India Nuclear News And Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Aug 2009 23:36

India’s fast nuclear reactor project costs rise 40 percent

India’s first fast breeder nuclear reactor, coming up at Kalpakkam near here to produce 500 MW of power, is facing a cost overrun of over 40 percent, but officials hope it will achieve criticality by September 2011 after a year’s delay.

N-power the new green fuel, says PM's scientific adviser

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 15 Aug 2009 08:23

From Times of India, 15 August 2009, 03:04am IST
N-power plant remains on paper

PATNA: Inadequate water availability is proving a stumbling block in the way of setting up of Bihar's first nuclear power plant at Rajauli in Nawada
district.

According to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) guidelines, at least 32,000 cubic metre water will be required per hour for running the proposed 4x700 MW plant. The water available at Phulwaria dam at Rajauli will fulfil only one third of the requirement, said an official.

The government has already identified 3,150 acres of land. However, some of the land owners have not consented for the land acquisition as they are totally dependent on their land.

A four-member expert team of the NPCIL had visited Nawada for the site selection in 2007. The team had made an on-the-spot assessment of the proposed site. NPCIL had even then raised doubts over the availability of adequate water required for the plant.

The total cost of the power plant is Rs 22,400 crore, and it would take four to five years to complete it.

Reactor, Reactor everywhere but not a drop to cool!

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Aug 2009 02:09

Gerard wrote:India’s fast nuclear reactor project costs rise 40 percent
India’s first fast breeder nuclear reactor, coming up at Kalpakkam near here to produce 500 MW of power, is facing a cost overrun of over 40 percent, but officials hope it will achieve criticality by September 2011 after a year’s delay.

Haa...... It is now confirmed that DAE Chairmen Anil Kakodkard was indeed selling vaporware last year at IISc; lies to push MMS's 123 deal with Unkill Bush.

See Anil Kakodkar's paper here (and the URL also has the Snake-oil hawking Power point):

Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore 04-July-2008, Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme: Rationale and Perspectives

Mr Kakodkar's secret project team made the PowerPoint-works where on page 6 he tells the unwashed Indian citizens that:

Code: Select all

                         Indian PWHRs (700 MWe)                |      Global Range
Capital Cost $/MWe             1.7 Million                      |     2 - 2.5 million
Construction period             5 -6 years                      |     5 - 6 years
Unit Electricity Cost $/MWh      60                             |     60 - 70

Then on page 7 Kakodkar has termidity to tell the genteel Indian citizens that the Indian Prototype FBR is even cheaper than AHWR:

Code: Select all

                         Indian PFBR(500 MWe)               
Capital Cost Rs/MWe             Rs 69.8 Cr ($1.4 Million)                      
Construction period             7 years                   
Unit Electricity Cost Rs/MWh     3220 ($66)

Competence of hardworking scientists at DAE is shown in the news item where the top Nuclear Scientists forgot to include local taxes in the Project plan

. Just error of few digits here and there.

Till last month DAE has been hawking the PFBR to come on line next year (2010) (see Link), and now the able fellows move the goal post 1 year later.

With the 40% cost escalation the PFBR should now cost $2 million /MWe.

And AHWR is not even in sight of being funded by Honorable Minister responsible for DAE, the Oxford trained MMSingh ! Surely India is going thought severe foriegn crunch and financial turmoil for the last 4 years (the time AHWR has been awaiting government funding) ! Just like not opening domestic Uranium mines and mills in time (delaying it by 4 years) to artificially create shortage to cripple nuclear plants power production to 50% due to fuel shortage.

Jai Ho .....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 08:14

Is this part of 123 to kill the 3 phase project?

Can we expect that 3 phase is not economical, and therefore ................. In a year or so?

Strange.

Only in India? Shoot oneself in the foot.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Aug 2009 08:57

What is so strange about a cost overrun? Or a project proposal that underestimates the true cost?
link

In a 2002 paper in the Journal of the American Planning Association titled “Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie,” Bent Flybvjerg, M.S. Holm, and S. Buhl, reported on the results of a review of 258 public transportation infrastructure projects around the world worth $90 billion. They found that costs had been underestimated prior to completion in 9 out of 10 of those projects, and that actual costs were 28 percent higher on average than estimated costs.

They also found that no learning appears to have occurred over the 70-year period of the projects they examined. Cost underestimation has continued in the same order of magnitude over that time. “Project promoters routinely ignore, hide, or otherwise leave out important project costs in order to make total costs appear low,” they wrote.

In a followup paper in 2005, “Policy and Planning for Large Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures,” Flyvbjerg maintained that these cost understimation problems apply to a wide range of other project types including power plants, dams, water projects, concert halls, museums, sports arenas, convention centers, IT systems, oil and gas extraction projects, aerospace projects, and weapons systems.

Flyvberg pointed out that technical, psychological, and political reasons have been advanced to explain the cost underestimation problem. The psychological explanation is sometimes referred to as “optimism bias,” a form of self deception. The political explanation is that project planners purposefully underestimate project costs in order to get approval for their projects—in other words they lie about the costs.

What were the project proposal costs for Dhruva? How much over budget was that?
What would India's stockpile of weapons grade Plutonium be without Dhruva's output?

link

Incidentally, Mr Kakodkar's career is full of successes out of impossible situations. Three decades ago, he helped design India's flagship atomic reactor Dhruva, much against the pessimism of his own colleagues. His design was dismissed by senior scientists and the project was salvaged only because his department head had faith in him. And when Dhruva went through teething troubles, it was Mr Kakodkar again who worked on it to bring it to full-operational level.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Aug 2009 10:44

What were the project proposal costs for Dhruva? How much over budget was that?

Pls do the honours and tell us.

Shir Kakodkar used that IISc power-point presentation to push 123. Dont recall if Dhurv was ever hawked to show India needs to sign 123?
It does not bother Chairmen of DAE to raise the issue of delayed funding to the AHWR a bit; only give lip service commitment to 3 stage Indian nuclear program.

IMVHO the green back from 40,000 MWe imported LWR projects (reactor business of $100 Billion, and fuel business for another $100 billion) is enough to bind priorities and objectivity.

To me it is a very serious problem for India when Chairmen of DAE tells "patented lies" in his paper and presentation like cost per MWe of the more challenging, complex and lower (500MWe) capacity Fast Breeder Reactor (that too the first prototype) at a cost less then the simpler and bigger (740MWe) PHWR.

arun · Post by **arun** » 16 Aug 2009 11:17

X Posted.

:

Pakistan far better than India in civil nuclear technology, says Chairman PAEC

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Ansar Pervez in unequivocal terms has said Pakistan is far better then India in civil nuclear technology, ……………….

Online News

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 16 Aug 2009 11:25

Costs are never underestimated, "costs are always suppressed to get funding" then the tamasha starts, most of the early stages are all lost to sunk costs/fixed costs and the funding is forced down the throat.

First Law of Funding .

(public sector project or private sector project using public funds via shares)

Remember

Expenditure rises to meet income. ... C. Northcote Parkinson

In public projects
"Expenditure always exceeds the anticpated benifits"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Aug 2009 19:37

Where will India, China get power?

Despite recent diplomatic reassurance, the minister expressed concern about the Obama administration's determination to fulfill the U.S. commitment for American companies to participate in building a civilian nuclear power infrastructure in India. He none too subtly pointed out that the Russians and the French have no hesitation in allowing their companies to build civilian reactors in India.

So later in the day, at a meeting with the U.S. ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, we asked about the minister's comments. The ambassador reassured us that the new administration remains committed to carrying out the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement and to getting American companies into the Indian energy market.

In the midst of his comments, the lights at the U.S. Embassy flickered out, leaving us all in the dark. Nobody flinched. It's apparently a common occurrence.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 16 Aug 2009 20:36

A very basic question. I am reading about 3 stage cycle of India nuclear programme and am not able to understand all the techicalities. My understanding:-

First stage:- Use of Indian U in PHWR, by product is Pu

Second stage:- Use of Pu + Thorium in Sodium cooled FBR reactors, By product weapon grade Pu + U233

Third stage:- Use of Th + U233 in AHWR, by product more U233

Is the above correct? Is it possible to jump to AHWR without sodium cooled reactors as some articles are skeptical of safety of sodium cooled reactors?

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 16 Aug 2009 23:10

Raj Malhotra wrote:A very basic question.
. . .

Is it possible to jump to AHWR without sodium cooled reactors as some articles are skeptical of safety of sodium cooled reactors?

My answer to the above query would be as follows (without subscribing to the expressed skepticism about safety of sodium cooled reactors):

Naturally occurring Thorium (Th232) requires to be "seeded" with a fissile (odd-numbered) isotope such as U235, Pu239 or U233 for sustaining fission chain reactions aimed at generating heat energy in the fuel which in turn is converted to electrical energy. This would be true whether Th232 is used in an AHWR or in a FBR.

U235 is the only naturally occurring (in Nat U) odd-numbered fissile isotope. Since availability of Nat U is limited, use of U235 for large-scale Th232 utilisation may not be sustainable in the long run.

Pu239 (and higher odd numbered Pu isotopes) are produced while "burning" Nat U in PHWRs or LEU in LWRs. But again, the quantity of Pu so generated may not be adequate for bypassing the 2nd stage FBR altogether and directly getting into the 3rd stage of a large-scale Th232 programme (FBR or AHWR).

U233 is not a naturally occurring isotope and hence needs to be "bred" from Th232 by some means. The 2nd Stage FBR is one such way. However, if U233 can be produced in sufficiently large quantities using the "out-of-reactor-breeding" concept, then it can possibly become a substitute / "additionality" for the 2nd Stage FBRs, for utilisation in the 3rd stage Th232-FBRs or AHWRs.

In this connection, you may like to check out the Chart titled "Three Stages of the Indian Nuclear Power Programme" in page 5 of DAE's report A Strategy for Growth of Electricity Generation in India (pdf) where Non-Reactor Breeding is shown as an activity.

I think India should press ahead strongly with indigenous R&D and engineering in this field, without waiting for (or allowing) others to lead the way.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 17 Aug 2009 00:51

Thanks S

So will the Pu from Imported LWR be useful to jump to AHWRs directly? Also I understand that some Thorium is put inside PHWRs also for experimentation and flux flattening. So can this activity be increased to make more U233 and again jump over to AHWRs directly? thanx in adv

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 01:18

What is so strange about a cost overrun? Or a project proposal that underestimates the true cost?

The issue is not (my PoV) "cost overrun". It is with a year to go and THEN state 40% overrun. I do not recall seeing mention of an overrun prior to this - I could be wrong.

Also, on the Japanese (and perhaps even French) failure WRT FBR, etc, it is my understanding that they all (except Russia) were using the FBR as a means to get rid of waste. While India (and Russia it seems) are using it to generate electricity and as an intermediary process to another stage. I am told (and I recall reading a small blurb long time back - cannot recall beyond that) they are two totally different beasts. And, that, I am told, the failure of the Japanese cannot be really used to argue that India should not try the technology.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Aug 2009 03:31

Sanatanan wrote:where Non-Reactor Breeding is shown as an activity.

AK briefly mentions this in this interview
link

and talks about using Pu from imported reactors in FBRs here
link

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Aug 2009 04:04

Raj Malhotra wrote:A very basic question. I am reading about 3 stage cycle of India nuclear programme and am not able to understand all the techicalities. My understanding:-

First stage:- Use of Indian U in PHWR, by product is Pu

Second stage:- Use of Pu + Thorium in Sodium cooled FBR reactors, By product weapon grade Pu + U233

Third stage:- Use of Th + U233 in AHWR, by product more U233

Is the above correct? Is it possible to jump to AHWR without sodium cooled reactors as some articles are skeptical of safety of sodium cooled reactors?

Not correct; it shoudl read as:

First stage:- Use of Indian Natural Uranium in PHWR, it by product is Pu

Second stage:- Use of Pu + Spent fuel Uranium in Sodium cooled FBR reactors, its by-product is Pu (much of it is low radioactivity weapon grade Pu)

Third stage:- Use of (Pu or enriched Uranium, or U233) + Th in AHWR, ~75% of the energy comes from in-situ breeding of Thorium into U233. Its spent fuel by-product is U233 that is enough for ~80% of the annual fissile material requirement (I.e. it is slightly short for a self sustaining closed fuel cycle with U233 feedback as fissile material input).

Pls also see this DAE document:
Shaping the Third Stage of Indian Nuclear Power Programme

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Aug 2009 04:09

For those who have not read it before....

Weapon-Grade Plutonium Production Potential in the Indian Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/2007a ... svol15.pdf

(the usual suspects .. Ramana, Mian, Rajaraman, von Hippel etc)

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Aug 2009 05:42

If one recall the during the debate on speration plan the FBR build out were called out as vital for strategic purposes. It bugged me no end try to understand what was the strategic application that FBR is so critical? Only later I figured out that FBR is the key to super-grade Pu stockpile required for submarine based Thermonuclear warheads.

Now the question is when all 5 FBRs will it be ready, and produce enough material before India succumbs to FMTC.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 17 Aug 2009 08:01

Here is a Google tech talk by Kirk Sorensen on fluid-fuelled thorium reactors and their advantages over other alternatives: Inherently safe, self-controlled, running at ambient pressure, simple fuel cycle, etc. A proven solution (in the 60s) but was not pursued further due to a political decision to go the other way -- his claim.

Strategic issues aside, purely from energy production point of view, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) seems to be worth pursuing. We need to have plans to commercially produce energy from Thorium in 5-10 years. Plans spanning 50-100 years like the 3-phase nuclear program can perhaps go on in parallel, instead of being the only path for using Thorium fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/v/AZR0UKxNPh8&hl=en&fs=1

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 17 Aug 2009 10:30

Here are two apparently contradicting reports:

1) Dated Aug 16, 2009: INS Arihant is an Indian design: Anil Kakodkar. I think this link has been posted earlier in this thread.

{Question by the reporter}
This nuclear submarine for which the reactor has been made by your team, how significant an achievement is that?
{Reply by AK}
Well, we have a compact propulsion reactor which has been tested at Kalpakkam for the last three years and this is an exact prototype of what has been installed in INS Arihant which was launched soon (Might be a typo; he probably meant "was launched recently"}. . . .

2. Dated Aug 13, 2009: India’s nuclear sub doesn’t have working reactor yet

Bangalore, Aug 13 (IANS) India’s nuclear submarine INS Arihant, launched on July 26, does not have a “working nuclear reactor” yet, says a nuclear scientist familiar with the project almost since its start.

“If any of you are under the impression that it made contact with water with an actual reactor fitted inside its hull you are mistaken,” the scientist told IANS.

The scientist echoes a report in Defence Professionals Daily, a German online publication, which says Arihant “currently is little more than a floating hull” without nuclear propulsion or weapons systems. The scientist, who did not want to be named as he was not authorised to speak to the media, was clarifying media reports implying that Arihant is propelled by nuclear power and that India has become the sixth nation to operate nuclear subs.
. . .

For both reports to be true, may be, the reactor was fitted into Arihant's hull in the 3 days between 13th and 16th Aug 2009!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Aug 2009 11:13

The key word here is "working" as in a working reactor.

The reactor is inside the Arihant for sure, the sub has been welded and the rubber insulation put in place. The sub will be cut open after 10 years or so to replace the whole reactor and cooling unit.

Now the reactor is shut off, with the uranium rods not loaded into the core. That is what is meant by the news reports, DDM idiots make it sound like they've just uncovered a national level cover-up, the buffoons.

Now can we have enough of this 'no reactor on the Arihant' speculation already?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Aug 2009 21:14

Gagan is right. In fact, I remember reading news reports leading to the launch that the reactor has dummy fuel rods for now, and will be replaced with actual enriched uranium fuel rods later on once all tests are complete. It will initially be hooked up to shore power and all tests run before the reactor is turned on.

Making a mountain of a non-issue. When will our DDM read what they themselves wrote and understand it:???

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Aug 2009 23:10

I am amazed at the paranoia which NPAs suffer from ; not long ago when nuclear deal was not signed they were even accounting for the Reactor grade Pu from PHWRs and

as to how it could be used to fabricate dirty bombs ; and now that PHWRs will gradually be put under safeguards they have found a new toy i.e. PFBR , where they assume that India would be operating a 500Mwe reactor in full military mode

.

technical details of the paper not withstanding the concluding remark takes the cake.

Because India supports a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty, a more
farsighted option would be to put these reactors under safeguards now in order
to prevent an accelerated arms race in the region, which appears almost
inevitable otherwise.

Btw are NPAs MAC fanboys ?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Aug 2009 00:09

The NPAs are full of such ideas - Heavy water ban, Tritium cutoff, Ballistic Missile Flight Test cutoff etc.
The FBR has really stuck in their craw for some reason. They imagine a FBR without Thorium, its blankets breeding supergrade Pu in military mode. Bizarre.

The absence of squealing about the Arihant is interesting.

skbanner · Post by **skbanner** » 19 Aug 2009 02:36

Gerard wrote:The NPAs are full of such ideas - Heavy water ban, Tritium cutoff, Ballistic Missile Flight Test cutoff etc.
The FBR has really stuck in their craw for some reason. They imagine a FBR without Thorium, its blankets breeding supergrade Pu in military mode. Bizarre.

The absence of squealing about the Arihant is interesting.

I was going to ask that question here. How come there's been no reaction to Arihant on ACA or ACW web sites. Kind of like the case of The Dog That Did Not Bark! Or is Jefferey Lewis still waiting for instructions from Beijing?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 03:43

Gerard wrote:The NPAs are full of such ideas - Heavy water ban, Tritium cutoff, Ballistic Missile Flight Test cutoff etc.
The FBR has really stuck in their craw for some reason. They imagine a FBR without Thorium, its blankets breeding supergrade Pu in military mode. Bizarre.

The absence of squealing about the Arihant is interesting.

The IUNCA may not have been the deal, many wanted. However, a critic such as myself will acknowledge that it did at the very least bring us into the door of an exclusive club even if surreptitiously and hence the absence of squealing on Arihant.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Aug 2009 04:09

ShauryaT wrote:However, a critic such as myself will acknowledge that it did at the very least bring us into the door of an exclusive club even if surreptitiously and hence the absence of squealing on Arihant.

So the Ayatollahs are resigned to a nuclear India?

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 19 Aug 2009 04:15

Arun_S wrote:If one recall the during the debate on speration plan the FBR build out were called out as vital for strategic purposes. It bugged me no end try to understand what was the strategic application that FBR is so critical? Only later I figured out that FBR is the key to super-grade Pu stockpile required for submarine based Thermonuclear warheads.

Now the question is when all 5 FBRs will it be ready, and produce enough material before India succumbs to FMTC.

Arun_S,

This quote from the article link posted by Gerard stood out (page 15)

Yet, if one includes the accumulated stockpile, there
would be sufficient reactor-grade plutonium to meet the makeup requirements
of operating five breeder reactors under Option 3 until about 2050.

I believe you had reached the same conclusion on the unprocessed stockpile. This is amazing

, we can divert substantial Pu for strategic purpose, while sustaining 5 breeders until 2050 without bringing on additional unsafeguarded PHWRs.

bum bum bhole

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 05:21

Gerard wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:However, a critic such as myself will acknowledge that it did at the very least bring us into the door of an exclusive club even if surreptitiously and hence the absence of squealing on Arihant.
So the Ayatollahs are resigned to a nuclear India?

IMO, the ayatollahs were over rated to begin with. It was always clear that all India had to do is play the game of real politik to be "accepted" by the west. There are few instances where India has played this game well, in its interests but most times it has acted like a lecturing professor, who has not stepped out in the real world. (All due apologies to folks in the teaching profession).

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 05:25

milindc wrote:
Yet, if one includes the accumulated stockpile, there
would be sufficient reactor-grade plutonium to meet the makeup requirements
of operating five breeder reactors under Option 3 until about 2050.
I believe you had reached the same conclusion on the unprocessed stockpile. This is amazing , we can divert substantial Pu for strategic purpose, while sustaining 5 breeders until 2050 without bringing on additional unsafeguarded PHWRs.

bum bum bhole

I thought the general consensus was that reactor grade plutonium was not reliable enough for weapons, even if theoretically feasible. I do not think other countries use reactor grade plutonium in their stock piles. Am i reading something wrong?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Aug 2009 06:30

NPAs have accepted a nuclear india. as mentioned in this forum before, the rise of india is an extremely destabilizing factor.

i might be way off here. IUCNA is to give india the technology to avoid conflict and get more people out of poverty. in a very overarching way, peace could be the prize extracted from the west for colonialism.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 07:48

V_Raman wrote:NPAs have accepted a nuclear india. as mentioned in this forum before, the rise of india is an extremely destabilizing factor.

i might be way off here. IUCNA is to give india the technology to avoid conflict and get more people out of poverty. in a very overarching way, peace could be the prize extracted from the west for colonialism.

That is one way to look at it, another is to let India in the door, so to prevent India from peeing on the NWS from the outside.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 19 Aug 2009 09:57

india has been peeing on the NWS for a long time. they did not care as we did not matter to them. the only way for west to make money is by selling hi-tech stuff. there is no other country in the world that need it in the scale as india nor can assimilate it like india. just imagine the amount of high-tech stuff needed even to develop a modern sewage system for a population like india !!! reactors are just the start.

in a reverse of colonialism, the only way for the west to survive economically is to develop india !!

there is always the other very less likely option -- massive war.

this is way out of topic in this thread. i will stop here.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 19 Aug 2009 10:42

ShauryaT wrote:
milindc wrote: Yet, if one includes the accumulated stockpile, there
would be sufficient reactor-grade plutonium to meet the makeup requirements
of operating five breeder reactors under Option 3 until about 2050.

I believe you had reached the same conclusion on the unprocessed stockpile. This is amazing , we can divert substantial Pu for strategic purpose, while sustaining 5 breeders until 2050 without bringing on additional unsafeguarded PHWRs.

bum bum bhole
I thought the general consensus was that reactor grade plutonium was not reliable enough for weapons, even if theoretically feasible. I do not think other countries use reactor grade plutonium in their stock piles. Am i reading something wrong?

From the posted link, for every breeder, we can annually divert about 140 kgs of weapons grade Pu for strategic needs. This will not impact the sustenance of online breeders since we have the unprocessed stockpile from our PHWRs.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 21 Aug 2009 14:02

Article by T P Sreenivasan, a former member of the Indian Foreign Service, was India's ambassador to the United Nations and governor for India, IAEA

The US may have no nuclear trade with India

But the latest indication from Washington is that the US may not be interested in supplying nuclear material and reactors to India under the new dispensation. This is emerging as a matter of policy as well as a practical measure. President Obama does not want to stand in the way of the implementation of the 123 Agreement, but he is sensitive to the criticism that he is willing to dilute his commitment to non-proliferation for the sake of commercial advantages.

He has, therefore, embarked on a path to do the minimum necessary to let the deal run its course without the US itself contributing to the growth of the nuclear strength of India. He wishes to remain committed to the universalisation of the NPT, while pursuing the vision of a nuclear weapon free world in the long term.

The Washington move in G-8 on enrichment and reprocessing should be seen in this context. While the discussions on reprocessing, as provided for in the 123 agreement, will proceed, supply of equipment and technology in the sensitive areas will be ruled out. The US will also work for a gradual revision of the NSG consensus to put sensitive technology beyond the reach of India and others.

The US is also reconciled to Russia and France supplying fuel and equipment under the terms of the NSG waiver. It may not be averse to indirect participation in the French deals, if such opportunities arise, but it is gradually preparing the industry to close their options to open nuclear trade with India.

The compensation that the US expects is in terms of defence deals with India, which have as much potential, if not more, for job creation and overall growth in trade. The US has, therefore, been diligent about pursuing the end user agreement, without which defence deals would not be possible under the US laws.

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/aug/ ... -india.htm

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 21 Aug 2009 18:22

I'm fine with no US nuke plants, having access to French and Russian plants (and guaranteed uranium supplies) is more than good enough. However, if the US is actively working to continue technology denial regimes against India, not a single bullet should be purchased from them. This needs to be made clear to Obama ( who sponsored killer amendments and voted against the deal in the US senate).

India should no longer be simultaneously a victim and an enforcer of various four letter treaties dictated by the US.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 21 Aug 2009 20:31

Its time to attach condition on MRCA tender - "you get paid only in Indian Rupees."

French, Russian and others won't mind since they can invest this money back into Indian economy real estates, insurance, telecom companies and etc.

Americans will put out themselves from MRCA since removing "dollar" from trade is murder of American dominance over the region.

Just do this and Obama will come on bent knees - "take this yellow cake(uranium) and give us share in defense trade please".

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Aug 2009 23:01

V_Raman wrote:india has been peeing on the NWS for a long time. they did not care as we did not matter to them.

How so?

India builds launch vehicles that can drop a payload on the moon. It builds advanced long range ballistic missiles. It has mastered the fuel cycle, from mining ore to vitrification of waste. It builds nuclear weapons.
Has any of these "technologies of concern" been provided to other countries? Has India assisted any country of concern with rocket, enrichment, reprocessing or weapons technology?

One wonders if it is this failure to proliferate that allowed the various technology denial regimes to be imposed on India for so long. There was no incentive to lift these embargoes when India itself respected the MTCR and NSG rules.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 05:11

a_bharat wrote:Article by T P Sreenivasan, a former member of the Indian Foreign Service, was India's ambassador to the United Nations and governor for India, IAEA

The US may have no nuclear trade with India

..........................................

The compensation that the US expects is in terms of defence deals with India, which have as much potential, if not more, for job creation and overall growth in trade. The US has, therefore, been diligent about pursuing the end user agreement, without which defence deals would not be possible under the US laws.
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/aug/ ... -india.htm

Looks like he is right. We should get to know in a month or so ............ the ENR dealings are going on.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 22 Aug 2009 07:28

One wonders if it is this failure to proliferate that allowed the various technology denial regimes to be imposed on India for so long. There was no incentive to lift these embargoes when India itself respected the MTCR and NSG rules.

Wonderfully articulated.

Am sure Dilli is aware. What were they waiting for? Was there any incentive or disincentive not to rock the boat? How long will they continue to wait? Time will tell.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Aug 2009 07:51

The point is, who was India going to proliferate to? You can't do that to any tom or dick. It has to serve a purpose.
Normally you would like to proliferate to a nation that would be a return of the favor that china has done us by proliferating to pakistan. But while proliferating to the paks, china has also settled its border issues with almost all its neighbors, and is now economically co-opting all or most of its neighbors into its sphere of influence. Even Taiwan, is being silently taken over!
The nations who can become challengers to china - Japan, S Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, are reluctant to up the ante to irk china.

India has done most things late, when the bus had long departed. When India should have been proliferating, it was still at the stage of developing the tech. This applies to nuclear weapons, missiles, military hardware, economy in general.