Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

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

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Arun_S »

John Snow wrote:NSA is a mega Yam Raj ask Harrods London owner!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I had a good laugh.
Yet the overall message so somber and serious.

Dhanya prabhu.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Trust vote: RLD to vote against UPA

Alas! Everything is lost.... :(( :(( :((

On the serious side, it does seem increasing difficult that UPA can pull it off. UPA must engineer at least 10 cross-votes or absentations in the Opposition.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Raja Ram »

Gentle Readers:

Separate strains of a complex issue are being viewed as one and lumped together. It is therefore to post a ramble again I guess.

The Deal : The pros and cons of it has been debated extensively, no point in stating it again. The deal has to be analysed against many dimensions. Technical, Geo-politcal, Supreme National vision, Energy Security etc. This deal has pros and cons against each of them. The question is whether there is enough pros over cons. The answer is yes there is. It could have been better, it will be better if we wait for a few years etc are all valid. But remember a "moment comes but rarely in history" and one must sieze it. Many years ago an idealist India left its chance to be at the high table of power in UN Security Council because we were idealistic. We fought for that right to be given to a country that did not let ideology interfere in its realpolitik decision making. Do we want to let go of this opportunity in the hope that India will get a better one later? There is, gentle readers, another important corollary question, does accepting now prevents India from getting a better one in future. Who can say that things ones agreed upon is for all time to come. Ultimately if we have the power and will to use it any treaty can be re-negotiated or re-interpreted. Let us not think ourselves to be so weak.

Government Handling: Since the time this whole circus began, your commentator has said many a time, that this is where there has been a significant departure. Carefully nurtured principles:
(i) of having a national consensus on matters of supreme national interests and keeping it away from tumultous politicking,
(ii) as well ensuring that national strategic options are never given up no matter what is on offer
have for the first time been the go by. Small mindedness and individual cornering of glory has been the hallmark of this particular regime. Even now, some of these luminaries in government are referring to the 1998 Pokhran as something that led to nuclear ostracization. What complete baloney, this deal on the table on the contrary is because of that event. And that event was possible because of several previous administrations, it is a legacy of all Indians.

When a national consensus has to be built it has to be built with national minded parties. One cannot exclude the principal opposition that has so far played its part when it was in power in keeping national consensus in mind. National consensus building does not mean appeasing powers that have a proven agenda and record of being anti national. The government would have been far more secure today if a genuine consensus across political lines were sought. Instead, the government has tried to be petty minded and sought to drive a wedge inside BJP to get support.

As for the principal opposition, the less said the better, the BJP should have got its best brains together swallowed pride and done its bit by approaching the government with a clear and constructive critique, articulated in appropriate forums and building the consensus. It takes too tango and you cant be sulking in the corner for not getting courted. They owed it to the nation and they have not been upto the mark.

The Negotiation Process: It is clear that there is a discernible gap between what was promised as red lines never to be crossed and to what is being agreed finally. The Hyde act has no place and the government should have told so. There should have been a bill to negate the Hyde Act as soon as it was announced or even a process to have such a provision initiatied would have sufficed. Instead, the gvernment and deal pushers tried to sell this lemon called Hyde Act as harmless and toothless. Both wrong.

The IAEA draft agreement has done the political balancing act of keeping out a list of "bad words" from an Indian POV, but it is not as unambigous as we want it to be. Yet it is still a good piece of work. The annexures and the details are important and needs scrutiny. It is important that the vigil on that is not laxed in the pretext that this preamble and some ambigous open clause phraselogy protects Indian soverign interests. Lot of work is therefore still left.

What Next? Whether the government falls or the deal sails through, it still remains an opportunity for India, for it has brought to the centre stage of debate many things that are vital to national polity - not limited to the following:
(i) What kind of global leadership role India envisages for itself? - An independent great power pole by iteslf, an important player in a league of democracies as an ally and economic power, or purely an economic giant that sits at the high table of global economic heavy wieghts ( a la Japan)
(ii) The need for going beyond traditional views on national security as a mere physical security of the nation to something more encompassing as protection of national interests and identifying the means to achieve those interests.
(iii) To have a complete re look at the overall energy requirements of the Indian economy and even questioning the validity of the current economic model of growth. Imagine, not long ago, gentle readers, 25% of national goods moved on cattle drawn transport - it is easy to dismiss this as anochronistic thinking, but suddenly in speculation driven oil prices context, an economic cost benefit analysis can probably reveal that this could have reduced energy dependency by some extent for India.
(iv) the need to understand the demographic, economic shifts that are taking place in India, there are several revolutions happening simultaneously. This young nation state is the latest expression of one oldest civilizational entities in the world. Can the liberation of the mind that needs to happen for a resurgent India to gain her rightful position take place? While the effects of Macaulyte social engineering is still there, there is yet another social engineering that is being unleashed on India, surreptetiously, unnoticed but none the less real. Are we prepared for it?

Gentle readers, I am only urging some people to think a little bit farther and wider here. There is nothing that is black or white only shades of grey. It is my submission that this is one amongst the watershed decisions that need to be taken by India. Many more are there to be taken, just because they are not high profile does not mean that those decisions are not being considered or need not be taken.

My submission therefore, gentle readers is, that this deal is something that we need and want. We have to ensure that we are reaching the right compromise. But more important than that is that we ensure the long established twin principles are adhered to by who ever is in power. If they have been eroded as the way this saga has unfolded indicates, that is a far bigger danger to India than this deal.

As usual just a ramble from a non-guru. Please take it for what it is worth.
Raju

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Raju »

RajeshA wrote:The latest numbers:
Deve Gowda Jee (JD-S)and Ajit Singh (RLD) jee have decided to oppose the deal.
Akali Dal and Shiv Sena have already issued whip to their parties to oppose UPA.

the game is over for MMS.
tomorrow PM will resign and Left will support UPA again after New puppet PM is installed
by SoniaG to left's satisfaction.
What will happen to deal ? I do not know.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 487
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Sanatanan »

One can take 100 years, for life of a reactor, for say civil engineering purpose. But it just does not make any sense to consider the price of 100 years fuel as starting point.
... and that's what I asked explicitly .. what was his rational behind choosing 100 year number, and he chose not to answer that part.

As mentioned before, no one really expects, that one would be feeding U in the present form and reactor technologies would not significantly change.
As of now India has the technology as well as the ability to convert U in the form of raw material into finished fuel rods for LWRs, PHWRs and FBRs. Presumably, the contracts that India enters into with foreign vendors of nuclear power plants would include a provision whereby the finish manufacturing of the fuel rods would be undertaken in India as in the case of Tarapur 1 and 2. (In the case of Kudankulam there is supposed to be Russian Govt's sovereign guarantee for life-time supply of fuel -- finish manufactured rods? -- and hence stockpiling of it may not be applicable to this discussion).

So, in the context of stockpiling fuel (for 100 years, as a possible hedge against US / NSG's shenanigans), I think that one implies stockpiling of imported raw material in the form of U3O8 (or enriched UF6, in strong containers capable of maintaining integrity over the required life, if India cannot manage to build its own enrichment plants of the required capacity by then - a very likely possibility given the way they are hankering after getting enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water technologies from US / NSG). Once the raw material is on hand, then actual manufacture of the fuel rods, in India, might take place only just in time. I presume that the foreign component of the cost of fuel that has been assumed in the calculations earlier presented in these threads, pertains only to that of the fuel raw material and cost of foreign enrichment where applicable.

My understanding is that once built, not too much can be changed in the physical dimensions and shape of the fuel rods since it is intimately connected with the reactor vessel and its internals, which, due to accumulated lethal levels of radiation, are not expected to be changed over the life time of the reactor. I believe from the discussion that has gone on earlier, the question is not whether the reactor vessel can be designed, licensed and operated over extended time periods of the order of 100 years.

Since capital costs are high, all future reactor designs (vessel and internals) may have "life extendable to 100-years" as a mandatory requirement. Even as of now, Tarapur 1 and 2 (designed in 1960s and commissioned in 1969), are 39 years old. In 2006, after completion of a life extension programme, they were licensed by AERB for operation for another 5 years (Frontline, .htm file). that is, up to 2011. If one goes by the report, TAPS 1 & 2 are expected to clock a total of at least 50 years before they are decommissioned. The AHWR is said to be designed for 100 years life (Link, .htm file). The US-EPR claims a design life of 60 years (Link, .pdf file); I expect that market forces would effect an upward change in this parameter, as and when competition for nuclear power plant orders hots up.
Viswanthan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 14:38

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Viswanthan »

Congress and their backers abound in this forum appear to be turning desperate.They need to be reminded that till recently Manmohan Singh was running a government with the backing of Karat invoking that bogey called 'Secularism'.Apparently the extra-territorial preferences of commies slipped Congress and its supporters attention during this four years .Since Indian public was made to believe that 'Communalism' was the greatest danger afflicting mankind, its quite ingenous on the part of the Congress and supporters to expect that forces is alleged to epitomise this threat to turnaround suddenly and support them.The struggle that the Congress is going through to a get a fairly well negotiated deal is a price that the Congress is paying for perperating charade called 'Secularism'and treating a deply flawed but genuinely nationalistic political force in the country as an 'untouchable'

The invoking of Sikh angle in couple of posts appears extremely dubious.Sometime back Congress spinmasters in the MSM manufactured outrage that Leftist was communalising(islamising) the N-deal by pouncing on stray remark by one of those several ideological madmen in politburo.Ofcourse the Congress's estranged Marxists friends and Congrees's new found Page 3 samjawadis were in the forefront of leading Mullah mobilisation in the Hindi heartland against the evil Amerika.The irony appears to be now lost on our congress friends.If the 'Sikh' angle is invoked to emotionally appeal to the Akhalis,gory memories of 1984 Sikh Carnage when rogue Congress party leaders(some of them are highly connected to 10 Janpath and were/are ministers in UPA government) personally supervised the carnage in the streets of Delhi needs to be refreshed.So its better that atleast the discourse over the n-deal on communal lines is not encouraged

BJP has been extremely disappointing.It appears that Shri Advani appears to have thoroughly failed to rein in the elements in BJP who have driven the party to take a maximalist stance with no room for nuanced position
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Everyone can see that for typical non-nclaer fuel like coal or petroleum the yearly production = yearly consumption.

Is that also true of Nuclear fuel (Uranium)? No.

See the mismatch between production and consumption below. Guess where is the excess uranium coming these years to feed world's N power reactors? Yes, from emptying large inventories that was built by peace loving but bum making countries in yester years.

I had a dated copy on my disk, so I decided to post latest report one from the web:

http://www.worldenergy.org/publications ... efault.asp

Pls read all the chapters of the report for Uranium.
Survey of Energy Resources 2007: Contents of Uranium Chapter

The overview is useful and quoted here:
Survey of Energy Resources 2007
Uranium - Overview

With headlines of licence extensions instead of early retirements of nuclear power plants, and the prospect of dwindling cheap and reliable fossil fuel supplies, burgeoning energy demand and increasing environmental constraints, the world is witnessing a resurgent interest in nuclear power as a clean, abundant and economically competitive electricity supply option. After almost two decades of decline or, at best, stagnation, numerous countries or utilities, until recently oblivious or opposed to the technology, have begun to reassess nuclear power as a secure and economically competitive base-load electricity generating technology.

Populous countries with rapidly developing economies such as China and India pursue aggressive expansion of all electricity generating options, including nuclear power. Russia has announced that it wishes to increase its nuclear generating capacity from the current level of 21.7 GWe to 44 GWe by 2020. In the Republic of Korea a nuclear share in the national electricity mix of close to 60% is seen as a desirable medium-term target (up from the current 40%).

After more than 20 years without a single new order, utilities in the United States are positioning themselves for an initial round of plant orders, in part stimulated by government incentives, in part by economic and environmental considerations. Finland and France are building or have decided to build third-generation nuclear power plants. The United Kingdom Energy White Paper of May 2007 keeps open the option of constructing new nuclear power plants in the future. Energy policy in Belarus, Poland and Turkey has moved in favour of building nuclear power stations. The World Energy Technology Outlook - 2050 of the European Commission (EC, 2006) projects a significant increase in nuclear power after 2020 worldwide. Such projections are consistent with the growing number of countries expressing an interest in nuclear energy for electricity production. A meeting organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 2006 to examine Issues for the Introduction of Nuclear Power was attended by 28 (predominantly developing) countries that currently do not operate nuclear power plants.

This upbeat outlook on nuclear power is in stark contrast to the not-so-distant past, with years of suppressed growth prospects, including nuclear phase-out policies in several countries, with the consequent impact on uranium exploration activities and production capacities. Nuclear technology and fuel cycle infrastructures are complex and capital-intensive, with long lead times. Without clear long-term demand signals from the market place, the uranium industry has been reluctant to invest in new mine capacities or to pursue large-scale uranium exploration.

In addition to the uncertain outlook for nuclear power, the uranium market has been characterised by a large disparity between global reactor requirements and mine production (Fig. 6-1 ) since the early 1990s when, after decades of production exceeding requirements by an unusually wide margin, mine output slipped below annual reactor requirements. The appearance of so-called secondary supplies (i.e. reactor fuel derived from warheads, military and commercial inventories, re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails, as well as enriching at lower tail assays, reprocessed uranium and mixed oxide fuel) reduced demand for fresh uranium. In addition, new entrants to the world uranium market, e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation, further exerted competitive pressures. As a result of uncertain and low demand plus excess capacity, uranium prices (except for short-term aberrations) fell.
Image
Usually low prices suggest plentiful supplies. Utilities therefore began to hold lower inventories, which suppressed production and prices even further and overall operational mine capacity dropped below reactor requirements. A fair share of the market apparently turned a blind eye to the fact that requirements were increasingly met by accumulated past production and not from operating capacities. In late 2000, uranium prices reached an historical low of US$ 7.10/lbU3O8 or US$ 18.45/kgU, threatening the economic survival of many mines. At the same time, global production had progressively declined to less than 60% of reactor requirements. In short, uranium prices no longer reflected longer-term production capacities.

Shortly after prices hit the historical low, a series of events uncovered the long-ignored demand/supply imbalance and caused prices to rise. Among the triggering factors were a fire in Australia's Olympic Dam mill and the flooding of the world's largest and highest-grade uranium mine, McArthur River in Canada. Both mines were among the top global producers and the drop in output resulted in market prices rising immediately. On the demand side, since 1990 rising plant factors of the world's nuclear fleet added incrementally to annual reactor fuel requirements the equivalent of more than 30 GWe. A series of licence renewals for existing reactors that began around the turn of the century sent plant operators out to secure fuel for another 20 years or so. Another change was the growth of nuclear power in the developing economies of China and India, countries that had either not participated in the market to a great extent or had not participated at all. While demand was picking up momentum, supply from mine output continued to be underprovided.

Concerns surfaced with regard to the global industry's ability to meet a potential surge in demand for uranium and with short-run supplies from mines capped and rising demand expectations, uranium prices began to climb (Fig. 6-2 ). Higher prices were seen by most market participants as a necessary prerequisite to correct past market anomalies and to stimulate investment in direly-needed new production capacity (Combs, 2006). Despite some uncertainty on the precise future availability of fissile materials from military arsenals that still exists, it became clear that the bulk of future uranium supply must come from mine output, i.e., investment in exploration and development of new mines and mills. In the short run, however, because there is no ready-to-produce project on the shelf, the production cannot increase rapidly despite rising demand. As a result, in six years the uranium spot price has been multiplied by a factor of ten.

The market reacted as expected and mine re-opening and the expansion of existing facilities increased global mine production capacity from about 45 000 tU in 2001 to more than 52 000 tU in 2006 - still well below current annual reactor requirements. Numerous new mine openings are planned or under preparation, but given the long lead times of up to ten years and more between an investment decision and first mine output, the markets will have to continue to rely on secondary sources for another decade or so. One important source, the agreement to downblend highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the Russian weapons programme, will however be stopped after 2013, when the agreement expires.

Planned new mine capacities, especially in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan, are considered essential for re-aligning uranium production and reactor requirements for the post-2015 period. Prices and demand prospects are now at levels that warrant additional investments in exploration and production. However, the market remains tight - the 2006 rockfall and water inflow at the Cigar Lake mine in Canada, which will delay the opening of the mine, with an estimated annual output of close to 7 000 tU, by one to two years, sent uranium spot-market prices to US$ 75/lbU3O8 or US$ 194.80/kgU in February 2007.

Another development since 2004 has been the emergence of investment funds in the uranium market - in part prompted by the lasting demand and production imbalance and a view that secondary sources eventually need to be replaced by primary production. These funds hold uranium entirely for speculative reasons, confident in the knowledge that prices will continue to increase and that uranium will sell at a profit. Although the volumes involved are a small portion of the total market, investment funds helped raise spot prices in 2005 and 2006.

Soaring spot-market prices and the wide gap between uranium production and reactor requirements have questioned the ability of the uranium and nuclear fuel-cycle industry to respond to a nuclear renaissance. Indeed it would be the 'ultimate irony if fuel became the Achilles heel in the nuclear turnaround instead of one of nuclear's greatest advantages' (Melbye, 2006). The issue of long-term uranium supply has especially been at the centre of debates about the role of nuclear power in sustainable energy development. Statements like 'the reserve-to-production ratio of uranium amounts to only some 60 years' (essentially implying to the uninitiated that new-build nuclear power plants, with an anticipated economic life time of 60 years, will run out of nuclear fuel before their date of decommissioning) are not only misleading but irrelevant.

Uranium supply is usually framed within a short-term market perspective that focuses on prices, on who is producing and with what resources, where might spare capacity exist to meet short-term demand peaks and how does this balance with demand? In essence, the skill is in the understanding of supply/demand/price interdependencies and dynamics for known uranium resources. In contrast, long-term supply (given sufficient demand) is a question of the replenishment of known resources with new resources presently unknown or from known deposits presently not producible for techno-economic reasons. Here the development of advanced exploration and production technologies is an essential prerequisite for the long-term availability of uranium. Demand prospects and competitive markets are the essential drivers for technology change and investment to ensure sufficient long-term supply, both through the discovery of new resources and the exploitation of known resources that were previously not accessible (Rogner, 2000). There is no doubt that production capacity will catch up with demand again. But the current challenge before the uranium industry is to shift from a mode of merely responding to short-term market changes to a mode of anticipation of the true longer-term uranium demand and supply balances.
Raju

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Raju »

INFLATION HITS DELHI’S POLITICS!
By M.J.AKBAR
13 JULY 2008


It was as easy to esteem Chaudhry Charan Singh as to underestimate him. I knew him reasonably well during the critical days when he brought down the Janata government in 1979 and won the undying contempt of urban India which had invested so much passion in the first non-Congress government in Delhi. At one level he had charming simplicity. There was nothing he enjoyed more, after work, than playing ludo with his wife.

But he also had a sharp self-interest in the rural, Jat-dominated constituency of west Uttar Pradesh. Since he was the pre-eminent leader of the Jats, the line between individual and collective was often blurred. In his mind, what was good for rural India was good for him, which is fair enough; but the reverse held equally true. What was good for him became ipso facto good for rural India. He had the rustic virtue of trust; but in the end he became a victim of the rustic vice of naiveté.

He broke the Morarji Desai government and became Prime Minister on the basis of support offered by Mrs Indira Gandhi. But the Congress stabbed him in the back soon after he stabbed Morarji Desai in the front. Mrs Gandhi withdrew support, and Chaudhry Charan Singh became the first, and only, Prime Minister who could not summon a session of Parliament.

Three decades later, in one of those U-turns for which history is famous, his son Ajit Singh's single-digit strength in Parliament could help keep Mrs Gandhi's daughter-in-law, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, in power. A sweetener has been spread before Ajit Singh. Lucknow airport has been named after his father. There are many reasons for remembering Charan Singh. This is possibly the worst. His name is now inextricably linked to a political bribe.

Given the track record, Ajit Singh should not be surprised if the airport is renamed again if things do not go as expected.
If a lollipop was sufficient to appease Ajit Singh, he would have announced his support to Dr Manmohan Singh's nuclear deal without any delay. His hesitation and willingness to socialise with distinctly anti-nuclear deal politicians indicate that he has a little more on his shopping list. Since his political outfit is confined to west Uttar Pradesh, he can never become Chief Minister unless he carves out a separate state. He wants a new one to be called Harit Pradesh.
Shibu Soren from Jharkhand, with five MPs, is demanding a place in the Cabinet with the lucrative coal portfolio, currently in the hands of a Congress fundraiser. Soren was dropped from Manmohan Singh's Cabinet for a fairly dramatic reason. He was accused of being involved in a secretary's murder. He has been exonerated and wants his job back, with some back pay if possible. The Telangana Rashtra Samiti wanted a separate Telangana, and became anti-nuclear when there was no response from the Union government. We have already witnessed the blatant intervention of corporate interests in the survival of the government. The unedifying sight of convicted murderers turning up to save or scupper the nuclear deal will doubtless fuel editorials worldwide on the mature state of Indian democracy.

There is inflation in the political bazaar. Dr Manmohan Singh can now be held responsible for both economic and political inflation, a rare achievement. In such a volatile market, no sale is ever complete until delivery. Mulayam Singh promised 39 MPs. On Friday in Delhi only 26 MPs attended the party meeting. It is possible that some MPs may have been afflicted with Mayawati-induced stomach upsets, and a few with heartache; and they may indeed turn up to vote behind the leader on the evening of 22 July. Sometimes 72 hours can be even longer than a week in politics.

Given such intense bargaining, the price of victory for the government might be far higher than the temporary despair of defeat. There is already an SMS doing the rounds which does not make pleasant reading for those in power: "Wanted: convicts, murderers, mafia, jailbirds, criminals 2 vote 4 Trust Vote. Parties need u if u r any of the above. U will get CM's post, Ministership, airport named after ur father etc. Good citizens need not apply."

In times of meltdown, we thirst for a glimpse into the future, and track it along the seam lines of what politicians can do. There is a much surer way of finding out. Check out what politicians cannot do, and you will discover what they will do.
Eliminate the impossible, and the possible begins to define itself.

Sentiment has little to do with power play. Likes and dislikes mean very little at crunch time. Politics is about the protection and pursuit of interests. Of course self-serving politicians will always clothe self-interest in the garb of national interest, but that cloth has worn thin.

The Left could never accept a strategic alliance with the United States, which is at the heart of the proposed relationship. It is a concept in which India becomes the eastern fortress of the "New Middle East", an expanded arc that stretches from the Nile to the Ganges and includes all the volatile regions of the Muslim world in which America has a deep vested interest because of energy. America does not hide this interest. India, including its waters, will become a region from which American forces can operate if they feel the need to do so. Obviously, this need will arise only rarely, but when it does India will be an undeclared base supporting forward operations. War is not only about fighting; it is also about logistics. The sop that is being thrown out by Dr Singh is that an American strategic alliance will create a balance of power between India and China.

Who is right is less relevant than the fact that these views are incompatible. The alliance, acceptable till the line was breached, is now untenable. Dr Singh and Mrs Sonia Gandhi want to leave an indelible American mark on the Congress Party, with consequences that will change the organisation's fundamental ethos completely. That is their privilege. A substantial section of the Congress does not agree, but is voiceless in a party where debate has been extinguished.

Mulayam Singh's decision to support the Congress has nothing to do with the nuclear deal. His compulsions are regional and personal. Mayawati has driven him out of power in the only state where he can be in power. Defeat has unnerved him. The Congress, bed-ridden but not quite dead, makes a perfect ally, because it is too frail to make an independent bid for power.

When it comes to a division of Uttar Pradesh's 80 seats, Mulayam Singh will bargain with bare knuckles. The Congress will be lucky if Mulayam offers the party ten seats and relents to 12. Local luminaries like Salman Khursheed could discover that they have been sliced out since Mulayam will not concede a constituency like Farrukhabad. Once the Congress moves out of 80% of UP's seats it will never be able to return, for its remaining cadre will abandon the party. This suits Mulayam Singh even better, just as it suits Lalu Yadav in Bihar to restrict Congress to four or five seats. The Congress cannot revive if it sells long to buy short.

The short-term benefits for the Congress are dubious; the long term suggests disaster. The Congress will effectively eliminate itself from the spine of the nation, the Indo-Gangetic belt. If, five years or more later, the electorate tires of regional parties and seeks a national alternative, the only national party in Uttar Pradesh left standing will be the BJP.
Dr Manmohan Singh began with a majority of nearly a hundred.

In four years, by becoming a one-point Bush-entranced Prime Minister, he has reduced that majority to a variable that could easily slip into a minority. We will soon see who wins the numbers game. What we do know already is that the government has lost its credibility.
Last edited by Rahul M on 20 Jul 2008 22:12, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Edited to normal font size. W/O any offense to anyone, I must say most of us here can see quiet well, thank you. Bold, italics or underline should be enough for highlighting.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by joshvajohn »

Yadav said "Lal Krishna Advani and Red Flag have become one".
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Lal_ ... 255193.cms
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Manmohan Singh has let the ball drop. Before he went to G-8 Summit, he should have foreseen this tug-of-war. It was not sufficient to rope in Amar Singh. He should have brought in JMM Chief Shibu Soren into his Cabinet and taken care of Ajit Singh as well by bringing him into UPA and his Cabinet. Secondly he should have told Amar Singh that it would not be prudent to reactivate the disproportionate wealth case against Mayawati, especially since SP were not sure of their MPs. Now you have made her desperate and she has given SP a real good licking. That would have been sufficient. Congress wasted their time negotiating whether Shibu Soren gets a cabinet post or not. Sickening!

All because of not playing out the war games. Nuclear Deal has fallen simply because of real bad management at the top of Congress.

In the end, I think it was the BSP's roping in of Rajya Sabha MP Shahid Siddiqui, that tipped the balance. Until then Mullah Mulayam gave the impression of being the sole arbitrator of Muslim votes. That mirage broke, when Siddiqui went over and Ajit Singh was convinced that Mayawati had the last word in UP politics.

Those who think that in the next Loksabha, the nuclear deal will get a new life should probably rethink their expectations. This reallignment in UP and AP politics has caused a massive platonic readjustment. Third Front which became a laughing stock just 3 weeks ago, when SP went over to UPA, has now suddenly become impressive.

Congress would have a hard time keeping Haryana (10 MPs). The Jat votes would be consolidated now between Chautala of INLD and Ajit Singh of RLD. Moreover even Congress MPs in Haryana like Kuldeep Bishnoi, Bhajan Lal's son, and Arvind Sharma are leaving Congress. So Haryana could go to Third Front.

Congress and SP are probably going to do a collective suicide in Uttar Pradesh (80 MPs). Mayawati and Ajit Singh are putting together an impressive coalition of Dalits, Muslims and Jats. With Mayawati's star on the upswing, Congress and SP are going to have a very hard time getting sufficient MPs from an MP rich state.

In Andhra Pradesh (42 MPs), which is a Congress stronghold right now, the political alignments are also changing. TDP and TRS under Chandrasekhar Rao have decided to patch and contest the elections together. Again Mayawati and Left have provided the glue and the go-betweens. The new Chiranjeevi outfit would also be weakening Congress.

Asom Gana Parishad might also do a bit better in Assam (14 MPs). MP Babulal Marandi of JVM could also get a couple of more seats in Jharkhand (14 MPs).

AIADMK, MDMK (Vaiko) and PMK (for the time being in UPA) combine also could also make a comeback in Tamil Nadu (39 MPs) in their cyclical politics. Jayalalitha was in the UNPA earliear. She might rejoin.

One could expect upto 110 MPs from Third Front next time in the 15th Lok Sabha. The Left Front would also have another 35-40 MPs. That means Third Front - Left Combine could get around 150 MPs in the 545 member chamber.

That makes Third-Front+Left Combine a credible third pole in Indian Politics. Others may join the combine. Others from like LJSP (Ram Vilas Paswan), RLD (Lalu Prakash Yadav), NCP (Sharad Pawar), JMM (Shibu Soren) etc could also join the party. They are flexible and have no intrinsic fascination with the nuclear deal.

Neither UPA nor NDA would be able to form a government next time. It would again be some mumbo-jumbo coalition government of Third Front under Mayawati, where Left would be controlling it as the Left has brought it together, and they would not allow the nuclear deal to go through. The front would be either supported by Congress or BJP from outside, but they would not be able to push the deal through, either in the present version or a new format.

So gentlemen, I rest my case. The nuclear deal is dead for the foreseen future, unless

UPA can get around 10-15 MPs from the Opposition to cross-vote or abstain, or NDA makes a decision that they should let UPA win and carry through the CBI case against Mayawati, thereby sabotaging her chances of being the fulcrum for any third pole in Indian politics.

But they are as ever too stupid for that!
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Prabu »

Muppalla wrote:
paramu wrote:Why this news in Jul 20?
Why not several months back? Why not a parliamentary discussion before?
If you have followed this thread that started a zillion years ago, you wouldn't ask this question. Ramana was posting(with analysis) the articles from Seema Mustafa and others and many others gurus were writing the political fallout of this deal.

If Congress went with BJP on Nuke deal and made a deal that could have ended congress party as a force in Inda. They did a similar thing in Ayodhya during 80s and ended up in current state. It is the mandate of BR to not discuss politics, I will stop there.

However, why now is a question needs analysis from gurus.
Again you too asking the same question ! :D

The simple reason is now the congress is pushed to a corner and no way out ! If they would ahve done this earlier and debated openly in parliment and agreed to a joint parlimentary probe or some thing similar, they could have taken the opposition along and could have used the domestic opposition to India's advantage in negotiating tough with uncle. :roll:

One more why now also happend earlier. Our Shyamsarna singh, was asked by MMS in front of the 16 (?) member scientists delegation, that he should consider the view point of the scientists ? why as a legitimate Govt, no one has thought about those possible neagtive attributes of the deal ? well before the group of scientists made a hue and cry ? Obviously any one or so called nuke deal experts with some brain should think all such pros and cons before entering in to such a highly strategic deal which can either improve India or ruin it in the long term !
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by shiv »

If the "Third front" can cobble up a a government after bringing the UPA down - that will be the biggest gift to the Kaangress. The nation will not forgive a party who rules for 6-8 months after bringing a government down. That is always seen as an opportunistic money making venture.

Rajmata Soniaji may yet rule for another 5 years after a brief gap.

I think it can only mean early general elections with a caretaker minority government.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by kshirin »

Agree with Rajaram and others, wish our MPs didnt make such a spectacle - India does not deserve this lot. China will be laughing all the way and democracy will be exposed as unable to stand up for the national interest. I hope I am wrong, our country deserves better, and this is an issue over which the parties could have kept national interest above all else, and then later on if some domestic issue precipitated another confidence vote it would have been relatively less demeaning to politik. But then the Govt also waited too long and has still not been able to spell out clearly and unambiguously what national interest is at stake. what with the dragon breathing down its neck. It should have rallied the people behind it.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
* The next two generations of nuclear reactors are currently being developed in several countries.
* The first (3rd generation) advanced reactors have been operating in Japan since 1996. Late 3rd generation designs are now being built.
* Newer advanced reactors have simpler designs which reduce capital cost. They are more fuel efficient and are inherently safer.

The nuclear power industry has been developing and improving reactor technology for more than five decades and is starting to build the next generations of reactors to fill orders now materialising.

Several generations of reactors are commonly distinguished. Generation I reactors were developed in 1950-60s, and outside the UK none are still running today. Generation II reactors are typified by the present US fleet and most in operation elsewhere. Generation III (and 3+) are the Advanced Reactors discussed in this paper. The first are in operation in Japan and others are under construction or ready to be ordered. Generation IV designs are still on the drawing board and will not be operational before 2020 at the earliest.

About 85% of the world's nuclear electricity is generated by reactors derived from designs originally developed for naval use. These and other second-generation nuclear power units have been found to be safe and reliable, but they are being superseded by better designs.

Reactor suppliers in North America, Japan, Europe, Russia and South Africa have a dozen new nuclear reactor designs at advanced stages of planning, while others are at a research and development stage. Fourth-generation reactors are at concept stage.

Third-generation reactors have:
* a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time,
* a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets,
* higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,
* reduced possibility of core melt accidents,
* resistance to serious damage that would allow radiological release from an aircraft impact,
* higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,
* burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life.

The greatest departure from second-generation designs is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.

* Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. They function without operator control and despite any loss of auxiliary power. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components.

Another departure is that some will be designed for load-following. While most French reactors today are operated in that mode to some extent, the EPR design has better capabilities. It will be able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per minute up to 60% output and at 5% of rated output per minute up to full rated power. This means that potentially the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes, though this may be at some expense of wear and tear.

Many are larger than predecessors. Increasingly they involve international collaboration.
Certification of designs is on a national basis, and is safety-based. In Europe there are moves towards harmonised requirements for licensing.
However, in Europe reactors may also be certified according to compliance with European Utilities Requirements (EUR). These are basically a utilities' wish list of some 5000 items needed for new nuclear plants. Plants certified as complying with EUR include Westinghouse AP1000, Gidropress' AES-92, Areva's EPR, GE's ABWR, Areva's SWR-1000, and Westinghouse BWR 90.

In the USA a number of reactor types have received Design Certification (see below) and others are in process: ESBWR from GE-Hitachi, US EPR from Areva and US-APWR from Mitsubishi. Early in 2008 the NRC said that beyond these three, six pre-application reviews would get underway by about 2010. These include: ACR from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), IRIS from Westinghouse, PBMR from Eskom and 4S from Toshiba as well as General Atomics' GT-MHR apparently. See also NRC and Appendix.

Longer term, NRC expected to focus on the Next-Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) for the USA (see USA paper) - essentially the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) among the >Generation IV designs.

Joint Initiatives

Two major international initiatives have been launched to define future reactor and fuel cycle technology, mostly looking further ahead than the main subjects of this paper:

Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a US-led grouping set up in 2001 which has identified six reactor concepts for further investigation with a view to commercial deployment by 2030. See Generation IV paper and DOE web site on "4th generation reactors".

The IAEA's International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) is focused more on developing country needs, and initially involved Russia rather than the USA, though the USA has now joined it. It is now funded through the IAEA budget.

At the commercial level, by the end of 2006 three major Western-Japanese alliances had formed to dominate much of the world reactor supply market:

* Areva with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in a major project and subsequently in fuel fabrication,
* General Electric with Hitachi as a close relationship
* Westinghouse had become a 77% owned subsidiary of Toshiba (with Shaw group 20%).

Then in March 2008 Toshiba signed a technical cooperation agreement on civil nuclear power with Russia's Atomenergoprom - the single vertically-integrated state holding company for Russia's nuclear power sector created in 2007. This could lead to a "strategic partnership" and include designing and engineering of commercial nuclear power plants, as well as manufacturing and maintenance of large equipment.

Light Water Reactors
In the USA, the federal Department of Energy (DOE) and the commercial nuclear industry in the 1990s developed four advanced reactor types. Two of them fall into the category of large "evolutionary" designs which build directly on the experience of operating light water reactors in the USA, Japan and Western Europe. These reactors are in the 1300 megawatt range.

One is an advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) derived from a General Electric design. Two examples built by Hitachi and two by Toshiba are in commercial operation in Japan, with another under construction there and two in Taiwan. Four more are planned in Japan and another two in the USA. Though GE and Hitachi have subsequently joined up, Toshiba retains some rights over the design. Both GE-Hitachi and Toshiba (with NRG Energy in USA) are marketing the design.

The other type, System 80+, is an advanced pressurised water reactor (PWR), which was ready for commercialisation but is not now being promoted for sale. Eight System 80 reactors in South Korea incorporate many design features of the System 80+, which is the basis of the Korean Next Generation Reactor program, specifically the APR-1400 which is expected to be in operation soon after 2010 and marketed worldwide.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave final design certification for both in May 1997, noting that they exceeded NRC "safety goals by several orders of magnitude". The ABWR has also been certified as meeting European requirements for advanced reactors.

Another, more innovative US advanced reactor is smaller - 600 MWe - and has passive safety features (its projected core damage frequency is nearly 1000 times less than today's NRC requirements). The Westinghouse AP-600 gained NRC final design certification in 1999 (AP = Advanced Passive).

These NRC approvals were the first such generic certifications to be issued and are valid for 15 years. As a result of an exhaustive public process, safety issues within the scope of the certified designs have been fully resolved and hence will not be open to legal challenge during licensing for particular plants. US utilities will be able to obtain a single NRC licence to both construct and operate a reactor before construction begins.

Separate from the NRC process and beyond its immediate requirements, the US nuclear industry selected one standardised design in each category - the large ABWR and the medium-sized AP-600, for detailed first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) work. The US$ 200 million program, was half funded by DOE. It means that prospective buyers now have firm information on construction costs and schedules.

The Westinghouse AP-1000, scaled-up from the AP-600, received final design certification from the NRC in December 2005 - the first generation 3+ type to do so. It represents the culmination of a 1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. In May 2007 Westinghouse applied for UK generic design assessment (pre-licensing approval) based on the NRC design certification, and expressing its policy of global standardisation. The application was supported by utilities including E.ON.

Overnight capital costs were originally projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design is expected to reduce construction time to 36 months. The 1100 MWe AP-1000 generating costs are expected to be very competitive and its has a 60 year operating life. It has been selected for building in China (4 units) and is under active consideration for building in Europe and USA, and is capable of running on a full MOX core if required.

General Electric has developed the ESBWR of 1390 MWe with passive safety systems, from its ABWR design. Originally the European Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, this is now known as the Economic & Simplified BWR (ESBWR) and a 1560 MWe version is at preliminary stage of NRC design certification in the USA, so that design approval is expected at the end of 2008, with formal certification 12 months later. It is favoured for early US construction and could be operational in 2014. It uses 4.2% enriched fuel and has a design life of 60 years.

Another US-origin but international project which is a few years behind the AP-1000 is the International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS). Westinghouse is leading a wide consortium developing it as an advanced 3rd Generation project. IRIS is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. It is nominally 335 MWe but can be less, eg 100 MWe. Fuel is initially similar to present LWRs with 5% enrichment and burn-up of 60,000 MWd/t with fuelling interval of 3 to 3.5 years, but is designed ultimately for 10% enrichment and 80 GWd/t burn-up with an 8 year cycle, or equivalent MOX core. The core has low power density. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade, and US design certification is at pre-application stage. Multiple modules are expected to cost US$ 1000-1200 per kW for power generation, though some consortium partners are interested in desalination, one in district heating.

In Japan, the first two ABWRs, Kashiwazaki Kariwa-6 & 7, have been operating since 1996 and are expected to have a 60 year life. These GE-Hitachi-Toshiba units cost about US$ 2000/kW to build, and produce power at about US 7c/kWh. Two more started up in 2004 & 2005. Future ABWR units are expected to cost US$ 1700/kW. Several of the 1350 MWe units are under construction and planned in Japan and Taiwan.

To complement this ABWR Hitachi-GE has completed systems design for three more of the same type - 600, 900 and 1700 MWe versions of the 1350 MWe design. The smaller versions will have standardised features which reduce costs. Construction of the ABWR-600 is expected to take 34 months - significantly less than the 1350 MWe units.

Mitsubishi's large APWR (1538 MWe) - advanced PWR - was developed in collaboration with four utilities (Westinghouse was earlier involved). The first two are planned for Tsuruga. It is simpler, combines active and passive cooling systems to greater effect, and has over 55 GWd/t fuel burn-up. It will be the basis for the next generation of Japanese PWRs.

The US-APWR will be 1700 MWe, due to higher thermal efficiency (39%) and has 24 month refuelling cycle and target cost of $1500/kW. US design certification application was in January 2008 with approval expected in 2011. The first units may be built for TXU at Comanche Peak near Dallas, Texas. In March 2008 MHI submitted the same design for EUR certification, as EU-APWR.

The Atmea joint venture has been established by Areva NP and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to develop an 1100 MWe (net) three-loop PWR with extended fuel cycles, 37% thermal efficiency and the capacity to use mixed-oxide fuel only. Fuel cycle is 12-24 months and the reactor has load-following capability. They expect to have this ready for licence application by 2010. The reactor is regarded as mid-sized relative to other generation III units and will be marketed primarily to countries embarking upon nuclear power programs.

In South Korea, the APR-1400 Advanced PWR design has evolved from the US System 80+ with enhanced safety and seismic robustness and was earlier known as the Korean Next-Generation Reactor. Design certification by the Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety was awarded in May 2003. The first of these 1450 MWe reactors will be Shin-Kori-3 & 4, expected to be operating about 2012. Fuel has burnable poison and will have up to 60 GWd/t burn-up. Projected cost is US$ 1400 per kilowatt, falling to $1200/kW in later units with 48 month construction time. Plant life is 60 years.

In Europe, several designs are being developed to meet the European Utility Requirements (EUR) of French and German utilities, which have stringent safety criteria. Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) has developed a large (1600 and up to 1750 MWe) European pressurised water reactor (EPR), which was confirmed in mid 1995 as the new standard design for France and received French design approval in 2004. It is derived from the French N4 and German Konvoi types and is expected to provide power about 10% cheaper than the N4. It will operate flexibly to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and the highest thermal efficiency of any light water reactor, at 36%. It is capable of using a full core load of MOX. Availability is expected to be 92% over a 60-year service life. It has four separate, redundant safety systems rather than passive safety.

The first EPR unit is being built at Olkiluoto in Finland, the second at Flamanville in France. A US version, the US-EPR, is undergoing review in USA with intention of a design certification application in 2007. It is now known as the Evolutionary PWR (EPR). Overnight capital cost is quoted as $2400 per kilowatt, levelised over the first four units.

Together with German utilities and safety authorities, Areva NP (Framatome ANP) is also developing another evolutionary design, the SWR 1000, a 1200-1290 MWe BWR with 60 year design life. The design was completed in 1999 and US certification was sought, but then deferred. As well as many passive safety features, the reactor is simpler overall and uses high-burnup fuels enriched to 3.54%, giving it refuelling intervals of up to 24 months. It is ready for commercial deployment and the prospects of that will be helped by a 2008 agreement with Siemens and the major German utility E.On (Siemens built the Gundremmingen plant on which the design is based, for E.On).
Toshiba has been developing its evolutionary advanced BWR (1500 MWe) design, originally BWR 90+ from ABB then Westinghouse, working with Scandinavian utilities to meet EUR requirements.

In Russia, several advanced reactor designs have been developed - advanced PWR with passive safety features.

Gidropress late-model VVER-1000 units with enhanced safety (AES 92 & 91 power plants) are being built in India and China. Two more are planned for Belene in Bulgaria. The AES-92 is certified as meeting EUR.

A third-generation standardised VVER-1200 reactor of 1150-1200 MWe is an evolutionary development of the well-proven VVER-1000 in the AES-92 plant, with longer life, greater power and efficiency. The lead units are being built at Novovoronezh II, to start operation in 2012-13 followed by Leningrad II for 2013-14. An AES-2006 plant will consist of two of these OKB Gidropress reactor units expected to run for 50 years with capacity factor of 90%. Ovrnight capital cost was said to be US$ 1200/kW and construction time 54 months. They have enhanced safety including that related to earthquakes and aircraft impact with some passive safety features, double containment and core damage frequency of 1x10-7.

Atomenergoproekt say that the AES-2006 conforms to both Russian standards and European Utilities Requirements (EUR).

The VVER-1500 model was being developed by Gidropress. It will have 50-60 MWd/t burn-up and enhanced safety. Design was expected to be complete in 2007 but this schedule has slipped in favour of the evolutionary VVER-1200.

OKBM's VBER-300 PWR is a 295-325 MWe unit developed from naval power plants and was originally envisaged in pairs as a floating nuclear power plant. It is designed for 60 year life and 90% capacity factor. It now planned to develop it as a land-based unit with Kazatomprom, with a view to exports, and the first unit will be built in Kazakhstan.

The VBER-300 and the similar-sized VK300 are more fully described in the Small Nuclear Power Reactors paper.

Heavy Water Reactors

Canada has had two designs under development which are based on its reliable CANDU-6 reactors, the most recent of which are operating in China.

The CANDU-9 (925-1300 MWe) was developed from this also as a single-unit plant. It has flexible fuel requirements ranging from natural uranium through slightly-enriched uranium, recovered uranium from reprocessing spent PWR fuel, mixed oxide (U & Pu) fuel, direct use of spent PWR fuel, to thorium. It may be able to burn military plutonium or actinides separated from reprocessed PWR/BWR waste. A two year licensing review of the CANDU-9 design was successfully completed early in 1997, but the design has been shelved.

Some of the innovation of this, along with experience in building recent Korean and Chinese units, was then put back into the Enhanced CANDU-6 - built as twin units - with power increase to 750 MWe and flexible fuel options, plus 4.5 year construction and 60-year plant life (with mid-life pressure tube replacement). This is under consideration for new build in Ontario.

The Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR), a 3rd generation reactor, is a more innovative concept. While retaining the low-pressure heavy water moderator, it incorporates some features of the pressurised water reactor. Adopting light water cooling and a more compact core reduces capital cost, and because the reactor is run at higher temperature and coolant pressure, it has higher thermal efficiency.

The ACR-700 design was 700 MWe but is physically much smaller, simpler and more efficient as well as 40% cheaper than the CANDU-6. But the ACR-1000 of 1080-1200 MWe is now the focus of attention by AECL. It has more fuel channels (each of which can be regarded as a module of about 2.5 MWe). The ACR will run on low-enriched uranium (about 1.5-2.0% U-235) with high burn-up, extending the fuel life by about three times and reducing high-level waste volumes accordingly. It will also efficiently burn MOX fuel, thorium and actinides.

Regulatory confidence in safety is enhanced by a small negative void reactivity for the first time in CANDU, and utilising other passive safety features as well as two independent and fast shutdown systems. Units will be assembled from prefabricated modules, cutting construction time to 3.5 years. ACR units can be built singly but are optimal in pairs. They will have 60 year design life overall but require mid-life pressure tube replacement.

ACR is moving towards design certification in Canada, with a view to following in China, USA and UK. In 2007 AECL applied for UK generic design assessment (pre-licensing approval) but then withdrew after the first stage. In the USA, the ACR-700 is listed by NRC as being at pre application review stage. The first ACR-1000 unit is expected to be operating in 2016 in Ontario.

The CANDU X or SCWR is a variant of the ACR, but with supercritical light water coolant (eg 25 MPa and 625ºC) to provide 40% thermal efficiency. The size range envisaged is 350 to 1150 MWe, depending on the number of fuel channels used. Commercialisation envisaged after 2020.

India is developing the Advanced Heavy Water reactor (AHWR) as the third stage in its plan to utilise thorium to fuel its overall nuclear power program. The AHWR is a 300 MWe reactor moderated by heavy water at low pressure. The calandria has 500 vertical pressure tubes and the coolant is boiling light water circulated by convection. Each fuel assembly has 30 Th-U-233 oxide pins and 24 Pu-Th oxide pins around a central rod with burnable absorber. Burn-up of 24 GWd/t is envisaged. It is designed to be self-sustaining in relation to U-233 bred from Th-232 and have a low Pu inventory and consumption, with slightly negative void coefficient of reactivity. It is designed for 100 year plant life and is expected to utilise 65% of the energy of the fuel.

Once it is fully operational, each AHWR fuel assembly will have the fuel pins arranged in three concentric rings arranged:

Inner: 12 pins Th-U-233 with 3.0% U-233,
Intermediate: 18 pins Th-U-233 with 3.75% U-233,
Outer: 24 pins Th-Pu-239 with 3.25% Pu.

The fissile plutonium content will decrease from an initial 75% to 25% at equilibrium discharge burn-up level.

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
These reactors use helium as a coolant which at up to 950ºC drives a gas turbine for electricity and a compressor to return the gas to the reactor core. Fuel is in the form of TRISO particles less than a millimetre in diameter. Each has a kernel of uranium oxycarbide, with the uranium enriched up to 17% U-235. This is surrounded by layers of carbon and silicon carbide, giving a containment for fission products which is stable to 1600°C or more. These particles may be arranged: in blocks - hexagonal 'prisms' of graphite, or in billiard ball-sized pebbles of graphite encased in silicon carbide.

South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is being developed by a consortium led by the utility Eskom, and drawing on German expertise. It aims for a step change in safety, economics and proliferation resistance. Production units will be 165 MWe. They will have a direct-cycle gas turbine generator and thermal efficiency about 42%. Up to 450,000 fuel pebbles recycle through the reactor continuously (about six times each) until they are expended, giving an average enrichment in the fuel load of 4-5% and average burn-up of 90 GWday/t U (eventual target burn-ups are 200 GWd/t). This means on-line refuelling as expended pebbles are replaced, giving high capacity factor. The pressure vessel is lined with graphite and there is a central column of graphite as reflector. Control rods are in the side reflectors and cold shutdown units in the central column.

Performance includes great flexibility in loads (40-100%), with rapid change in power settings. Power density in the core is about one tenth of that in light water reactor, and if coolant circulation ceases the fuel will survive initial high temperatures while the reactor shuts itself down - giving inherent safety. Each unit will finally discharge about 19 tonnes/yr of spent pebbles to ventilated on-site storage bins.
Overnight capital cost (when in clusters of eight units) is expected to be modest and generating cost very competitive. The PBMR project has reverted to Eskom and is funded by the South African government. A demonstration plant is due to be built in 2009, with fuel loading expected in 2013. In the USA, PBMR Ltd is planning to submit a design certification application for the reactor in 2008, and to bid for a nuclear-powered thermochemical hydrogen production plant based on it at the Idaho National Laboratory.

A larger US design, the Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR), will be built as modules of 285 MWe each directly driving a gas turbine at 48% thermal efficiency. The cylindrical core consists of 102 hexagonal fuel element columns of graphite blocks with channels for helium and control rods. Graphite reflector blocks are both inside and around the core. Half the core is replaced every 18 months. Burn-up is about 100,000 MWd/t. It is being developed by General Atomics in partnership with Russia's Minatom, supported by Fuji (Japan). Initially it will be used to burn pure ex-weapons plutonium at Tomsk in Russia. The preliminary design stage was completed in 2001.

Fast Neutron Reactors
Several countries have research and development programs for improved Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR), which are a type of Fast Neutron Reactor. These use the uranium-238 in reactor fuel as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors.

About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supply electricity commercially. About 290 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated.

Natural uranium contains about 0.7 % U-235 and 99.3 % U-238. In any reactor the U-238 component is turned into several isotopes of plutonium during its operation. Two of these, Pu 239 and Pu 241, then undergo fission in the same way as U 235 to produce heat. In a fast neutron reactor this process is optimised so that it can 'breed' fuel, often using a depleted uranium blanket around the core. FBRs can utilise uranium at least 60 times more efficiently than a normal reactor.

They are however expensive to build and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values, well above the current market price.
For this reason research work on the 1450 MWe European FBR has almost ceased. Closure of the 1250 MWe French Superphenix FBR after very little operation over 13 years also set back developments.

Research continues in India. At the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research a 40 MWt fast breeder test reactor has been operating since 1985. In addition, the tiny Kamini there is employed to explore the use of thorium as nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. In 2004 construction of a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor started at Kalpakkam. The unit is expected to be operating in 2010, fuelled with uranium-plutonium carbide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs) and with a thorium blanket to breed fissile U-233. This will take India's ambitious thorium program to stage 2, and set the scene for eventual full utilisation of the country's abundant thorium to fuel reactors.

Japan plans to develop FBRs, and its Joyo experimental reactor which has been operating since 1977 is now being boosted to 140 MWt. The 280 MWe Monju prototype commercial FBR was connected to the grid in 1995, but was then shut down due to a sodium leak.

The Russian BN-600 fast breeder reactor has been supplying electricity to the grid since 1981 and has the best operating and production record of all Russia's nuclear power units. It uses uranium oxide fuel and the sodium coolant delivers 550°C at little more than atmospheric pressure. The BN 350 FBR operated in Kazakhstan for 27 years and about half of its output was used for water desalination. Russia plans to reconfigure the BN-600 to burn the plutonium from its military stockpiles.

Construction has started at Beloyarsk on the first BN-800, a new larger (880 MWe) FBR from OKBM with improved features including fuel flexibility - U+Pu nitride, MOX, or metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3. It has much enhanced safety and improved economy - operating cost is expected to be only 15% more than VVER. It is capable of burning 2 tonnes of plutonium per year from dismantled weapons and will test the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel.

Industry spokesmen have warned the government that Russia's world leadership in FBR development is threatened due to lack of funding for completion of BN-800 and as of 2006 funding seems to have been released.

Russia has experimented with several lead-cooled reactor designs, and has used lead-bismuth cooling for 40 years in reactors for its 7 Alfa class submarines. Pb-208 (54% of naturally-occurring lead) is transparent to neutrons. A significant new Russian design is the BREST fast neutron reactor, of 300 MWe or more with lead as the primary coolant, at 540C, and supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe and uses a high-density U+Pu nitride fuel with no requirement for high enrichment levels. No weapons-grade plutonium can be produced (since there is no uranium blanket - all the breeding occurs in the core). The initial cores can comprise Pu and spent fuel - hence loaded with fission products, and radiologically 'hot'. Subsequently, any surplus plutonium, which is not in pure form, can be used as the cores of new reactors. Used fuel can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site reprocessing and associated facilities. A pilot unit is planned for Beloyarsk and 1200 MWe units are proposed.

In the USA, GE was involved in designing a modular 150 MWe liquid metal-cooled inherently-safe reactor - PRISM. GE and Argonne have also been developing an advanced liquid-metal fast breeder reactor (ALMR) of over 1400 MWe, but both designs at an early stage were withdrawn from NRC review. No US fast neutron reactor has so far been larger than 66 MWe and none has supplied electricity commercially.

The Super-PRISM is a GE advanced reactor design for compact modular pool-type reactors with passive cooling and decay heat removal. Modules are 1000 MWt and operate at higher temperature - 510C, than the original PRISM. The pool-type modules contain the complete primary system with sodium coolant. The Pu & DU fuel can be oxide or metal, but minor actinides are not removed in reprocessing so that even fresh fuel is intensely radioactive and hence resistant to misappropriation. The fission products are removed in reprocessing and resultant wastes are shorter-lived than usual. Fuel stays in the reactor six years, with one third removed every two years. The commercial plant concept uses six reactor modules to provide 2280 MWe, and the design meets Generation IV criteria including generation cost of under 3 cents/kWh.

Korea's KALIMER (Korea Advanced LIquid MEtal Reactor) is a 600 MWe pool type sodium-cooled fast reactor designed to operate at over 500ºC. It has evolved from a 150 MWe version. It has a transmuter core, and no breeding blanket is involved. Future development of KALIMER as a Generation IV type is envisaged.

In the USA Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is involved with a consortium to develop the Advanced Recycling Reactor, a fast reactor which will burn actinides with uranium and plutonium. This will be based on MHI's Japan Standard Fast reactor concept, though with breeding ration less than 1:1. In this connection MHI has also set up Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR).
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by prashanth »

Good compilation. An information source without bias.
The Indian Nuclear establishment lacks only one thing. It does not have a propaganda department. It is a matter of pride that the AHWR is an indegenous, third generation reactor.
The reactor design is completed and the construction of the first reactor may begin soon.

Unfortunately, the lay man in our country has no idea about this. On its part, the ruling govt does not publicise such advancements well, under the cloak of secrecy. BS. :evil:
Doing so will lure the supporting masses against the N-deal, whose main purpose, so far as the P5-china is concerned, is to export reactors to India, with kickbacks to corrupt politicians.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 487
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Sanatanan »

From the above article:
Q: The corrective measures that we can take and the strategic fuel reserve that we can build up find mention only in the preamble to the ISSA. There is a fear that this will lack teeth because they are not mentioned in the operative part of the ISSA. Why did you not include them in the operative part?

A: That is not correct. I think that if we go by international law, it specifies that any agreement has to be seen as a whole. {Emphasis mine} More specifically, the ISSA preamble is tightly linked with the operative portion.

Q: If India were to conduct a nuclear test, it will attract the Hyde Act of the U.S. and the fuel supply for the reactors will be cut off. So what are the corrective measures that you will take?

A: As far as we are concerned, we are governed by the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation that we have negotiated.


Is this supposed to be the difference between US Act and International law? Or is it that all parts of Hyde Act are not sufficiently "tightly linked"?

Parts of Hyde Act are not applicable but the whole of Safeguards Agreement is!
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by shyamd »

Congress party confident to get support from sleeping CIA cells in India – the so-called ‘unexpected quarters’
Juhi Singhal
Jul. 19, 2008

Congress party may surprise everyone. The Indian parliament and Indian democracy face the biggest challenge since 1947. It is well known Central Intelligence Agency of USA has deep roots among Indian politicians. Former Prime Minister Morarji Desai faced allegation of being a CIA agent.,

Manmohan Singh does not have the number in his hand. But he somehow knows very well he will win the trust vote. The Congress party now says that they have support from ‘unexpected quarters.’ Already some communists in West Bengal including the speaker of the Parliament are reluctant to vote against the American interest in India-US nuclear deal. There are indications there will be enough defections in the opposition that Manmohan Singh will win the trust vote by razor thin margin.

Where are these ‘unexpected quarters’ coming from all of a sudden? Some international think tanks believe that some of the Indian Members of the parliament are on monthly payrolls of the CIA and European intelligence agencies and will vote for UPA coalition against their own party directives. It will expose them but it may be the directive they have received from the international intelligence agency that pays them regularly.

There is no proof of CIA’s involvement. But the Congress party’s statement that they will with support from unexpected quarters raises serious doubts.

Even the Indian Marxists are struggling to keep their MPs together in the trust vote. Some say it is not CIA but CBI (of India) that will carry the day for Manmohan Singh. There are rumors that Sonia Gandhi keeps secret files on opposition politicians like Somnath Chatterjee. It is possible that these files are being handed over CBI (India’s Central Bureau of Investigation). CBI may be forcing these MPs to vote for the UPA coalition.

If that is the case, India has a serious problem. Like in Pakistan, the next election can be a fiasco dominated by CBI agents and their coercing acts on political parties as well as would be MPs.

It is also possible that neither the CIA nor the CBI is involved. But it is very important for Indian democracy that Manmohan Singh explains every opposition vote he receives from those ‘unexpected quarters.’
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:If the "Third front" can cobble up a a government after bringing the UPA down - that will be the biggest gift to the Kaangress. The nation will not forgive a party who rules for 6-8 months after bringing a government down. That is always seen as an opportunistic money making venture.

Rajmata Soniaji may yet rule for another 5 years after a brief gap.

I think it can only mean early general elections with a caretaker minority government.

I am sceptical. Where as earlier all these Third Fronts were basically a collection of regional satraps, coming together to share power for a couple of years at a time, it can be different this time. Be it the Yadavs or the Jats, they are concentrated in a few pockets in the North, and their leaders ended up keeping a little pie of these caste vote-banks after the show was over. Mayawati's appeal is different. It is more than some ideological appeal or regional appeal. The Dalits are spread out all over India, and her appeal is also India-wide. She still has not been able to turn on this caste-based appeal all over the nation, but it is work in progress. She is already is negotiations with Chandrababu Naidu for a piece of the electoral pie in Andhra Pradesh.
As such it is theoretically possible, that she does not whittle away like her Third Front predecessors, but rather shows staying power while in power and out of power. Who knows today where the remnants of the parties of Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, VP Singh, IK Gujral, Deve Gowda are spread out. They are all in single-digit numbers.

She is in direct competition with Congress and BJP as the third national party. Her rise is Congress's fall. A comeback is not easy.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by enqyoob »

Request to both Raja Ram and Arun_S:

Both of you have very valuable and well-organized collections of facts and lines of reasoning, that should appear as published opinions, if not research. I STRONGLY urge both of you to sit down for a few hours and collect and compose these into articles that we can get out on the web ASAP.

There may be other points of view 8) but I've not seen two as near completion as yours. You don't have to "pro-deal" or "anti-deal". Just be pro-India as you are. My suggestion to Arun is to write along the lines of "a few points to consider", relating the technical issues to common-sense business projections. Yes, there is a big difference between stockpiling 30 years or even 1 year's worth of petroleum or coal, and doing the same with nuclear fuel. This point needs to come across calmly in an article, not just in forum posts.

My suggestion to Raja Ram is obvious: Please write up that very cogent articulation of why "The Art of The Possible" is worth going for.

Technical / business counter-arguments to what Arun posts may be appropriate, but they need to be based on a clear, complete article, not on arguments based on number of decimal places etc. Those are good, appropriate review comments, but Arun makes some very strong points that are not seen in the usual articles that have appeared on this very important issue.

Rajaramji:
Of course ppl got all riled up when this was suggested a while back, and they still might, but it is very clear from reading the last few pages of this thread (and the news) that the issue has now become party politics, with the Opposition smelling blood and the Govt. arranging the elephants all around the moat of the mud fort. This is pity, because national unity is essential in confronting a major national decision. The dangerous game of brinkmanship, using Opposition to negotiate a better deal, now seems to have slid off the high wire and is in free fall. I am NOT assigning blame to one side or the other alone in saying that. The Govt. fell into the trap of using Executive Privilege to keep the details from the People. The GOTUS was accused of exactly the same thing in the US, but they managed bi-partisan support by giving enough "briefings" etc., and in the US there is a very very strong tradition of ppl just going with the POTUS and Foggy Bottom on most things international (which is why they have got away for 45 years with supporting the Pakistani dictatorships against democracy and freedom). In India it is the exact opposite: in all things international, the Govt is assumed to be corrupt and traitorous.

But your articles will definitely have some impact in injecting sanity, if not in the current tamasha, at least in future. Please contribute quickly.

******

And yes, thanks, Moderately Enlightened Admins Rahul and Suraj, for the comments you are about to make. :mrgreen:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by NRao »

Is this supposed to be the difference between US Act and International law? Or is it that all parts of Hyde Act are not sufficiently "tightly linked"?

Parts of Hyde Act are not applicable but the whole of Safeguards Agreement is!
I would think the "International Law" would trump any national "Law".

Again, we see this dual status in the ISSA as we saw in 123 - where both "sides" tried to write into the deal to satisfy the hawks in their countries. In the ISSA, preamble seems to be the location where India has had a place to "say", while the operative part is where the IAEA seems to dictate (for lack of a better word). It all depend how both the deals are interpreted. Like I have said before, the Indian interpretation is all that counts - for which India will need a strong backed leader.

There is no doubt that India is trying to keep her freedom and yet get uranium, while the US/West is trying to call India a partner (with Indian eco, etc they cannot escape the fact that India is a player here on out) and yet NOT call India a weapons state, even though they are convinced (not just aware) that India is a NWS.

Signing this deal will not impact India until either India has to test or get reprocessing techs.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by NRao »

He stoops low to conquer:

Delhi notebook - deals and jailbirds

One can get the highest of educations, but, ultimately one is at the mercy of the lowest.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by RajeshA »

There is perhaps one way of saving the UPA:

A Government executive order should be passed, stating that all MPs, should they need to serve jail terms would be serving them in Tihar, with the official reason being that the jailed MPs need to be in close proximity to the Loksabha.

At least then Mayawati would not be able to seduce the likes of MP Ateeq Ahmad with Kulche Chhole in his cell. :wink:
Tamang
BRFite
Posts: 698
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Nai Dilli, Bharatvarsh

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Tamang »

Whether govt wins the vote or loses it, UPA 'll end up as loser. This deal 'll be a bigger fiasco for UPA than India Shining campaign was for last NDA govt. An aam aadmi doesn't know a thing about this deal, nor does s/he feel connected to it. It doesn't affect his/her daily life, inflation has sky-rocketed, terrorists are striking at will, many parts of the country are facing power/fuel crunch, droughts etc and this govt seems to be obsessed with this deal. Why didn't Mr.Manmohan Singh show the same determination while handling other equally or even more important issues. Various polls may suggest that people support this deal but when election comes this 'll hardly matter to them. I see NDA making a comeback in coming election. All IMO.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Pulikeshi »

This is not a done deal by any means for the NDA in the coming elections!

The murmurs (I am hearing) seems to indicate no sympathy from the Middle Class for NDA regarding this deal.
For the most part aam jaanta is seeing NDA for what it is onlee... A Cong-clone!

All this, assuming as I am that a vast majority of the Middle Class is pro-deal under favorable circumstances in both IAEA as well as NSG.

What is not going to benefit either the UPA or the NDA for that matter is the dirty laundry that the dhobi will be dowing with this no-conphidence maotion.
archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6823
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by archan »

NRao wrote:He stoops low to conquer:

Delhi notebook - deals and jailbirds

One can get the highest of educations, but, ultimately one is at the mercy of the lowest.
That makes me wanna lose faith in Indian democratic system. I did not expect a convicted murder - who could not make a decision whether it is right or wrong to obey constitutional duties while committing a murder - is now going to affect a decision of prime national importance. And it is allowed in our constitution. :evil:
munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by munna »

Dear Rakshaks, while the return of the NDA or for that matter the fall of government is not a done deal, the people of India are definitely not interested in the left inspired politco-social setup that is represented by the current intellectual, political and bureaucratic establishment. The setup includes a large section of the English media, Congress + Left parties and Non Alignment specialist bureaucrats who have made careers out of the policy of projecting India as a victim country incapable of taking on the IMPERIALISTS.One of the major fall out of this deal imbroglio and a positive one at that is the fact that now all political parties have been exposed to be in cahoots with big time money and that money (corporate interests) play a major role in deciding our policies rather than whims and fancies of our netas.
This trust vote will have two major fallouts on the national polity in the short term:

1) Decimation of the perception in the eyes of Aam Aadmi about Left inspired establishment as a sustainable system to achieve the holy goal of poverty elimination or whatever.
2) Nuclear deal has indirectly exposed the strengths of our parliamentary system whereby a <edited> singh has been unable to hoodwink us like Amir Khans to fight a war in I-Rack.
Last edited by Rishi on 20 Jul 2008 21:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: 1st warning. Take your abuses elsewhere
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Satya_anveshi »

narayanan wrote:In India it is the exact opposite: in all things international, the Govt is assumed to be corrupt and traitorous.
A great observation. This is, I believe, a major burden that the govt of the day in India (or any turd world country dealing with West and particularly US) carries.

Add to that this deal is done by people like MMS (PM who is Rhodes Scholar, Oxford Phd), K Subramaniam (A Rockefeller fellow advising PM on matters Nuclear), MK Narayanan (National Security Advisor whose children settled in US?), K Subramaniam's Son (Indian Ambassodor to Singapore?), Kapil Sibal (Harvard Law gard and practioner in NY), Montek Ahluwalia (Chairman of Planning commision, an ex-world bank Exec), etc etc etc.

People who have even a whiff of how US works with its not so out-in-the-open top-down power structure deals with the things that interests them, find this deal very curious to say the least.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Gerard »

Social activists write to PM to scrap N-deal
"The Indo-US nuclear deal is patently anti-people and will make India a strategic ally of American Imperialism in South Asia to impose its hegemony over Asia," they said in an open letter to the Prime Minister.
Terming the deal "an outrageous instrument of recolonisation of India and Third world", they said when the deal comes through, it will grievously undermine the current global regime of the nuclear non-proliferation in gross violation of underlying principles of nuclear peace, workers, environment and women's movement.
They suggested Singh that since India stands very low on human development index, instead of spending on costly nuclear power it should invest in the field of health, education, food security, rural and urban development.
The letter was written by Kuldeep Nayyar, Justice (retd) Rajendar Sachhar, Sandeep Pandey and others.
Last edited by Gerard on 20 Jul 2008 22:38, edited 2 times in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Current Numbers are as follows:

UPA = 265
Opposition = 267.
Abstain = 2
Undecided = 7

UPA:
INC:152; SP:34; RLD:24; DMK:16; NCP:11; PMK:6; JMM:5; LJSP:4; MDMK(Rebels):2; IUML:1; AIMIM:1; PDP:1; SDF:1; RPI:1; BNP:1; NLP:1; IND(SK Bwiswmuthiary):1; TRS(Rebels MP Ale Narendra):1; BJP(Rebels: MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh):1; JD(U)(Rebels: MP Ramswaroop Prasad):1

Opposition:
NDA:165
BJP:128; Shiv Sena:12; BJD:11; Akali Dal:8; JD(U):6;

Left Front:60
CPI(M):42; CPI:10; AIFB:3; RSP:3; KC:1; IND(MP Dr. Sebastian Paul):1

UNPA:8
TDP:5; AGP:2; IND(MP Babu Lal Marandi):1

Others:34
BSP:17; SP(Rebels):5; RLD:3; JD(S):3; TRS:2; MDMK:2; IND(MP Harish Nagpal):1 INC(Rebels):1

Abstaining:2
BJP(MP Somabhai Gandalal Koli Patel):1; JD(U)(MP Pookunhi Koya):1

Undecided:7
NC:2; TC:1; MNF:1; NPF:1; IND(MP Thupstan Chhewang, MP Mani Charenamei):2

Shiv Sena has also stated that 11 of its 12 MPs will vote with NDA. Unclear who will note vote and whether that will be an AYE or ABSTENSION
Last edited by RajeshA on 20 Jul 2008 23:07, edited 1 time in total.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by enqyoob »

How about this one? Indian farmer with relatives in the Gulf decides to buy a horse to power his threshing mill, which was not working properly because his neighbors who used to help him have joined the communist party and don't work properly, and his family is in danger of starvation. He goes and strikes a hard bargain with the horse-dealer in the Big City, whose wife is very angry because she says the farmer will only use the horse to produce dung to burn under his neighbor's haystack and start a village feud, and also to breed other horses to use to form an army and go burn down the other tribe's village. Farmer swears he will store the dung and give it back to the horse-dealer, and won't use THIS horse to breed, but horse-dealer says just keep the dung, don't use it, don't lose it. Horse-dealer wants rights to bring his goon-gang to "inspect" the dung and the horse and the threshing mill and the stables.

Farmer's family, most of whom are lazy and won't do any work (or the farmer wouldn't need a horse), attack him for selling out the tribe, because they want the Right to Breed More Horse-Dung, as well as to use it to burn down the other tribe's village.

As Farmer brings the horse back, the whole tribe (his own) gathers on the narrow bridge and tells him that instead of a horse he has got only an ass.

Stay tuned for the Fast Ass Breeder Analogy.
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Ananth »

shiv wrote:If the "Third front" can cobble up a a government after bringing the UPA down - that will be the biggest gift to the Kaangress. The nation will not forgive a party who rules for 6-8 months after bringing a government down. That is always seen as an opportunistic money making venture.

Rajmata Soniaji may yet rule for another 5 years after a brief gap.

I think it can only mean early general elections with a caretaker minority government.
With whose support can third front cobble up the government. NDA is on record saying they want a fresh mandate. UPA after loosing the trust vote would also be inclined to do that. Congress + BJP account for almost 280 seats. If those two parties decide to go to the electorate, chances of mini government are extremely rare.

Added later:

I believe if UPA looses the trust vote, then they would carry the sympathy vote. If they loose then they can easily cut off SP on the pretext of SP's failure to deliver their end of bargain. The more SP latches onto UPA the more they would loose the goodwill. That sympathy factor would put some headwind against the BJP momentum. That will put NDA in awkward situation. If this hypothesis is true, then UPA is just putting up a show in cobbling up government.

But the downside of loosing is that they no longer control when they would seek the mandate. That means tough task for political marketers to sell good deeds UPA did in last 4 years.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by putnanja »

Nuclear deal and the BJP
Karan Thapar
July 19, 2008
First Published: 23:25 IST(19/7/2008)
Last Updated: 23:44 IST(19/7/2008)


Tomorrow Parliament will debate the vote of confidence tabled by the Prime Minister. Today, I want to share with you alleged details of how senior BJP leaders gave their word to support the Indo-US nuclear deal only to back out either under pressure from their own colleagues or because they inexplicably changed their mind. I can’t reveal how I came by the two stories I shall relate but I’ve double checked each of them with two separate sources. It’s for you to judge if they’re true.

Sometime in December 2007, the Prime Minister was informed that if he could re-assure the BJP that the Indo-US nuclear deal does not endanger India’s strategic nuclear deterrent the Opposition would endorse it. Accordingly, Dr Manmohan Singh called on Mr Vajpayee. Present at that meeting were LK Advani and Brajesh Mishra.

Mr Vajpayee heard the Prime Minister in rapt silence. When he finished Mr. Advani responded. He said he was satisfied and prepared to endorse the deal. Could the Prime Minister give in writing the details and arguments he had presented? Dr Singh agreed and shortly afterwards sent the BJP leadership a letter repeating what he had earlier verbally said.

However, things did not work out as promised. Mr Advani changed his mind. Responding to the PM’s letter, he claimed he had tried to persuade his colleagues to change the BJP’s position on the deal but they had put their foot down. They were adamant. He was, therefore, helpless.

I can’t say for sure who the recalcitrant colleagues were but I’m told they are Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha and Jaswant Singh. I haven’t checked with them because their known positions clearly suggest they would have opposed any endorsement of the deal. In fact, all three of them have given me interviews where their opposition was both unequivocal and vehement.

This leads to my second story. Contrary to the claim that the government did not earlier brief the BJP about the nuclear deal, the NSA, the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission met top leaders of the party to explain the contents of the 123 agreement. The meeting was arranged by the PM. From the BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Jaswant Singh were present. LK Advani did not attend. It happened sometime in August 2007.

The meeting began with a few opening remarks from the PM before he handed over to his officials. When they were finished they answered questions put mainly by Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie. At the end of it all Jaswant Singh spoke. My sources remember his words as if they were spoken yesterday. “Gentlemen,” he is reported to have said, “I must compliment you on a job well done.” What made him change his mind four months later?

These two stories reveal a sorry picture of the BJP’s top leadership. They come across as men struggling to accept what they know is in India’s best interest but unable to do so either because they are prisoners of prejudice or unwilling to challenge their own colleagues. Or else why did they so conveniently flip-flop?

I won’t deny that I’ve accepted the veracity of these stories because, in each case, two independent sources, both unimpeachable and utterly trustworthy, have confirmed them. But, of course, I could still be wrong. It could emerge that I’ve been gullible. So let me put a question to the two gentlemen these stories principally concern, LK Advani and Jaswant Singh. If these stories are essentially untrue — not in minor detail but in the broad point they make — why don’t you issue a public statement to say so? After all, if irreproachable sources are spreading “lies” about you then, surely, it’s incumbent on you to refute them? Because if you don’t, your silence will inevitably be construed as acquiescence.

Better still, deny the stories on the floor of the House tomorrow. The whole country will hear you and then it’s up to the government to either keep shut or provide proof.
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by vishwakarmaa »

paramu wrote:
vishwakarmaa wrote:Its a propaganda of "threat"(they will put sanctions on us if we don't do deal now!) done by media, to pull the weak minded people into SUPPORTERS lobby.
Can you quote some media or links to show this threat. Did I miss it? Apologize if so.
RaviBg wrote: NEW DELHI: French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont on Saturday met Bharatiya Janata Party president Rajnath Singh here to lobby for the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

The envoy is understood to have told Mr. Singh that their perception of the deal capping India’s military programme was misplaced. It left more than enough room for India to test in the event of Pakistan, China or some other country testing if it affected India’s security. Mr. Bonnafont further explained, the BJP sources said, that India was under international sanctions following Pokhran II, and in the worst-case scenario, sanctions would be imposed again. He is also believed to have pointed out that many American legislators in fact felt that U.S. had given away too much.
They know Indian political minds are "feeble" so, they talk language of "worst-case scenario" "sanctions". They try best to exploit negative thinkers here.

Then, you see media correspondents giving stupid reasons, "this is best we can get" which implies that as if this is some favour.

These people miss the point that, this nuke deal exists because US companies need huge Indian energy market opened. Those who say, this deal can't be renegotiated are wrong. They say so because they lack the understanding of "western business interests" because they are not aware of fact that, this is not political necessity of India, but a business necessity of americans.[Hint: If India can attract GEIC, then surely, it can make american nukepower companies pay up senators in washington.]

India today, is sitting on a Gold-Mine, which is a market becoming largest consumer market in the world(maybe after china), in next decade itself. But, it remains tobe seen, if our decision-makers and our people realize this strength and we negotiate from our real position of strength.

Today, america is bending NSG rules, just because they know what India has, which they need. But our "gaon" ka anpadh gawar politicians are still "paranoid" about the outer world and appose the nuke deal because they don't understand that, Its India who has the position to go out and dictate the terms to americans on the deal. Not the reverse way.

My only complaint with this deal is that, MMS could have done MUCH MUCH better deal. But, it seems he lacked the strength or maybe, he has some affiliations with his western friends, which can't be denied.

Heck, India can renegotiate it 3 times if it wants to. Only thing is, do we recognize our strength? :)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by svinayak »

RaviBg wrote:Nuclear deal and the BJP
Karan Thapar

These two stories reveal a sorry picture of the BJP’s top leadership.
They come across as men struggling to accept what they know is in India’s best interest but unable to do so either because they are prisoners of prejudice or unwilling to challenge their own colleagues. Or else why did they so conveniently flip-flop?

So let me put a question to the two gentlemen these stories principally concern, LK Advani and Jaswant Singh. If these stories are essentially untrue — not in minor detail but in the broad point they make — why don’t you issue a public statement to say so?
Looks like Karan is in lot of stress. There is a fear that Cong will be blamed for the failure of the deal.
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by vishwakarmaa »

It will be good if this deal goes through, but from a position of domination, on our terms. Otherwise, let it fall.
R_Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 390
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 12:07

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by R_Kumar »

Now there is a rumor of 100 crores per MP. The most sad part is that now janta has accepted this kind of corruption from Indian politicians. They have become so used to of the corruption among Indian politicians that It doesn't bother them anymore.
Its not good for the county future. Only few months are left for this government any way, I am sure congress won't spend this kind of its own money for the "development of country" . I smell a big scam here and foreign hand can't be ruled out.
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by Rangudu »

If Karan Thapar, Sardesai or any other journo had said pro-BJP things, many people here would not have issues with them.

Clearly political bent has colored everyone's views on the deal. Advani's equivocation can be seen from even his public statements at various stages of the deal.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by svinayak »

R_Kumar wrote:Now there is a rumor of 100 crores per MP. The most sad part is that now janta has accepted this kind of corruption from Indian politicians. They have become so used to of the corruption among Indian politicians that It doesn't bother them anymore.
Its not good for the county future. Only few months are left for this government any way, I am sure congress won't spend this kind of its own money for the "development of country" . I smell a big scam here and foreign hand can't be ruled out.
Definitely there is some big interest from outside.
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by vishwakarmaa »

hidden hand = Business lobbies of west.
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Post by vishwakarmaa »

This works both ways. India also has its own lobbies in west.

With time, as Indian economy grows, influence of this lobby will grow. So, those who say, "in future it will be difficult to get better deal" are again wrong. This shows some think-tanks are totally clue-less of movers and shakers behind this deal.
Locked