Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

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

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2008 19:43


Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6644
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 05 Jun 2008 21:22



NRao-saar,
I have taken a serious view of Minty's suggestion and have a brilliant idea. How about we dont put our reactors under safeguard ? Surely then there will be no question of effectiveness of our safeguards ? I am tired of the NPAs talking about "vertical proliferation" (India "proliferating" civilian nuclear materials and technologies to itself).

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4380
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 06 Jun 2008 04:30


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4380
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 07 Jun 2008 02:15

Kudankulam nuclear plant: not only a construction site but also a university - Tatyana Sinitsyna

[quote]India is building its biggest energy temple in Tamil Nadu — the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). It will not last for centuries like Shiva or Vishnu temples because physicists who are now in the cradle are bound to invent something better than nuclear fission. But in our century, the NPP is bound to have an active life — there is no alternative to nuclear energy for the time being.

Russia is helping India build the NPP. To be more precise, Indian workers are building it under a Russian project. Hence, the designer (supervision) is also Russian. Both sides are closely watching the project and looking forward to its successful completion. There are other observers as well — any nuclear project attracts attention and even jealousy.

Important news came from Kudankulam recently — on June 2, it received the first three batches of Russian nuclear fuel for Reactor 1. The nuclear fuel rod is packed with heat-emitting fuel elements — “tvelsâ€

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 07 Jun 2008 17:50

Hike re-ignites nuclear debate in Cong
RADHIKA RAMASESHAN

[quote]New Delhi, June 6: Many in the Congress are back to debating the nuclear deal, emboldened by the Prime Minister hiking fuel prices against the Left’s wishes and defending it in an address to the nation.

“It’s time we stopped being circumspect and agonising over what happens if the Left withdraws support, we plunge into an election and are forced to do business with them again,â€

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4471
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 08 Jun 2008 06:19

all this while they've been sleeping on sourcing uranium from non NPT countries.

now they claim there is a shortage.

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

Postby Sanatanan » 08 Jun 2008 08:52

Energy shortage the larger issue, says Anil Kakodkar

From Hindu 08 June, 2008.

Energy shortage the larger issue, says Anil Kakodkar
N. Rahul

HYDERABAD: Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, has said that the mismatch between demand and supply of energy in the country is an issue larger than the imbalance in nuclear fuel.

The energy crisis faced by India is likely to worsen in proportion to the economic growth. To overcome the situation, the country requires additional energy resources which are many times more than what is available now, Dr. Kakodkar said at the annual day celebrations of the National Fuel Complex (NFC) here on Saturday.

He said the demand for electricity would increase ten-fold by 2050. After taking into account all available generation options, the country would still be left with a power shortage of 400 giga watts (one giga watt is equal to one billion watts). The shortage would be four times the current production levels.

It was in this context that import of fuel — uranium — to bridge the gap through civilian nuclear cooperation assumed significance. The situation would largely ease if uranium required for generation of 30,000-40,000 MW of power was imported, he said adding that nuclear energy was an inevitable option under the circumstances.

Dr. Kakodkar observed that there was a huge shortage in the supply of uranium, although the country was on the road to increasing production.

The proposed uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Rajasthan and Karnataka would supplement the requirement.

Owing to this shortage, the National { :?: } Power Corporation of India Limited operated at only 50 per cent capacity utilisation. The government agreed to sanction four more units of 700 MW each to NPCIL but they would be constructed only after fuel linkages were established.

. . . .



Now he wants to import U for 30,000 to 40,000 MWe -- not just to "bridge" the temporary mismatch as he was advocating earlier! Look who's shifting goalposts :!:

He does not seem to have realized that the idea of importing Nat U is fraught with danger in that it would embolden NPAs and other perversely-interested parties to continue to strangulate all prospects of thorium utilization too in India by India, down the line
Last edited by Sanatanan on 08 Jun 2008 09:39, edited 1 time in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 08 Jun 2008 09:07

I think we should work on Russians to Grandfather deal for 10-15 nuclear reactors of 1000-1500MW under NSG to side step US deal. The deal would be around US$ 20-50 Billion for the Russians perhaps enought to toss the NSG, especially when they are powerful on oil surge

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

Postby Gerard » 08 Jun 2008 10:08


Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 08 Jun 2008 11:27

Sanatanan wrote:Energy shortage the larger issue, says Anil Kakodkar

From Hindu 08 June, 2008.

Energy shortage the larger issue, says Anil Kakodkar
N. Rahul

HYDERABAD: Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, has said that the mismatch between demand and supply of energy in the country is an issue larger than the imbalance in nuclear fuel.

The energy crisis faced by India is likely to worsen in proportion to the economic growth. To overcome the situation, the country requires additional energy resources which are many times more than what is available now, Dr. Kakodkar said at the annual day celebrations of the National Fuel Complex (NFC) here on Saturday.

He said the demand for electricity would increase ten-fold by 2050. After taking into account all available generation options, the country would still be left with a power shortage of 400 giga watts (one giga watt is equal to one billion watts). The shortage would be four times the current production levels.

It was in this context that import of fuel — uranium — to bridge the gap through civilian nuclear cooperation assumed significance. The situation would largely ease if uranium required for generation of 30,000-40,000 MW of power was imported, he said adding that nuclear energy was an inevitable option under the circumstances.

Dr. Kakodkar observed that there was a huge shortage in the supply of uranium, although the country was on the road to increasing production.

The proposed uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Rajasthan and Karnataka would supplement the requirement.

Owing to this shortage, the National { :?: } Power Corporation of India Limited operated at only 50 per cent capacity utilisation. The government agreed to sanction four more units of 700 MW each to NPCIL but they would be constructed only after fuel linkages were established.

. . . .



Now he wants to import U for 30,000 to 40,000 MWe -- not just to "bridge" the temporary mismatch as he was advocating earlier! Look who's shifting goalposts :!:

He does not seem to have realized that the idea of importing Nat U is fraught with danger in that it would embolden NPAs and other perversely-interested parties to continue to strangulate all prospects of thorium utilization too in India by India, down the line


This argment has been disabused so many times using simple math. Shri Anil Kakodkar will benefit from communist re-education camp.

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

Postby Gerard » 08 Jun 2008 18:54

Lot of uranium available, but our N-plants starve
Even as it scouts for nuclear fuel from the US and elsewhere, India has been sitting on massive, untapped reserves of uranium, hundreds of tonnes of which have been discovered over the past couple of years — adding to the over 1 lakh tonnes already identified in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.

Together, these uranium resources would be enough to run all of India’s current and planned nuclear power plants for their entire lifetime of 40 years. In the context of the bitter political debate in India over taking N-fuel from the US, the irony is inescapable.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Postby Anabhaya » 09 Jun 2008 00:55

This argment has been disabused so many times using simple math. Shri Anil Kakodkar will benefit from communist re-education camp.


Chandi Prasaad,

Shri Kakodkar has admitted efforts to increase domestic production are on. Please go to the same link and read.
Dr. Kakodkar observed that there was a huge shortage in the supply of uranium, although the country was on the road to increasing production.

The proposed uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Rajasthan and Karnataka would supplement the requirement.

STOP your unnecessary comments on math, re-education camps et al.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 09 Jun 2008 04:59

Anabhaya: I am willing to learn. Please help me learn how much power India needs versus what the demand is NOW, 10 years from NOW, 20 Year from now, and 40 year from now and 50 year from NOW. And where is the money required to install additional power generation capacity and the fuel to operate them for say first 50 years of plant operation?

And please TELL me where does nuclear power serve (and FIT) into this grave national power generation chasm?

I will be indeed enlighted and change my voice of opposition to what in my limited understanding is VAPOURWARE based on Madrasa-Math being sold by Shri Kakodkar's statements in that news report. I say that will all sincerity and seriousness.

Let basic data, MATH and arguments speak for themselves. One can't dispute numbers in the overall scheme of things, can we?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discussed this questions in details 6-8 months ago. A visit to BR archives may still have those data and arguments.

One that I found that might help this discussion is:
Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 17 Mar 2008

nkumar wrote:Two articles-

Ashok Parthasarathi in HT:
[url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?id=91ce57af-2fc7-4d06-b76e-8e305b4cf7b7Nucleardealimbroglio_Special&&Headline=The+123+doesn%u2019t+add+up]The 123 doesn't add up[/url]

The United States concludes bilateral inter-governmental agreements on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. It has concluded such "123 Agreements" with 24 countries up till now. However, it is only in the case of the 24th "the agreement with India” that both the US government and the Congress here felt the need for the Agreement to be preceded and governed by a special India-specific US Act, the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, it contains a number of restrictive, intrusive and extraneous clauses that have had to be reflected by the US negotiators and accepted by our joint negotiating team of senior officials and nuclear scientists from the Ministry of External Affairs and Department of Atomic Energy in arriving at our 123 Agreement.

The Hyde Act runs into 41 pages of tightly formulated techno-politico-legal text. A careful analysis reveals that 22 of the 41 pages contain at least one, and often more, restrictive clauses or clauses that are deeply intrusive of our sovereignty or security. Some major examples include the clause that the US Government must further restrict transfers to India of technology and equipment to produce enriched uranium, plutonium and heavy water, take every possible measure to get India to stop production of nuclear weapon-making material by a specific date; take all necessary action to ensure India works actively in accordance with US policy to the early conclusion of a multi-lateral treaty on the cessation of production of weapons grade nuclear material.

If we undertake a nuclear test, the entire "deal" will be cancelled. This amounts to getting us "covered" by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that we have all along refused to sign as it will permanently cripple our vital nuclear weapons programme. The Act also ensures that IAEA safeguards on reactors imported from or fuelled by fuel from the US remain in force in perpetuity” even if the 123 is suspended or terminated.

The 123 Agreement does not pledge or commit the US to a fuel supply guarantee over the life time of even US-origin nuclear reactors purchased by India. Furthermore, that assurance is assigned not to Washington but to the international nuclear regulatory agency, the IAEA, which has no access to or control over sources of supply of fuel. So, in effect, the central issue at the core of India-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal is not committed to by the US government anywhere in the Agreement. Despite the Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, that the US would provide "full nuclear cooperation” i.e. covering both technology and facilities across all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle ” technology transfer to India for enriched uranium fuel, plutonium extraction from spent fuel and heavy water production is denied in the Agreement. Quixotically, it is stated that these three crucially important technologies may be provided to us under the present Agreement, but only pursuant to an amendment to the Agreement made at an indeterminate future date. [b]This, despite transfer of technology and related production facilities for all three critical technologies being contained in the original US 123 Agreement with Japan and South Korea. And those transfers have also been operationalised.

As regards the crucial aspect of plutonium extraction from spent fuel, our 123 Agreement contains a US consent to our extracting plutonium but requires that to do so, New Delhi must spend an estimated Rs 2,000 crore to set up a new national plutonium extraction facility under IAEA safeguards. However, even this is subject to our agreeing with the US on a whole range of arrangements and procedures. In practice, this means that we have to provide all the design, engineering, manufacturing and testing documentation relating to the new national facility both to the IAEA and to Washington for their separate and joint clearance. [b]This is a highly intrusive condition.

Furthermore, it is indicated nowhere in the 123 Agreement that such arrangements and procedures are, in fact, a long list of measures spelt out in Article 131 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. A study of that list reveals that the information we have to provide and the actions we have to take are also highly intrusive. And even if we do so and reach an agreement with both the IAEA and Washington, the Article 131 Agreement will have to be separately submitted to the US Congress for its approval independent of the earlier approval of our 123. We, therefore, run the serious risk of the US Congress not approving the 131 Agreement bringing our plutonium extraction to a complete halt.


The Agreement contains a highly arbitrary and one-sided article on "Termination and Cessation of Cooperation". The Article states that "either party" (which in practice, really means the US) shall have the right to terminate this agreement on one year's notice to the other party. The party giving such notice of termination shall provide the reasons for seeking such termination. The second sentence regarding 'reasons' is absolutely global in its coverage. Normally, in such agreements, the reasons for terminating must be 'internal' to the agreement ” i.e. something that one of the parties to the agreement has done or failed to do with reference to the obligations it has taken in the agreement. The 'global' character of the formulation in this case is seriously adverse to India as, in principle, the US government could cite a vote by us in the UN against a US-sponsored resolution or any other such external reason as adequate ground for the US to terminate the agreement.

Clearly such a formulation gives the US unrestricted and a totally arbitrary discretion to terminate the 123 Agreement with India. Such a provision does not exist in the US 123 Agreements with China, Japan or South Korea. Although the phrase 'nuclear test' does not appear anywhere in the 123 Agreement, there is a clear allusion that should we undertake any nuclear test, the US will terminate the 123 in accordance with the Hyde Act.

All that we need from the nuclear deal is adequate quantities of uranium ore. However, it is unlikely we will get even that through the deal as all three top producers of uranium ”Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan” have already announced that they will not supply any uranium to India unless New Delhi sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Advisor to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.



BC in Hindu:
Energy reality beyond the nuclear hype

The American-inspired multilateral export controls, including on high-technology flow, that have blocked India from importing even reactors and fuel for power generation, need to go in full ”not just partially and conditionally as under the proposed Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. India is keen to boost nuclear power generation by buying reactors from all the three principal countries that can make such exports” the U.S., France and Russia. In consecutive months this year it has finalised agreements to buy reactors from France and Russia, subject to a rule change by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a U.S.-led cartel. Its hopes of opening up international civil nuclear trade, however, have been dealt a blow by uranium-rich Australia's U-turn on yellowcake exports to India” an ill-founded decision by its new Prime Minister that is to stand even if the NSG changes its rule.

Mix of energy sources needed


India needs a mix of energy sources as a commercial hedge against unforeseen risks, and nuclear power certainly deserves a place in a diversified energy portfolio. But India needs to temper its new-found enthusiasm for nuclear power, which currently supplies barely 2.5 per cent of its electricity.

First, generating power from imported reactors dependent on imported enriched-uranium fuel makes little economic or strategic sense. Had the proposed import of such light water reactors (LWRs) ”the only type on offer” been part of India's planned transition to autonomous capability, akin to China's, the purchase of that model could have been justified. But India has no intention to design and build LWRs locally.

Second, just as lucrative arms export contracts oil the military-industrial complex of any major international power, reactor exports are integral to the French and Russian nuclear power business and to America's efforts to revive its moribund industry, which has not received a single domestic reactor order since the 1970s. The political salesmanship on reactor exports thus is no less intense than on arms sales, with the sales pitch on both centred on the word “security,” although energy or national security does not mesh with import dependency.

Arms import


Today, India is under pressure to replicate in the energy sector the very mistake it has made on armaments. One of the world’s top arms buyers, India now annually imports weapons worth between $4 billion and $6 billion, many of questionable value, even as its own armament production base remains weak and underdeveloped. Despite the rising arms imports bill, the Indian military is becoming less capable of winning a decisive war against an aggressor-state. Nuclear power, which was unappealing until imports were not possible, with the domestic industry actually starved of necessary funds for expansion through much of the 1990s, is now touted as an answer to India’s energy needs. But why should India compound its mistake on armaments by importing high-priced reactors when it can more profitably invest in the development of its own energy resources?

Third, the share of nuclear power in worldwide electricity supply has been stagnant at 16 per cent for the past 22 years. A 2003 MIT study put it thus: Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice. The industry is still dependent on generous state subsidies for survival. To be sure, every energy source relies on some state subsidy. But nuclear power involves the most significant external costs, which are usually passed on to the taxpayers, including on accident liability cover, anti-terrorist safeguards, radioactive waste storage, retirement of old reactors, research and development, and international safeguards. To know the true cost of nuclear-generated electricity, the eclectic state subsidies need to be factored in.

Such is the reality that even External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was compelled to admit in the Rajya Sabha last December: Yes, it is proved, everybody admits that nuclear energy is definitely costly. This is borne out by India's indigenous power reactors: escalating construction costs have resulted in all the newer nuclear plants pricing their electricity at between 270 and 285 paise a kilowatt hour (kWh). Compare those tariffs with Reliance Energy's coal-fired Sason plant project, which has contracted to sell power at 119 paise a kWh, or even with the poorly-run Dadri plant, which supplies electricity to Delhi at 225 paise a kWh, although coal has to be hauled for the plant over long distances. When India produces electricity from reactors it wishes to import, the already wide price differential will increase.

Mr. Mukherjee, however, tried to put an interesting gloss, claiming that nuclear power “technology is moving ahead... With the advancement of the technology… nuclear energy, if it appears to be too costly today, perhaps, it will not appear that costly tomorrow.”

In a rapidly changing world, technological advances are inevitable. But international studies have shown that nuclear power, although a 50-year-old mature technology, has demonstrated the slowest “rate of learning” among all energy sources, including newer technologies such as wind power and combined-cycle gas turbines. It remains highly capital-intensive with comparatively long lead times for construction and commissioning, which prolong the start of returns on capital and put off private investors.

Global warming concerns


Fourth, the nuclear power industry, after being in decline for a quarter century, lacks the capacity to undertake a massive construction programme that could make a noticeable difference to global warming. Even at the current slack rate of reactor construction in the world, bottlenecks are a problem for key components. The industry relies on a few international manufacturers. At least nine power reactor components, including giant pressure vessels and steam generators, are made in only one facility owned by Japan Steel Works. A recent U.S.-based Keystone Centre report pointed to a six-year lead time for some parts.

To control one-seventh of the global greenhouse gas problem, according to calculations by Princeton University Professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, the world will need to triple its installed nuclear power capacity by building more than 1,300 reactors. And the U.S. share of that project (including replacing plants reaching the end of their lifespan) will entail building five power reactors a year for 50 years. Yet, notwithstanding all the tax breaks, loan guarantees, liability cover and other subsidies on offer, no reactor construction has begun in the U.S.

Carbon-intensive


Fifth, despite the industry's efforts to latch on to the rising international concerns over climate change and present nuclear power as 'clean', the reality is greyer. While electricity generation itself is 'clean', the nuclear fuel cycle is carbon-intensive, with greenhouse gases emitted in mining and enriching uranium with fossil fuels.

Reactor construction also carries large carbon footprints. In addition, radioactive wastes from reactor operation pose technological challenges and environmental costs. Governments, environmentalists and industry still cannot agree on how best to dispose of radioactive waste. Reprocessing of spent fuel can help minimise, but not eliminate, such toxic waste.

While nuclear power proponents trumpet the emission-free front end, opponents cite the exceptionally problematic back end. A more balanced approach is called for, with the short-term benefit of generating more nuclear power weighed against the long-term environmental costs for future generations.

Sixth, a sobering fact is also the unflattering reactor construction record of France and Russia, both eager to bag Indian contracts. France is offering the same new model that the French firm Areva is building in Finland 'the Olkiluoto-3 plant, the first Western European reactor construction since 1991. That much-hyped project is running at least two years behind schedule and $2.1 billion over its original $4-billion budget. What was trumpeted as a sign of a possible nuclear comeback in Europe is set to become the most expensive nuclear plant built in history. Such is the horror construction story that Areva and its partner, Siemens, have had to re-forge some key equipment and replace substandard concrete.

While India's own indigenous programme has managed to reduce construction time, with the Tarapur 3 and 4 reactors coming up ahead of schedule, the two Russian VVER-1000 (V-392) reactors, being constructed since 2001 at Koodankulam under a Moscow-financed contract, are running far behind schedule.
The first unit is now expected to be commissioned only at the beginning of 2009. The bottlenecks over Koodankulam ”a $3.4-billion project” are partly due to the Russian industry's struggle to recoup itself fully from the post-1991 problems.

Another reason is that although Russia is building an advanced VVER-1000 model at Koodankulam, with Western instrument and control systems, its own industry has moved to a third generation standardised VVER-1200 reactor of 1170 MWe for the home market.

Against this background, India needs to tone down its zeal for reactor imports. In the long run, the path to energy and climate security lies through carbon-free renewable energy, which by harnessing nature frees a nation from reliance on external sources of fuel supply. While seeking to prise open the international civil nuclear trade, India ought not to succumb to contrived deadlines. The deal with America can take effect only if it wins bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress a fact that belies the attempt-to-hustle-India claim that it can be sealed only by the Bush administration.

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

Postby Gerard » 09 Jun 2008 06:58

LEADER ARTICLE: Red Star Over South Block
In its 2004 election manifesto, the CPM has advocated talks between India and Pakistan for a "denuclearised environment" in South Asia. This CPM formulation would result in India acceding to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the back door and in China to becoming the only nuclear weapons power in Asia.

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

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 07:51

Raj Malhotra wrote:I think we should work on Russians to Grandfather deal for 10-15 nuclear reactors of 1000-1500MW under NSG to side step US deal. The deal would be around US$ 20-50 Billion for the Russians perhaps enought to toss the NSG, especially when they are powerful on oil surge
Something that is in the realm of possibility.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 09 Jun 2008 07:52

Anabhaya wrote:Chandi Prasaad,

Shri Kakodkar has admitted efforts to increase domestic production are on. Please go to the same link and read.
Dr. Kakodkar observed that there was a huge shortage in the supply of uranium, although the country was on the road to increasing production.

The proposed uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Rajasthan and Karnataka would supplement the requirement.

Please note that concisely take inaction is also an action, and as head of AEC the buck stops at his table for those acts of omission and commission.

AEC/DAE knew of the required fuel consumption rate versus nuclear power generation from established and planned plants. The action to re-open the uranium mines that were earlier closed (~1991 by Finance Minister Shri Man Mohan Singh) was then taken only few months ago. What made AEC/DAE forget to take that action well ahead and not wait to precipitate an deliberate crisis and then to pretend to solve it?? Sorry for saying it but that action is similar to arson by firefighter who then donnes his gear to extinguish the fire setoff by the evil arsonist. Will one give him a medal or dismissal letter? {Odd to see that to do straight talk first require being apologist/sorry, else it might be taken as personal attack}.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2008 06:44

Ozland is a wet dream at best:

Sign NPT, Rudd tells India

Ruling out sale of uranium to India until it signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Australia on Monday announced the setting up of a global body for nuclear disarmament, hoping to rope in “like-minded” countries.


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

Another crap load of tragedy if India forgoes N-deal: US

Postby Arun_S » 11 Jun 2008 00:06

Overflowing love of the master that is inheriting the India-Raj and India loving business from British. :rotfl:

It will be tragic for India to forgo N-deal: US
Posted online: Tuesday , June 10, 2008 at 02:08:38

Washington, June 10: Seeking quick implementation of the civil nuclear agreement, the US has said it would be "tragic" for India if it forgoes this opportunity for a strategic partnership with the US.

"...we believe it is essential to quickly implement the landmark civil nuclear agreement with the United States and bring India into the international nuclear non-proliferation mainstream," US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Christopher Padilla said in Washington on Monday.

"It would be tragic for India to forgo this opportunity for a strategic partnership with the United States," he said.

Washington has been insisting that India needs to complete the processes required for the deal, saying time was running out in the light of the Presidential elections later this year.

New Delhi needs to firm up a safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and secure changes in the guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) to enable international nuclear commerce with it. But stiff opposition from Left allies has tied the government's hands in moving fast on the deal.

Addressing a Heritage Foundation seminar, Padilla said, "The benefits for India are clear, and we hope that India's government will choose to move forward as quickly as possible to fully realise the potential of this historic agreement".

Padilla said India is the world's fourth largest energy consumer and will be the third largest by 2030. The country's high rate of economic growth and its growing middle class have placed additional demands on an already strained power sector.

It would need to add about 160,000 MW of new capacity in the next 10 years.

He said given the high cost of energy, it is critical that the two countries cooperate to address the long-term needs. The two nations can also work together to develop new clean energy technology, he added.

The US will be sending a high level trade mission in September to promote sales of American clean energy and environmental technologies.


Contrast what US is shoving down Indian throat versus the garden path PM Shri.Man Mohan Singh had promised to India
July 18, 2005: Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush today declare their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership. As leaders of nations committed to the values of human freedom, democracy and rule of law, the new relationship between India and the United States will promote stability, democracy, prosperity and peace throughout the world. It will enhance our ability to work together to provide global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest.

Building on their common values and interests, the two leaders resolve:

* To create an international environment conducive to promotion of democratic values, and to strengthen democratic practices in societies which wish to become more open and pluralistic.

* To combat terrorism relentlessly. They applaud the active and vigorous counterterrorism cooperation between the two countries and support more international efforts in this direction. Terrorism is a global scourge and the one we will fight everywhere. The two leaders strongly affirm their commitment to the conclusion by September of a UN comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

The Prime Minister's visit coincides with the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative, launched in January 2004. The two leaders agree that this provides the basis for expanding bilateral activities and commerce in space, civil nuclear energy and dual-use technology.

Drawing on their mutual vision for the U.S.-India relationship, and our joint objectives as strong long-standing democracies, the two leaders agree on the following:

FOR THE ECONOMY

* Revitalize the U.S.-India Economic Dialogue and launch a CEO Forum to harness private sector energy and ideas to deepen the bilateral economic relationship.

* Support and accelerate economic growth in both countries through greater trade, investment, and technology collaboration.

* Promote modernization of India's infrastructure as a prerequisite for the continued growth of the Indian economy. As India enhances its investment climate, opportunities for investment will increase.

* Launch a U.S.-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture focused on promoting teaching, research, service and commercial linkages.

FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

* Strengthen energy security and promote the development of stable and efficient energy markets in India with a view to ensuring adequate, affordable energy supplies and conscious of the need for sustainable development. These issues will be addressed through the U.S.-India Energy Dialogue.

* Agree on the need to promote the imperatives of development and safeguarding the environment, commit to developing and deploying cleaner, more efficient, affordable, and diversified energy technologies.

FOR DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

* Develop and support, through the new U.S.-India Global Democracy Initiative in countries that seek such assistance, institutions and resources that strengthen the foundations that make democracies credible and effective. India and the U.S. will work together to strengthen democratic practices and capacities and contribute to the new U.N. Democracy Fund.

* Commit to strengthen cooperation and combat HIV/AIDs at a global level through an initiative that mobilizes private sector and government resources, knowledge, and expertise.

FOR NON-PROLIFERATION AND SECURITY

* Express satisfaction at the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship as a basis for future cooperation, including in the field of defense technology.

* Commit to play a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The U.S. welcomed the adoption by India of legislation on WMD (Prevention of Unlawful Activities Bill).

* Launch a new U.S.-India Disaster Relief Initiative that builds on the experience of the Tsunami Core Group, to strengthen cooperation to prepare for and conduct disaster relief operations.

FOR HIGH-TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE

* Sign a Science and Technology Framework Agreement, building on the U.S.-India High-Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG), to provide for joint research and training, and the establishment of public-private partnerships.

* Build closer ties in space exploration, satellite navigation and launch, and in the commercial space arena through mechanisms such as the U.S.-India Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation.

* Building on the strengthened nonproliferation commitments undertaken in the NSSP, to remove certain Indian organizations from the Department of Commerce's Entity List.

Recognizing the significance of civilian nuclear energy for meeting growing global energy demands in a cleaner and more efficient manner, the two leaders discussed India's plans to develop its civilian nuclear energy program.

President Bush conveyed his appreciation to the Prime Minister over India's strong commitment to preventing WMD proliferation and stated that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states. The President told the Prime Minister that he will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security. The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur. In the meantime, the United States will encourage its partners to also consider this request expeditiously. India has expressed its interest in ITER and a willingness to contribute. The United States will consult with its partners considering India's participation. The United States will consult with the other participants in the Generation IV International Forum with a view toward India's inclusion.

The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, 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. These responsibilities and practices consist of identifying and separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs in a phased manner and filing a declaration regarding its civilians facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); taking a decision to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities; continuing India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; working with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty; refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread; and ensuring that the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonization and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.

The President welcomed the Prime Minister's assurance. The two leaders agreed to establish a working group to undertake on a phased basis in the months ahead the necessary actions mentioned above to fulfill these commitments. The President and Prime Minister also agreed that they would review this progress when the President visits India in 2006.

The two leaders also reiterated their commitment that their countries would play a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

In light of this closer relationship, and the recognition of India's growing role in enhancing regional and global security, the Prime Minister and the President agree that international institutions must fully reflect changes in the global scenario that have taken place since 1945. The President reiterated his view that international institutions are going to have to adapt to reflect India's central and growing role. The two leaders state their expectations that India and the United States will strengthen their cooperation in global forums.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thanks President Bush for the warmth of his reception and the generosity of his hospitality. He extends an invitation to President Bush to visit India at his convenience and the President accepts that invitation.


Such is the betrayal right at the beginning when the courting process to sign the deal is going on, imagine the kind of abuse that is on store for India when the agreement is signed and solemnized?

India MUST NOT sign the Nuclear Deal in its existing from. The only agreement that is acceptable is the one that is congruent to the gliding garden path shown to India vid July 18, 2005: Joint Statement Between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Nothing more nothing less.

PM MM Singh has got to be senile to be able to not read two documents and see they are at cross purpose and not aligned. I would love to know possible reasons to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's senility?

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2008 01:55

Christopher Padilla shoots from the hip (what else does one expect from a Bush Admin guy?), US charges India with putting roadblocks in Doha Round, is an example.

But, WRT his comments on the Deal ...... it would be a greater tragedy if India signs off on the Hyde Act. For India to sign the 123, the US should repeal the Hyde Act and a write a new one.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Jun 2008 04:56

How far away is India from "4th generation" nuclear weapons?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/INESAPTR1.html

These are apparently weapons that can produce thermonuclear explosions without using fissile material for fission-boosting.

So this produces a more "pure" explosion without the fissile fallout residue. But also very importantly, it frees India from the constraints of reserving domestic uranium supplies for its nuclear deterrence arsenal. That domestic uranium could be more immediately plunged in for getting the next phase of the Thorium program rolling.

Comments?

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Jun 2008 10:30

Is this stuff true?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93496

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071

Can tiny miniscule pellets of D-T be used to generate thermonuclear explosions in the 100-Ton range?

I remember once corresponding with the head of a company called Nanophase, which had a technology for plasma deposition to create perfectly spherical nano-particles having thin-coating outer layers.

I remember wondering whether this technology could be used to make a miniaturized version of the TRISO fuel particle. Now I'm wondering if this technology could be used to create the tiny nuclear weapons mentioned above.

But what would you need this kind of weaponry for? Perhaps to make some kind of super cluster-bomb?

LOL, I'm thinking these might be great to carpet-bomb the Martian icecaps to melt them, or else they'd be great for clearing clouds of debris from Earth orbital space.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Arun_S » 11 Jun 2008 15:05

Ooops .. .. ... Bad news for Unkill :rotfl:

US-India nuclear deal dead
By Edward Luce and Daniel Dombey in Washington DC
Tuesday Jun 10 2008 16:05

The historic civil nuclear deal with India that George W. Bush saw as one of his signature foreign policy achievements is almost certainly dead, according to senior US officials.

Asked whether it was now impossible to push the deal through in the dying days of Mr Bush's term, one administration official told the Financial Times: "That is probably correct."

The Bush administration, which unveiled the deal at a White House meeting with Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, in 2005, has watched with growing frustration as New Delhi has repeatedly missed deadlines to complete the deal for fear of provoking its leftist coalition allies.

Until recently, US officials continued to hope that Mr Singh would persuade his colleagues, including Sonia Gandhi, to face down the communist parties that last year threatened to pull the plug on the coalition government if it pushed ahead with the deal.

Under the terms of what many saw as an audacious agreement that gives India access to civil nuclear technology and material without requiring it to renounce its nuclear weapons or join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, New Delhi had to secure the approval of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

After that, it would be submitted to the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group before returning to the US Congress for final approval. New Delhi, however, has sat on the deal for the past 10 months without inviting IAEA inspectors to begin their safeguards inspections.

That has swallowed up what little time there was to get it done before Mr Bush leaves office. "Even if the Indian government were suddenly to turn around and get the IAEA stage completed, there would be no time for the remaining two stages," said Ashley Tellis, one of the original architects of the deal and now an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign.

Raja Mohan, an Indian commentator and one of the strongest cheerleaders of the deal, said on Tuesday that there could still be a sliver of a chance of reviving it this year if India's ruling Congress party, headed by Mrs Gandhi, chose to face down its leftist allies at a possible meeting with the communist leaders next week. "The optimistic way of thinking about it is that the deal is dying but not yet dead," said Mr Mohan. "The pessimists might say, 'The deal is dead but not yet buried'."

Senior Indian officials, who declined to comment, say privately that their best chances of reviving the deal would come with the election of Mr McCain, the Republican party's presumptive presidential candidate, who last month stated his strong support for it. Barack Obama, who submitted a "poison pill" amendment to the original Senate bill in late 2006, is "highly ambivalent" about it, in the words of an adviser to the Democratic party's presumptive candidate.

The collapse of the deal would jeopardise India's access to sensitive US technology which could have an impact on defence sales and civil nuclear development. "If you look at the regime between 1974 [when India conducted its first nuclear test] and 1998 [its second] that would give you some idea of what India would be heading back towards," Mr Tellis said. "This would be an historic blunder."


Mr Tellis got around wrong verbs, should read that as "historic US blunder".

Reminds me of:
    "Sood ki lalach main, Mool bhi dooba"
    {In the greed of interest, lost the principal} A fair and square deal would have been win win deal, now the greedy are the Losers. India is on ascent and US in decent, the horse trading will get sweeter as the time swings to Indian favour.

What happened to oft repeated consolation from these same worthies of "bipartisan support"?

But Indian citizens have to stay vigilant ensure the Phoenix like "Nuke Deal" is dead for good.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2008 18:22

Senior Indian officials, who declined to comment, say privately that their best chances of reviving the deal would come with the election of Mr McCain, the Republican party's presumptive presidential candidate, who last month stated his strong support for it.


In McCain Remarks on Nuclear Security, McCain has this to say:

I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.


Oh, yeah. Ship all of the US waste abroad. With India agreeing to fund a leading edge reprocessing facility, guess where all of the US's, and perhaps, a lot of the rest of the world's carp will wind up?

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jun 2008 19:36

Arun_S wrote:I wonder in the dictionary of Indian citizens what more will constitute treason?
When these citizens get a common idea of the basis of our nation hood. When they recognize themselves as a nation, united in certain beliefs and thoughts. From these beliefs and thoughts, grow the ideas of, common interests and national interests.

Under current definitions, the only person likely to be called mad and hanged is the person raising his voice :x

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 11 Jun 2008 20:04

So Ashley Tellis is saying that even if the deal gets signed now the US Congress wont act on it as there isnt enough legislative time? And Rajamohan (cheerleader, not my words) is advocating the INC stare down the Left at the next meeting (this week) and go ahead and sign? Who is he working for that action will commit India without the US following suit and bring down the govt and lead to instability in an uncertain world.


Arun_S wrote:So where does the buck stop?


I think its BRF for pointing that out. Shoot messenger for point out the Emperor has no clothes.

BTW, how many of you saw the opening sequences of the serial "Chanakya"? Does anyone recall how the story starts? And why is that such an ancient Indian tradition?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rye » 11 Jun 2008 20:22

Russia's position is that the India-Russia 123 will be possible after India signs the 123 with the USA.
Russia has not made statements about NSG/IAEA clearance, AFAICT.

Maybe there is the possibility that the people in charge of such issues in the GoI may not be a complete set of
<insert fav derogatory word> to compromise on long-term security for the sake of dubious short-term benefit,
i.e., the GoI has no long-term game plan (which is not true...it is very clear what the GoI wants and how it plans
to get it in the long term).

Of course, if the belief is that the GoI is composed of fools, then all the conclusions that fall out will enforce this self-fulfilling prophecy.
If messengers base their message based on Seema Mustafa's statements, then it is not clear such messages have any credibility...after
all, this is the same woman whose views were looked up negatively by people here until she started to say what everyone wanted
to hear...:roll:


http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=579580

PM refuses to give up on nuclear deal

NEW DELHI, JUNE 11 (PTI)

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is hopeful that progress will be made on the India-United States nuclear agreement, despite domestic political opposition.

"Our domestic politics has prevented us from going ahead. I will still continue to hope that we will make progress in the months that lie ahead," Dr Singh said in New Delhi on Wednesday.

The Prime Minister emphasised that the deal was important to end the nuclear apartheid that the world has sought to impose on India.

"This agreement, if it materialises, if it sees light of the day, will open new possibilities of cooperation not only with the US but also with other nuclear powers like Russia and France," said the PM.

"The Indo-US civil nuclear agreement protects India's national interest, protects its capacity to use nuclear power, protects its strategic interests and at the same time opens up new opportunities for civilian cooperation," he added.


The Prime Minister revealed that there was no pressure from the US to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or any similar international arrangement to enter into civil nuclear cooperation.

Speaking on the border row with China, he said that some progress is being made on the issue, "but there is a long arduous journey ahead of us."

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

Re:

Postby Arun_S » 11 Jun 2008 21:40

Here is a fantastic analysis and summation by "Sanatanan" that is worth a re-read. I missed reading it when it was posted originally. This can and should be used as a reference for agruments to blow to pieces argument of those who sing praise of wanting to sign the US-India civil nuclear deal.

Sanatanan wrote:This issue, as to why GoI had not thought of approaching non-NSG countries for import of Nat U well before J1805, has been highlighted in these pages several times now (20 May 2008 by NRao, 21 May 2008 by Neeshant, and 24 May 2008 by NRao)

Here, I attempt to place my "samadhanam" (explanation) for the paradox based on a bit of web crawling.

1) I believe that GoI did not do then, what it is saying it is contemplating to do now (that is, look for Nat U from Non-NSG countries), because it did not see a shortage of Nat U for the PHWR and FBR programmes at all. It did not see a shortage, because there was (and is) no real shortage.

There have been many questions answered in the Parliament by concerned Ministers as to the indigenous availability of sufficient quantity of Nat U for the 3-stage programme.

See document titled "Document 10: Strategy For Growth Of Electrical Energy In India" [http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/doc10/index.htm] in DAE's web site [http://www.dae.gov.in]. (Unfortunately, the document does not seem to carry a dateline, but I believe it to be current.) In the chapter titled " Primary Energy And Its Components " [http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/doc10/pg50.htm], it says:


3.5 Nuclear Energy

As in case of coal, uranium reserves are also given certain categorisation. These are Reasonable Assured Resources (RAR), Estimated Additional Resources-I (EAR-I), Estimated Additional Resources-II (EAR-II) and Speculative Resources (SR). Uranium reserves in India pertaining to categories RAR, EAR-I and EAR-II are estimated to be about 95,000 tonnes of metal. Speculative reserves are over and above this quantity and with further exploration, could become available for nuclear power programme. After accounting for various losses including mining (15%), milling (20%) and fabrication (5%), the net uranium available for power generation is about 61,000 tonnes. Thorium reserves are present in a much larger quantity. Total estimated reserves of monazite in India are about 8 million tonnes (containing about 0.63 million tonnes of thorium metal) occurring in beach and river sands in association with other heavy minerals. Out of nearly 100 deposits of the heavy minerals, at present only 17 deposits containing about ~4 million tonnes of monazite have been identified as exploitable. Mineable reserves are ~70% of identified exploitable resources. Therefore, about 2,25,000 tonnes of thorium metal is available for nuclear power programme.

The present indigenous nuclear power plants are of Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) type, having heavy water as moderator and coolant, and working on the once-through-cycle of natural uranium fuel. Based on such reactors nearly 330 GWe-yr of electricity can be produced from domestic uranium resource. This is equivalent to about 10 GWe installed capacity of PHWRs running at a life-time capacity factor of 80% for 40 years. This uranium on multiple recycling through the route of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR) has the potential to provide about 42,200 GWe-yr assuming utilisation of 60% of heavy metal, percentage utilisation being an indicative number. Actual value will be have the potential of about 150,000 GWe-yr, which can satisfy our energy needs for a long time. {I have left-in the obvious typo - Sanatanan.}

A three-stage nuclear power programme has been chalked out in the Department of Atomic Energy to systematically exploit all these resources. It is planned to install a nuclear power capacity of about 20 GWe by the year 2020. The second stage of the nuclear power programme envisages building a chain of fast breeder reactors multiplying fissile material inventory along with power production. Approval of the Government for the construction of the first 500 MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) was obtained in September 2003 and it is scheduled for completion in the year 2011. It is envisaged that four more such units will be constructed by the year 2020 as a part of the programme to set up about 20 GWe by the year 2020. Subsequently FBRs will be the mainstay of the nuclear power programme in India. The third stage consists of exploiting country’s vast resources of thorium through the route of fast or thermal critical reactors or the accelerator driven sub-critical reactors (ADS). A 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), designed to draw about two-third power from thorium fuel, is under development and will provide experience in all aspects of technologies related to thorium fuel cycle. A beginning is being made towards developing an accelerator needed for ADS.

Click on the last menu item captioned "Annex" in the above web page to reach this document titled "Basis for Calculating Growth of Installed Nuclear Capacity". It gives the justification with facts and numbers (along with some math that seems to be beyond me), as to how there is adequate Nat U for our Nuclear Power Programme as envisaged.


The depleted uranium discharged from the PHWRs will be used in the FBRs as initial inventory and as makeup requirements i.e. the difference between the feeds and the discharges. The total cycle inventory would be approximately 130 T per GWe and the annual makeup requirement would be about 1.1 T per GWe. It strictly applies for the INFCE reference oxide design only but has been taken to be applicable for the metal design as well. It may have little effect on the present estimates based on the metal design. Accordingly about 35,750 T of the depleted uranium would be tied up in FBRs. The annual makeup requirement after 2052 would be about 300 T per year, whereas nearly 24,000 T would be the inventory in hand. It would be sufficient for the life time of the FBRs.


2) Mr. Kakodkar has articulated many times that it is only a temporary mismatch between supply and demand that we are facing. If so why constrain our programmes to safeguards in perpetuity? As we have seen many times in the past, pawars that be, tend to create artificial shortage so as to be able to benefit later from it (eg. fairly frequent and sudden disappearance of kanda-batata from the market; manipulated import of wheat even if it is unfit for human consumption; "educated" import of gas-fired power station even if it is known that it cannot be run economically in India etc). Similarly, in the case of Nat U also, the so-called "shortage" was contrived by the political class by starving DAE of funds and by their inability / willingness to counter the arguments / agitations of interested persons and organisations who make a living out of placing unreasonable obstacles in India's technology development efforts.

3) Suddenly protagonists of the deal have decided to use the issue of temporary mismatch in fuel supply to our PHWRs as a strong argument in favour of the deal through obfuscation. For instance Dr M. R Srinivasan, writing in this article titled "Nuclear ground realities" [http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/289768.html], in the Indian Express, while admitting that:


. . .some complacency seems to have set in, during the early 1990s, on the urgency of opening up new uranium mines. The leadership of DAE may have taken an accountant’s view of the uranium inventory that was continuing to be held.
. . . .
In the post-1990 situation, when India faced a severe economic crisis and public investments in many areas were curtailed, work on the new uranium mines was actually stopped. The improvement in operations of our PHWRs and the resulting increase in demand for uranium appear to have been overlooked. .... . India has about 100,000 tonnes of uranium in the ground. This will be adequate to support 10,000 MW of PHWR capacity over its lifetime {namely 40 years at 80% lifetime average capacity factor at about 29% steam-cycle thermal efficiency - Sanatanan}



also says:


"But the Fast Breeder Reactor capacity of the second stage that can be supported by 10,000 MW of PHWR will still be too small to permit a large-scale use of thorium even after two or three decades. We must have some 30,000 to 50,000 MW of the first stage programme (using natural and enriched uranium) to allow us to exploit the thorium resources in a significant manner.


Quite characteristically he has failed to define (or even indicate by means of a clue) what he means by "in a significant manner"! Even then, he is only pointing out to a scenario in the implementation of transition from 2nd Stage to the 3rd Stage which is quite a few years away at the moment. If I recall correctly, Dr Srinivasan's view was commented upon by Arun_S in these threads some time back (07 Apr 2008) to say that it was not correct.

Now, all and sundry analysts [including the Hawk-Neocon(vert)-Dove], have caught on to Dr Srinivasan's article and are misquoting it to imply that we just do not have Nat U for our PHWRs and the only way out is to sign the sellout and import - period. (Dr. Srinivasan does not stop with just import of fuel, but wants to import LWRs too, lock stock and barrel!)

4) The so-called non-NSG countries who can sell Nat U to India are signatories to the NPT (besides other Treaties between African nations, as has been pointed out in these threads). So they cannot sell Nat U unless India places its reactors under Safeguards. In the pre J1805 time-frame that we are currently talking about, there was no proposal to place any of its India-built PHWRs under the intrusive safeguards inspection. If I recall correctly, to be allowed to export Nat U to India, India would have had to, by the NPT rules, place all of its nuclear facilities under safeguards -- clearly a no-no.

5) I think at best what we can do now is to import Nat U for Rajasthan 2 (RAPP-2), which is already under safeguards (assuming RAPP-1 is a write-off and hence should be tagged for decommissioning to gain valuable experience in that aspect of nuclear power plant operations). I see no merit in irradiating precious atoms of Nat U mined in India, in RAPP-2. By all means re-negotiate the existing RAPP-2 safeguards agreement with IAEA to permit import of Nat U but without having to go through this charade of "civil" vs. "military" separation. Also, renegotiate the 123 Agreement of Tarapur 1&2 to permit India to reprocess the Pu and use it in Tarapur 1&2 or RAPP-2 (in which case some design modifications and fresh AERB approvals might be required). This may also help in establishing bonafides of USA - Trust but Verfy first! And dump this sellout deal.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 11 Jun 2008 22:07

PM blames Left, BJP for sabotaging N-deal
Press Trust Of India

Wed, Jun 11, 2008
New Delhi: The Prime Minister has for the first time 8) blamed the Left and the BJP for stopping the nuclear deal in its tracks.

On the sidelines of a meeting with foreign service probationers in Delhi, Manmohan Singh made a strong pitch for the nuclear deal and said it is crucial for ending nuclear apartheid against India.

“Our domestic politics has prevented us from going ahead. I will still continue to hope that we will make progress in the months that lie ahead. The Indo-US nuclear is very important to end nuclear apartheid that the world has sought to impose on India. This agreement, if it materialises, if it sees light of the day, will open new possibilities of cooperation not only with the US but also with other nuclear powers like Russia and France,” he said.

The Left parties, which extend crucial outside support to the Government, have been strongly opposing implementation of the deal with the US, arguing that it would compromise the country's security interest and independent foreign policy.

Left parties have warned the Government of serious consequences if it implemented the deal and the two sides are currently engaged in talks to end the deadlock.

What can I say but recall my village rustic idiom:
    "Chori , Aur Seena-Zori?". :twisted: {blaming others for personal deficiencies}

The Prime Minister blames the people/parties for lack of cooperation in this firesale, people/parties he earlier called/implied as "Not Patriotic" = "traitors" !! How much more funny this comedy central drama going to be? :rotfl: :rotfl:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 11 Jun 2008 22:22

He is doing the right thing by pointing to the political opposition for the deal.

Think why.

Google cache of news stories on MMS statements

See the bit about Mulford. So things are pressing on. Hence the statement which the press is reporting at their liberty.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby satyarthi » 11 Jun 2008 22:40

Sanjay M,

Pure fusion weapons are very charming, but we have to be realistic. For fusion to occur one needs to create very high pressures and temperatures.

1. As of now no chemical-explosives are strong enough initiate fusion.

2. In usual TN, a nuclear fission bomb, that can bust a whole city, is used ONLY to provide the power to compress the secondary to fusion.

As Wormtongue told Saruman in LOTR, "but my lord, there is no such power". Its another matter that Saruman had figured out how to grow Urukhai soldiers from the ground. But there is no such power in Indian hands that can provide such conditions, other than a nuke primary.

Even the unkil's ignition facility, using humongous lasers (192 of them firing together), hasn't achieved it yet. It may do so in a few years. NIF can be used for fusion research and may even lead someday to fusion reactors. But for weapons?

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 11 Jun 2008 23:34

ramana wrote:He is doing the right thing by pointing to the political opposition for the deal.

Think why.

Google cache of news stories on MMS statements

See the bit about Mulford. So things are pressing on. Hence the statement which the press is reporting at their liberty.

Thanks Ramana: Humm ... .. . that is indeed a smart move by PM Man Mohan Singh. A first step to rebuild credibility {after years of slide}, just make sure there is no back door/dejure CTBT in the form of any agreement that makes prohibitively expensive to exercise that right to test flowing out of the statement of "India will never sign CTBT".

PM says no to CTBT, warns of competition from China
11 Jun, 2008, 2127 hrs IST, IANS
NEW DELHI: India will never sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared Wednesday, even as he underlined the need to move forward with the stalled nuclear deal with the US to end "nuclear apartheid".

In a significant speech to Indian Foreign Service probationers here, the prime minister also warned of "a long arduous journey" in the efforts to resolve the Sino-Indian border dispute and of increased competition from China in the global search for oil.

The address covered a wide variety of subjects ranging from Bollywood and India's soft power to global economy. Manmohan Singh also focussed on India's neighbours and urged Indian diplomats to shed "Western perceptions" and develop an "Indian perspective" on the neighbourhood.

Speaking on the most important foreign policy challenge he has faced since becoming prime minister in May 2004, the prime minister acknowledged the difficulties the India-US nuclear deal had run into because of political opposition.

"Our domestic politics has prevented us from going ahead. I still continue to hope that we will make progress in the months that lie ahead. But it is very important for us to move forward to end this nuclear apartheid that the world has sought to impose on India," he said.

Allaying fears that the deal would prevent India from conducting future nuclear tests and thus hurt its strategic interests, Manmohan Singh made it clear that New Delhi would not sign the CTBT even if other countries ratified it.

"Despite the fact that we are not a signatory to the NPT (nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty), and we have also said that if the CTBT came into being we will not sign it, there is no pressure from the US on India to sign the NPT or any other international arrangement ... to enter into nuclear cooperation for civil energy," he said.

In comments that made it clear that he was still for the nuclear deal despite opposition from the Left whose support is crucial for his government, the prime minister said: "For the first time we got the US to appreciate that India is a nuclear weapons state, that India has the right to develop nuclear power to protect its strategic interests, and that it is a decision that must be made by the people of India not subject to any international supervision or any international interference."

The prime minister said India needed "a peaceful neighbourhood, and that is why it is very important that our relations with our neighbours, they are of critical importance in realising our national ambitions".

Referring to the Sino-Indian border dispute, which led to a war in 1962, Manmohan Singh said the two countries were engaged in finding "pragmatic pathways to handle this complicated issue". "Some progress is being made but I think there is a long arduous journey ahead of us."

Later in his speech, speaking about the growing quest for oil, he said China had seized the opportunities all over the world, investing and exploring and developing natural resources for increased oil production.

"This tension will increase in the years to come," he said. "Competition and cooperation have to be the watchwords. We have to cooperate but have also to recognise that there will be increasing competition from China, from other countries and also those who are entrenched would not like to make way for others - the newcomers."

India, he said, had "a vested interest" in the stability of its immediate countries. If Bangladesh suffered from global warming, a large number of its nationals would enter India. If Nepal does not progress, he said many of its youths would be forced to move over to India.

"In the same way, there is a conflict in Sri Lanka, tragic though it is, it has given a lot of worries because many times it happens that when ethnic tensions increase, there is a tendency of increased inflow of refugees in our country and this creates both domestic problems as well as foreign policy problems (for India)."

He went on: "Many a times our own thinking about these countries is influenced excessively by Western perceptions of what is going on in these countries. I would like our diplomats to develop an Indian perspective on what is happening in our neighbourhood."

He also said that If we want to grow at the rate of 9 to 10 percent we need an investment rate of 35 to 40 percent. The bulk of savings needed to sustain this investment have been generated domestically. And fortunately our savings rate today is as high as 35 percent.

Global power play: Now in the international systems, there is going to be an immense pressure. And counties like India, countries like China - people are blaming them for global warming, for global food crises. Also blaming us for the rapid growth in demand of hydrocarbons as factor in the global crisis with regards to energy.

Terrorism: After 9/11 the world situation has changed, and has changed to a certain degree to our advantage. But there are still states sometimes actively backing the terrorist elements, and that there is a growing importance of the non-state actors in areas relating to terror. This gives our national security a new dimension.

Soft power: The soft power of India in some ways can be a very important instrument of foreign policy. Wherever I go in the Middle East, in Africa, people talk about Indian films. So that is a new way of influencing of world about the growing importance of India. Soft power is equally important in the new world of diplomacy.


India will not sign CTBT, says Manmohan
New Delhi, June 11, 2008
India will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that prevents it from conducting further nuclear tests and impinges on its sovereignty, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Wednesday.

Addressing new recruits of the Indian Foreign Service at a function, the prime minister also stressed that the nuclear deal India had signed with the US protected its "national interests".

"Despite the fact that we are not a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty), and we have also said that if the CTBT came into being we will not sign it, there is no pressure from the US on India to sign the NPT or any other international arrangement of that sort to enter into nuclear cooperation for civil energy," Manmohan Singh said.

Though it has not signed the CTBT, India has put a moratorium on further tests since the nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998. The Left parties and opposition parties have warned that if India signs the nuclear deal with the US, it would be prevented from conducting further tests.

The prime minister's remarks on the nuclear deal that has run into stiff opposition from the Left parties appears to be another attempt to clear some of the apprehensions.

"For the first time :shock: we got the US to appreciate that India is a nuclear weapons state, that India has the right to develop nuclear power to protect its strategic interests, and that it is a decision that must be made by the people of India not subject to any international supervision or any international interference," Manmohan Singh added.


'India must protect its interests in climate talks'
Times of India, India - 3 hours ago
NEW DELHI: India must protect its national interests when global solutions to the challenge of climate change are devised, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ...

Mulford meets PM
Economic Times, India - 1 hour ago
11 Jun, 2008, 2139 hrs IST, PTI NEW DELHI: US Ambassador David Mulford today met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and is understood to have discussed the civil ...

World's political and economic system is a power play: PM
Hindu, India - 4 hours ago
New Delhi (PTI): In the backdrop of the US accusing India for causing a global food crises, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the world's political and economic system is a power play and those having greater power use it to their advantage.

He said India must protect its "essential national interest" to the fullest extent possible while dealing with new challenges, including environment issues.

"The world is not a morality play. The world's political and economic system is a power play and those having greater power use it to their advantage," he told IFS probationers at his residence here.
{Chandi Prasad: I wish and hope he has internalized it n' speaking from heart and these are not just empty world for the IFS lecture or speaking with forked tongue}


Manmohan argues for Bollywood as foreign policy instrument
Mangalorean.com, India - 1 hour ago
New Delhi, June 11 (IANS) Celebrating the global success of Indian cinema, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday said the soft power of India in some ways ...

Manmohan, Bush to meet on G-8 sidelines next month
Bombay News, India - 1 hour ago
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush will meet on the sidelines of the G-8 meet in Japan next month. US ambassador to India David ...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 12 Jun 2008 01:05

Here is what he actually said:

Speech to IFS probationers


Better check this site instead of press reports!

PMO Website

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 12 Jun 2008 05:45

I have a question for people who have any opinions on this.

The US hoards its own strategic minerals - it does not mine them or export them while it uses its financial clout to buy the same mineral from outside.
Why is this a bad idea for India? Keep our Uranium and import while we can afford it?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16365
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jun 2008 06:07

^^^
something similar should also be done in the petro field. IIRC the NDA govt. decided to built up a strategic reserve and procedures were just started when they went out of office. the effort would have borne fruit during the the middle of the next term i.e 2005-2006.
UNfortunately, I haven't heard anything on this issue from the UPA govt.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby rocky » 12 Jun 2008 06:52

shiv, there's a few reasons why the US does that:

1) NIMBY: Not-In-My-BackYard. Basically, people just don't like the dirt and grime associated with mining and drilling, and are very averse to having it in their backyard. They try their level best so that others cannot see their garbage. Hence you will notice that Alaska is milked for everything it has.

2) Cheaper cost elsewhere: Americans are basically cheap people (I'm not saying this in a derogatory way). They will only pay the lowest price. It's much cheaper to get stuff done anywhere in the world than in the US.

3) Easier to control and influence foreign governments (through coups and dictators), rather than your own population. Just fly a few Tomahawks, and job is done. The Rape of Africa is a prime example in this case.

4) Last but not the least - Racism: If you can get other countries to do your dirty job, that's great! As Americans won't do all the dirty menial labor. There is a great racist debate about how Americans will absolutely not do certain jobs, and for which they will purposedly look the other way to allow illegal immigrants come and pick their apples and tomatoes and clean the bathrooms.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanjay M » 12 Jun 2008 07:09

satyarthi wrote:Sanjay M,

Pure fusion weapons are very charming, but we have to be realistic. For fusion to occur one needs to create very high pressures and temperatures.

1. As of now no chemical-explosives are strong enough initiate fusion.

2. In usual TN, a nuclear fission bomb, that can bust a whole city, is used ONLY to provide the power to compress the secondary to fusion.

As Wormtongue told Saruman in LOTR, "but my lord, there is no such power". Its another matter that Saruman had figured out how to grow Urukhai soldiers from the ground. But there is no such power in Indian hands that can provide such conditions, other than a nuke primary.

Even the unkil's ignition facility, using humongous lasers (192 of them firing together), hasn't achieved it yet. It may do so in a few years. NIF can be used for fusion research and may even lead someday to fusion reactors. But for weapons?


satyarthi,

Thanks for your response. But what do you think about this?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Stor ... 1313.shtml

http://nanotechnologytoday.blogspot.com ... -like.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 56976.html

Metallic hydrogen is even more dense than frozen hydrogen. So far, nobody has ever been able to squeeze hydrogen densely enough to achieve a metallic state. But the graphene/nanotubes/buckyballs are newer and game-changing.

What if you could pack lots deuterium and tritium inside these buckyballs, squeezing these heavy isotopes into ultra-dense metal form? And what if you attempted experiments like Russi Taleyarkhan did, using ultrasound waves to further collide and compress them? The buckyballs are supposed to be quite physically robust, and able to withstand impacts at huge velocities:

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc ... renes.html

About a billionth of a meter in diameter, they are incredibly stable-- slammed against a steel surface at 17,000 miles per hour, they bounce off undisturbed.


They could no doubt survive ultrasonic compression.

Also, buckyballs have photonic resonance capable of making them expand and contract rhythmically:

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc ... balls.html

The continuous beam of [buckyball] ions interacts with the photon beam as it is tuned through a range of values, from less than 20 eV to more than 70 eV.
...
The second resonance in C-60, occurring at a photon energy of 38 eV, is called a volume plasmon — not a back-and-forth oscillation of the valence electron cloud but rather an in-and-out contortion, like squeezing a beach ball.


What if you were to resort to this form of compression too?

I'm thinking that all of these things together could result in a nuclear fusion process.

Here are some interesting highlights about hydrogen:

http://www.bookrags.com/research/hydrogen-wsd/

Comments? Let me know what you think.
Last edited by Sanjay M on 12 Jun 2008 07:20, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 12 Jun 2008 07:13

Shiv, Also there are no clauses attached to what the US does. Its not the same with India. To do the same India has to now agree to intrusive requirements.Also read up on the numerous agreeements that were in place from papal times on trade in speical materials. Wassenar is the latest.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sraj » 12 Jun 2008 08:59

shiv wrote:I have a question for people who have any opinions on this.

The US hoards its own strategic minerals - it does not mine them or export them while it uses its financial clout to buy the same mineral from outside.
Why is this a bad idea for India? Keep our Uranium and import while we can afford it?

This deal is not the only way to import Uranium. I guess you overlooked this post, so am repeating it below:
shiv wrote:
Your response to my post is exactly the same as ShuryaT's response.

I don't know and am willing to listen.


Well, I am saying that:

1. India can, perfectly legally under international law, source Uranium from non-NSG countries (such as Namibia, Niger, Uzbekistan, which are 3 of the top 5 current producers of Uranium, or for that matter the 140 plus other countries that are not members of the 45-nation NSG cartel) as long as such Uranium is supplied to safeguarded nuclear facilities with safeguards similar to those applied to Tarapur-1&2, Kudankulam, and the first two units of Rawatbhata.

2. It is only the 45-nation NSG cartel which decided, in 1992 (IIRC), to require "full-scope safeguards" on all facilities as a condition of nuclear trade. A condition that India obviously has no desire to meet; hence the need for an NSG waiver, which the US is brokering (and charging very high brokerage fees for, if I may add)!

3. DAE and NPCIL have already announced that all future PHWRs will be 700 MW capacity (having demonstrated their ability to commission the two 540 MW Tarapur units (Tarapur-3&4) under budget and in less time than initially projected).

4. Therefore, the "non-NSG Uranium + indigenous 700 MW PHWRs" option can supply our nuclear power needs until the 3-stage thorium program kicks in.

Why do we have to sign any deal (thereby voluntarily signing up to all kinds of multilateral - such as IAEA - legal rigmarole open to interpretation by a UNSC which will never have our best interests in mind) if all we want is Uranium to power our first stage program (whether it needs to be 10,000 MW or 50,000 MW - as MR Srinivasan recently stated out of the blue)?

And if we do not have to sign this deal to meet our energy needs, it is not an either-or situation.


In fact, the additional benefit of clubbing indigenous PHWRs (instead of relying on imported LWRs) with non-NSG Uranium would be that you can get by with Natural Uranium (available from 140 plus non-NSG countries) and bypass the stranglehold on Enriched Uranium of the usual suspects.

And what are we giving up in the process: the opportunity to get 1000MW LWRs from abroad (instead of indigenous 700 MW PHWRs)? Does not sound like a lot to me!

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2008 15:54

Why is this a bad idea for India? Keep our Uranium and import while we can afford it?


It all depends. The US has stored everything, everything they felt will be needed in the event a nuclear war occurs and some USians survive ..... so they can jump start the US.

BTW, when silk hit the UK/Europe, the UK in particular made it a crime to wear silk ...... because locals were hurt by these imports!!! Never mind that the traders in the source countries (ahem, ahem) were hurt by such tactics.

on:

"The world is not a morality play. The world's political and economic system is a power play and those having greater power use it to their advantage," he told IFS probationers at his residence here.


MMS is practicing this only within India. He dare not open his mouth abroad. My feel is that all this noise is about his meeting with Bush next month.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest