India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3452
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 05 Sep 2007 22:45

i am all for shorter govt duration. hail american system.!


SaiK, If you will remember the 90s, when the country was reeling under the burden of holding 3-4 general elections in the span of half decade, you would not be saying this.

When geniuses like Deve Gowda, IK Gujral, and VP Singh occupy the gaddi again, this forum will nostalgically sing paeans to MMS and Hajpayee like it being done for PVNR now.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2007 23:08

Manny wrote:I think its time we let West Bengal merge with East Bengal and go their own way. Bangladesh. Islamists and Communists can hold hands and fight the imperialists to their hearts content.

I am all for the freedom for the lefties. I am sure a country full of such "Intellectuals" would do great! They would become more powerful and richer than the "Imperlists" with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness and justice for all!

Support the freedom of the lefties in India! Support their reunification like the Berliners.

:)
Do not laugh at this. The scenario you describe along with the NE is acutally plausible. It is one of the biggest security threats we face. The demographics of the region do not look pretty.

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

Postby sraj » 05 Sep 2007 23:16

emsin wrote:We have prety well established designs for 550 MW PWRs..can design blueprints be passed to private companies like reliance. There are some Asian countries that are interested in our designs.

If the deal doesn't make it through it should be possible to speed up installation of these PWRS..we can get the fuel from the Non-NSG Govts under IAEA safeguards for those units.

Strategic programme still remains outside purview. Has that track been contemplated? Will that be acceptable to Uncle in case the deal falls either because of the Left or due to NPAs in the US. Should the MMS Govt be discussing that backup option with GWB in good faith?


Good post, and a legitimate alternative that GoI should at least show that it has evaluated with an open mind.

I have a lurking suspicion that J18 was originally implicitly sold to MMS as de facto NWS recognition by US - which he could claim as a major geo-political feather in his cap. Remember the very initial statements of Shyam Saran (the famous "we will have the same rights as the NWS, no more, no less") and the claim to this effect on the Indian embassy website which had to be taken off after the State Dept asked it to (in response to domestic howls of outrage from NPAs etc). When this aspect had to be underplayed, the deal became all about civil nuclear cooperation. This was the original bait and switch.

Some benefits of looking at the "indigenous PHWRs + imported non-NSG Uranium" option:

1. Don't need to navigate legal minefield in US (is Hyde Act applicable etc etc).

2. US President can show goodwill towards India (if so inclined) without paying political costs to Congress and NPAs by the simple act of not putting political pressure on non-NSG countries exporting Uranium to India.

3. Indigenous PHWRs using imported Uranium can come under IAEA safeguards similar to those already applicable to 6 Indian reactors (Tarapur-2; Rawatbhata-2; Koodankulam-2). No major hassles with IAEA negotiations.

4. NPCIL has commissioned Tarapur-3&4 (capacity of 540 MWe each) at a capital cost of Rs 6100 crores (or $1400/KW) in 2005 and 2006 (one unit in 5 years; the other in 6 years -- both ahead of schedule). They have already announced future reactors will be of 700 MW capacity.

5. This compares favorably with cost of imported reactors (which are around 1000 MW size). Does any one think imported reactors can be put up faster or cheaper than this?

6. Complex liability issues will need to be sorted out for imported reactors (basically GoI will have to assume liability for accidents etc.) before they can be put up.

7. Bypass whole issue of enriching Uranium to feed imported LWRs -- either paying for it in the import cost or incurring cost of putting up significant additional capacity (without access to imported enrichment technology/equipment).

Worth at least a debate.

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

Postby sraj » 05 Sep 2007 23:27

Gerard wrote:
P.S. If that German intelligence report quoted in the book coming out on Sept 13 is correct about Pakistan still proliferating, what does that tell us about US desire or ability to do anything about the situation?


According to Mark Hibbs, the European Editor of Nucleonics Week and Nuclear Fuel, everyone he has spoken to confirms the Paki proliferation network is still operational. Without it, the Paki bum program will shut down.


The Next 5 Big Nuclear Stories: A Conversation with Mark Hibbs

Thanks, Gerard. Very interesting.

While Hibbs mentions that the Pakistanis are still procuring from the black market for their own needs, and also talks about big parts of the proliferation network having the ability to resurrect itself even if AQ Khan has been put out of business, he does not explicitly mention the following from:
Times Article I posted earlier
[quote]Furthermore, disturbing new intelligence suggests that proliferation has not stopped. Last year, [b]a 55-page highly classified “early warningâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 05 Sep 2007 23:27

ShauryaT wrote:
Manny wrote:I think its time we let West Bengal merge with East Bengal and go their own way. Bangladesh. Islamists and Communists can hold hands and fight the imperialists to their hearts content.

:)
Do not laugh at this. The scenario you describe along with the NE is acutally plausible. It is one of the biggest security threats we face. The demographics of the region do not look pretty.


The entire policy with IMDT act and other border policy for the last 35 years was designed to facilitate this demographic change and social change.

How in the world that Indian govt is acting for foreign govt and demolishing the state of India. Unless they are deeply under pressure of the external power broker under the inlfuence of TSP this will not happen

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

Postby sraj » 05 Sep 2007 23:32

Thanks, Sanku for your kind words.

On the issue of being "condescending" towards any other country:

Speaking for myself, I have a lot of respect and admiration for both the Germans and the Japanese. We can learn quite a few things from both.

At the same time, Germany/Japan are used as short-hand for a particular geo-political situation in the current international system. No value judgment need be ascribed to it; it is a factual statement.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 05 Sep 2007 23:39

paul, think stability within the elected and well supported by the constitution. the lacking then was the 2/3rd majority.. the best way to kill the alliance democracy is get the largest to govern, and amend if no 2/3rd majority is available for the gov, then it has to be a JPC always to decide on contentious issues.

sometimes, simple things that matter too much for us.. and its easier said than done.. cause, people ain't got nothing else if everything is peachy. this has to change... furthermore, tooooooooooo many buddas (granpas) in the parliament is killing us.

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 05 Sep 2007 23:41

ShauryaT wrote:
Manny wrote:I think its time we let West Bengal merge with East Bengal and go their own way. Bangladesh. Islamists and Communists can hold hands and fight the imperialists to their hearts content.

I am all for the freedom for the lefties. I am sure a country full of such "Intellectuals" would do great! They would become more powerful and richer than the "Imperlists" with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness and justice for all!

Support the freedom of the lefties in India! Support their reunification like the Berliners.

:)
Do not laugh at this. The scenario you describe along with the NE is acutally plausible. It is one of the biggest security threats we face. The demographics of the region do not look pretty.



There's nothing to laugh about this issue, and in fact, it's well stated! This is a classic case of demographic warfare carried out by the PRC and actively abetted by the Communists and the Congress parties in India. The former's motivation is based on ideological grounds, and, the latter's motivation is to gain some cheap political mileage with Muslims in order to partially fulfill the sole rationale of its worthless existence - perpetuation of the Nehru-Gandhi family rule.

There's a RAND Corporation report on demographic warfare written by Brian Nichiporuk at RAND's Arroyo centre. This document, however, pales in thoroughness when compared to an even more exhaustive study by two staff officers of the Chinese PLA!!! The PLA treatise coherently describes (in a generic manner) and provides a rationale for the anti-Indian policies of the Congress and the Communists, while providing a pretty unpleasant description of the consequences of these actions that may be transparently extrapolated to the Indian case!
Last edited by RaviCV on 06 Sep 2007 01:27, edited 1 time in total.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 05 Sep 2007 23:55

Looks like China's funding for the CPI&M Clowns is prompting the national bus tours and cry-wolf tears pouring from Anti-Nuclear-Komputer Karat, Coal fumes Belching Yech and Bring-it-on Madam Brinda.

I also think the thrust to get Non-NSG countries like Namibia, Niger, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Uganda and Angola, for procuring natural uranium ore is a red herring. Namibia and Uzbekistan are among the largest producers of uranium; they also have the largest known reserves of uranium, but non-NSG countries have become vulnerable to the US inducements and the mines may be owned or operated by European companies. If non-NSG can be induced to sell uranium, India would have done it much earlier. There are other factors preventing such sale and I am presuming that US pressure is the main stumbling block.

On indigenous Nuclear power plants, what percentage is indian source-supplied - equipment etc. I still feel certain instruments are imported for process control. My hunch is we still have xx % of imported items.

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 00:14

Deleted

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

Postby NRao » 06 Sep 2007 00:23

Cabinet may discuss changes to N-power law

Wednesday, 05 September , 2007, 23:11

New Delhi: The Cabinet may discuss on Thursday the issue of amendments to the country's Atomic Energy Act, 1962 which could facilitate the entry of private players into nuclear power generation.

"Discussion on proposed amendments to the act is on the agenda for the cabinet meet," a reliable source told IANS Wednesday.

It is not yet clear whether the Cabinet will discuss amendments proposed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L K Advani to offset the impact of the Hyde Act on India's bilateral 123 civil nuclear agreement with the US.

Advani has suggested India's domestic nuclear laws can be amended to assert its right to nuclear testing and that the 123 agreement will have no impact on strategic agreements with other countries.

The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 allows nuclear power generation only by a central government company.

The government is keen to align the act with the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, 1980, which India signed and ratified in 2002. The government also wants to align the Atomic Energy Act with certain provisions of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which was passed by parliament in 2005.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 06 Sep 2007 01:03

[quote]Psychology behind the US-India N-deal
http://truthprevails.wordpress.com/2007 ... ia-n-deal/

The amount of ignorance on the deal is so enormous that is recently had the likes of KPS Gill backing it. Since the left started opposing it, even nationalist Indians have started backing the deal merely for the sake of opposing the Left. The left’s problem is not with the deal because they would actually love a weakened India, but they want to preferably be weakened by the Chinese and be answerable to them and not the Americans. But at least their opposition may have the desirable effect of scuttling this one sided deal — the right result for the wrong reasons.

Those whose responsibility it is to separate the wheat from the chaff and lay at rest the fears and doubts of the people — namely the GOI, actually thrives on the confusion. There is yet to be any kind of a detailed statement that allays the doubts of those concerned about the issue, the kind that should come from the scientists currently in power at the AEC but they are strangely mute, either making half statements or completely silent.

Some retired scientists make some noise but their concerns are drowned out in the overall din from the downright stupid Indian English paper columnists who bat for the deal only because “Doctorâ€
Last edited by svinayak on 06 Sep 2007 05:31, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 02:02

Posted by Acharya above

The Christian west finds it unfathomable for brown skinned pagan Hindu Indians to be playing around with dangerous things like nukes which are the rightful possession of only Whites, Jews and grudgingly perhaps the Chinese. The Christian Sonia administration has given them the rare opportunity to the snare the one nuclear puppy that has eluded them all along — the Indians.



Wow!!!! Christian, Hindu, Jew, White, Brown. This writer certainly sees the world in technicolor and technireligious terms. How come he has missed out "yellow Chinese" and Muslims?

Now, can we assume it is some "Hindu Indian" who has written this? Acharya care to post the link please so we can find out who this religious bigot is and the publication that lends its name to this artistic piece?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 06 Sep 2007 02:03

Deccan Chronicel, 6 Sept., 2007
Deal Undone
By Dr P.C. Alexander

Ever since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement in Parliament on July 29, 2005 on the main features of the proposal for Indo-US nuclear cooperation, I had never felt so doubtful about the prospects of its final approval by both sides as I do at present. There have been debates on the proposed deal in Parliament on two or three subsequent occasions in which I have also participated, and the tenor of most of the speeches has been that there should be no dilution in the various assurances given by the Prime Minister on the core issues of the deal. But the whole situation seems to have undergone a radical change after the 123 Agreement was initiated by the government on August 1, 2007.

The non-UPA political parties now seem to be in no mood even to try for reaching a consensus on the Agreement. The opposition by the Left parties, who support the government from outside, has stiffened very much and their criticism of the 123 Agreement has become strident and sharp. Mr A.B. Bardhan said it all on behalf of the Left parties when he called for a national debate on whether "complete subjugation of Indian foreign policy to imperialist powers was too heavy a price to be paid for a mere seven per cent power guarantee in 2020." The insistence of the Left parties that the government should not start talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the issue of India specific safeguards or with the Nuclear Suppliers Group on waiving the restrictions on access to technology has indeed taken the government by surprise and caused serious doubts on the survival of the government itself.

The hardening of the attitude of the principal Opposition party in Parliament, namely, the BJP, on 123 Agreement became quite evident when Mr L.K. Advani in an interview with a national newspaper at Hyderabad on August 29, 2007 demanded amendments to the Indian Atomic Energy Act 1962 and other relevant domestic laws of the country. He had not spelt out in his Hyderabad interview the lines on which amendments were to be made to the Indian Act. However, in his remarks at the BJP parliamentary party meeting held on August 30, 2007 L.K. Advani has indicated what exactly he meant when he called for amendments to the existing national laws on nuclear energy. His party’s stand, now, is that renegotiation of the Agreement should be taken up only after the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and other such laws are strengthened and suitably amended "in such a way as to insulate the country’s strategic objectives."

In other words, the BJP’s present stand seems to be that there is no point in carrying on negotiations with the US for cooperation in nuclear matters unless India has also established a suitable legal basis like the Hyde Act of the US for an agreement. India’s Atomic Energy Act of 1962 is almost the only legislation on nuclear energy in India, but its focus is mainly on Central control over the development and production of nuclear energy. On the other hand, the US has a proper legal framework in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Hyde Act of December 2006 and the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in the US in March 1970.

The present strong stand of the two Opposition groups in Parliament, the NDA and the Left group, has practically made the proposed nuclear deal with the US a non-starter, though the two groups are harping on different reasons for taking their present respective positions. Article 2(i) of the Agreement states that each party shall implement the 123 Agreement "in accordance with the respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and licence requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." The apprehension that the US national laws may neutralise whatever advantages India would have gained through the 123 Agreement is at the root of the opposition by the Opposition parties.

An important source of unhappiness for those who oppose the Agreement is the provision in the national laws recognising the right of the US not only to halt nuclear trade with the country detonating any nuclear device but also to demand the return of the nuclear materials and equipment transferred to it pursuant to the Agreement.

Those who defend the 123 Agreement argue that there is no explicit provision in the Agreement prohibiting India from undertaking nuclear tests and therefore, India has the freedom to test nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so. But the consequences of detonating a nuclear device have been clearly spelt out in the 123 Agreement and this is an unambiguous advance warning against India undertaking any test. If there was any doubt about this it had been cleared by the statement of Nicholas Burns, the chief negotiator for the US for the nuclear deal on August 2, 2007 in which he categorically declared that if India or any other country conducts a nuclear test, the President will have the right to ask for the return of the nuclear fuel and technologies that have been transferred by American firms. He has added for good measure that "that right is preserved wholly in the Agreement."

An equally important source of worry for the Opposition is the provision in the US national laws that the President should submit to the Congress annually a report certifying that the cooperating country has fully complied with the US national laws. Those who defend the India specific 123 Agreement, claim that such provisions in the national laws are only binding on the US President and not on India, but the provision about annual certificate of the US President affects the fate of the cooperation and therefore affects India as much as it does the US.

One may ask the BJP why it thought of amending and strengthening the existing laws of India only at this late stage when the Agreement is quite near finalisation. Similarly, one may ask the Left parties why they are raising the issue of US "imperialism" as the main issue now, while in earlier debates they were more insistent on compliance with the commitments made by the Prime Minister about the joint statement he had made with the US President in July 2005. Whatever may be the answer which these parties may give to such questions, the reality of the situation which has emerged is that the Agreement now faces fundamental objections from the majority of the Members of Parliament. Of course, the government does not need the approval of Parliament for entering into such agreements and therefore the lack of majority support is not a serious legal hurdle. But the present is certainly not a comfortable position for any government wishing to go ahead with such an important measure as nuclear cooperation with the US.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while concluding his statement in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that an agreement has finally been reached with the US on nuclear cooperation, had stated in ringing words that "what has been achieved is good for India and good for the world." Nobody will question the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s conviction that this Agreement is good for India, but if the overwhelming majority in Parliament is not so convinced, will it be advisable for the government to push ahead with it in its present form? Or more realistically, will it be possible for the government to do so in the emerging circumstances even if it wants to do so?

Dr P.C. Alexander was the Governor of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and is at present a Member of Parliament (RS)



RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 02:21

abhischekcc wrote:There seems to be some confusion/admiration for the positions of W. Europe and Japan as uncle's poodles on this forum.

First thing first. Germany and Japan royally kicked uncle's arse in WW2. America may have defeated the two countries militarily in the war, but did not harm their economic independance. The elites of both Japan and Germany became part of the America led alliance post-WW2. That's why they were rewarded.

America became the manager and the policeman (aka - the Sheriff) of the global capitalist alliance out of sheer necessity. Because they knew that the next world war may just wipe out the AMericans as well. (Just like WW2 wiped out the British empire). They couldn't stay out like they did after WW1.

Under the arrangement, South America was exploited for US economy, Africa for Europe, and East Asia for Japan. The only exception was West Asia, which US kept for itself. Parts of Asia were bundled off to the Soviets (we were part of that bundle).


The elite of the defeated axis powers was not wiped out after the war. Only some sham trials of some of the generals were held. Did top officials of IG Farben of Germany face punishment? They were the ones who manufactured the gassing equipment used in holocaust, even before the nazis even thought of starting the holocaust?


------------------
There is another myth being propogated by many people, especially in media and kangrez wallahs - that India's 123 is better than China's 123. That is simply a lie. China is a NWS state under the NPT, hence a lot of restrictions do not apply to it.



-----------------------

This is a very well written and informative post. However, there are some issues that have been overlooked. For example, post WWII I. G. Farben was effectively broken up into Hoechst, Bayer, and, BASF. There were indeed some senior people who were held accountable for their role in the Holocaust, though a large number criminals slipped through the cracks.

A prominent example of someboby of importance in I. G. Farben being convicted is that of Karl Winnacker. He (Winnacker) who was Chairman of the board of Hoechst for over a decade, and, who commenced his tenure around 1950, was indeed convicted post WWII for doing research and manufacturing Zyklon B whilst in I. G. Farben, while having knowledge of its end use!

The fact that this did not stop Winnacker from becomming Chairman of Hoechst speaks volumes about the German mind set!!!!! To go a bit further, there's even a prominent chemical engineering and biotech institute in Frankfurt am Main (near Hoechst), named after Winnacker!!!!!!!

Mohan Raju
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Mohan Raju » 06 Sep 2007 05:10

Sanku wrote:I am not in the mood to reinvent the wheel for you and if you find that as an excuse to vilify and go on another YB rampage


"Rampage"??!! You need to consider using a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word. LDev (to whom your remark was directed) posts maybe once every couple of days on this thread, you post probably once every couple of minutes, and *he's* on the rampage?? :rotfl:

...another YB rampage that YBs are doing; that will be just what I expect.


Take a Valium, calm down. You are becoming the Comical Ali of this thread. Why are you so hyped up? It looks like your 'herrows' the Commies are going to bring down the govt, there are going to be fresh elections. If so, we'll see what the people of India (as opposed to the politicans and journalists) have to say on this subject.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 06 Sep 2007 05:39

'India seeking big power status with N-deal'

Agencies
Posted online: Friday, August 31, 2007 at 1237 hours IST


Beijing, August 31: In a second salvo within a fortnight against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, a leading official Chinese newspaper has accused New Delhi of seeking "big power" status with Washington's backing and even stretching its "tentacles" outside Asia.

"The US-Indian nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance for India in achieving its dream of a powerful nation," the People's Daily, the official mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC), said in a commentary.

"As a big country with rapid economic growth, India is keen on gaining greater influence in international affairs and playing a decisive role in the international arena. At this point, maybe it is not an exaggeration to say that the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement actually demonstrates its dream to become a big power," the commentary, second since August 17, says.

"In addition, the United States has explicitly proposed in the agreement that it would not hamper or intervene in the development of India's military nuclear plan, which will also help the country achieve its goals to be a nuclear power," it notes with concern.

"In fact, the purpose of the United States to sign civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India is to enclose India into its global partners' camp, so as to balance the forces of Asia. This fits in exactly with India's wishes," the paper said.

"Since India declared independence in 1947, it has always been determined to become a big power," it said while noting that although there are still people questioning the possibility, India did make "good achievement" in the following 60 years.




emsin

Postby emsin » 06 Sep 2007 05:46

4. NPCIL has commissioned Tarapur-3&4 (capacity of 540 MWe each) at a capital cost of Rs 6100 crores (or $1400/KW) in 2005 and 2006 (one unit in 5 years; the other in 6 years -- both ahead of schedule). They have already announced future reactors will be of 700 MW capacity.

5. This compares favorably with cost of imported reactors (which are around 1000 MW size). Does any one think imported reactors can be put up faster or cheaper than this?


Sraj..i apologize not acknowledging your excellent last post. It was on that basis ..point 6 conclusion that i came around to enquire if the fall back option was available. (Sincere apologies for not acknowledging)

Again you put your points succintly and very well. Yet IMO 4 and 5 i think the Japanese and French have the ability to put in reactors 1 GW plus in less than 3 years. I'd appreciate being misquoted on that.

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

Postby NRao » 06 Sep 2007 05:49

Chicom in support of Indian Communist parties is spewing out article after article. There is one that states that India is buying humongo amount of defence items from an "invisible" fund!!!

Told ya, keep an eye on them Chicom news editors. They have a mind of their own that their own party leaders are not aware of. The Editor forgot to tell Hu that the strategic partneship is not with India.

On the flip side, that this clown act has gone for so long it makes me think that the GoI is doing a retake on the Hyde Act. Time will tell if they sign a 123 with the Commies in India. Indian commies can pass an internal Law in China. That would complete the loop.

emsin

Postby emsin » 06 Sep 2007 05:55

4. NPCIL has commissioned Tarapur-3&4 (capacity of 540 MWe each) at a capital cost of Rs 6100 crores (or $1400/KW) in 2005 and 2006 (one unit in 5 years; the other in 6 years -- both ahead of schedule). They have already announced future reactors will be of 700 MW capacity.

5. This compares favorably with cost of imported reactors (which are around 1000 MW size). Does any one think imported reactors can be put up faster or cheaper than this?



Again 4 and 5 i do concurr with the rest what you say..there's no feasibility study in know that can get Indian FBR tech blue prints into the private sector. I don't think inventors are capable of mass production.

You're making very significant points.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 06 Sep 2007 05:58

sraj wrote: Some benefits of looking at the "indigenous PHWRs + imported non-NSG Uranium" option:


On the same point, can the proposed amendment to allow private sector participation in the nuclear power sector circumvent the political stigma attached to importing Uranium through non-NSG channels e.g. Niger? There was a report of a private Indian company acquiring mining rights in Niger. If this raw material source ties in with a privately operated power plant, it may keep the Govt. of India insulated from the political pressures of non-proliferation, no?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 06 Sep 2007 05:58


'China may seek N-cooperation with India'


Agencies
Posted online: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 at 1520 hours IST
Updated: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 at 1550 hours IST

Nuclear Ties Beijing, September 5: China may be willing to explore the possibility of cooperation with India in the peaceful use of nuclear energy within the IAEA safeguards, similar to the Sino-Pakistani model, a senior scholar with a leading Chinese arms control and disarmament think-tank said on Wednesday.

"There is a possibility that China and India can cooperate in the peaceful use of nuclear energy only within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," said a senior research fellow of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association (CACDA), Zhai Dequan.

"It is a matter of time and initiatives from both sides. China has done this with Pakistan (under the IAEA safeguards) and we can also do this with India," Zhai said.

Interestingly, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, during a meeting last Friday with an India-China Eminent Persons Group, had said China was willing to cooperate with all countries on the peaceful use of nuclear energy within the IAEA safeguards.


Meanwhile, other Chinese scholars also stressed that China does not attach great importance in highlighting the 123 Agreement reached between India and the US.

"Even in Chinese newspapers, it is not widely published or circulated among ordinary citizens," a Chinese scholar, who did not want to be identified, said, stressing that there is no need for China to 'dramatise' or 'exploit' this issue.

"From the Chinese point of view, there are more important aspects in Sino-India relations for further development because both countries have taken the road of faster development for the betterment of the lives of the peoples of the world's two most populous nations.

"I think specific issues will not affect the development of bilateral relations between China and India," he said, pointing out that India had many wise statesmen who can handle the affairs very well.

At the same time, some Chinese scholars wondered why India is not taking any initiative to join NPT and which would open up more options for the nation on the nuclear front.

Commenting specifically on the 123 agreement, the scholars pointed out that this deal is between India and the United States and bilateral in nature.

"This is a business between the two countries, India and the United States. However, the subject matter (of this bilateral agreement) relates to the international community's principle of non-proliferation," one scholar noted.

"As far as China is concerned, this agreement can be carried forward so long as it does not hurt the principle of non-proliferation," he said.

"After a lapse of time, China has realised that non-proliferation is in the fundamental interest of China and also the international community," he said.

Chinese scholars noted that both India and the US have different interpretations of the 123 Agreement on three points: nuclear material supply, technological transfer and IAEA safeguards, adding that it needs the 'creative wisdom' from India and the US to properly implement the agreement.

"I don't know what the two sides will do in this case. There must be some consensus reached before any tests, if any, otherwise things may go out of control," one scholar remarked.


Sino-India relations are both cooperative and competitive, especially on the energy resources and foreign direct investment (FDI). It is natural for countries to have such cooperative and competitive type of relations, he said.

But the two countries should device new ways of conducting business. China is aware of this and is trying to get win-win results and there is already some initiative for energy cooperation between the two countries in international business operations, he added.


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 06 Sep 2007 06:22

mmm why would we be wanting chink reactors?.. of course, fuel is one that we may be interested... perhaps falling in line with post NSG/IAEA agreements. this news clip sounds like a maniomanship doosra before the hectic intra-cabinet/govt talks with the left.

left.. gets a life.. lbw turned down right now.

emsin

Postby emsin » 06 Sep 2007 06:47

sraj wrote:
Some benefits of looking at the "indigenous PHWRs + imported non-NSG Uranium" option:


This is a very significant line of thinking specially if the deal falls through. MMS and the Govt should pursue this with GWB as a fall back option. We have little choice, irrespective of where the deal falls.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 07:20

emsin wrote:
sraj wrote:
Some benefits of looking at the "indigenous PHWRs + imported non-NSG Uranium" option:


This is a very significant line of thinking specially if the deal falls through. MMS and the Govt should pursue this with GWB as a fall back option. We have little choice, irrespective of where the deal falls.


The three countries with substantial resources of uranium ore that are also not members of the NSG are Niger, Namibia and Uzbekistan. In aggregate they have about 300,000 tons of uranium ore. However, I believe, virtually all of the mining operation in these 3 countries is done by companies which are based in NSG member countries e.g. almost all of Niger's uranium is mined by a subsidiary of Areva, France. There could be insignificant amounts of production being done by non-NSG country based companies in these 3 countries though.

You may wish to explore this further. As far as I can see, about 8 global companies control about 85% of all the uranium ore that is mined annually and all 8 are based in NSG countries.

I am sure that DAE of the GOI has not been resting on this issue. The global control over uranium mining resources as stated above may be one reason why there has not been success to date in augmenting the meagre Indian domestic uranium reserves.
Last edited by ldev on 06 Sep 2007 07:27, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 07:25

So many threads, so little time..

Has dear Sanku done his comparison of J18 vs 123 yet?

Or wisely decided against on the principle that one must never allow facts to interfere with superstition? Just curious onlee... 8)

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 07:34

enqyoob wrote:Has dear Sanku done his comparison of J18 vs 123 yet?


:shock: sanku's first law of internet etiquette states that the search for superstition should always have precedence over the search for facts.

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

Postby sraj » 06 Sep 2007 07:46

emsin: don't worry about acknowledging; it is participating in the debate that matters! (thanks all the same).

on your questions: perhaps someone can confirm whether Franch/Japanese cos can put up reactors in 3 yrs -- if so, that should certainly be taken into account when evaluating the overall pros and cons.

i think FBRs are not part of this discussion; they will remain with DAE for the foreseeable future. Only LWRs are expected to be imported, so this comparison is really imported LWRs vs indigenous PHWRs.

Anoop: political pressures will be there whether it is private sector or GoI. The key is, since so many problematic clauses in the current arrangements are sought to be wished away based on our increasing ability to withstand political pressures, perhaps we can demonstrate a little bit of this ability today by importing - perfectly legally - non-NSG Uranium under IAEA safeguards (say, for feeding one of the Rawatbhata reactors which is already under IAEA safeguards).

Bala: Has GoI stated at any time that importing non-NSG Uranium is not possible? Because US is putting pressure on some country not to export to India even though it is legal? I thought this GoI believes that the US wants to help us? Also, on imported process control instruments: presumably they were imported legally for all the indigenous PHWRs commissioned so far by NPCIL and so can continue to be imported.

ldev:you are right about a lot of existing Uranium production being controlled by NSG companies. But there are also domestic state-owned companies in many countries. Also, there are a lot of unexplored reserves. The Indian company getting a prospecting license in Niger is a case in point.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 06 Sep 2007 08:00

Don't hate Bush, he's India's best friend (Swaminomics)

Now, the Left is hardly alone in anti-Bushism. Many moderates in Europe are extremely worried about US muscularity, and revel in its discomfiture in Iraq. People across the ideological spectrum in India view Bush as a disaster.
But does this contradict Ronen Sen's view that India has not seen and will not in the near future see a US President who is as strong a friend and supporter as Bush? I don't think so. Much as we may disapprove of Bush's muscularity, the record shows that no other US president has ever been willing to ride roughshod over the anti-proliferation lobby, the pro-Pakistan lobby and the pro-China lobby.

Former ambassador to the US Naresh Chandra notes that Indians dislike Bush and like Clinton. Yet, he notes that Clinton gave India little save sanctions. Clinton sought to punish India for its nuclear explosion, not convert it into a high strategic partner.

Earlier US Presidents - Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy - did nothing much for India. Nor in the future will Hilary Clinton, who strongly opposed some clauses of the Hyde Act.

Why is Bush so strongly pro-India? Because of the same simple-mindedness he has shown in other foreign policy areas. Bush is determinedly anti-intellectual. He divides the world into good guys and bad guys, and cannot see shades of grey. This can be very dangerous: it led him to invade Iraq. Yet, that same good-guy bad-guy lens has led him to see India as a very good guy. And so, he has brushed aside objections from US experts who call this view of India a gross oversimplification.

From Ronen Sen's viewpoint, the issue is not whether we like or dislike Bush. The issue is whether he has done more than any other US president to promote partnership with India and crush anti-Indian lobbies. The answer is surely yes.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 06 Sep 2007 09:22

Sraj,

I don't know whether India has approached the non-NSG nations. I am assuming our babulog to be pretty smart and would have thought/covered this angle. My hunch is the non-NSG are under NPT gag laws indirectly. After India signs on with US civilian nuke deal the US may relax the gag. But it never hurts to pursue this angle to its fullest.

BTW it is a pleasure to deal with you, since you ask very pertinent/relevant questions even though we may not agree on issues.

N^3 has summarized the Sanku bunny very well: no facts just superstition/hogwash.

On BUSH Jr: he will go down in history as the most friendliest President India has dealt with so far. Bush has quietly and cleverly unleashed the full extent of US-India cooperation on the military side by going beyond norms and having strategic full-fledged exercises. The joint exercises have a long term impact, both in understanding each other and also having appreciation for each other's strengths/weaknesses. (Personally I get goose bumps seeing pictures of Indian naval/airforce/army personnel interacting with US personnel and the enormous professionalism and stature it brings to INDIA, the emotions are simply indescribable for me). I only wished that Bush had started on this path in his first term. Never too late though. Others who deserve major credit are Blackwill and Condi Rice - two very key players. Bush Jr. is very different than Bush Sr.

Clinton was China supporter strategically. Bush Jr is not.

armenon
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 09:14

Postby armenon » 06 Sep 2007 09:28

"We, with help of the Indian public, will certainly force the UPA government to change its attitude towards the USA," Bose said.

Don't know what Mr.Basu meant by "we". We as in "we the commies" or "we the Chinese" ?


http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=91798

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 06 Sep 2007 09:28

left and right are attracted to each other.. what would be this law called?

123 in the middle kinda filters them currently. btw, did they say, they are to include a counter hyde movement for those sitting in the south?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Postby Rien » 06 Sep 2007 09:33

emsin wrote:Again you put your points succintly and very well. Yet IMO 4 and 5 i think the Japanese and French have the ability to put in reactors 1 GW plus in less than 3 years. I'd appreciate being misquoted on that.


I would like to see evidence that either country has erected a 1GW plus reactor in three years. The normal timeframe quoted is 4 to 5 years. Source please?

There is no way expensive firangi maal can be as cheap as desi maal.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2007 10:09

sraj wrote: 3. It is perfectly legal under Article III of NPT for an NNWS Party to export Uranium to another country provided such export is covered by IAEA safeguards (pls note the distinction between these NPT rules and NSG requirement for full-scope safeguards on all nuclear facilities in a country).


Article III of NPT
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

3. The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of such agreements shall commence within 180 days from the original entry into force of this Treaty. For States depositing their instruments of ratification or accession after the 180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall commence not later than the date of such deposit. Such agreements shall enter into force not later than eighteen months after the date of initiation of negotiations.


Sraj...I think this is the section of Article III you are referring to in your post if I'm not mistaken.

India, being declared herself as Nuclear weapon state or in possesion of nuclear weapons, considering the exact text of the NPT rule which i quoted above, how this transfer of material is legally possible from NNWS NPT member to a country which is not an NWS under NPT rules ?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 10:55

ldev wrote:
enqyoob wrote:Has dear Sanku done his comparison of J18 vs 123 yet?


:shock: sanku's first law of internet etiquette states that the search for superstition should always have precedence over the search for facts.


Oohh such amount of hate; on one hand grand statements of lets ignore the bunny; on the other pure venomous personal attacks when the bunny is sleeping. What gives?

Birathers I will tell you a little trick: Go to the members link look for my name and do a list all posts; you will find I have defined what I mean by J18 and how the clauses dont match up. I have also laid bare the canard that 123 does not depend on Hyde act and other such nonsense.

Till date I have not had a single point challenging me on those. The only sensible opposition has been; if not 123 what will we do for energy? Even that angle was covered in great detail in other posts and I shall spend some time on the same.

Meanwhile do a list all posts and find out the amount of sulphours hot air generated by YBs.

Of course there is a constituency which believes in their greatness and selective reading.

Please feel free to ignore me; I would prefer that than having to deal with asinine personal attacks. Buh bye....

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 11:37

ldev wrote:Energy costs and blah blah blah....


Birather; you have actually playing bait and switch; the energy cost was only one dimension of the debate on energy availablity from IMPORTED nukes. There were other aspects; (cost of construction; dependence; should therms be made etc) which you have cleanly skipped.

In any case we dont have to go by your back of envelop calculations about nuclear energy costs etc since there are better sources to use (note I dont say whether I agree or disagree on cost aspect; YET)

Nuclear Generation Cost in India

I also post the frontline article again; since all its clauses and calculations seem to be in order and none have challanged the same yet

Going critical

The third link I was looking for was the archvied discussion in BRF where the alternatives were being discussed when Hyde was passed and it was clear that it had poision pills. The agreement was that no 123 with Hyde should be accepted. That debate ended with Arun_S assertion
We shall burn that coal


I would also like to bring your attentions to some old discussion on BRF; read around the post to prior ones too.

Fuel rates

Idev wrote:Arun_S wrote:

220MWe PHWR used in Pu breeding mode & 85% power generation capacity and adequate fuel loader capacity will generate 181Kg/Yr WgPu, however if there is not enough fuel loader capacity and if it is operated in conventional high burn mode the spent fuel will have only 98 Kg RgPu (Reactor grade Pu).

Corresponding figured for 540MWe PHWR are 447Kg WgPu/yr and 227Kg RgPu/yr.

Of course we do not know FBR output rate. They are conservatively starting with charactering with Mox fuel, followed by Carbide fuel and eventually metallic fuel.


Thanks Arun_S. Your figures seem to indicate that effectively it means that if nothing catastrophic happens globally in the next 5-8 years, the rate of availability of driver fuel domestically will be adequate to support a normal commissioning program of AHWRs. Ofcourse it will not be adequate to add 100,000MW of generating capacity per year, but it will supplement quite nicely the coal/thermal capacities being added on.

:lol:

More links around the same: (look for discussions around Arun_S's name )

Eventually AHWR can be self sustaining.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and I can go on and on.

However the conclusions are

1) The way to go for affordable; long term safe energy is the indegenous thorium cycle and that alone. Imported LWR are no substititue. Reprocessing is a important cost and unless available has issues for production.

2) The main hurdle in thorium cycle has been funding and political will; the worst during 90s (under Dr Singh) please refer to [1] above.

3) The thorium cycle will not be particularly hurt if the 123 deal if it does not materialize .

4) Even if the 123 deal materializes the imported materials will add about 4-5 % with great cost (considering) in both captial (compared to desi maal) as well as oppertunity costs.

In summary the energy argument is as AK said before; not central take away from 123 but an externality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AS you can see from the archives; the above are a rehash of old discussion by me (with my limited abilites) and some of the conclusions even have your signature.

Hence all your nastiness is just a personal venom at me for having pointed out that the deal is not worth it.
Probably you worship Dr Singh or something and this entire charade is from a political angle rather than a technical one.

Have a nice night in US birathers.... we Indians have a long way to go before we get what we need. Thank you for the concern.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 12:07

bala wrote:N^3 has summarized the Sanku bunny very well: no facts just superstition/hogwash.
.


Hazaar generaaal statement; instead of generaaal hi flautin hate posts; please pick one supersition/hogwash in my post to dissect. But much easier this way no?
:rotfl:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 12:56

Mohan Raju wrote:
Take a Valium, calm down. You are becoming the Comical Ali of this thread. Why are you so hyped up? It looks like your 'herrows' the Commies are going to bring down the govt, there are going to be fresh elections. If so, we'll see what the people of India (as opposed to the politicans and journalists) have to say on this subject.


That comment was directed not at Idev alone ; he is still realtively sober; there are others like N^3 the clown prince of the board; bala etc.. etc.. who are dying to skin the bunny alive. That post was at them; and lookee at the board; aint my predictions justified?
:rotfl:

Secondly to the only important matter in the post; the Nuclear issue is to arcane to matter a whit in public discussions; and if it does in will be not in the way you think; and the left has already taken a lead here

Imagine

UPA says :: We could have made your life better with more energy

Left says:: The buggers are selling us out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flashback

NDA says:: lookee reforms lookee economics lookee India on growth path we did it.

UPA says:: lookee the urban folks got two paise more than you this is a giant conspiracy against rural folks.

Who won?

Ta ta 8)
Last edited by Sanku on 06 Sep 2007 13:47, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 13:01



That IS the exact problem actually; a 123 + Hyde which basically leaves the whole Indo-US process at the mercy of the current GOTUS/COTUS in absence of clear positive policy towards nuclear cooperation; how damaging will this instrument be post Bush!!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 06 Sep 2007 13:04

ramana wrote:Deccan Chronicel, 6 Sept., 2007
Deal Undone
By Dr P.C. Alexander


Oh lookee he agrees with my points broadly (or vice versa)!! The P. C. Alexander must be saffaron commie with parent from West Bengal AND Kerla onleee. Just like me. :eek: :shock:


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest