India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 19 Aug 2007 06:13

[quote="Suppiah"][quote="sivab"][quote="Gerard"]Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger[quote] The area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium — “enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1000 yearsâ€

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 06:16

If 78,000 tonnes of Indian Uranium reserve is enough only for 10GW for 50 years, 30,000 tonnes of Niger Uranium is good for all Indian requirements of ~80MW for next 1000 years.


Arre! This is PHOREN Urinium onlee yaar!

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 06:22

Phoren you say?

http://www.afrol.com/articles/24569
Niger is already ranking as number three amongst the world's major uranium producers, the radioactive metal being among its main export products.
Producing mines and deposits in Niger typically grade from 0.1 percent to 0.42 percent uranium oxide. Uranium values found at the few sample sites were up to 0.09 percent.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3000991.stm
quality of the uranium ore at Domiosiat and Wakhyn is much better than at India's other uranium mining area - in Jadugoda in the northern state of Jharkhand.
He says the recovery percentage at Jadugoda is 0.02 to 0.06, while the percentage is as high as 0.1 in Domiosiat.


0.02% at Jadugoda. India will be glad to mine the tailings of a phoren mine

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 19 Aug 2007 06:28

Shankar wrote:
First time I noticed that India has already recovered 5,400Kg RgPu by reprocessing spent fuel that had inventory of ~12,000 Kg RgPu.


(my guess - less than 7000 kg reactor grade plutonium)

I presume you saying 7000kg pu recovered from spent fuel?

As per seperation plan envisaged in India-US Civil nuclear power agreement the 5400kg RgPu inventory will be in military fense. along with the 520 Kg WgPu.


wapons grade plutonium my guess is over 1000kg again a guess )

Is is pure guess or bus driver/paanwalla afwahain?

My research indicate that Indian light weight TN weapon of 200Kt need 1 Kg (Typ) or 2Kg (at most) WgPu for primary, and 12Kg RgPu for secondary spark plug plus tertiary. Thus in 2005 India had enough for at least 260 TN light weight weapons of 200Kt yield. The likely count is ~450 TN weapons 200kt plus 70 of 150Kt (U238 for tertiary)TN weapons . These are for light weight TN version. A heavier weight (+150 Kg mass addition) brother of this weapon using additional natural U will yield ~60 to 90 Kt additional yield.

safer to assume 3.5-4kg weapons grade plutonium per weapon 20 kg plus pf reactor or slightly more enriched plutonium for secondary)

I disagree there is open litrature and also IAEA doc (including the above reference doc) that put 3Kg Pu as the amount for mid range (Hiroshima yield) fission device (mind you no boosting is mentioned). In the case of TN primary only 3-6 kt yield is required, so without much research one can deduce that the amount will be lower than 3Kg. Also NRDC published a report a decade ago that stated that advanced countries use 2Kg Pu for pure fission device for yield of 21 kt and 1Kg yields 2 kt pure fission yield. For boosted primary thus even 1 kg is an overestimation. Dont forget Pok-II did 3 pure fission low yield test for precise charecterization and 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 kt sub-kt test is the lowest that France & China could go in their rich testing experinece. So Indian mastery must be takes as proven advanced capabelity.

Interestingly the tertiary stage requires ~60Kg pusher mass of which only xx Kg inner layer need be enriched or moderate enriched for bigger bang per weight. [/quote]

Interestingly one can notice typical NPA psy-op when reporting global number of nukes. Almost all report Indian weapon inventory to be 40-50 while its WgPu inventory is 540Kg (in 2005), while OTOH Isreal with 450Kg inventory is reported to posses 75 -200 warheads. Wink Yindu-Yahudi bhai-bhai !! Laughing

no of TN weapons I think is india has close to 400 warheads but again this is only a guess

Is it pure guess or based on some pointers?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2007 06:34

sivab,

There are a few things to consider (outside of the fact that the author from what I have seen so far is reliable).

1. More ore in the immediate future means the better the chances of breeding more for the input into the next phase. IF the cycle were to be made to go faster, the greater the impact it will have on Indian energy situation AND due to breeding it should last longer. The key is how much ore can India can get today - the more the better. (Note that breeding will mean that at some point in time importing will have to stop. Someone correct me if I am wrong.)

2. I do not know, but this ore could (and should) be outside safeguard - it should be treated as though it is "Indian". This has implications on the three-stage process. If when DAE decides to bring FBRs, etc from "military" to civilian, they will be better able to compete with the GEs of this world.

So, although I agree the "1000" seems ludicrous, I think he meant it more in the Indian way of speaking - hazzar - an exaggeration. But, when we think about the FBRs, the earlier and more we feed these beasts, the earlier we will see dependency on outsiders for ore decrease.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 06:47

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/cameron.htm

the safeguards system as implemented pursuant to INFCIRC/153 defined the "starting point of safeguards", and thereby nuclear material accountancy, as "nuclear material of a composition and purity suitable for fuel fabrication or for being isotopically enriched". Theoretically, there is a magical line at a conversion facility where this occurs. Practically, in Canada, this translates into IAEA safeguards starting on finished drums of UO2 powder, finished UF6 cylinders and uranium metal. While INFCIRC/153 contains some import and export reporting obligations on material before the starting point of safeguards, comprehensive safeguards agreements contain no obligation for the state to report, for safeguards purposes, to the IAEA on its indigenous production of pre-safeguards material (i.e. source material, including uranium concentrate and yellowcake, as well as uranium ores and ore residue).


the Additional Protocol requires member states to report to the IAEA on:

* production capacity for each uranium/thorium mine and mill, for both operating and closed-down locations;

* current annual production for the state as a whole;

* upon specific request from the IAEA, actual production of an individual mine or mill.

The Additional Protocol also requires member states to report to the IAEA on holdings of pre-safeguarded source material (U3O8, UO3, etc.) whether in nuclear or non-nuclear use. Declarations on holdings are required for any location holding more than 10 tonnes of pre-safeguarded uranium source material (20 tonnes of thorium source material) or if the location is holding more than one tonne and the state as a whole has more than 10 tonnes of uranium (20 tonnes thorium) source material.

Furthermore, the Additional Protocol requests information on the export and import of pre-safeguarded source material for non-nuclear purposes, when exports/imports of uranium exceed 10 tonnes and when exports/imports of thorium exceed 20 tonnes.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 19 Aug 2007 07:12

NRao wrote:sivab,

There are a few things to consider (outside of the fact that the author from what I have seen so far is reliable).


Consider several problems with that article. Here are relevant parts from that...

[quote]Taurian Resources Private Limited, Mumbai, a Rs. 300-crore company, has recently won a contract which gives it exclusive rights over 3,000 sq. km. of the Sahara Desert known to be rich in deposits of uranium. According to the estimates of the Managing Director of the company, Sachin Bajla, the area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium which, he says, “should be enough to meet India’s requirement for the next 1,000 yearsâ€

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 19 Aug 2007 07:36

sivab wrote:shiv: That article is waste of bandwidth. 30,000 tonnes of Uranium is probably good for 80MW for 1000 years. How does such non-sense gets published without review?

The news was misreported. Sachin Bajla, is from my village. What he meant was that
"the area is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium which, he says, “should be enough to meet my villages requirement of 1 MW for the next 80,000 yearsâ€

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Applicability of Hyde Act

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 07:41

Last night during a show in NDTV, Mr Kapil Sibal said that once the 123 Agreement gets approved in the US Legislature after the "up-down" vote, then the Hyde Act would automatically cease to be operative.

Is this proposition of Mr Sibal correct?

Thanks

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 19 Aug 2007 07:46

Gerard wrote:You are aware that background radiation levels are still elevated because of atmospheric testing? That populations living downwind of the test sites have suffered from cancer and birth defects?


My point is : USA, China and USSR etc did 100s of atmospheric tests and did not care and we too MUST not care about pollution.

Yes, a few 1000s people born will be genetic freaks. So? Pls look at the downside of not conducting tests --- we may become Iraq-2007. So when put together, it is better to have a few 1000 genetic freaks in the world and even India than becoming Iraq-2007.

.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 08:17

Rahul Mehta wrote:

Yes, a few 1000s people born will be genetic freaks. So? Pls look at the downside of not conducting tests --- we may become Iraq-2007. So when put together, it is better to have a few 1000 genetic freaks in the world and even India than becoming Iraq-2007.

.


Rahul Mehta I recall that you were oh so worried about malnutrition in Indian children leading to lowered IQ. Now you say nonchalantly "Yes, a few 1000s people born will be genetic freaks." from atmospheric testing.

You are a troll who says whatever is convenient for the time being.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

123 Agreement text sigend or not signed by India

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 08:58

[quote][size=109]
Menon briefs Pranab

New Delhi, Aug. 18: What will be the fate of the agreed text of the 123 agreement if the government does not proceed further to operationalise the proposed civil nuclear cooperation with the US? What are the strategic implications of putting the next steps on hold? These, and other questions, continued to engage the attention of South Block through the evening after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) asked the government not to go ahead with the 123 agreement.

Sources said that foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon briefed minister of external affairs Pranab Mukherjee on the intricacies of the nuclear deal. Mr Menon is understood to have advised the minister about the pitfalls and discussed various options available to the government. Even as officials from the ministry of external affairs went into a huddle, sources familiar with the protracted negotiations on the 123 Agreement told this newspaper that there was “no red line or deadlineâ€

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Applicability of Hyde Act

Postby Arun_S » 19 Aug 2007 09:34

Sanatanan wrote:Last night during a show in NDTV, Mr Kapil Sibal said that once the 123 Agreement gets approved in the US Legislature after the "up-down" vote, then the Hyde Act would automatically cease to be operative.

Is this proposition of Mr Sibal correct?

Thanks

If he said that he is either high on something or pulling a fast one on naive Indian populace.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 09:37

In his excellent post on page 4 of this thread Shankar has asked several pertinent questions. I quote one of them here and give my response to it.

Some thing is grossly wrong with the nuke deal -we can never know but just a look back

. . .

- we have acheived self reliance in all fields from minning to spent fuel reprocessing to reactor design to weapon design then why we want US INPUTS

. . .


Because, the spin that we have achieved self-reliance in all fields in reactor design and construction is a liberal untruth interspersed with rationed truth. If I have to give (generous) marks to this particular yarn, I would put the truth-value to be about 70%. Although DAE may not directly import components for their npps, they do so via their contractors many of whom do not have the inclination nor wherewithal to indigenise what is not immediately available in India, and spurred from a profitability angle, tend to import those items. The US and NSG know this and have, I feel, up to now selectively shut their eyes to such exports to India. When the sellout is "operationalised", they will ensure that none of the items for the non-civilian plants are allowed to be exported from their countries. DAE's npp Division would not be able to build any new PHWR without placing it under civilian category. Then India would be reduced to making only university-type reactors for making weapons-usable isotopes. That is why GWB and others in US have confidently predicted that 95% or more of India's npps would be covered by safeguards, by and by.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4472
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 19 Aug 2007 10:25

Yes more restrictions will be sneaked in down the line through various agreements with other states & other forms of trickery.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 11:11

THE NUCLEAR SELL OUT IN THE NAME OF ENERGY SECURITY

Why it is a sell out of a nation and a big bluff to indian public -

The primary reason touted by the Govt is without the deal we cannot have energy security to sustain our present rate of growth which is an out an out lie .Lets look closely

Few more reactors will add may be 2-3% to our power generation capability the rest 97% will still remain coal and gas/oil fired

The power shortage we are bothered about is classic peak shortage scenario like between 8-11 am and 5-9pm mainly because of simultaneous peaking of domestic agricultural industrial load and as high as 25% in highly industrialized states like Maharashtra.This peak shortage situation can never be addressed by putting up 1000/2000MW reactor based power plants since no nuclear power plant can be started and stopped every 8 hrs or so .This can be addressed only by so called spinning reserve in power infrastructure that is idle oil /gas fired plants which can be quickly brought to full load during peak hours . Added to this we need quick start up gas turbine based plants for taking care of unexpected peak demand .It is a 3 tier system which we need to be put in place to take care of all kind of blackouts and brown outs by an optimum combination of coal oil nuclear gas and hydel plants

Energy security can not be assured by just taking care of power generation .Even today the power shortage will evaporate if the transmission and distribution losses are taken care of (read power theft).This amounts to a staggering 25% in some cases and to address this problem we do not need any 123 agreement but just a plain political will which we still have not acquired

Then we need to invest in some kind of system like pump -storage where the excess power during off peak night hours can be diverted to pump water into resoivers which again can be used during peak hours to take care of sudden peaks even in areas where there are no watre resources

To summarise

the money the govt is proposing to spend thru private players in importing
light water reactors and enriched uranium fuel can be much better spent in installing more effective power 3 tier power generation system consisting of large base load coal fired power plants ,add on medium response oil /gas fired power plants and quick response hydel/pumped storage type peak shaving type generating systems .Nuclear power plants will be between base load and oil/gas fired plants producing power and also plutonium

Energy is not just electric power -it is also what we use as fuel -in cars and trucks,in locomotives,in aircraft,in furnaces and this is by far the largest sector where energy is needed to be secured .

As of date only petroleum meets the need -LNG has just come in (.the first two LNG systems were commissioned by me just a day back )The fuel need of this type cannot be addresses by nuclear power unless the hydrogen technology matures far more than it is today .Only then we can have nuclear reactors producing power which can break up water into hydrogen and oxygen and then this hydrogen transported in liquid/gas form to be used as fuel in place of petroleum.

Even most of the agricultural water pump sets are diesel driven and so is the captive power plants

Ther are only two energy sources that can give us energy security today

a) coal --present - (hydro electric)

b) thorium -future

Just like imported crude imported uranium cannot also guarantee any energy security -it is only making us more vulnerable when we invest billions of dollars earned by our exporters and NRI workers in importing reactors and fuel which we all know is a permanent solution

Our energy security is much better taken care of by imported crude since the price is under some what control because of large number of purchasers which include US .Relation with middle east /russia is more important than with US even from the energy security point.Uranium price can go up ten fold if Australia decides and suddenly cost of nuclear power is 15 times and we have already spoil t our relationship with oil producers in the virtual euphoria of nuclear high

What it boils down to is todays govt is slave to both Indian and us business houses who stand to gain the 225 billion of reserve lying un-utilized in reserve bank coffers .They cannot take that out directly so in the name of energy security and nuclear power .

so what in the process the national pride and capability along with more than 70% of fissile material capability goes down the drain for perpetuity .


By the way we also energy security is just a part of national security
military security is equally important (dont forget 1962 please)

If US today decides to take over iran and saudi like they did iraq where will be our security and then close up nuke tap -we just had it .

What if tomorrow after we have bought 100 billion dollar worth of us light water reactors and uranium supply is cit off by australia under US guidance -what we do ?They have done it number of times what stops them from doing it again

THINK

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 11:20

Arun - all out nuke are not TN type -majority I guess is pure fission implossion design again a guess which may need more plutonium.Any way lets not discuss this further for obvious reasons


[quote]The highest-ranking defector after Hwang Chang-yo’p. A deputy to the Supreme People’s Assembly [SPA] and a researcher (doctorate degree holder) at the “Maritime Industry Research Instituteâ€

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62692
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2007 11:33

under direct orders from Beijing , Left is now playing psyops that they will withdraw support and force a early election. TOI and other chamchas are playing it up.

Meantime BJP has asked the left to walk its talk :twisted:

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Postby Suppiah » 19 Aug 2007 13:45

Our energy shortage is not simply peak shortage. China is adding capacity at the rate of 70,000MW every year. We are adding barely a fifth of that, even less. Their installed capacity is equally of a higher magnitude. Unless we decide to limit our economy to a third of their size or smaller, we need power big time. And China, despite all this is barely scratching the surface in terms of catching up per-capita usage in advanced countries. We have long long long way to go unless we all adopt fundamentally different lifestyles that does not need electricity. Yes i agree it is not a magic answer to all our energy problems, and if that is the spin, then that is wrong.

I do agree on the supply side risks of Uranium. Thorium is the way to go. But to kick start that we need uranium which we dont have. Experts should clarify on how long this 'temporary dependence' will last until this magical perpetual motion machine is running by itself. That is probably why die-hard swadeshi establishment folks from the nuclear science community have fallen in line in terms of okaying this agreement. I think we should trust their judgment.

If I were to choose between relying on US/Aus for Uranium versus the barbaric animals of ME for oil, I would choose the former. It is not as if ME is supplying oil to us at subsidised rates and relations are hunky-dory. They support TSP at every turn. Every two bit gun runner and terrorist from Mumbai is a welcome guest there and it is the ordinary Abduls and Gopals that are abused and ill-treated.

At least US/OZ are amenable to public opinion and can be lobbied and we have mutual trade and cultural/human values ties that bind. With ME we have nothing to bind other than slave labor and terrorism. US has as much interest in high oil price as it does in lowering it - or it would not let oil go to US$75 a barrel. It would have stuck a deal with Saddam and kept it at US$20.

The only red flag to watch out for is the reduction in ability to make more bombs. I think that is not the case because every kg of uranium imported for civilian use frees up one kg of use for bomb making. Experts pls correct if this is factually incorrect. I think the timelines for conversion to safeguarded facility seem to have been designed to give enough time to make whatever 'strategic' stuff is to be made and yet some will perpetually 'military'. So what is the fuss?

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 13:58

"
Today,India is the only developing country that has demonstrated its capability to design, build, operate and maintain nuclear power plants,manufacture all associated equipment and components,and produce the required nuclear fuel and special materials," says Dr.R.Chidambaram, Chairman,Atomic Energy Commission , India.


h
e only red flag to watch out for is the reduction in ability to make more bombs. I think that is not the case because every kg of uranium imported for civilian use frees up one kg of use for bomb making. Experts pls correct if this is factually incorrect. I think the timelines for conversion to safeguarded facility seem to have been designed to give enough time to make whatever 'strategic' stuff is to be made and yet some will perpetually 'military'. So what is the fuss?


-wrong we not much use uranium for bomb making it is mainly plutonium that is created when natural or low enriched uranium is burnt in a reactor to produce power/heat.The plutonium low purity is extracted from the spent fuel rods ,purified ,enriched to very high purity and then cast into ingots before being machined into weapon components.So the moment we say 70% of our nuclear power facilities are under safeguard means we cannot extract 70% of available low purity plotonium in the spent fuel rods.This way it severely compromises our capability to plutonium inventory build up as well as weapon stockpile.This is the US objective behind the deal.By the way 100% of the imported uranium will be used only in these safeguarded reactors so for perpetuity we will loose the strategic potential of these indian designed and built reactors in exchange of not more than 1% extra power generation that will come up from the extra imported uranium .

Logically this 1% can easily be made up many times over by additional hydel.wind power farms and reducing power theft but then choosing that route you cannot generate billion dollar kickbacks for the next election

who the hell cares for India and its pride

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 14:05

AS ON DATE

54% of power is from coal
34% from oil/gas
3% less from nuclear
6% from hydel
1%plus from wind /bio mass

which means if we double our wind farms we do not need imported uranium
Average power theft or transmission and distribution loss is more than 20%
if we save 50 % of this theft we will have surplus power to push the economy on 10% growth path
in the meantime we can develop the technology
for
extraction of coal bed methane
deep sea methane hydrate
solar
explore for more natural gas deposits off/on shore
develop hydrogen technology to give high plant load factor to large base load thermal plants during off peak hours

for non of this option we need to sell our nuclear independance to United States

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 14:13

3.3 THE POTENTIAL POSITION OF NUCLEAR POWER – IEA VIEW
IEA (2003) and IEA (2004) are conservative about the ability of nuclear to be an economic option for new
generating capacity. By 2030, they envisage only 150 GW of the 4,700 GW of new capacity being nuclear,
concentrated very much in Asia. However, over this period they also expect an identical quantity of
existing nuclear capacity to be retired, so nuclear generating capacity remains unchanged. On IEA’s
projections, nuclear’s share of world electricity supply will nearly halve from 16% today to 9% by 2030.


we and our govt may be euphoric about potential of nuclear power -clearly the world is not thinking the same way

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 14:23

CAPITAL COST PER KWH(US$)

NUCLEAR GAS COAL

2000 500 1300

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (YRS)

5 2 4

ELECTRICITY PRICE MW

67 38 42

ELECTRICITY PRICE -- NUCLEAR =100

GAS =57
COAL =63

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Postby Suppiah » 19 Aug 2007 15:12

Well it means the same, we need uranium as raw material to make bombs, the intermediate step being Plutonium. Anyway, 100% of local U is not going to bombs now, it is also partly or largely going in to keep up this power production and chase those targets as well and keep capacity utilisation of the nuclear reactors high. All that can change if we dont have to worry about generating power that much with whatever unsafeguarded facilities we are left with.

On the whole while we are not going to see rivers of milk and honey flow because we signed this deal, we are also not going to lose big time. Even if 1w does not flow from this, a powerful signal goes to Beijing that arming jehadi terrorists with nukes comes with a political and strategic price.

At worse, nuclear energy may still be a marginal contributor but then it is not like we are spending crores and not getting anything. Because investment can come from private / foreign sources who should do their homework.

Lastly, there has got to be something good in this or Stalinist mass murderers would not be jumping about so badly. Beijing would not have turned up the volume control so high if it was so bad for us.


PS: believe it or not I had to type this message thrice because twice the PC switched off because of power-cut. This is in a big city, not a village on a Sunday afternoon!. We need all the power we can get, 1% or 0.0001%. If some lunatic scientist says he can convert cows farts into power we should go talk to him, our situation is so desperate.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 17:04

Shankar wrote:CAPITAL COST PER KWH(US$)

NUCLEAR GAS COAL

2000 500 1300

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (YRS)

5 2 4

ELECTRICITY PRICE MW

67 38 42

ELECTRICITY PRICE -- NUCLEAR =100

GAS =57
COAL =63


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_ ... wer_plants
The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[31] -- as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate. Also, carbon taxes and backup power costs were not considere


Coal costs, labor costs etc vary from country to country.

What are the figures for India? I have read "projected" estimats o nuke power in India made BEFORE the 123 agreement (before teh Hyde act or J 18 in fact)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 17:12

http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol11_1-3/alagh.htm


A country should choose an optimal mix between thermal, hydro, nuclear, renewable and non-conventional energy sources. In fact there is no standard prescription to choose this optimal mix, but it should be studied in detail specifically for each country as solutions differ for every country. Thus, India has to choose its own mix and proceed accordingly. While economic considerations are one of the important inputs to choose such a mix, there are others too. For example, one of the reasons why Japan is going for Nuclear Power in a big way is to ensure energy security. This seems to be applicable for India also, especially in view of the technological control regime prevailing in the world.


The economics of nuclear power in India depends on the cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant vis-a-vis cost of generation of electricity from coal fired thermal power plant.

The coal deposits in India are concentrated in the Eastern regions. The setting up of a coal fired power plant in Western India and in the North-west, entails transporting coal over distances exceeding 1000 Km. as the distance involved in the transportation of coal from a mine mouth exceeds 1000 Km., the economics of nuclear power becomes favourable.

There is a feeling in certain quarters that nuclear power is more capital intensive and requires a large fraction of imported components. This does not seem to be true for the following reasons :

If one considers the total investment in a power plant, and all associated facilities such as fuel cycle facilities including coal mine development and investment needed to transport coal, the difference between the two options may not be significant at all.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Postby Suppiah » 19 Aug 2007 17:24

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/19raman.htm

Raman is actually inadvertently suggesting a way out of this situation - why not tell the Stalinists that China too would be allowed to bid for nuclear projects and guaranteed one or two sites?! We can offer sites close to CPM HQ.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 19 Aug 2007 17:35

ldev wrote:sraj,

The link below gives an idea as to why the agreement with China was not implemented until the 2003-2004 time frame inspite of earlier ratification. (comment: thanks, I agree that although the US Admn. incorrectly provided certification to Congress in 1998 that Chinese non-proliferation policies and practices were acceptable, they continued their efforts to persuade the Chinese to improve their behavior after 1998, which appears to have produced some results by 2003-2004 as detailed in the link below.)It also answers your question as to why there was a once only certification for China vis a vis periodic monitoring for India (comment: actually, it DOES NOT. Could you pls point me to the relevant extract from this link? thanks.) i.e. China is a recognized P-5 power, India is not and US law recognizes the difference. (comment: this is a ludicrous statement. the whole point of J18 was the promise that "The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable.........". Now it is perfectly understandable from the US pov that they "chose" not to adjust their laws in order to keep India on a very short leash indeed. It is equally legitimate for MMS and GoI to be questioned on why they would agree to go along with this US decision, whether they have used their negotiating strength appropriately in this situation, and whether India's strategic autonomy has been compromised by them as a result. I would also appreciate the specific legal reference that prohibits the US from giving a once only certification in India's case. thanks.)

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/32570.htm

China in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

John S. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation
Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee
Washington, DC
May 18, 2004

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Ananth » 19 Aug 2007 17:35

shiv wrote:Coal costs, labor costs etc vary from country to country.

What are the figures for India? I have read "projected" estimats o nuke power in India made BEFORE the 123 agreement (before teh Hyde act or J 18 in fact)


Not only coal costs vary from country to country, in India there is an additional transportation (railways) cost. RC in his interview said that in Indian context, Indian nuke plants are competitive wrt coal fired plants which are about 600km from the pithead. The advantage of gas fired plant is quick set up time, but gas based power plants cannot be used for base load due to cost of gas. They are mainly used for meeting peak demands over baseload.

Rudranath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 19 Aug 2007 15:53

Postby Rudranath » 19 Aug 2007 17:42

Sorry could not find the link for the article, found this on another forum.


B Raman Unmasks The Ugly Face Of Communists in India

The current opposition of the leftist parties -- particularly, the Communist Party of India-Marxist -- to the agreement (the so-called 123 agreement) with the US on civil nuclear co-operation and to India's developing strategic relations with the US takes one's mind back to the days before the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to India in November last year.

A Chinese company had won a contract for the construction of a gas pipeline from the Godavari area in Andhra Pradesh. It wanted to bring about 1,000 Chinese engineers to work in the project. The ministry of home affairs and the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India were not clearing the issue of visas to the Chinese engineers. They asked a number of inconvenient questions as to why it was necessary for the Chinese company to bring in so many of their engineers when unemployed Indian engineers were available.

There was also a paper prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat of the Prime Minister's Office suggesting that proposals for foreign investments in sensitive sectors such as telecommunications from China, Pakistan and Bangladesh should be subjected to a special security vetting.

Sitaram Yechury of the CPI-M, allegedly at the instance of the Chinese embassy in New Delhi, raised a big hue and cry about it and literally forced the Government of India to order the issue of visas to the Chinese engineers and to drop the proposal for a special security vetting for Chinese investment proposals in sensitive sectors.

After Hu's visit was over, Times Now television news channel had invited me to participate in a discussion on the visit. Arnab Goswami of the channel anchored the discussions. D Raja, CPI's member of the Rajya Sabha, participated in the discussions from Delhi. I told Raja: "It is surprising that you pressurised the government to issue visas to 1000 Chinese engineers. You were not bothered about Indian engineers not getting these jobs. If a US company had wanted to bring 1000 American engineers, would you have urged the government to issue visas to them?"

Raja told me: "Mr Raman, you are an eminent person. You should not mislead people by raising such scenarios."

For the last two months, the Chinese authorities have been expressing their concern over reports that India has joined hands with the US, Japan and Australia to counter the growing Chinese naval power in the region and that the forthcoming naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal involving the navies of these countries plus Singapore is the beginning of this project to counter Chinese naval power and presence in the Bay of Bengal/Indian Ocean region.

It is not without significance that the vigorous campaign of the leftist parties -- particularly of the CPI-M -- against the recently concluded Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation and against the growing strategic interactions between India and the US in particular has coincided with the beginning of the Chinese campaign against the so-called quadrilateral strategic interaction involving India, Japan, the US and Australia and the naval exercise with the additional involvement of the Singapore navy.

The leftists' campaign against India's relations with the US reflects more China's concerns and interests than those of India. I have never been excited over the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation. Nor do I share Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's enthusiasm for US President George Bush and the Indo-US agreement. I am inclined to feel that what we are seeing now is a one-night stand between Dr Singh and Mr Bush. Like most one-night stands, the happy thoughts thereafter will become an embarrassment in course of time.

I also feel -- as I have stated on many occasions in the past -- that we should go slow on the development of our strategic relations with the US, keeping in view the fact that we live right in the midst of the Islamic world, and that about 45 per cent of the world's Muslim population lives in the South Asian region. Ours is still a fragile society and we should not create misgivings in the Muslim community by overlooking their sensitivities on this subject.

Having said that, I also feel that we should not let the leftists dictate our foreign policy and push it in a direction favourable to China. I find it difficult to discount the suspicion that the leftists have mounted their present campaign to promote Chinese and not Indian interests.

After joining the IB in 1967, I went on a visit to Kolkata. Those were the days of China's Cultural Revolution. The Marxists were not yet in power in West Bengal, but were very active. As I was travelling in a taxi from the Dum Dum airport to downtown, I saw the following slogan painted by the Marxists on the walls everywhere: 'China's chairman is our chairman'.

The present day Indian Marxists don't say this, but they do believe that 'China's interest is our Interest'. It is this belief which is behind their present campaign against the Government of India. Their hidden motive should be exposed.

by Mr. B Raman: Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2007 17:50

Consider several problems with that article. Here are relevant parts from that...


I agree that there are problems with that article - as you have pointed out.

However, there a lot of +ves too. An Indian company has got hold of a tract of land that could supply, hopefully (big if again), ore that India would otherwise will have to ask countries like Australia to give. The +ves are rather large in this case.

The other +ve I see is the bilateral relationship between India and Niger could be something that may not ever exist with any of the NSG countries.

WRT problems that India may face (transporting, etc) that is up to a future PM. One with a stronger backbone would be preferred. And, IF there are no rules WRT countries like Niger, I would expect the US, IAEA and NSG to formulate an India specific one ASAP.

I would think it is up to India at this point in time. What the future holds is something we will have to wait and see. But, based on the past I think this too is a futile attempt.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 19 Aug 2007 17:51

Rudranath wrote: I have never been excited over the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation. Nor do I share Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's enthusiasm for US President George Bush and the Indo-US agreement. I am inclined to feel that what we are seeing now is a one-night stand between Dr Singh and Mr Bush. Like most one-night stands, the happy thoughts thereafter will become an embarrassment in course of time.



Hey not fair; many moons ago I and Rye had a discussion on this very thread and I made the one night stand quote nearly identical to what B Raman writes here....

Copyright violation !!

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 19 Aug 2007 17:53

NRao wrote:One with a stronger backbone would be preferred.


:rotfl:

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 19 Aug 2007 18:08

I am inclined to feel that what we are seeing now is a one-night stand between Dr Singh and Mr Bush. Like most one-night stands, the happy thoughts thereafter will become an embarrassment in course of time.
B. Raman Garu


" Uncle believes in one night stand. Uncle dates and we deliver the day after morning"

Spinster 1999

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 18:21

Finally a scenario that requires some thought.

Sanatanan wrote:
lthough DAE may not directly import components for their npps, they do so via their contractors many of whom do not have the inclination nor wherewithal to indigenise what is not immediately available in India, and spurred from a profitability angle, tend to import those items. The US and NSG know this and have, I feel, up to now selectively shut their eyes to such exports to India. When the sellout is "operationalised", they will ensure that none of the items for the non-civilian plants are allowed to be exported from their countries. DAE's npp Division would not be able to build any new PHWR without placing it under civilian category.


My questions are:
1. If this is true of the motivation, then why are the NSG and Duplicity closing their eyes to components going to weapons today? If their intent were to Cap, Rollback, Assist Pakistan (CR*P), then why not stop those exports and put those companies on the Entities List, rather than go to all this convoluted rigmarole?

2. If DAE has already figured out how to import these things, and has them, then the issue appears to be "how to build MORE reactors". Are they so stupid that they can't set up facilities over, say, the next 5 years, or 10 years, to substitute these imports, at least at the 2007 technology level?

After all, the role of these reactors in the weapons program is to generate the glowing stuff, not to machine the bum components or make the guidance systems. So why is 1999-technology U-235 or Pu not good for future bombs?

3. Do you see a need for many MORE military reactors? Given that most domestic fuel can in principle be sent for strategic program use, once the energy sector is divested and uses imported fuel (or recycled/ 3-stage fuel), why is it necessary to continuously expand and build more production reactors for the weapons program (rather than for research, as you have stated re: "university type reactors")? Don't one or two more FBRs suffice?

So I agree that in the long term, 90% of India's reactors will be under international safeguards, and hence open to world-class modernization and continuous improvement. At the same time, domestic capability for construction, machine tools, and trained personnel, will jump by a factor of 10 at least (already MMS has announced 8 new IITs, which is more than a doubling, and the new ones will presumably admit a whole lot more students).

So where is the bad part here? Do you see India as being forever dependent on sneakily importing military-use goodies from the West, like Pakistan? No hope for indigenous initiative, ever? Not in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

The underlying argument behind the "sellout!" line seems to be that it is conceptually possible to win an AGREEMENT (not an unwritten acquiescence) that India is free to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, as in blowing up a few islands here or there, conducting atmospheric testing, mixing and shifting imported and indigenous fuel for military programs, and importing components for the military program, and they should all be happy to do this, because INDIA IS THE FUTURE SUPERPOWER.

I don't see any evidence of this being the case between the P-5. In fact, they just don't talk to each other about military programs except through clear MOUs and other deals. The laws of each country prohibit anything else. Please do feel free to provide evidence to the contrary - the "China Got a Better Deal!" hype was one such, but it proved to be worse than hype - it is opposite to the truth. China did NOT get the various written assurances that are in the India 123 agreement.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 18:30

Not for this thread, but [url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-07-23-china-spy-2_N.htm]rings alarm bells about waiving vetting of Chinese investment proposals in India.
[/url]
Of course the Friends of Business International takes the approach of punishing Indians because of Chinese spying. This is due to their long history:

And when I died the neighbors came and buried brother John


But if you GOOGle that Chinese espionage line, you will see actual evidence of Chinese govt. corporations set up precisely for that. Probably have branch offices in West Bengal and Chennai and Thiruvananthapuram.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35693
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2007 18:33

Sanatanan wrote:...When the sellout is "operationalised", they will ensure that none of the items for the non-civilian plants are allowed to be exported from their countries. DAE's npp Division would not be able to build any new PHWR without placing it under civilian category. ..


Lets discuss the 30% of those .. you are the best candidate to list top 5 or 10 non-indiginized import component?

Raju

Postby Raju » 19 Aug 2007 19:13

News filtering is that the left antics will ultimately lead to an Hyde Act (Indian version) to be passed in the parliament to counter American Hyde act. In the immidiate future a 'committee of experts consisting of MEA (diplomats), Atomic Energy Agency, Strategic experts etc has been formed to look into Left concerns' which just means in other words that there will be yet another discussion and follow-up activities in IAEA and NSG in operationalising the deal will be delayed by 2 weeks or such.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 19 Aug 2007 19:16

Rudranath wrote:Sorry could not find the link for the article, found this on another forum.



Here is the link to B.Raman's artilcle

I wonder what B.Raman was smoking to have come out with this piece of wisdom:


I also feel -- as I have stated on many occasions in the past -- that we should go slow on the development of our strategic relations with the US, keeping in view the fact that we live right in the midst of the Islamic world, and that about 45 per cent of the world's Muslim population lives in the South Asian region. Ours is still a fragile society and we should not create misgivings in the Muslim community by overlooking their sensitivities on this subject.



First, India needs USA more than USA needs India, all this crap about using India as a counterweight to China not withstanding. It is India that is begging USA not just for a 1-night stand but several (we have all witnessed the circus that led to the 123).

Also, as Uneven Cohen insightfully pointed out in in his Financial Times article, the last thing India-US relations are predicated upon is Islamic terror despite both being afflcited with this beast. USA does NOT consider (in fact encourages or looks the other way) TSP's jihad against India as terror, while India is contemptuosu of USA's attempt to cast every Muslim country it doesn't like as 'sponsors of global terrorism'. Thus, B.Raman need not loose any sleep over this aspect of the relationship. And if at all India's several-night stand with USA benfits it economically, Muslims in India benefit too, driving some of them away from Jihad towards more productive lives.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50068
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 19 Aug 2007 19:17

The Left ordering the sequence of events is quite interesting.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest