Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

[BSR Murthy]

I did not know that Dr. Jaishankar is K. Subrahmanyam' son!
Dr. Jaishankar won kudos for his excellent (and tough) talk at the Carnegie Endowment Conference International Non-proliferation Conference in Washington. Good man.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/26ndeal.htm

[ksmahesh]

The GOI shall ensure that any agreement with any foreign country is subject to the following:

1. No compromise of Indian sovereignty.
2. No constraints on India's relations with other countries.
3. Imposition of sanctions against India by any nation will be regarded as a hostile act, and will result in forfeiture of any assets located in India, or promissory notes held by corporations headquartered in that nation.

That's it. No micro-analysis, no mention of nukes, or tests, or reprocessing, or anything else.

The problem with third point is that GOI has pülaced bulk of its foreign reserves in US treasury bonds and India will turn out loser (Just as Iran after Islamic rev when US blocked billions of Irans dollars).

India should find an alternative to US treasury bonds and only after that should we implement the point 3.

OR we may rephrase this as
3. Imposition of sanctions against India by any nation will be regarded as a hostile act and India will have complete freedom of action (reviewing any and all treaties GOI has signed and implementing punitive actions) to counter the interests of country placing sanctions.

[Baljeet]

And so has its military development.

Care to highlight any of the big ticket items that are aspired by Military. Please refrain from rehotrics.

Just for an example...My question is..

Developing Ammo for bofors 155mm will be whole lot easier than developing Airplane. We are still importing them. We are nation at Proxy War, this is the best time to convert your ideas and prototypes itno production models.

A good 3 Barrell Gatling gun will be highly effective against Paki Sangars, Bunker in Bandipore, Naushera District or in plains of Punjab. Anything remotely even on drawing board?

How many Indian Auto Makers have invested in High Altitude Testing of their vehicles. We can test and develop all different kind of fluids under trying conditions of 40-50 deg C or -20 deg C. Anything that is successful in commercial market can be adapted at a fraction of cost in military and vice versa.

Lets face it, with all the so called Brain Power residing in the third largest scientific pool in the world, there is rare glimpse of any tangible product delivery.

A product is not a product unless it is accepted by your customer.

We are a nation that is more interested in "Baal ki Khaal Utarney Mein" instead of having a razor sharp focus on national and economic security.

[BSR Murthy]

Passing silly laws threatening trade partners would be great for India's economy!
Here is the paradox. When you can forcefully act on another country's sanctions, you probably don't need those additional sovereignty laws and when you cannot - such laws have no use. It is somewhat interesting that we are talking as if we are wronged by the US at a time it is acknowledging India as a defacto nuclear weapons state! Such protectionist and isolationist laws represent places like the old China, North Korea, Iran and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Not India.

[SaiK]

good legal points enqyoob.. this JPC etc.. is fine, but if we don't counter hyde, its a waste of our democratic thinking brains that serves no purpose to the nation.

count my vote for it!

[JCage]

And so has its military development.

Care to highlight any of the big ticket items that are aspired by Military.

You have to educate yourself. I cant tell you about a decades worth of military development and build up in one post. The fact is that the Indian services of today are a far cry from the Indian services of earlier in terms of technology. Which is a good thing.

Please refrain from rehotrics.

You need to follow your own advice...look at your statements below.

Just for an example...My question is..

Developing Ammo for bofors 155mm will be whole lot easier than developing Airplane. We are still importing them. We are nation at Proxy War, this is the best time to convert your ideas and prototypes itno production models.

Sigh..India manufactures a range of 155mm rounds for the Bofors already.
Check the same at www.ofbindia.gov.in

A good 3 Barrell Gatling gun will be highly effective against Paki Sangars, Bunker in Bandipore, Naushera District or in plains of Punjab. Anything remotely even on drawing board?

And who said that a 3 barrel gatling gun will be effective against targets? Care to show me ONE army which is using 3 barrel gatling guns as infantry support or as a line item? This is purely your imagination speaking..reality states that nobody uses such heavy items unless they are vehicle mounted prime weapons, and the fact is that single barrel autocannons can outperform your heavy, complicated multi-barrel gatling gun. Do check the armament fielded by most IFVs.

In real life, India uses missiles- from rifle mounted grenade launchers (we have both imported and now locally made) , automatic grenade launchers (Russian, ammo made by India), Carl Gustaf RCL (both launchers and ammo made by India), ATGMs (Milans, Konkurs and Kornets made in India) - for use against fortifications. Not to mention artillery.

How many Indian Auto Makers have invested in High Altitude Testing of their vehicles. We can test and develop all different kind of fluids under trying conditions of 40-50 deg C or -20 deg C. Anything that is successful in commercial market can be adapted at a fraction of cost in military and vice versa.

TATA and AL both have a range of high alt capable trucks and vehicles. M&M is also coming out with a new vehicle meant for multi-terrain ops.

Lets face it, with all the so called Brain Power residing in the third largest scientific pool in the world, there is rare glimpse of any tangible product delivery.

You really need to read up.

A product is not a product unless it is accepted by your customer.

Thank you for that bit of wisdom.

We are a nation that is more interested in "Baal ki Khaal Utarney Mein" instead of having a razor sharp focus on national and economic security.

Sure, but glib commentary doesnt add to your arguement.

[enqyoobOLD]

and India will have complete freedom of action (reviewing any and all treaties GOI has signed and implementing punitive actions) to counter the interests of country placing sanctions.

The point of the exercise is to pass laws that the GOI can use as

V would like to help you, BUT.. v have to abide by laws of our nation

Thus the point is precisely to NOT give freedom of action, but to REQUIRE certain courses.

The point about the Indian assets in certain nations did occur to me. Yes, that is a tough one, and no easy solutions come to mind. Putting the money in Dubai isn't going to help a whole lot, though it will help meet emergency expenses. The Russian Govt. Note is not exactly known for its stability, and Japan and Poodlestan(s) will do whatever Unkil says, even worse than Unkil.

Cayman Islands, yes, but won't make much money, and Caymans can be reminded of Grenada experience, so won't say "boo!" to Unkil.

The "law" however, is precisely to avoid any sanctions, and to strengthen the interest of the big companies in certain nations to make sure that their govt. does NOT impose sanctions etc.

Also note that in India, there is never any HURRY to enforce laws, unless enforcement makes money for the ruling party or its chamchas. So saying "you have to take over the assets" is very different from saying "You MUST take over the assets NOW!"

These are the nuances of law-making that moi is of course so expert at It comes of seeing day after day, how the English and the Mouth-Offreakans and the Kangaroos of the ICC get away with blatant hostility and dishonesty against India, all supposedly with 'Laws" for every little thing, that are never enforced against their dahlings, but imposed in a flash against India.

It's all a matter of winning Hearts and Minds. Just slightly more effective pro-active approach, that's all.

When u have them by the golas...
their Hearts and Minds will follow

Lalu I am sure would understand. Can't say if these ejjikated types will.

[enqyoobOLD]

Since no one is taking me up on the ROI calculation, let me practise my famed skill at the WAG Method of Cost-Estimation and Business Cases.

Assume an installation cost of $1 per RATED watt. This is the target for large wind turbines of 1MW class (although most cases in practice end up at about $1.5..). So my argument is that if nuclear is not this good, renewable energy investments would be far more. Of course, as I pointed out, the power factor of nuclear is like 0.85 while wind is 0.3 at best, but against this, there are so many downsides to nuclear.

Now v can c. A plant with four 1600MW is 6.4GW plant. So installation cost will run around $6.4B. The stated target is, as I understand, 250GW total? So it's a $250B installation cost.

My question then is, that does "70:30 debt-to-equity ratio" mean? That u pay 70 paise, and guvrmand banias give u a receipt saying you gave 30 paise? And put the other 40 in other pocket of kurta?

[Calvin]

enqyoob: Where is your ROI question?

Debt/Equity ratio is the ratio of the amount of leverage you have, to the amount of equity you put down. In the US, when you buy a house with 20% down, your D/E ratio is 4. In industry, D/E ratios are generally a function of the kind of industry you are in.

Highly capital intensive industries will have D/E ratios in the 1.5 - 2.0 range, which is similar to the 70/30 listed here.

As for capital cost $1/W is probably a little aggressive, $1.5/W is probably more realistic. Of course the nuclear types will tell us that the capex is being driven through the floor by advanced designs - but concrete is still concrete and cement prices are going through the roof.

[Singha]

I cant find the news online but TV channels making big noise on it - 23 senators have accused Bush of selling out to India ..... they say he cant change US laws behind closed doors with foreigners.

[Singha]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01709.html

U.S.-India nuclear deal fails to silence controversy

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
Reuters
Friday, August 3, 2007; 6:22 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Details of a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement disclosed on Friday gave new fodder to American critics who say the accord harms nonproliferation goals but a key congressman held his fire.

Releasing the text of the agreement did little to end the debate in Washington over the deal's impact.

Some congressional staff said the true meaning of key provisions may not be known until administration officials testify publicly on Capitol Hill. That is unlikely before September.

The deal aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment, overturning a three-decade ban imposed after New Delhi, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted a nuclear test in 1974.

Although the framework accord -- called the Hyde Act -- was approved by the U.S. Congress last December, talks over a companion implementation pact, called the 123 agreement after a section of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, had run into trouble.

India demanded the United States permit reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, assure permanent fuel supplies and not penalize India by ending nuclear trade if it conducts another nuclear test.

The companion deal was finalized last month.

Democrat Tom Lantos of California, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee, said he was keen to review the deal in detail.

"As Congress considers it, we need to determine whether the new agreement conforms to the Henry Hyde Act, and thereby supports U.S. foreign policy and nonproliferation goals," he said in a statement that carefully avoided any commitment.

The administration insists the new agreement is consistent with the act but critics disagree.

LOOPHOLES SEEN

"We agreed in principle for them to reprocess American (nuclear) fuel. We didn't have to do that," said Sharon Squassoni, a nonproliferation expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"We agreed to enrichment and sensitive technology cooperation. We didn't have to do that. As far as I can tell, the U.S. caved to all the Indian demands," she said in an interview.

Daryl Kimball and Fred McGoldrick of the Arms Control Association said while the deal gave Washington the right to demand return of nuclear items if India violates the accord, unlike nuclear deals with other countries, it did not specifically cite a nuclear test as a potential violation.

They said Congress and other nuclear supplier states must use their authority to "weigh the alternatives, and close the proliferation loopholes that plague the proposed" deal.

A congressional aide took a contrary view and said the deal may give Washington greater flexibility to halt cooperation and take back nuclear items if New Delhi tests another nuclear weapon.

India would consider a test a disruption of supply that may force a halt in U.S. nuclear cooperation but would also require Washington to find other countries to keep the fuel flowing to Indian reactors, he said.

But the aide told Reuters U.S. officials had said privately if India tests, "we don't have to find other countries to supply the Indians," as New Delhi has asserted.

"The administration has told us one thing, let's see if they stand by that" when officials testify before Congress, he added.

The pact has to be approved by Congress, while India needs to get clearances from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group that governs global civilian nuclear trade and also conclude an agreement to place its civilian reactors under U.N. safeguards.

[Singha]

NPA mouthpiece IHT whines...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/05/ ... dindia.php

A bad deal with India

President George W. Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The accord could end up benefiting New Delhi's weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.

The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.

Any agreement needs to honor the principle Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, Bush's accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India's nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while U.S. law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement - while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India's efforts to find other fuel suppliers.

Bringing India - which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world's most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation - aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program - is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal.

And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.

The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington's only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America's motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.

Congress accepted the administration's arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.

[Singha]

A sensible piece from australia....business opportunities always bring in a dose of common sense...anglo-saxons are the most business friendly on planet earth...ofcourse its morning after posturing on getting India to
commit to a moratorium on testing...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/

Uranium sales to India appear inevitable, but there's still scope for a better price

News that federal cabinet will consider allowing uranium sales to India is generating more heat than light. Critics of the idea insist Australia is shedding principles to reward an outlaw, thus encouraging others to seek nuclear weapons. In response, supporters claim that nuclear co-operation with India will reduce the spread of these most destructive of arms.

If the public ends up confused, it is because both arguments are overdone. Both obscure that the central issue is not some ideal called non-proliferation, but a way to reconcile the messy reality of nuclear policy with India's changing place in the global system. Non-proliferation - the effort to stem the spread of nuclear weapons - is vital for international security. But its effects in shaping how states behave cannot be divorced from the unequal and changing distribution of power among them.

The Government's prospective policy shift shows that Australia accepts India's relatively small nuclear weapons program - even though New Delhi has not signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But non-proliferation diplomacy has always been marked by double standards. The treaty allows only the five countries that tested before 1967 to bear nuclear arms, with vague promises to disarm one day.

The status quo, with one of the new century's giants treated as a rebel and denied civilian nuclear trade, is unsustainable. Trying to help India sign the treaty by reopening the text, with 187 signatories wanting a say, would risk more damage than any informal deal - and could take forever. So slipping India into the club through the back door, 34 years after it first tested the bomb, is the best bad outcome. This logic informs the historic US-India deal, ostensibly finalised last month, ending decades of bans on civilian nuclear trade and paving the way for Australia's move.

Australian uranium exported to India would be used solely to help meet huge electricity needs. Our insistence on inspection-and-audit safeguards ensures this, as it does with China, France and others. As for the argument this would free India's limited uranium reserves for bombs instead of energy, were that to be a basis for policy, we would absurdly ban coal exports too - since coal-fired power stations also free up uranium for arms-making.

And neither the US-India deal nor Australian uranium sales will determine whether third countries opt for nuclear arms. Each state that might want such weapons has its own reasons based on fear, power and prestige.

There should be no pretending atomic commerce with India will make the world safer from proliferation. The US deal puts most of India's reactors under safeguards. But these would probably have been for civil use anyway. By ending trade bans, the US recognises India does not share nuclear weapons materials or knowledge with others, but in that sense India always has been responsible.

The flaws in the Government's looming policy change are in timing, priming and bargaining. The US-India agreement is not quite over the line. Technical details were finalised just days before Canberra's July 26 announcement-by-leak.

American negotiators made last-minute concessions on reprocessing and on whether the deal would end if India tested again. That fix might yet prove too tenuous to convince the middle ground in the US Congress or some countries in the international group that sets guidelines on nuclear trade.

So, in considering exports, we still have scope to ask a political price from Delhi's djinns of diplomacy. Any uranium transfer agreement should include our right to cease supply if India tests another nuclear bomb. We should also seek a special public declaration, not least to satisfy our cautious mining industry.

This would affirm that India sustains its moratorium on nuclear testing. It would state that India will support the long-overdue negotiation of a verifiable global treaty to ban producing fissile material for weapons. It would proclaim India's determination to help thwart efforts by any other state to acquire nuclear weapons, and it would commit India's navy to interdicting illegal nuclear trade in harmony with the Proliferation Security Initiative. It could also reiterate that India has a strictly defensive nuclear posture based on no first use, along with a moral commitment to global nuclear disarmament.

Ending New Delhi's nuclear isolation recognises the massive importance of India in a changing world. For Australia, it is about forging the missing link in our strategic Asian diplomacy, building a bond of indispensability to match our ties with China and Japan. That should be our destination.

Rory Medcalf directs the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

[SaiK]

Looking from the other side, US is started out dealing with India w.r.t nook was based on expanding "alliance"..sope, we need soap operas between India-US for this deal to work. Are we game? Do our policies match. our democratic thoughts may have unions, but we lot of thoughts that complements each other and stands apart.

- religion (theist v/s nature lovers)
- foreign policy (super power - hegemonic v/s multi lateral)
- anti muslim (winners v/s backlashed losers)
- mil (dominance, nato v/s reactive, non alligned)
- culture (pseudo capitalists v/s pseudo socialists)
- economy (develop v/s started developing)

and a whole lot of differences that will clash in the future.

we can write as many agreements as we want.. but are we in the level playing field for alliance.

alliance as seen by USA or as seen by India.? this is the hardest "week link" that will remain for long time to come.

[Sanjay M]

Again, IHT is a well-known Atlanticist mouthpiece and not an NPA mouthpiece. They never take any particularly strong stand on nuclear issues in general. There's no particular condemnation of Pakistani nuclear proliferation, or Chinese proliferation to NKorea and Pakistan.

Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that IHT's antagonism is India-specific.

It's wrong to claim that someone is aggressive about the nuclear proliferation issue when they aren't. IHT is however antagonistic to India-specific issues, of which the 123 Agreement is one.

[Vipul]

Apsara reactor to move out of BARC post Indo-US nuclear deal.

Asia’s first nuclear reactor ‘Apsara’ will not be Mumbai’s pride henceforth. The reactor situated at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Turbhe, is set to be shift out of Mumbai. Apsara’s foundation stone was laid 51 years ago on August 4, 1956.

The development has been underlined with the finalisation of India’s nuclear deal with America on Friday. According to the deal, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have the powers to inspect those of India’s nuclear reactors that are built from foreign assistance and are operational for civil purposes.

S K Malhotra, Executive Director (Media Relations) of BARC, confirmed the development. “Apsara’s core was built with an assistance from the United Kingdom. So only the core will be shifted from Mumbai. However, its new location has not been finalised yet,â€

[Vipul]

'Long-term scenario taken care of in 123 agreement'.

MUMBAI: Indian experts took utmost care to include several "insulation mechanisms" in the draft agreement to implement the nuclear deal with the US in order to protect security and nuclear commerce interests, official sources have said.

Though the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation and the draft 123 agreement, which was made public on Friday, is between two "unequal partners", the experts took all possible long-term scenarios into consideration in the interest of the country, said the sources familiar with the negotiations.

Reacting to concerns expressed by some quarters about the pact curtailing India's right to conduct a nuclear test, a source said: "Every article of the draft 123 agreement is carefully worded with many in-built insulation mechanisms to protect India's interest."

Though the deal is for civil nuclear cooperation, India has taken all possible security situations into consideration and article 14 of the agreement clearly states that both India and the US have agreed to carefully consider the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of such cooperation, the sources said.

The two sides also agreed to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to such a termination or cessation resulted from India's serious concern about a changed security environment or were a response to "actions by other states which would impact national security", they said.

Legally, the conditions remain the same whether India conducts a nuclear test now or after signing the deal. But if the testing is done after the signing of the agreement, "there would be an additional economic penalty", the sources said.

Article 14 also points out that if one side seeks the termination of the pact while citing a violation of the agreement as the reason, the US and India will have to consider whether the action was inadvertent or otherwise and whether "the violation could be considered as material", they said.

It is also made explicitly clear in the same article that no violation can be considered as "material" unless it corresponds to the definition of "material violation or breach" in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the sources said.

Moreover, if a party seeks termination while citing a violation of the proposed IAEA safeguards agreement as the reason, a crucial factor will be whether the IAEA's Board of Governors has made a finding of non-compliance, the sources said.

"The Americans also understand this," a source said.

The sources also said there is no mention of any foreign policy prescription in the draft 123 agreement.

With regard to IAEA safeguards, the sources pointed that if the application of these was no longer possible, both the supplier and recipient countries should hold consultations and agree on appropriate verification measures.

[svinayak]

With reference to the very last paragraph of the joint press statement of Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, here are some comments by Arvind Lavakare in his letter to "The Asian Age" mailed yesterday:

"The cavalier way in which the UPA government has proceeded with the Indo-US Nuclear deal with utter disdain for Parliament's view is in utter contrast to the position on international treaties/agreements in the USA which is considered as the world's most transparent democracy.

In the US, a Federal Government's treaty/agreement with foreign countries is either a self-executing treaty or a non-self-executing treaty. A treaty is self-executing if its framers intended to prescribe a rule which, standing alone, would be enforceable in the courts. Hence the 123 Agreement foisted on us by the US conforms to the Hyde Act passed some months earlier and to the US Atomy Energy Acts of earlier laws. It will however become operative only after approval by the US Senate. But a non-self-executing treaty needs to be confirmed by two-thirds of the Senators present before it is placed in the same categorey as an Act of Congress. That is how the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of Clinton's administration fell in 1999 when the required Senate mandate didn't come through.

In India, by contrast, no international treaty/agreement inked by Government of India right from the cease-fire agreement with Pakistan in 1948 over the Kashmir war has ever been put up for approval of the nation's Parliament. The underlying belief for such blatant bypassing has been the same that was attributed to our current Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, in "The Asian Age" special correspondent's report on page 4 of its edition of 19th December 2006. Mukherjee was there reported as saying that the founding fathers of India's Constitution had not brought any provisions in the Constitution to ensure that all international agreements, that India entered into, were ratified by the Parliament.

However, an hitherto unrevealed element contradicting the above argument appears in "Indian Constitutional Law", a landmark compilation by M.P.Jain, a noted Constitutional expert. On page 291 of that book's fourth edition, reprint 1994, Jain writes that "All treaties in India need legislation for implementation as, unlike in the USA, there is no concept of self-executing treaties." Because "Atomic energy and mineral resources necessary for its production" is Entry No. 4 in the Union List (of our Constitution's Seventh Schedule) on which the Parliament alone is authorised to enact a law, one would think that, in the light of Jain's assertion, the UPA government should actually convert the nuclear deal into a legislation that will be open for judicial scrutiny. The UPA government has the required clout in both houses of our Parliament. So why is it fighting shy of doing something more historic than the nuclear deal is supposed to be?"

Taking up the thread shown by M.P.Jain, can the BJP or anyone else be persuaded to file a PIL or do something else as will compel the UPA to initiate Parliamentary legislation on the proposed nuclear deal?

[enqyoobOLD]

23 senators have accused Bush of selling out to India .

It was 23 Congressppl, which is a different thing. That's 23 Reps out of 400+ - not 23 Senators out of 100.

Calvin, thanks. My question (must have got lost on a previous thread) was trying to figure out who would fund this, and why. So they are looking for straight mortgage loan funding? By banks disinterested in whether the reactors make money?

Who in your opinion is going to shell out, let's see, 375*70/100 = $262.5B ON 30-year loans at premium rates, with really no equity because the reactors are not something u can foreclose and sell to someone else like houses, hey?

Are they going to fund them using Govt. bonds? What else can be set up on such a deal? World Bank loans? ADB loans?

In this case no one need be worried about ROI. The taxpayer foots the bill.

[Sanjay M]

Taking up the thread shown by M.P.Jain, can the BJP or anyone else be persuaded to file a PIL or do something else as will compel the UPA to initiate Parliamentary legislation on the proposed nuclear deal?

I'm surprised BJP are only thinking of this route now. If they'd done it prior to the negotiations, India could have at least extracted more concessions from the Americans, instead of being forced to offer up the maximum amount of concessions to the US.

[svinayak]

Taking up the thread shown by M.P.Jain, can the BJP or anyone else be persuaded to file a PIL or do something else as will compel the UPA to initiate Parliamentary legislation on the proposed nuclear deal?

I'm surprised BJP are only thinking of this route now. If they'd done it prior to the negotiations, India could have at least extracted more concessions from the Americans, instead of being forced to offer up the maximum amount of concessions to the US.

Lot of things are political rhetoric.
Some Sen such as Sen Biden specifically mentioned that the deal will not go forward without the support of BJP.

The last leg of the negotiation was done very closely.

Most of the experts are talking of giving this deal 5 years before the ground reality changes.

[enqyoobOLD]

Yes, I'm afraid the only effect of this noise now is to demonstrate to the Americans very clearly that India's Parliament does not matter, and the GOI can get away with ignoring it. That really undercuts the negotiating position of India.

But in fairness, the noise that the NDA DID make around the time the Hyde Bill was making its way through COTUS, did pay off in getting the "scientist" types to actually speak out, and raise some intelligent issues. I credit this with having greatly strengthened India's negotiating position.

Unfortunately, the desi Parliament appears to lack the sort of leadership (on both sides) that enables a top-level meeting on matters of national strategy, and a choreographing of actions where there is at least 70% trust between the parties. Trouble with the Parliamentary system is that if the Opposition sees a situation where Course A leads with 80% probability to a national disaster, but with a 60% chance of getting a No-Confidence motion through, then they will take that course compared with a course where there is only 20% chance of national disaster, but none of getting the government out.

PM IG and ABV had that sort of trust, but I can't think of many other situations where it existed, except in wartime.

The NDA's efforts to articulate Indian interests in this, have fallen pathetically short of the standards needed for well-informed national debate. A child could poke holes in their "white papers" and Daily Pioneer Expert Opinions. THOSE certainly would not have scared Biden or anyone else in COTUS because they were transparently infantile.

Jaswant etc. should have played a better role; but they did not.

[Calvin]

My question (must have got lost on a previous thread) was trying to figure out who would fund this, and why. So they are looking for straight mortgage loan funding? By banks disinterested in whether the reactors make money?

This is probably not "straight mortgage loan funding". I merely used that as an example. In a home-mortgage situation the D/E ratio can be higher because the home is not being paid for by profit generated from the enterprise (i.e., the home payments come from income generated outside the "home").

Who in your opinion is going to shell out, let's see, 375*70/100 = $262.5B ON 30-year loans at premium rates, with really no equity because the reactors are not something u can foreclose and sell to someone else like houses, hey?

Generally companies will take out industrial bonds if they are making the investment, and the yield will depend on the risk associated with the bonds. In all reality, this will tell us what the real risk is associated with the US asking for the reactors back. This is the sort of thing conveyed in back-room conversations with nothing ever made public except interest in purchasing or selling the relevant bonds.

If the GOI is investing in this, then all of this gets ultimately hidden in the general fund, and the taxpayer is on the hook - as you note.

[pradeepe]

Yes, I'm afraid the only effect of this noise now is to demonstrate to the Americans very clearly that India's Parliament does not matter, and the GOI can get away with ignoring it. That really undercuts the negotiating position of India.

Enqyoob sar, OTOH, trying to look at the possible positive options. If the parliment can still enact legislation to make it very very painful to invoke Hyde or whatever. It sends a clean message across - such as: "If a fast one is being pulled, there is no finish line, no safe base".

GOIs lack of proper procedure in such things can also be played to ones advantage.

[SaiK]

Is it worth dismantling apsara and shifting it. Its 1Mw reactor if not used in research, what use will it serve for civilian use. I say end Apsara totally, for the deal, and perhaps build a new Apsara-Nu with 50-150 Mw research reactor if needed.

[Arun_S]

Is it worth dismantling apsara and shifting it. Its 1Mw reactor if not used in research, what use will it serve for civilian use. I say end Apsara totally, for the deal, and perhaps build a new Apsara-Nu with 50-150 Mw research reactor if needed.

There are applications where a needle is more useful than a sword.

Sant Kabir-Das said
"Jahaan Kaam Aavat Sui, Kahan Karey Talwar?"

Also one needs the right balance. Thus the power of the punch comes from fist that does not have equal fingers.

Please dont discard Apsara to dustbin. The last I saw her it has the beautiful blue halo, in the water around the core. Good inspiration for students that will become BRFites later

[Calvin]

Ah, Cerenkov. Have you looked at Pebble Bed Reactors, Arun S? Looks like PBRs may be making a comeback in the US, we are seeing some project ideas being floated and budget estimations being requested.

[enqyoobOLD]

beautiful blue halo, in the water around the core. Good inspiration for students that will become BRFites later

I hear Mme Curie was mightily fascinated by that glow too..... students may not live long enough to get out of "newbie" status on BRF...

[Arun_S]

Yes Calvin, I have seen few years ago. Most of it seems theoretical.

The American NP Ayothilla's have successfully sealed the door to new types of civil reactors that can be made by the unwashed 3rd world countries. N Weapons are great equalizers. After all how long one can keep milk away from cat? So up till last year, the strategy was to push a technology that is sexy and only the most elite believers will be able to make, aka Fusion power !!. The NPA drove US cold war policy to psyop the docile US population to make monster of radiation, the a fearful poisonous daemon that will kill. Thus spent fuel rods that are relatively harmless radioactivity was treated as instantly deadly. Eventually No more power reactors in US.

Alas the energy crunch and 75$/barrel oil price makes low cost realistic technology more compelling fission reactors.

So the bottom line is US needs to catchup and start to build again. As for PBR spent fuel generate much more potent radiation. From where US is today they will be shit scared of this stuff for another 50 years before they generate grid power; that would also require reverse and strip Psy-op of NPA.

[Calvin]

A_S: I am talking about real interest in just the last 3-4 months. From what we looked at PBRs didn't generate more radioactivity, but because the pebbles were encased, the volumes were higher.

Wikipedia has a rudimentary page on this design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Some of the people we talked to suggested that PBRs were killed in the US mainly by GE, Westinghouse and others that had sold out on the PLWR (I think that is right).

[NRao]

Some of the people we talked to suggested that PBRs were killed in the US mainly by GE, Westinghouse and others that had sold out on the PLWR (I think that is right).

That is why they have come out with GNEP. Which could kill the FBR too.

[enqyoobOLD]

Since the US is supposed to have not built any new reactors in the past umpteen years, and France has been building them to get about 80% of their power from nuclear energy, may one assume that French power reactor technology is far ahead of the US?

Incidentally, I know of at least one US nuke power plant that was commissioned within the past 10 years (or was it 15? Time flies..) Plant Hatch, Georgia Power Co.

Also, I suspect that there is a lot of refitting going on at US plants, since, like I said, they are simply rolling in the cash these days, so they have plenty to spend on refitting.

But can someone give a comparison of French and US reactor tech and efficiency? What do the French do with the waste - go dump it in the Indian Ocean islands that they have destroyed? Mururoa Atoll? Seine river?

[Arun_S]

A_S: I am talking about real interest in just the last 3-4 months. From what we looked at PBRs didn't generate more radioactivity, but because the pebbles were encased, the volumes were higher. .

Ah I misread it to think of Thorium based reactor.

Regarding Pebble bed its been in discussion for quite some time. It does have some distinct advantages. IAEA has few good paper on various leading/bleeding edge next gen nuclear power reactors.
One high level article is:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

If one looks at global oil crunch coming in next 10 years and a more acute one in 25 years, IMHO there isnt much Uranium to go around for a century with current reactor technology based on one through fuel cycle.

One way to increase thermal efficiency by operating th ecore at higher temperature, but that will at best stretch the fuel by 50% (efficiency increase from current ~30% to ~45%.

In-situ Thorium configuration OTOH stretches the fuel longer by 200%.

Eventually AHWR can be self sustaining. Or FBR can generate positive excess fuel, but FBR are much costly to build and operate.


BTW IIRC annual report of BARC/DAE they are also studying the direct Hydrogen option of high temp dry reactor operating at such high temprature that steam can be directly converted into molecular Hydrogen.

[Calvin]

Enqyoob: I believe that much of France's 50+ reactors are based on Westinghouse's PWR technology. Its been a while. Also, I think the French "stock" their nuclear waste (i.e., not "bury", semantics were important in selling the idea to the public) in Continental France.

A brief search revealed the following document with many facts and figures about the French program - including economics.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

As for revamps of nuclear plants, we are not seeing a lot of those. There is a lot of money going into windfarms, coal gasification, natural gas fired cogens etc. We have seen a few budget evaluations of new nuclear plants (boiling water types), and expansions (i.e., additions of nuclear reactors to existing plants) etc, but not a whole lot of revamps.

[NRao]

may one assume that French power reactor technology is far ahead of the US

Someone had posted, here, and another I casually talked with had this in mind: Indian reactor design, US hardware (turbines, etc) and FR management systems.

However, even in the civilian side India had better speed up construction, etc of their own reactors.

[NRao]

What could happen if Indian companies manufactured, under lic, some hardware and hell broke loose with the US? I would imagine that hardware is Indian?

[Rangudu]

NRao,

Just a thought - There are n-number of scenarios similar to what you are asking and the asnwer is - "it depends." Today an increasing number of people in the US see a possible future shooting war with China. Yet, the number of ways in which the US economy is affected by China is increasing faster. I have worked at a big name client (not Wal-Mart ) where they estimated that ~90% of their income is affected one way or another by happenings in China. Now multiply that across the rest of the Fortune 500 and do you think this gives more leverage to the US or to China in the case of a future conflict? IMHO, a successful J18 culmination would lead to similar Indo-US engagement accelerated across all fronts especially economic and people-wise. Over the long run this should run counter to the still persistent NPA and Col Warrior cliques.

[vina]

Incidentally, I know of at least one US nuke power plant that was commissioned within the past 10 years (or was it 15? Time flies..) Plant Hatch, Georgia Power Co.

Oh.. I know of a bigger fiasco from around less than 10 years or so . Long Island Lighting (Lilco) (now a part of ConEd who mercifully put them out of their misery) had built a brand new nuke power plant for $5b or so (I think) , but were NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE BY EPA .. Long Island for a long time had as a consequence , had one of the highest rates for power in the US .Ridiculous rates really when compared to what NYC (which was served by ConEd) had and what the rest of the country had.

[enqyoobOLD]

Plant Hatch is no fiasco. Georgia Power is profitable, and their rates are pretty low. Hatch is operating smoothly since it started (has never been in the news...) And GA has a very reliable power system (at least the parts I know anything about).

[NRao]

R,man

As long as the (Indo-US) grand kids can sleep well and do not have to think of 'it depends', I am game.

I do not want China to be the model tho'. Not worth it.