India Nuclear News & Discussion - 24 August 2007

[arun]

India's 123 vs PRC's 123 :

[quote]China’s (no big) deal

Pranab Dhal Samanta
Posted online: Friday, August 24, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

Parliament will most likely debate the 123 text next week. One big talking point: did China get a better deal? Trawling through both 123 texts, Pranab Dhal Samanta explains why the opposite is true

National Laws

China: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

India: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

Reality Check: There is considerable opposition here on the question of the emphasis on “national lawsâ€

[arun]

A few days old and apologies if posted earlier.

The so called Indian Muslim opposition to the 123 deal is summarily dismissed .

Damn the dogmatic ideologues who will stoop to dividing India in their quest to stop the 123 deal :

What’s religion got to do with 123?

Abusaleh Shariff
Posted online: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

The current controversy between the ruling UPA coalition and the Left on the one hand, and the right on the other, is entirely a political confrontation. This unwarranted war of words and egos should never overshadow the very important accomplishments in the realm of research and technology but should be responsibly resolved within the political framework. The issue of nuclear energy at hand is not a laughing matter. Not only is it linked with the destiny of 1.2 billion Indians today, but it will be of remarkable consequence to innumerable billions in the generations that are to follow. What is at stake is not just the ‘present’ but the ‘future’ as well.

During debates and arguments it has come to the notice of intellectuals and concerned citizens such as this writer that the Muslim community in India as a whole is being seen to be opposing the current nuclear deal. This illusionary and concocted idea is presented before the people of India as the dominant opposition to the 123 agreement. Such allegations, with no evidence whatsoever, will throw the Muslim community in India into another confrontation with liberal and progressive-minded Indians in the future.

What is important for the world to know is that Indian Muslims, in their psyche, behaviour and views, are as progressive as, if not more than, other outwardly looking communities across India. The desires and aspirations of younger Indian Muslims are the same as those of Hindu and Christian communities in India. For example, one would find educated Muslim boys and girls lined up in as much number and in similar proportions as any other social group in front of diplomatic missions of countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. The educated middle class amongst the Muslim community is no more inclined to be content with meagrely paid and often exploitative jobs in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other countries in the Middle East. Above all, newly educated Muslims indeed have already become aware of the fact that future jobs and satisfying professional lives are to be found more in India than abroad.

Yes, Muslims of the older vintage do get sensitive at the utterance of the word ‘Israel’, but these are dying noises. What is common knowledge is that India has since long balanced foreign policy options with both the Palestinian cause — notwithstanding the great personal affinity with the late Yasser Arafat displayed by many of its leaders — and Israel. Who in India now does not know that Israel is one of the largest suppliers of defence equipment and ammunition to the country? It has partnered in a number of high technology agricultural projects. You will even find Israelis undertaking tulsi cultivation in some parts of Uttar Pradesh. One finds Israelis living in large numbers in many parts of the Himalayas, albeit as tourists. Even so, I have yet to come across any Muslim in these specific areas or elsewhere who is agitated over government policy.

It is, however, important to say that George W. Bush is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. The Muslims in India are now mature enough to know the difference and judge accordingly.

I am at pains as an Indian Muslim to understand as to how a highly respected and distinguished political party can use the Muslim community as a whole as canon fodder, so to speak, in order to make its own vulnerable position secure. It is also not uncommon to find heretic and self-centred and self-proclaimed leaders within the Muslim community. They are indeed far too great in number and we all know who they are and how much political and social support they actually claim from the larger community across India.

In this context it is important to highlight an important political reality: the Muslims in India are the most secular voters. I know of no political party in India for which the Muslims have voluntarily not voted. As psephologists will confirm, when the BJP came to power, a good proportion of Muslims did indeed vote for that party. This is evidence good enough to make the point that it would be wrong on the part of any single party to say that they represent the whole of the Muslim community in India — or that any one single party can influence the community as a whole.

Political parties must not project the Muslim community as a whole as a political constituency. It is a sum of heterogeneous groups. In any case, now there is an educated class emerging within the Muslim community and no one can afford to ignore its point of view.

The writer is chief economist, NCAER, and was member-secretary of the Sachar Committee. Views are his own

[Raj Malhotra]

No one else seems to have replied, so let me try:

Code:
Thermal Power Nuclear
Installation cost
Cost /Mwe (Rs) 40,000,000 -
Cost /Mwe ($) 1,000,000 1,500,000

Fuel Cost
Fuel Qty/Year 638.75 tonne/Yr 22.5 Kg/year
Cost/unit fuel $75 /tonne $220 /kg
Cost/Mwe/Year $47,906 /MWe/yr $4,950 /MWe/yr

Lifetime period 40 Yr 40 Yr
Lifetime cost $2.9 Million $1.7 Million
% lifecycyle cost 100% 58%

I have taken a slightly different approach by recognizing that money has a time value i.e. money invested upfront is more valuable compared to money to be spent 20 years down the road. As such I have tried to work out the cost per kwh for both rather than total lifetime costs.


First, the capital cost:

1. USD 1.5 Million capital cost with a payback of 20 years at 7% per annum, works out to an equated monthly payment of 11,629 dollars or 387.65 dollars per day. A 24 hour period will generate 24 MWh or 24,000 kwh/units. So the capital cost per kwh is 387.65/24,000= 1.62 cents. If the capital cost rises to USD 1.75 million per installed MW, then ofcourse the per kwh cost will rise to 1.89 cents.

2. Based on the same numbers, the cost per kwh for a coal fired thermal power station at Rs 4 crores per MW will work out to 1.08 cents.


Now for the fuel costs:

1. Uranium yellowcake costing $100/lb works out to USD 11.88 Million for the entire year for the plant at a consumption of 54 tons for the year. That translates into USD 33,000 per day (based on a 360 day financial year), for a capacity of 2400 MW. Per MW the cost will be USD 33,000/2400= USD 13.75 per day. USD 13.75 per 24 hours is the uranium cost for 24 MWh or 24,000 kwh. So the cost per kwh is USD 13.75/24,000= 0.05 cents.

2. For the coal fired power plant, the coal requirement for a 24 hour period per MW is: 10,000/2400= 4.166 tons. At USD 75/ton, the coal cost for 24MWh is USD 312.50. Therefore the per kwh cost is 312.50/24000=1.3 cents per kwh.

Total costs:

Nuclear:

Capital 1.62 cents + fuel 0.05 cents = 1.67 cents/kwh.

Coal:

Capital 1.08 cents + fuel 1.3 cents = 2.38 cents/kwh.



Caveats:

This assumes 100% load factor. Obviously as the load factor declines to a more realistic 85%-90%, the capital costs remain the same even if fuel costs decline and hence the per kwh cost will go up 1.92 cents for the nuclear plant and 2.57 cents for the coal fired plant.

It is interesting to note that under these conditions, the price of uranium yellow cake will have to rise to about USD 1300/lb, about 13 times its present price for its total cost to be equal to that of a coal fired plant based on its current price of coal of USD 75/ton.

Any feedback is welcome.

A very good analysis. Now to use this info, it would mean that for builiding a reserve for life time of 1000MW plant we need US$ 200million and for even 100,000MW for say 10 years we need around US$ 5billion which should help us tide over most of the difficulties even if fuel supply is stopped.


Idev you will have to add some more things to the analysis:-

Cost of ash disposal vs spend fuel storage/reprocessing
Shorter life of coal plant vs 60-70years for nuclear plant but dismantling the plant after its life time.
Increase in uranium cost projected over time

[enqyoobOLD]

Mohan Raju saar:

I think the Ronen Sen HC (Headless Chicken) comment was like the Sreesanth Beamer.

***********Unintentional************
But on target. And effective. Brave men, both, and in the service of India.

Consider the Ambassador's job is Damage Control in DupliCity.

[Arun_S]

What is the "some concern" he had about the full fusion yield?

**************
Arun_S wrote:

Dr Santhanam team leader POK-II (head of DRDO at that time and later SA to PM) is in no doubt about successful second stage ignition, although he has some concern about full fusion yield, which is similar to Dr PK.Iyanger.

What is point you are trying make? Why are you so inquisitive?

[SSridhar]

ldev, in your calculations, have you taken into account the cost of transportation of coal, which is quite significant ? Also, the low calorific value of Indian coal ?

[Arun_S]

A very good analysis. Now to use this info, it would mean that for builiding a reserve for life time of 1000MW plant we need US$ 200million and for even 100,000MW for say 10 years we need around US$ 5billion which should help us tide over most of the difficulties even if fuel supply is stopped.


Idev you will have to add some more things to the analysis:-

Cost of ash disposal vs spend fuel storage/reprocessing
Shorter life of coal plant vs 60-70years for nuclear plant but dismantling the plant after its life time.
Increase in uranium cost projected over time

Raj: But the Ldev second order cost/effects analysis is simple enough to throw the book at commies who pull fictitious number out of their musharraf to show that Nuclear power is much more expensive than good old Coal thermal power.

What you are asking is good for a through cost comparison that accounts for 3'rd order effects, but that level of detail is beyond the mental faculty of politicians, in particular the communist politicians are real brain challenged degenerative breed.

[svinayak]

BTW, I see that the demand to Amend the Constitution (Although There is Nothing Wrong With It) Rolling Eyes , so brilliantly articulated here by certain postors and now published by its authors M. Patkar, A. Roy and S. Pandey,

Since you have very "intelligently" put me in the league of Patkars, Roys and Pandeys on the logic that they are also demanding something which is same as I am demanding, I know it sounds absurd but so is your clubbing. It seems you have not read the article by Patkar et al. Let me quote from their artile - "However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner."

If you had not posted this actual article most people here would have
believed that people are supporting A Roy and be tarred.

[Tanaji]

The other 3rd order impact is the issue of carbon credits trading which is going to be THE most important issue if the proposed scheme of Co2 emissions become a reality in the next 10 years.

[SSridhar]

Ratan Tata's take on the n-deal

Tata Sons Chairman Ratan Tata has said any failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal would be a "serious setback" for India and could impact inflow of foreign direct investments to the country.

In an interview with Karan Thapar for Devil's Advocate programme on television channel CNN-IBN, Tata said the civil nuclear deal with the US was in many ways the best possible thing that had happened to India in a long time.

Asked would it be a setback if the deal didn't materialise, he said: "I believe it is a serious setback to India. I believe the only people happy to see this not happening are probably Pakistan and China."

Apprehending implications on FDI inflows if the deal were to fail, Tata said: "I think it could because I think there would be repercussions and there would be reactions."

The industry doyen felt a need for the present political system to change and take a re-look at ideologies.

On a question if the Left needed to reinvent itself, he declined a direct reply but said: "We all need to reinvent ourselves. Even the Vatican reinvents itself."

Hitting out at political parties for "opposing for the sake of opposing," Tata said: "I really do wish we could go back to the days when we had stronger coalitions or single parties in government and a two-party system in the House where you really dealt with issues and serious ideologies."

[Shankar]

In terms of energy supply, we obviously should be moving away from the sources that do most to change the global climate. Coal-fired electricity is by far the worst offender, so the top priority should be to replace it with cleaner forms of electricity. Since there is increasing pressure to consider nuclear power as part of the mix, I want to spell out why I don't agree.

The first point is that the economics of nuclear power just don't stack up.

The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks - a resource of huge potential in Australia - also promises to be less costly than nuclear. In the USA, direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar during the same period amounted to only $5.5 billion. That's wind and solar together. During the first 15 years of development, nuclear subsidies amounted to $15.30 per kWh generated. The comparable figure for wind energy was 46 cents per kWh during its first 15 years of development.

We are 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet nuclear energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the USA peaked about 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the rate of increase in the level of different forms of electricity supply for the decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly 30 per cent, solar more than 20 per cent, gas 2 per cent, oil and coal 1 per cent, nuclear 0.6 per cent. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This is true even of countries that already have nuclear power. With billions already invested in this expensive technology, they have more reason to look favourably on it than we do.

The second problem is that nuclear power is far too slow a response to the urgent problem of climate change. Even if there were political agreement today to build nuclear power stations, it would be at least 15 years before the first one could deliver electricity. Some have suggested 25 years would be a more realistic estimate, particularly considering the levels of public and political opposition in Australia. We can't afford to wait decades for a response. Global warming is already imposing heavy social, environmental and economic costs. By contrast to nuclear, wind turbines could be delivering power within a year and efficiency can be cutting pollution tomorrow. These are much more appropriate responses.

The third problem is that nuclear power is not carbon-free. Significant amounts of fossil fuel energy are used to mine and process uranium ores, enrich the fuel and build nuclear power stations. I was working in a UK university when their electricity industry proposed a crash programme to build 36 nuclear power stations in 15 years to avert the coming energy shortage. When our research group did the sums, we found that there would have indeed been an energy shortage if the crash programme had gone ahead - caused by the huge amounts of energy needed to build the power stations! In the longer term, over their operating lifetime, the nuclear power stations would have released less carbon dioxide than burning coal, but in the short term they would have made the situation worse.

The same argument holds true today: building nuclear power stations would actually increase greenhouse pollution in the short term, and in the long term they put much more carbon dioxide into the air than renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power.

The fourth, related, problem is that high grade uranium ores are comparatively scarce. The best estimate is that the known high grade ores could supply the present demand for 40 or 50 years. So if we expanded the nuclear contribution to global electricity supply from the present level, about 15 per cent, to replace all the coal-fired power stations, the resources would only last about a decade or so. There are large deposits of lower grade ores, but these require much more conventional energy for extraction and processing, producing much more greenhouse pollution.

Let's not forget, uranium, like oil, gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are our only in-finite energy options.

s nuclear power part of Australia’s global warming solutions?
ACF President Professor Ian Lowe, AO
+
ACF President Professor Ian Lowe, AO

By Professor Ian Lowe AO, ACF President

Proponents of uranium mining are again loudly promoting nuclear power as a 'climate friendly' energy option. ACF President Professor Ian Lowe's address to the National Press Club, reproduced below, explains why nuclear is no solution to climate change...

- Do we need nuclear power that too from imported uranium

[sraj]

From the AG Noorani piece:
[quote]Indeed, under Article 5.6 (a) the US “is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic lawsâ€

[ldev]

Raj Malhotra, SSridhar,

As Arun_S states, my analysis based on first principles was to debunk the so called "experts", who have an agenda of falsifying the comparative cost of nuclear and coal power. I deliberately kept it simple so that it could be used to counter false propaganda. The moment one goes into greater detail, typically you loose sight of the basic facts.

Also as SSridhar states, the coal in India has low calorific value, high ash content and because of the distances involved from the location of coal deposits to the consuming centers where electricity is used, very high transportation costs for coal or transmission losses if pit head thermal plants are used. Also the low calorific value means that more tons of coal are needed per installed MW capacity.

As far as storage and reprocessing of spent fuel is concerned, in countries such as the US, France etc. where nuclear power accounts for a significant percentage of generation capacity, a levy is added to each kwh which goes towards a designated fund to be spent on long term storage. In the US e.g. 0.1 cents per kwh is added for this purpose. Again in the US, the total capital cost available from published sources for the Yucca mountain long term storage facility is $4.9 billion with an ongoing annual cost of $205 Million projected each year upto 2116. While this may appear a large number, it is being used for over more than 100,000 MW of installed capacity plus many military facilities. As such the per kwh cost is only 0.1 cents i.e. 4 paisa per kwh. As of now storage is clearly much cheaper than reprocessing even based on the current price of $100/lb uranium yellowcake. One will have to do a separate study as to at what price, reprocessing becomes economically viable. India's reasons for reprocessing have up until now been tied up in security related reasons.

My numbers on 4200 tons of ash produced daily from burning 10,000 tons of coal in a 2400MW coal fired plant are based on high calorific value, low ash content coal, of the kind that India could import to establish thermal plants along the coastline. I was looking at the actual ash produced from the Nashik Thermal Power Station of the Maharashtra Electricity Board and many years ago when its installed capacity was only 920MW, it was producing about 3000 tons of ash per day, so on that basis if it had a capacity of 2400MW, it would be producing more than 7500 tons of ash per day.

In India inspite of an effort on the part of NTPC and some others to use this ash for making bricks and other uses, at last count more than 80% of the ash is unutilized and just pollutes the ground and storage ponds. In industrialized countries, something like 80%-90% of the ash is used for slurries, making bricks etc. The pollution and health hazards associated with ash have never been quantified, but as Tanaji says, if CO2 emissions become a major issue, then this will have to be costed or if trading in carbon credits takes off, then the market will determine the cost of per unit pollution.

[ldev]

Bottom-line is: we will not be able to pronounce final judgment on this deal until we evaluate this 123 together with the final proposed language of the NSG waiver and the IAEA safeguards agreement with its 'corrective measures' clauses.

Somehow I dont think that will be the "bottom line". As far as I remember, the naysayers, EBs, call them what you want to:

first said that the bottom line was the Hyde Act for which they waited with baited breath.

then when that was out, they said that the bottom line was when the text of the 123 agreement would be out and the US agrees to reprocessing rights for India which they swore would never happen.

now that the 123 text is out, the next effort was to do equal equal with the Chinese 123.

Now that the India China equal equal has been proven, the bottom line has shifted to the NSG waiver and the IAEA safeguards agreement.

I think somebody should bet their musharaff that when those two documents are out, the "bottom line" will shift again to the horizon.

[Shankar]

well arguing the cost of nuclear power generation we are loosing the basic point-energy security of the nation ,the point on which the whole argument in favor of nuclear energy deal rests

This basic presumption is not valid since while we have enough coal for next 50 yrs or so we donot have the nuclear fuel namely uranium -period which have to be imported

secondly power is just a part of the energy mix used in the industry -the fuel use part cannot be addressed by imported uranium unless all vehicles and locos and aircraft switch to electric traction etc

Thirdly the money that need by invested to make any significant change
say today we produce less than 3000 mw of a total 100000 mw generated from nuclear reactors and even if we increase to 20000 mw by 2030(2020 is an absurd presumption) it will be still more or less the same fraction because many more thermal/hydel and wind power units are coming in

It will be safe to assume by 2030 when we have a total generation of say 300000 mw -500000mw about only 20000 mw will be available from nuclear route

Nuclear power works for countries like japan and france because lack of any fossil fuel supply .Even for US nuclear power is costlier than coal power though they have close to 100000 mw nuclear power capability

Japan is moving towards LNG more and more from nuclear power

a nuclear power plant takes 5-7 yrs to make a coal power plant can be put up in 4 yrs and gas based power plant in less than 2 yrs to take care of immediate energy shortfall

Hydel power can be more effectively developed and is truely renewable and pollution free .we have a huge untapped potential and so is wind power

all the while we can develop alternate fuel sources like coal be methane ,ocean floor methane hydrate ,more natural gas sources etc using the money saved from abrogating the capital intensive nuclear deal
right now

Surely Reliance and Tatas will come out in favor of nuke deal ,they are the ones earmarked for private participation

do you seriousy believe uranium supply will be more reliable than crude
or coal in the years to come

Please dont forget the world nuclear power ratio is expecyed to come down from 165 to 8 5 or less in near future

why ???

[Gerard]

In the longer term, over their operating lifetime, the nuclear power stations would have released less carbon dioxide than burning coal, but in the short term they would have made the situation worse.

Intellectually vacuous and deceitful.....

I was working in a UK university when their electricity industry proposed a crash programme to build 36 nuclear power stations in 15 years to avert the coming energy shortage. When our research group did the sums, we found that there would have indeed been an energy shortage if the crash programme had gone ahead - caused by the huge amounts of energy needed to build the power stations

Oooh... he did sums!!

A shortage of electrical power would be made worse by building the power plant?
I wasn't aware that heavy construction equipment needed to be hooked up to the local electrical grid... they must not have diesel engines, generators and compressors in that part of the UK.

decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life

He needs to come to India

Reborn reactor

The first reactor at the Madras Atomic Power Station gets a 30-year life extension after the replacement of all its main components in what is considered an engineering feat with few parallels.

[Rishirishi]

I think the ultimate goal with the Uclear ower is the Thorium powerd plants, that can give India 500 000 mw.

[sraj]

Some comments on this so-called India-China comparison. Again, let me emphasize this does not mean I am pro-deal or anti-deal, or that I wish the India 123 was identical to the China 123 (what a juvenile reaction!).

[quote]Pranab Dhal Samanta
Posted online: Friday, August 24, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

Parliament will most likely debate the 123 text next week. One big talking point: did China get a better deal? Trawling through both 123 texts, Pranab Dhal Samanta explains why the opposite is true

National Laws

China: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

India: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

Reality Check: There is considerable opposition here on the question of the emphasis on “national lawsâ€

[enqyoobOLD]

Hu dat? What does this dude know about ANYTHING? Does he have a PhD from Hahvahd or Le Sorbonne or JNU in International Studies? Divinity? Sanskrit? Genocide like Comrade Pol Pot?

If N-deal fails, only Pak and China can be happy: Tata
ibnlive.com
RATAN TATA SPEAKS: Tata describes the N-deal as the best possible thing that has happened to India.

New Delhi: Chairman of Tata Sons Ratan Tata has said that uncertainty in the political environment will certainly cause India to stumble and will cause the momentum of growth.

Speaking exclusively to CNN-IBN on Devil’s Advocate Tata said that a mid-term election would make India's target of 10 per cent GDP growth ‘difficult’.

Talking about the Indo-US nuclear deal Tata described the deal as ‘in many ways the best possible thing that has happened to India in a long while’. He said if it did not materialise it would be ‘a serious set back to India’. He said there would be ‘repercussions and reactions’ on FDI inflows if the deal didn't go through.

He also said that if the deal did not materialise "the only people who would be happy were the people of Pakistan and the people of China".


(Hu else is there than Hu?)
Tata also spoke about the need for government to be bold adding India needs to be a more open financial economy. He said this would require changing the mindset and legacy inherited from the days of the planned economy. He also said the private sector needs to conquer its fear of competition.

He praised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but maintained the Government has not been able to perform as it could have or should have performed.

Tata also revealed that he could step down as Chairman of Tatas before the end of the five more years the company's rules permit him to serve.

Here are some excerpts of the exclusive interview.

Ratan Tata: I fear the uncertainty in the political environment will certainly cause India to stumble, will cause the momentum of growth, which we have enjoyed, to pause if not reverse and I for one have been extremely encouraged by what has happened in India - it started in the last regime and continued under Congress rule - of India moving forward and becoming an economic power house.

Karan Thapar:And that could start unravelling with a mid-term election?

Ratan Tata:I believe it could if there is a mid-term election and I hope there is none.

Karan Thapar: What would happen to our target of 10 per cent growth? Would a mid-term election make it unattainable?

Ratan Tata:I wouldn't want to comment on that but certainly it would make things difficult.

Karan Thapar: If the Indo-US nuclear deal doesn't materialize, is this a serious loss and set back for India?

Ratan Tata: The civil nuclear deal with the US is in many ways the best possible thing that has happened to India in a long while. Apart from the fact that it enables India to go ahead on a much larger scale in the much needed area of power - of nuclear power which is clean power - it also takes away many of the dual use sanctions which have hurt India's technological access. Over time this will give India a tremendously powerful position in the knowledge industry, in R&D, in high technology. I believe the benefits the nuclear deal will bring to the country will be enormous and I'm very sorry that on various issues this is being beleaguered.

I believe it's a serious setback to India. I believe the only people happy to see this not happening are probably Pakistan and China.

Karan Thapar:And could it also have an impact on FDI inflows?

Ratan Tata: I think it could because I think there would be repercussions and there would be reactions. I really do believe that if it doesn't happen the only people who would be happy and benefited by it not happening will be the people of Pakistan and the people of China.

Karan Thapar: So if the deal doesn't happen India would lose?

Ratan Tata:You might say that. Yes.

Karan Thapar: Do we lack the confidence to be bold? Do we lack the vision? Or the courage?

Ratan Tata: If you look at China and India, one glaring difference is that everything China has done has been enormously bold, in fact unbelievably bold, on the verge of seeming to be an overkill. (In contrast) we're always growing in small increments and we're always behind the curve and we're always trying to catch up and perhaps the time has come to go ahead of that curve and think really boldy.

I think its part of our culture. We've come from a planned economy and we just did what we had to do. I think that's a culture of the past.

Karan Thapar:So we have to change our way of thinking?

Ratan Tata: Yes and we have to have the courage to be able to live with over supply because the planned economy and licence raj has created another mindset which is that you don't live in an open, competitive world. You live in a world which buffers and protects you.

Karan Thapar:And we have to live in competition and with competition?

Ratan Tata: And to be able to win in a competitive scenario India is very entrepreneurial but somehow in the private sector we are afraid to do that. We are afraid of competition. We are afraid of foreign competition. We often don't want to see this take place.

Karan Thapar:So conquer fear?

Ratan Tata: Conquer fear and have an urge to win.

Karan Thapar: Has the government talked more about reform than it has delivered?

Ratan Tata: To some extent that could be true. It has been very vocal on reform. The Prime Minister has genuinely and seriously wanted to see the reform take place. I think the political system has not allowed delivery of that reform to take place.

Karan Thapar:Is the Left needs to look at its politicies and ask itself are those policies relevant today? It needs to reinvent itself in the light of what India has become as opposed to what it used to be?

Ratan Tata: I would not say that in so many words except, again, I would repeat we all need to reinvent ourselves. Even the Vatican reinvents itself.

Karan Thapar:Do you think you might have a successor in place fairly soon?

Ratan Tata: How long I will stay will depend on my ability to put a successor in place. As per the rules that we have I have five more years to go. I may not stay all of those five years if I have a successor in place before then.

Karan Thapar:So, in a sense, you're waiting to liberate yourself?

Ratan Tata: In many ways that's something I would absolutely agree with you. That's something I'm longing to do.

Watch the full interview on CNN-IBN's Devil’s Advocate on Sunday 8:30 PM

[sraj]

Bottom-line is: we will not be able to pronounce final judgment on this deal until we evaluate this 123 together with the final proposed language of the NSG waiver and the IAEA safeguards agreement with its 'corrective measures' clauses.

Somehow I dont think that will be the "bottom line". As far as I remember, the naysayers, EBs, call them what you want to:

first said that the bottom line was the Hyde Act for which they waited with baited breath(comment: and the Hyde Act has been widely acknowledged, including by GoI, to have many objectionable features. In fact, it is GoI which has been asking that judgment be withheld until 123 is finalized).

then when that was out, they said that the bottom line was when the text of the 123 agreement would be out (comments: yes, and the 123 text shows that the US fuel supply assurances are not as clear-cut as the Indian commitment to IAEA safeguards in 'perpetuity' which survive a termination of this 123). and the US agrees to reprocessing rights for India which they swore would never happen (comment: don't recall any naysayer making that statement).

now that the 123 text is out, the next effort was to do equal equal with the Chinese 123 (comment: the comparison with the China 123 and in fact, how the whole debate in the US went wrt China has been on-going since 2005 in both the US and India. In fact, it seems to have been done more systematically and thoroughly in the US than in India, to all outward appearances -- something we can learn from. If GoI did not do this, it would be guilty of serious dereliction of duty in safeguarding Indian national interests. The comparison has only gathered steam in the last few weeks since it is now possible to compare actual texts of the two agreements, instead of looking at hypothetical scenarios which was the case earlier).

Now that the India China equal equal has been proven (question: what has been proven?), the bottom line has shifted to the NSG waiver and the IAEA safeguards agreement (comment: the NSG waiver and IAEA safeguards will clarify whether, together with this 123, this is a deal India can live with or should reject outright. For example: if the NSG waiver language creates a multilateral legality with 45 countries wrt testing, something that would be even more onerous than CTBT, it will have a bearing on India's decision.)

I think somebody should bet their musharaff that when those two documents are out, the "bottom line" will shift again to the horizon (comment: no doubt there are many diehard opponents of this deal in India as there are in the US. They are entitled to their views. The majority view should decide final course of action. Many people would like to wait for full information before making up their mind -- anything objectionable in that?).

[geeth]

>>>Tata Sons Chairman Ratan Tata has said any failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal would be a "serious setback" for India and could impact inflow of foreign direct investments to the country.

Did we hear the same kind of arguments before? oh! yeah!! when People in Maharashtra said Dhabol power is too costly to buy.

To me, the jist of what this 123...means to India is this:

India gives a stick to Uncle, with which it can beat us at will in future. Be it foreign policy, Nuclear fuel, or R&D, they are going to have their say in our future decision making process (once sufficient number of plants are set up and we have no other option but to run them), which I dispise. In today's scenario, Unkeel doesn't have much control over India's Nuclear behaviour, because we have nothing/very little to lose by their sanctions. Even then, wherever they had the leverage, they screwed us as much they could (LCA for eg).

Once the IAEA & NSG talks are over, it is going to be worse than any better. Part of the blame should rest with Indian babus who negotiated the deal & MMS. Rest of the credit goes to US for their smartness.

I don't understand why people run around like 'headless chicken' defending the deal.

[Rye]

geeth wrote:

India gives a stick to Uncle, with which it can beat us at will in future. Be it foreign policy, Nuclear fuel, or R&D, they are going to have their say in our future decision making process (once sufficient number of plants are set up and we have no other option but to run them), which I dispise.

But Uncle cannot enter the safeguarded facilities, so how, in your POV, will they be able to slide tentacles into the local program? This is a serious question. TIA.


How will hurdles be placed on the local program with this kind of cooperation?

[Tilak]

Govt racing to beat deadline on N-deal
Surya Gangadharan / CNN-IBN
Saturday , August 25, 2007

[quote]New Delhi: The Left is clearly showing signs of cooling down with the UPA over the Indo-US nuclear deal. Now the experts say the real issue is - getting the deal approved by the US Congress by the year-end and for this an early approval at the IAEA and the NSG is imperative.

CPM Politburo member Sitaram Yechury said, “Who said there was a crisis? Where was it and where has it gone?â€

[Gerard]

PM to commission Tarapur N-power units

[Rye]

link

Following Sonia's suggestion, the government has now decided to go slow on the nuclear deal. Accordingly, the talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency will be postponed to as much as possible. Efforts are also on to form a mechanism to iron out the UPA-Left differences over the issue. The PM's firm stand on the nuke deal will, however, be adhered to.

As much as possible?

[enqyoobOLD]

>>>Tata Sons Chairman Ratan Tata has said any failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal would be a "serious setback" for India and could impact inflow of foreign direct investments to the country.

Did we hear the same kind of arguments before? oh! yeah!! when People in Maharashtra said Dhabol power is too costly to buy.

To me, the jist of what this 123...means to India is this:

India gives a stick to Uncle, with which it can beat us at will in future. Be it foreign policy, Nuclear fuel, or R&D, they are going to have their say in our future decision making process (once sufficient number of plants are set up and we have no other option but to run them), which I dispise. In today's scenario, Unkeel doesn't have much control over India's Nuclear behaviour, because we have nothing/very little to lose by their sanctions. Even then, wherever they had the leverage, they screwed us as much they could (LCA for eg).

Once the IAEA & NSG talks are over, it is going to be worse than any better. Part of the blame should rest with Indian babus who negotiated the deal & MMS. Rest of the credit goes to US for their smartness.

I don't understand why people run around like 'headless chicken' defending the deal.

Oh, THANK YOU! I am so glad that someone has FINALLY explained the pros and cons of this deal so clearly and thoughtfully. Makes the 250,000 posts on the subject before this, completely unnecessary.

[Tilak]

Yechury sees no crisis for government
Special Correspondent

“There are stop and eject buttons, we’re telling the government to press only the pause buttonâ€

[geeth]

>>>But Uncle cannot enter the safeguarded facilities, so how, in your POV, will they be able to slide tentacles into the local program? This is a serious question. TIA.

Well, Condi Rice need not have a study tour of BARC complex for US to armtwist India on its foreign policy - they did it by hanging the carrot called J18 agreement during the Iran voting. I hope you understood that part.

Now look at the future scene this way. After the agreement is signed, we are going to import nuclear reactors (or else the whole thing is meaningless). This import of nuclear reactors is not a one time affair. We need the support from the supplier of the plant to run it safely, uninterrupted. The support would be in the form of technical support for the plant, supply of critical spares, fuel, safety aspects etc. There could be a scenario in future, where by our policies or behaviour or opinion does not exactly converge with that of US. In the worst case, the US could be at the receiving end of our decisions (for eg., we develop ICBMs which can reach the US shores). In such cases, they could say that unless India rolls back its ICBM programme (for eg.,), they would not be in a position to give support to the nuclear reactors already supplied to us. Worse, some rabid Senetors may bring in a new law prohibiting co-operation with India if we continue with our ICBM programme. We will be left with the choice of either go ahead with our ICBM programme (eg) or get the support for runnning the nuclear reactors for which we have invested billions. By this, Our present set of babus and nethas would be creating a handicap for the future generations.

Further they could also bring in instabilty to our economy..Many may not be aware that almost 50% of the daily volume trade in BSE was done by Credit Suisse First Boston, before they were fined by SEBI (subsequently they pulled out of their operation in India).

They could also tell us to part with our FBR technology and the upcoming Thorium technology if we want further support in future after the imported reactors are in place.

In more ways than one, we will be inclined to do what Unkeel tells us to do, than what we want to do. What I say is a distinct possibility, and I wish it doesn't happen.

All these may appear as paranoia to some, but it remains a fact that whoever had made friendship with America had remained impotent ever since. It is the fact of life, and I would prefer Indians to decide their future than Sonia Maino handing over the future of our country in a platter to Unkeel through MMS.

[geeth]

>>>Makes the 250,000 posts on the subject before this, completely unnecessary.

Whatever it is, most of your posts on this subject are unnecessary.

[Rye]

geeth wrote:

Well, Condi Rice need not have a study tour of BARC complex for US to armtwist India on its foreign policy - they did it by hanging the carrot called J18 agreement during the Iran voting. I hope you understood that part.

So now you are talking about foreign policy influence rather than influence on the local program.

We need the support from the supplier of the plant to run it safely, uninterrupted. The support would be in the form of technical support for the plant, supply of critical spares, fuel, safety aspects etc. There could be a scenario in future, where by our policies or behaviour or opinion does not exactly converge with that of US. In the worst case, the US could be at the receiving end of our decisions (for eg., we develop ICBMs which can reach the US shores). In such cases, they could say that unless India rolls back its ICBM programme (for eg.,), they would not be in a position to give support to the nuclear reactors already supplied to us.

Is it anyone else's fault if India dos not capitalize on the manufacture of supplies etc. and kicks up the ability of the local industry to support future AHWR programs?

Worse, some rabid Senetors may bring in a new law prohibiting co-operation with India if we continue with our ICBM programme.

If relations with the US are not good, as you posited, why should this be an issue. The Tarapur fiasco, did it weaken us or strengthen us?

They could also tell us to part with our FBR technology and the upcoming Thorium technology if we want further support in future after the imported reactors are in place.

And we will simply just hand it over to them, uh huh.

All these may appear as paranoia to some

You are appearing paranoid simply because you make the accusation but have not thought through how the US can indeed mess with the Indian program. Such an eventuality is surely possible, but it needs more than a vague fear that Indian babus and netas are pushovers who cannot protect India's interests.

[Shankar]

So now you are talking about foreign policy influence rather than influence on the local program.

- both I should say ,the local attempts to make AHWR and FBR will be starved of funds as readymade LWR from USA come in at 4 billion plus a piece along with australian fuel

Is it anyone else's fault if India dos not capitalize on the manufacture of supplies etc. and kicks up the ability of the local industry to support future AHWR programs?

AHWR technology is very very different from LWR running on enriched uranium from US . LWR technology being made available will no way help local industry develop AWWR under development. Even US do not have any proven natural water cooled heavy water moderated reactor design utilising thorium

And we will simply just hand it over to them, uh huh.

we are doing it right now by cutting of 70% fissile material availability to weapon programme,voting against Iran ,spoiling relationship with russia,going for outdated aircraft like f-18,allowing IAEC inspection of our nuclear facility,allowing discussion with NPT regime,possible joining of fissile material cut off treaty in a diluted form,unilateral ban on testing
how many more examples do you really need?

[Rye]

Shankar wrote:

both I should say ,the local attempts to make AHWR and FBR will be starved of funds as readymade LWR from USA come in at 4 billion plus a piece along with australian fuel

If this is done, shouldn't the issue be taken up then? Or should we stop making all plans because of distrust of the GoI?

AHWR technology is very very different from LWR running on enriched uranium from US . LWR technology being made available will no way help local industry develop AWWR under development.

So you mean to tell me that a manufacture who gains knowledge of how to make parts for the LWR will be unable to manufacture parts for anything else? Besides, without ininterrupted power for a long, sustained period of time, how can India have any manufacturing ability?

Even US do not have any proven natural water cooled heavy water moderated reactor design utilising thorium

Yes, so the Indian program must be protected, but why is such a thing beyond hope in your view? Incompetence in the GoI?

we are doing it right now by cutting of 70% fissile material availability to weapon programme,

So you do not believe that the Indian experts got the numbers right and did not lose anything by making such a concession?

voting against Iran ,

What has Iran done for us lately? They just sacked the oil minister and nullified all the deals they made with us? Any reason why their sensibilities should be our concern if it is not reciprocated?

spoiling relationship with russia,

India is buying reactors from Russia too, so how is that "spoiling relationship"?

going for outdated aircraft like f-18,

Nothing wrong with having both US and Russian aircraft and acquiring better capability to build a better LCA.

allowing IAEC inspection of our nuclear facility,

Civilian nuclear facilities, "separation" is a key part of this agreement.
The IAEA does not come anywhere near our programs.

allowing discussion with NPT regime,

We are still not signatories of the NPT...the whole SNW / NWS difference.

possible joining of fissile material cut off treaty in a diluted form

Have you bothered to read what is being proposed in this diluted form? I had posted it earlier -- it should be in the archives. It is not what you think, and besides, the catchphrase is "multilateral and verifiable".

,unilateral ban on testing

A "voluntary, self-imposed ban"...with "voluntary" being the key word.

how many more examples do you really need?

Keep them coming.

[bala]

Time has come for India to reflect on the point in time in History at which we Indians are currently at. Opposition for the sake of ideology is a thing of the past since we are in a recovery phase from the vestiges of the British Loot of India. What we need is a gigantic supersizing of the economy and frankly we are looking at 10x improvement in all metrics across the board. We are euphemistically speaking in execution mode and any help is appreciated. All the strategic long term analysis / paralysis is best left aside since it is not going to help and we are at a stage where we cannot dictate terms. These ideology arguments are completely inane and boring and only contribute to intellectual masturbation (ref. Argumentative Indian by Amaryta Sen). Do we need nuclear energy, why give a stick to the US, give us same wording as China’s 123, etc are nice coffee table discussions.

In retrospect Indians will view these silly debates as “What was that all about with those bygone generation of Indiansâ€

[Baljeet]

Both sides of the bench have valid argument. There is certain amount of blame to be shared by US, India, Commies, US congress, NPT Ayatollahs, etc. India of 2007 is not India of 1997. Decade has passed. Dabohal was needed at that time, Bal Thackrey was handsomely respected for supporting the dobohal power plant.
Question is, what is more important Ego satisfaction or lifting millions of people out of poverty?
Communists always say, whad a bunderful job china has done. Id is a such a frendly countree? If they will get their blinders off, they will see all the progress of china is consolidated in small Beiging, Shanghai, Guangzhao etc. They have their own share of social unrest, declining food production, contaminated water supplies. You will never hear any communist acknowledge the dark side of chinese progress but they are always very quick and condescendingly deride indian efforts.

Wasn't AB Vajpayee the same person who wanted to drop his Dhoti in haste and sign CTBT and NPT after Shakti blast. The day was saved by none other than Madam Gandhi who advised against jumping to conclusion.

Yechury and karat are smelling blood to become first Communists PM and HM in Democratic nation. whereas the entire premise of communism is at odds with democracy.

The entire Indian leadership reminds me of pre WW1 senile leadership of France who were blinded by their ego, power hunger, their place in history etc.

Indian leadership will definitely be remembered by future generations as "Blind Man of Hindustan".

US is not the same superpower that it was in 90's. It is stuck in quagmire, running up high debt, these might be some signs of weakened superpower. When everyone is pulling their pound of flesh from a tired gorrilla why not we join the crowd and get our fair share.
What will it prove if test nuclear device now. It will sooth our Ego and may massage our Machoism, will not deliver any tangible results. We badly need energy to support the businesses, service and rural economy.
My Question is, do these Netas Commies, Con-Greasey, No Development Agenda care about majority of people. They get to live in AC houses, escorted and protected by India's finest, while majority of the population has to spend nights and days working and sleeping in scorching hot and humid weather. If they are such nationalists why don't they live like an average national of this nation. Give up your elitism and get down to reality.

[enqyoobOLD]

There goes another thread. Maybe one way is to post 12 simultaneous nuke threads.

1. News
2. Whines
3. More whines
4. More more whines
5. Nah-nah-nah-nah
6. The Yanks are Out to Get us!
7. China got a better deal!
8. Amend the Constitution!
9. Technical discussion on nukes (NO )
10. Energy issues discussion (NO )
11. List of Excuses For Scrapping the Deal
12.

[ramana]

N^3 How about giving it a rest and stop stirring the pot? Let the others get to the same level of knowledge as you have. The whines will stop once folks understand and it takes times.

Thanks, ramana

[Roop]

--- deleted. Double post. ---

[Roop]

Both sides of the bench have valid argument.

Wrong! Opponents of the deal do not have valid arguments. (If they do, they’ve kept them well hidden). All they have, all they have offered up so far are phobias, paranoia and polticial rants.

Here is a summary what pro-deal people list as the potential benefits of the deal:

• It is an acknowledgement, by the US and the “international communityâ€

[Calvin]

MR: Nice summary. The other issues that the opponents tout include:

1. India is not getting the same 123 deal as China.
2. Look at what happened to Tarapur. So, whatever the USG says, cannot be trusted.

[ramana]

MJ Akbar in Deccan Chronicle

[quote]
Chicken Soup
Byline by M.J. Akbar


Frustration is unprofessional in a government servant. It is a gesture of personal peeve, contrary to the ethos of governance, which must at all times be an expression of collective will. There are some unusual occasions that become even more demanding, as in the case of the Indo-US nuclear deal, when a decision must be raised above the limitations of executive authority and sifted through a national consensus, for it commits the nation to a course of action stretching ahead through four or five decades.
Ronen Sen, India’s ambassador to the United States, has sullied a long and distinguished career by an uncharacteristic outburst that reeks of personal frustration. Whether he will enter the history books remains to be seen. But I fear that his description of the deal’s critics as “headless chickenâ€