India Nuclear News & Discussion - 9 Sept 2007

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

Post by Shankar »

How incompetent Congress Party got India into trouble with US - India now resists intense US pressure to back proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)
Balaji Reddy
May 21, 2006

It was a catastrophic mistake of Indian politicians especially Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. Because of that mistake India may lose its nuclear sovereignty. It was mistake even to approach America for a civilian nuclear deal. Now America is pushing India to permanently close down India’s independent status to make nuclear fissile material. The original deal went no where and now India struggles to contain the only super power of the world. This is exactly what happens when university professors and academicians like Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh type people take control of a country like India.
America wanted a civilian nuclear deal to contain India’s nuclear ambition. There was another bigger but special interest motive that Indian politicians never understood. Some influential people in charge of American political environment have recently invested very heavily in companies that can supply country like India civilian nuclear reactors. American Administration thought India will buy these reactors and the profits will be enormous for those companies. Indians like any other time thought American are naïve. Americans can be fooled. India will sign nuke deal with America and then buy all the reactors and fuel from Russia. Americans finally sensed what Indian Congress Party politicians who are pro-Russian for decades are really planning. America tried to push for a total stoppage of Indian fissile material production. India vehemently resisted and left the negotiation table on the issue. America now is pressuring India to back proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

According to media reports, India is resisting intense US pressure to come out and openly support the Bush administration's initiative this week to propose a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

Sources in South Block [office of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs] told the media that the government considered issuing a statement in Delhi yesterday, but backed off, fearing a domestic political fallout whatever stand it took on the US proposal.

Instead, it asked Jayant Prasad, India's ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, to declare an Indian position on the issue in the hope that a statement made at a meeting in Geneva will not attract public attention back home.

Prasad's statement is in one sense historic. For the first time since India's parliament unanimously opposed America's aggressive designs on Iraq, it articulated Delhi's disagreement with a policy of the Bush administration.

America's draft FMCT does not include a system to verify the treaty's compliance by its signatories. Recently, the Bush administration jettisoned America's traditional adherence to treaty verification practices and announced that it would not propose any such verification methods for an FMCT. Prasad said in his statement that any FMCT that goes into effect should "incorporate a verification mechanism" in order to provide the assurance that all states were complying with their obligations. He added, obviously with Pakistan - the world's most notorious blackmarketeer in nuclear material - at the back of his mind: "Full compliance by all states with their obligations under international instruments" to which they were party was critical to the achievement of the goals envisaged in those instruments.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/8925.asp
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

The price we are being asked to pay by the US is too high: no testing, no reprocessing, no guarantees of future fuel supplies. Once we sign the deal, we will be at the mercy of the US and the Nuclear Suppliers Group for our energy security."
It seems to me that the assertions are not entirely true.

"no testing"
Specific types of testing are prohibited, and the GOI and its scientists have been clear that no additional testing is needed for credibility purposes. This claim is further bolstered by an understanding of the difference in damage between a 20kT fission and 200kT fission-fusion device. In the age of ABMs, a quiver full of 20kT is more economical than a few 200kT arrows, anyway.

"no reprocessing"
What is the dedicated reprocessing facility intended for?

"no guarantees of future fuel supplies"
The US, under Hyde, may not be able to sell fuel to India, However, the NSG and IAEA are not subject to Hyde, and there is *absolutely* no reason why they should.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
maybe you can do some thinking and post some numbers, rather than give bhashans. I have yet to see any numbers in any post of yours justifying your point of view.
Cooked will do? Like some people we know so well. :P (200 reactors :roll:)

Or numbers I quote from open source literature including BC (did you read that article BTW? or BC not good enough for you as well) not good enough "since they are not what I calculate".

Give me a break dude; the only number you care for is one which will justify your POV; you are hardly interested in reality.

Over and out.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

the Hyde Act does not waive the need for India to seek and obtain US permission every time we wish to reprocess the irradiated imported fuel from our reactors
The Hyde act governs what the US may do, under 123. Can someone point me in the direction of the language that has stimulated this claim above?
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

BC not good enough for you as well
Actually, since BC has been given to over-exaggerations, his credibility is not particularly high. It may be useful to have more than a couple of datapoints in this regard. Additionally, it may be useful to review claims from people that are not in the maximalist camps, to understand whether their claims are fundamentally suspect or not.

The combination gives us a reasonably supportable basis.

This discussion should not be premised on the pro-deal, or anti-deal basis - but rather on the premise that most on this forum wish for the best possible outcome over the largest spectrum of possibilities over the longest period of time.

The question that ultimately needs to be answered pertain to the assumptions that people are making about the future.

My assumptions, for example, are:

(a) India doesn't need any additional tests, because it is sure that its devices will deliver at least 20kT, likely 20-200kT - and in a world of ABM, more devices makes more sense than larger devices

(b) Energy security is paramount for India, and nuclear is presently the only meaningful source that the future can be bet upon

(c) This agreement does not fundamentally alter our path to a Thorium based cycle

(d) The need for a Thorium based cycle will assure that Indian domestic companies will not be sidelined

(e) Fuel and reactor supply is assured, because NSG is not bound by Hyde, only the US is.
Last edited by Calvin on 10 Sep 2007 16:02, edited 1 time in total.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

and some ordinary persons views
he Indo-US nuclear deal has generated so much of interest, not only in the country but even outside that one cannot afford to ignore it. Having been a keen follower of the developments that led to the signing of the deal right from the stage the negotiations started over an year back, I have arrived at the following conclusions:



The Deal per se, is not something to be ridiculed and rejected. Having been put on a nuclear freeze zone by the IAEA and the NSG, consequent to the second testing at Pokharan, India had to look for opportunities to get back into the international stage to ensure that its nuke programmes did not suffer. The Nuke programme we had to sustain was more for the peaceful and developmental use than the military use. With the ever-increasing oil bill and the rocketing power needs, nuclear source was the only source that was available to us at managable costs. That is where the nuclear trade ban impossed on us came as a stumbling block.We had two options. One was to sign the NPT, sucumb to international pressures and give up our right to have defensive capabilities against the beligerent posturing of Pakistan and the illegal spreading of nuclear arms in our neighbourhood.The second, less probable option was to convince the world of our good intentions and allow us to procure the required fuel from available sources. The American Deal gave us an opportunity to try out the second option.That is where the deal is to be appreciated.



But the US being US has tried some hard bargaining to pin down India to all the restrictive clauses that would have been applicable if India had signed the NPT itself, while entering into this deal. The credit goes to the negotiators from India's side like Shyamsaran and Sivasankar Menon in resisting the pressures and finally coming out with a resonably acceptable format.The protracted negotiations, which at times seemed to end in the total collapse of the deal, seem to have forced the US and the Indian officials to finally ink the deal in a hurry. That is where we have the major problem.



The US team inked the deal after getting all their legislative approvals and after ensuring that all the related acts are also adhered to. But the big,big mistake the Indian Government did was to sign the deal without even telling our Parliament, leave alone get its approval. In the hurry to have the deal inked for known and more for unknown reasosns, the GOI made the cardinal mistake of not reading the full text or analising the full implications.



It was only because of this unnecessary hurry shown and the failure to get the Parliamentary approval that the GOI is now in the situation it finds itself in.While the PM was generally truthful when he addressed the Parliament to tell about the deal, he does not seem to have disclosed all the facts.When the American officials categorically stated that the deal doesnot give India the right to test a nuclear device, the PM and his cohorts had to go into a damage control measure. This added to the confusion. When Pranab Mukherjee said that the Hyde Act was not applicable he was making the gravest of mistakes. How could any one presume that the legislations applicable in one of the signatory countries would not have any bearing on a deal? It is like saying that any similar act in India also would not be bearing on the deal. This would tantamount to say that even national interests could be compromised in the deal!



The Speaker of the Loksabha also made the cardinal mistake of ruling that the Parliament cannot sit in judgement over a bilateral deal signed by our Govt with another country.This was one of the most ludicrous interpretations of the law. Does it mean that this governemnt or any one having supreme power in this governemnt, can enetr into a bilateral agreement with any other government, on any issues, without taking the parliament into confidence or getting its approval? For example, how would it be if the present or any future governemnt signs a deal with another country to surrender portions of the Indian Union, in exchange for some other favour or for buying peace? This is not a fictitious situation. The pressures of coalition rule or outside support by Left or any other parties could lead to a situation where such a compromise in a deal is built in, in future, if Parliamentary scrutiny is not done.This means one government can bind the future governments as well by one thoughtless action it takes.This is a totally unacceptable position and wrong interpretation of the law.



The best course for the GOI would have been to go to the Parliament, explain all the terms of the 123 Deal, analise the imploications of US laws on the deal, explain clearly what would happen to our freedom for nuclear testing and research and give the SWOT of sigining the deal. A discussion would have made it more tramsparent and a collective decision could have been taken.This would have cleared any doubt any one had about the deal.



With the amount of resistance that the government showed in open discussion on the deal and having parliamentary approval, leaves one with the nagging doubt that there is something they want to hide. May be the coming days would bring out the full facts. We can only hope India does not have to face international ridicule by having to go back on the deal.



In conclusion I would say, if the deal doesnot restrict our freedom to develop our own nuclear defense systems, does not prevent us from further research, gives us un-interrupted supply of nuke fuel for our power requirements, gives us freedom to negotiate and have bilateral deals with all NSG countries, the IAEA scrutiny does not impair our nuke establishments, then the deal is a welcome one. Only the proposed full discussion in Parliament promised this week, will reveal the truth. That is why I feel a discussion before signing would have convinced us Indians and removed any doubt about the utility of the deal.

http://sbchand52.sulekha.com/blog/post/ ... deal-2.htm
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote: The US, under Hyde, may not be able to sell fuel to India, However, the NSG and IAEA are not subject to Hyde, and there is *absolutely* no reason why they should.
Given that if the route to 123 from J18 is examined the method in madness by GOTUS is now clear and so its response by the current GoI; on what basis can we base fond hopes that things will be different at IAEA?

Do the tea leaves not tell that the team IAEA will come back with with Hyde+123 template at best and we will be told; "sorry since the bus was leaving we signed it in a hurry before we came back anyway doesnt matter really after all we are going to be a superpower you know"
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

I would say, if the deal doesnot restrict our freedom to develop our own nuclear defense systems, does not prevent us from further research, gives us un-interrupted supply of nuke fuel for our power requirements, gives us freedom to negotiate and have bilateral deals with all NSG countries, the IAEA scrutiny does not impair our nuke establishments, then the deal is a welcome one.
... uh, did you forget to include "if the deal gives us all of this for free"?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote:
BC not good enough for you as well
Actually, since BC has been given to over-exaggerations, his credibility is not particularly high. It may be useful to have more than a couple of datapoints in this regard. Additionally, it may be useful to review claims from people that are not in the maximalist camps, to understand whether their claims are fundamentally suspect or not.
.
I thought that we were into discussing the message and not the messenger. What BC has to say can not be dismissed as "Oh he is a maximalist" or for some one else "oh he is a leftist"; if they are wrong; the onus is on the person claiming that they are wrong by presenting proofs.

Also each article has both opinons and facts; it is important to target them seperately and mention disagreement with opinions explicitly and target facts in a different manner.

A blanket approach of "Since I dont agree with him all he says he is wrong" is just pure bias and not a good platform for discussion.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Do the tea leaves not tell that the team IAEA will come back with with Hyde+123 template at best
And what then? We would be no worse off than before.

We would still not be bound to anyone. We would not be bound to the Americans under 123 because we would not have bought anything from them. We would not be bound to NSG/IAEA since we would not have signed this with them.

And, this will also destroy any hint of a strategic partnership with the US. Does Foggy Bottom want to risk this?
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

I thought that we were into discussing the message and not the messenger...the onus is on the person claiming that they are wrong by presenting proofs.
Sanku - let us not play games. The message only has credibility in this case, because of the messenger. These guys are defined by the credibility of the opinion they purvey. If their opinion is repeatedly shown to be over-exaggerated, then one needs to normalize any future exaggerations by the same extent to understand the reality that they are painting.

As far as the onus being on the person claiming that they are wrong, there are many, many people that have posted counter points to the nuclear power question. These guys are outliers.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Calvin wrote: And, this will also destroy any hint of a strategic partnership with the US. Does Foggy Bottom want to risk this?
How come such a conclusion was reached ? US can also claim that they tried their best yet failed with IAEA/NSG. And then leak a few reports on the side that China is responsible for all this. All this is just semantics.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote:
Do the tea leaves not tell that the team IAEA will come back with with Hyde+123 template at best
And what then? We would be no worse off than before.

We would still not be bound to anyone. We would not be bound to the Americans under 123 because we would not have bought anything from them. We would not be bound to NSG/IAEA since we would not have signed this with them.

And, this will also destroy any hint of a strategic partnership with the US. Does Foggy Bottom want to risk this?
Errr... opp cost!! Is this the condition under which we want to offically accept rules? So worst case we have signed a lemon. And we have lost the one coming of age chance. Please remember you can lose your virginity but once. Whether it matters or not is a different debate but IMVVVHO it sure does. If it doesnt matter and it is all no good and no bad; why sign??

Secondly GOTUS has already pulled a switch and bait on us; they havent paid for it. In general the current GOTUS is marked more by hubris than any other quality. Why do you think they will care if India says sorry? In fact given what India has done so far will they not be justified in thinking that they can get us in their camp for peanuts? If I was an American I would sure think so.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote: If their opinion is repeatedly shown to be over-exaggerated, then one needs to normalize any future exaggerations by the same extent to understand the reality that they are painting.
.
I am not playing games; all I am saying is examine what BC is saying for his
1) Opinions
2) Facts that he bases his opinions on.

You may say his opinions are exagerated; does that make his facts and numbers wrong?

And sorry I dont buy this "maximalist" position theory. Just because he is a maximalist he is wrong? He may well be right. In any case BC may be outlier but his knowledge is sound; even if people dont agree with his world view; however if you are saying is knowledge is wrong please let us know how; it will help us all.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

sanku wrote:Cooked will do? Like some people we know so well. (200 reactors )
If you can understand 1+1=2, you should be able to understand that India's per capita consumption of electricity is about 600 kwh now, compared to much higher numbers for other countries. Why 200 reactors? Yes, its a number pulled out of my head, but based on the fact that if India wants its per capita consumption of electricity to increase to even the standards of Malaysia, it will need to increase its electricity generation capacity abot 450% i.e. from say 125GW at present to about 550GW. If India wants to increase its per capita consumption of electricity to the levels of OECD countries today, India will have to increase its electricity generation capacity by about 11 times i.e. to about 1400GW. Why these numbers? Because a positive corelation has been arrived at between electricity consumption and per capita GDP. Isnt what that is the goal? To improve the standard of living of every Indian? Or is that not your goal? Who has collected these numbers and supports this. You may be surprised that it is no one other than the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Now, do you think that even 200 reactors at even 1600MW each may not be enough to reach even the level of Malaysia or does India need even more reactors? If you can understand 1+1=2, you may be able to understand the information provided in this link:

DAE Document

Excerpt from the DAE document:
As elsewhere in the world, the energy and electricity growth in India is closely linked to growth in economy. One may notice this by comparing per capita electricity consumption and GDP in PPP US $ (purchasing power parity US $) of various countries in the neighbourhood as well as in other regions of the world. Key World Energy Statistics published by the International Energy Agency gives detailed information about electricity consumption in various countries and GDP in 1995 PPP US $. India’s electricity consumption based on data from utilities is given as 408 kWh per year per capita for the year 2001, while GDP per capita in PPP US $ is given as 2138. Corresponding figures for Indonesia are 423 and 2684, for Thailand 1563 and 5833, for Malaysia 2824 and 7645, and for Singapore 7677 and 20426. For OECD countries these numbers are 7879 and 21785. Here one may note a correlation between per capita GDP and per capita electricity consumption
sanku wrote:Or numbers I quote from open source literature including BC (did you read that article BTW? or BC not good enough for you as well) not good enough "since they are not what I calculate".
What has BC said besides the fact that there are 38 new reactors under construction of which 4 are in the west. Does it matter to India whether the west is building 4 or 40 or 400 new reactors? What should matter to India is that India needs power, that India has a population of 1 billion plus which is more than the entire population of "the west". That population is today getting by on power at less than 10% of what an average OECD citizen uses. They deserve better. In the west, in many instances there is a surplus of power. Why should they build more power plants other than as replacements for existing old plants?

That is why I said, that India need not follow the herd. Have you finally understood? Does it have to be spelt out any clearer for you to understand? Or are you incapable of understanding even 1+1?
sanku wrote:]Give me a break dude; the only number you care for is one which will justify your POV; you are hardly interested in reality.
The reality is what I have quoted based on the DAE numbers above. Do you have a reponse besides more bhashans?

If you can respond coherently and rebut the numbers for electricity consumption and how India will get that kind of capacity please do so? If it is more bhashans, do not bother to respond.
Last edited by ldev on 10 Sep 2007 16:31, edited 2 times in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote:
I would say, if the deal doesnot restrict our freedom to develop our own nuclear defense systems, does not prevent us from further research, gives us un-interrupted supply of nuke fuel for our power requirements, gives us freedom to negotiate and have bilateral deals with all NSG countries, the IAEA scrutiny does not impair our nuke establishments, then the deal is a welcome one.
... uh, did you forget to include "if the deal gives us all of this for free"?
I thought by giving
India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States.
It was US paying the price to get India on its good side; such that we could buy F18s and such and make them rich instead of subsidizing the Russians and provide them help in IOR region as they needed.

When did the game change?
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Calvin wrote:
I would say, if the deal doesnot restrict our freedom to develop our own nuclear defense systems, does not prevent us from further research, gives us un-interrupted supply of nuke fuel for our power requirements, gives us freedom to negotiate and have bilateral deals with all NSG countries, the IAEA scrutiny does not impair our nuke establishments, then the deal is a welcome one.
... uh, did you forget to include "if the deal gives us all of this for free"?

That would be nice too :P
emsin

Post by emsin »

IDev good post. Linking up per capita electricity consumption with at least that of Malaysia as of today 30-40 years down the line for India. I was thinking on that track. Don't think the off the cuff 200 reactor figure was bad or too way in the first place itself.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote: If you can respond coherently and rebut the numbers for electricity consumption and how India will get that kind of capacity please do so? If it is more bhashans, do not bother to respond.
Oh yeah; you have clearly demonstrated how the 123 deal will get us the 200 reactors etc etc. Good show. What have you said so far:
1) We need more energy -- duh of course
2) Nuclear is one route to get it -- duh of course
3) DAE thinks so -- man I didnt know?
4) 123 deal will make all that magically happen at no cost -- Wow :eek: now thats hard number crunching from the above.

The question is not whether nuclear energy is good or not; the question is whether developing a future based on an addiction of "imported nukes is good or not"
and
how fast can we grow our nuke facility with and without the deal; is the extra speed the deal gives us; theoritically; good enough?

But hey why dont I expect you to answer that? Because I saw your reply to CRamS and man did that make my day!!
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Sanku, there are many people on the forum who get jaundice when they hear the name of BK. And this is supposed to be a jingo forum. :shock:

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

My earlier opposition to the deal was episodic - that is, I was responding with 'he said, she said' approach.

But I have finally figured out the larger game plan of uncle, what they really want from India, and why this deal is important for them.


Uncle is in the middle stage of putting its military bases for a confrontation with China, and what it really wants is access to the India Defence Forces - all three wings. This deal is to ensure that no future leader of India will be able to dream of economic independance, and will therefore be able to direct Indian Army/Navy/AF at will.

They want to replace the Pakistan Army with the Indian Army. That in itself is a revolting thought. :x
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

emsin wrote:IDev good post. Linking up per capita electricity consumption with at least that of Malaysia as of today 30-40 years down the line for India. I was thinking on that track. Don't think the off the cuff 200 reactor figure was bad or too way in the first place itself.
Why stop at Malaysia? Why is that a goal? Why not as many lights as on Trantor? Or Coruscant?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

sanku wrote: We need more energy -- duh of course
2) Nuclear is one route to get it -- duh of course
3) DAE thinks so -- man I didnt know?
4) 123 deal will make all that magically happen at no cost -- Wow now thats hard number crunching from the ab
Numbers sanku, numbers. No more bhashans. Or are you numerically illiterate? No more rhetoric. Respond with your alternative game plan.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

abhischekcc wrote: Uncle is in the middle stage of putting its military bases for a confrontation with China, and what it really wants is access to the India Defence Forces - all three wings. This deal is to ensure that no future leader of India will be able to dream of economic independance, and will therefore be able to direct Indian Army/Navy/AF at will.

They want to replace the Pakistan Army with the Indian Army. That in itself is a revolting thought. :x
Its terrible when you put it that way :lol: ; however I was okay with the first one i.e. helping US against China; however "kamse kaam sahi daam to do de saale" they want the Indian pie and pay for it with "thank you very much"
emsin

Post by emsin »

Why stop at Malaysia? Why is that a goal? Why not as many lights as on Trantor? Or Coruscant?
Sanku Idev mentioned Malaysia as a modest goal. Considering the additional power to even reach that level, what way do you think is better than a nuclear route? Hydel, coal, gas?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote: Numbers sanku, numbers. No more bhashans. Or are you numerically illiterate? No more rhetoric. Respond with your alternative game plan.
Buddy can you read? If you can please read the articles posted before. At least try. And dont lie one example of lie is
"all BC said is there are 38 plants etc..."
Yeah thats all he said sure. The parts were too inconvient eh?

And be realistic and less imaginative when you come up with your numbers ground it in reality.
Last edited by Sanku on 10 Sep 2007 17:09, edited 1 time in total.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

enqyoob wrote:
To really characterize what goes on, and improve your simulation fidelity, you would develop clean experiments for each segment of that. Along one narrow path, instead of all around the sphere. White coats would be optional, but so would holes in the ground.

enqyoob, If I understand your post right, improving various subsections of the bum separately obviates the need for creating holes in the ground. However, in other fields of engineering, a final end-to-end-let-us-see-whether-it-all-works-now test usually needs to be done to validate that all the parts work together as planned. How is the need for that avoided in this case without blowing holes in the ground?
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Sanku wrote: Its terrible when you put it that way :lol: ; however I was okay with the first one i.e. helping US against China; however "kamse kaam sahi daam to do de saale" they want the Indian pie and pay for it with "thank you very much"
That is so true. At least those forked tongued people can pay us for the services they want.

Here is what umreecka is getting from the deal-sheal:
1. Neutering the India nuke threat to US.
2. Access to our defence forces.
3. Neutering the threat of India as a viable nuke tech supplier.
4. India energy dependant on the US.
5. India buring bridges with Russia/Iran/China, our largest neighbours.
6. Indian defence dependant on costly US/western defence tech which does not work in the desert. :lol:
7. US getting free support on BRF. :eek:


What do we get - market access for our mangoes?
emsin

Post by emsin »

Buddy can you read? If you can please read the articles posted before. At least try. And be realistic and less imaginative when you come up with your numbers ground it in reality.
Idevs numbers in the first para make absolute sense. Disprove them. He's right on those figures. And even on the 200 reactor figures. I back them fully.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Buddy can you read? If you can please read the articles posted before. At least try. And be realistic and less imaginative when you come up with your numbers ground it in reality.
Sanku, just a friendly word.

Your refusal to commit to any concrete thoughts is becoming obvious -- though your objection to the deal is all loud and clear.

To be fair, ldev has presented numbers for his side of the argument, and so should you for yours. You have been waving hands and indulging rhetoric for a while now. Does not help you case or credibility.

If ldev's numbers are pie-in-the-sky, you have to demonstrate where exactly his accounting flaw is --- you will educate the rest of us and yourself too in the process. You have not explained which part of ldev's numbers are imaginative and why. Which part of his analysis is wrong/imaginative and why?

JM2P.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

emsin wrote:
Why stop at Malaysia? Why is that a goal? Why not as many lights as on Trantor? Or Coruscant?
Sanku Idev mentioned Malaysia as a modest goal. Considering the additional power to even reach that level, what way do you think is better than a nuclear route? Hydel, coal, gas?
My point was different; after lecturing us for ages on how to find a "India specific model" all Idev gives us is France did this and Malaysia has that. Very India specific you will agree?

While no one is saying nuclear does not help; what Idev is playing is bait and switch with power generation figures and focussing one only one narrow aspect even that with numerous assumptions (cost of construction etc)

Numbers on potential domestic nuclear; hydel; coal and wind production; have all been posted. What is also clear is that when going nuclear the crying need is to go the PWHR route since that is the only sustainable nuclear growth plan.

What I am saying is 123 or no 123 the correct mix for India has to be a mix of all the above and all have to be seen. In any case it is not clear at all how 123 will give is nuclear energy at our terms and at the rate we need. Can making 200 nuclear plants is even remotely feasible?

In any case If the best case scenario is a lot of nuclear energy in India today completely controlled by US guys as opposed to slower self dependent growth; no marks for guessing what is it that I want.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

enqyoob wrote:To really characterize what goes on, and improve your simulation fidelity, you would develop clean experiments for each segment of that. Along one narrow path, instead of all around the sphere. White coats would be optional, but so would holes in the ground.
I was just wondering, does Philips make its MP3 players by testing each component separately, or does it put everything together to test? :rotfl: :rotfl:

I am sure nukes are such low tech devices that we wouldn't need a full test ever. We are such vedantics onlee. All theory, no practical. All gas, no solid food.


----------------
Food for thought. Money for power.

Nuke power capital costs are $1m/MW, a tad lower than solar power.
So, to contruct nuke plants for 400GW, as ldev points out, we need $400 billion smackers. :eek:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote: If ldev's numbers are pie-in-the-sky, you have to demonstrate where exactly his accounting flaw is --- you will educate the rest of us and yourself too in the process. You have not explained which part of ldev's numbers are imaginative and why. Which part of his analysis is wrong/imaginative and why?
.
Rye please read the post a page back where I have done this exercise on one of Idevs post.

Rye the numbers have all been given. Numerous examples have been given in previous posts on
1) How many units of power India add per year; and how much it can add. I can pull out the references again but they have all been posted before. Idev himself contradicts himself when he says that we cant get make enough plants and then says we can.
2) What is DAEs own projection of power. I can attach AKs speech and a frontline article I quoted again.
3) Costs calculation; various calculations exist and all of them use some assumptions; it is not clear if those assumptions are valid at the same rate.

Yes none of this has been types out by me in person since I have always attached inline links for the same. I thought that since Idev is interested in "serious" numbers he will read.

For example when BC says that worldwide at 16% that is a fact; and to say that short of Thorium cycle the % will grow magically is just moonshine pure and simple.

I can do many of the same above; but what is the point in copy pasting from articles whose links are posted?

BTW Welcome to the camp. I have seen your new posts and you are begining to see the dal me kala. Good.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

emsin wrote:
Buddy can you read? If you can please read the articles posted before. At least try. And be realistic and less imaginative when you come up with your numbers ground it in reality.
Idevs numbers in the first para make absolute sense. Disprove them. He's right on those figures. And even on the 200 reactor figures. I back them fully.
Which numbers? Of how much energy we need? Of course that is from a DAE article.

Also I am glad that you support the 200 figure it will be very important that someone does since DAE does not and hence will not be able to achieve that. There is practical reality and then there is dream. You can chose which you want to discuss.
UPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Post by UPrabhu »

I agree with Sanku, 200 reactors is good math but not feasible. And even if we get those going, idea of fuel (and this is not oil) for 200 reactors would be controlled by a foreign country/countries is scary... forget energy but all sorts of independance down the drains...
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

abhischekcc wrote: So, to contruct nuke plants for 400GW, as ldev points out, we need $400 billion smackers. :eek:
And even if we get them; we will be paying a country other than India for it since we will be importing them all.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Sanku wrote: I can do many of the same above; but what is the point in copy pasting from articles whose links are posted?
I suggest you should attach at least the links. It is helpful, cos we don;t have to go back and forth to read stuff.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Sanku wrote:
abhischekcc wrote: So, to contruct nuke plants for 400GW, as ldev points out, we need $400 billion smackers. :eek:
And even if we get them; we will be paying a country other than India for it since we will be importing them all.
Ya, first we pay making the plants. Then, we pay for using the electricity.

Man, this is the scam of the century.


---------
PS.
IIRC, DAE had targetted 20GW from nukes by 2020. Is that correct?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

abhischekcc wrote:
Sanku wrote: I can do many of the same above; but what is the point in copy pasting from articles whose links are posted?
I suggest you should attach at least the links. It is helpful, cos we don;t have to go back and forth to read stuff.
Hoo boy!! I will have to keep a stack trace of all bookmarks. I usually use the BRF archieves to go get the links :eek:

But for all the good that will do I will.

the 20GW by 2020 is correct.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Sanku wrote:
I can do many of the same above; but what is the point in copy pasting from articles whose links are posted?
You can't be lazy about restating your train of thought with links and expect others to comprehend your POV. However, this cannot be some random set of links presented as fait-accompli. Tie them in with your logic and rationale that leads to conclusions supportive to your POV.

JM2P.
BTW Welcome to the camp. I have seen your new posts and you are begining to see the dal me kala. Good.


I don't subscribe to the view that there are "camps" in the first place, and even if there are, they are not relevant to the truth.

Being just another man on the street with publicly available sources of information, it is hard to tell which subset of the informtion to trust.
This can only be worked through logically without jumping from one camp to another with every new bit of information or data.

Write one throrough post with your rationale and your sources of information, and you can just refer people to that post or cut'n'paste it when it needs repeating.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote: You can't be lazy about restating your train of thought with links and expect others to comprehend your POV.
Well if what it takes is to keep reposting the same set of links and copy paste then very well I shall do that in future. Save my links and reuse.
I don't subscribe to the view that there are "camps" in the first place, and even if there are, they are not relevant to the truth.
.
Neither do I but I have been told that I have one by the wise folks here havent I :-)
Locked