this had happened under MMS, we will be crying sellout
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

Dr. Mr.R.Srinivasan got this well-deserved Padma Vibushan today.I wonder what his input into the N-deal agreement was.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by arun »

NDTV interview of Danny Roderick, President and CEO of nuclear reactor manufacturer Westinghouse Electric Company on the operationalization of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. Danny Roderick was part of US President Barack Obama’s entourage that visited India:
A day after India and the United States of America announced a breakthrough on the India-US civilian nuclear deal, saying the 'deal is done', all eyes are now on American companies that want to sell reactors to India. In an interview to NDTV, Danny Roderick, President and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company, which hopes to grab a contract worth over $50 billion to make up 10 large reactors in India, said he was 'cautiously optimistic' about the nuclear deal. Here are some of the highlights of what he said:

Happy that the two governments have come to an agreement.
Still waiting to read fine print of India's nuclear liability assurance, to see if all is acceptable.
Eager to move forward to commercial contracts.
First US-made reactors can start generating electricity 8-10 years from now.
Westinghouse's reactors to be made at Mithi Vridi in Gujarat.
Westinghouse's reactors are competitive and hope to win the commercial bid.
It is too early to talk about costs.
Meeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek his mandate for moving forward to commercialization quickly.
The Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactors are among the safest in the world.
The Westinghouse reactors can withstand a Fukushima type of accident.
With my hand on my heart, I can say they are safe, and Indians need not fear they. They are a tested technology.
India can become a global hub to export nuclear reactors.
Westighouse has already inked a Rs. 100 crore pre-early works agreement with India, to share safety data.
Weblink:

'Cautiously Optimistic About India-US Nuclear Deal', Says Westinghouse CEO Danny Roderick
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

well, our AHWR also includes passive safety features.. we have to quickly move to >1000MW Th based reactors. This is big business, but AP1000 can provide some required power for the extra kick start needed in the energy sector.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

The backbone of our nuclear generating capacity will have to be the PHWR in the short and medium term. They have to be scaled up to >1000 MW. They can use natural uranium and we can easily extract and reprocess the plutonium from the reactors. Moreover, the entire thing can be made in house, except for some core electronic systems which will eventually be made in house as well.

With the current untapped Uranium reserves in India, was it really necessary to lobby hard for this deal? The environment ministry is now on board with india's growth story. Clearances shouldn't be a problem. I remember reading somewhere that they could have lasted 150-226 years based on the nuclear generating capacity targets that we set for ourselves. In the meantime, if we had just scaled up the PHWR and poured money into MSR, lead and sodium based breeders, non-helium 3 fusion reactors, we stretch our nuke energy generating capacity well past 500-600 years, even based on our remaining thorium reserves that weren't shipped off to Japan and other countries.

Our window to test is also getting smaller. We have about 5 designs that need to be validated. I'm still not sold on this deal.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

Yes, if MMS would have done this, this board would have screamed sell out. The insurance pool is by Insurance PSU's, so indirectly underwritten by the government and the cost of the premiums would be effectively passed on to the Indian people. So, not only will we pay a higher unit cost due to this mechanism but in event of a disaster, it is Indian insurance money at risk. It is the BJP that had supported the amendments to clause 17 and 46 on the liability bill. It was the BJP that had tabled the no confidence motion (defeated) in 2008 over this nuclear deal.

What is funny is while the projection for nuclear power by 2025 is only about 22,500 MW, the projection for Solar only amongst clean/renewables is 100,000 MW.

This deal was never about energy but about the US achieving the strategic curtailment of India's ambitions and reach. Good bye TNW and a "credible" and efficacious nuclear arsenal. We are going to trade our way to glory :evil:

Only potential silverline -- IF on a covert basis we continue efforts to build our technological/testing capacities. are able to acquire test data from others and apply them to strategic weapons - short of testing - in the hope that when, it becomes a priority for the nation, we are ready and the capacities of the nation have been nurtured and not frittered away due to short sighted policies. We should also look/ask for aggressive investments in the thorium cycle and a key marker would be the announcement of new FBR - outside of safeguards.

Has Cirrus been replaced yet?
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

Very Skeptical of all the random numbers thrown about about X00,000 MW generation from solar energy especially by groups that are pushing for reduction in fossil fuel pollution (which requires running cars on non carbon fuels) -- having such large generation of solar energy in the same grid requires way more land than nuclear power plants -- the latter can support much higher peak loads than solar energy. There is a case for independent solar grids for villages here, but highly skeptical of all the claims about solar energy made by all the global warming crowd.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ramana »

I tweeted that with operationalizing the IUCNA deal NaMo is Hober Mallow of India.

Hari Seldon note that@!!!!

ShauryaT, Nothing is off the table.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

Tuvaluan wrote:Very Skeptical of all the random numbers thrown about about X00,000 MW generation from solar energy especially by groups that are pushing for reduction in fossil fuel pollution (which requires running cars on non carbon fuels) -- having such large generation of solar energy in the same grid requires way more land than nuclear power plants -- the latter can support much higher peak loads than solar energy. There is a case for independent solar grids for villages here, but highly skeptical of all the claims about solar energy made by all the global warming crowd.
The claim is by our very own and honorable minister.
India’s energy minister, Piyush Goyal has said the nation’s solar target is to be multiplied to 100GW by 2022.
Post Reply