Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

Locked
Raju

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

Post by Raju »

Political parties do not pay off others directly. Why do you think Mukesh Ambani met MMS ?
He did not come on his own accord .. he was summoned to dilli durbar.
Nobody can invite themselves to PMO or 10 Janpath.
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 »

The loksabha.nic website is saturated and not accepting connection.

The CNN-IBN is providing live feed of Lok Sabha debate.
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/video_streaming.php
paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

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

Post by paramu »

pauldevis wrote:3 hour power cuts in Pune. But that's ok, since we have super-rakshaks living in massa land in their air conditioned rooms coming to work in their SUV's protecting our interests. Thank God these guys cannot be bribed

How come with Injuns living in India receiving bribe money from everyone from lobbyists, commies, EJ's, and something called the 'Rockefeller' (spell ?) foundation, I haven't received a single paisa :((

Is there a form I have to fill up somewhere to receive money from them ? Do I have to bring my ration card ?
BRF'ites please advice
Lot of people think BRF is reflection of large pop in India or elsewhere. Few NRI posting do not alter things in India.
Things posted in BRF cannot be taken seriously unless independent reading and research is done.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

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

Post by Sanjay M »

Boy was this a cowardly "editorial" from TOI:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opin ... 256493.cms

They didn't even have the guts to firmly take a side. What a bunch of tighrope-walkers -- what a bunch of politicians.

"We feel that MPs should vote for the deal -- except if they oppose the deal, in which case they should vote against it. But most important of all, please keep buying and using our TOI-let paper"

What losers.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

No matter which side wins ,India and the ever-suffering Indian is the loser.The entire country has been shown to have been mortgaged either to foriegn powers or desi industrialists,businessmen and murdereres and convicts of the most contemptible kind.It is past time for "good men" of India,who have been doing nothing so far,to rise up politically and counter this disastrous plunge in Indian politics,or as Edmiund Burke said,"evil" will triumph.When the next election comes along,we must exercise our vote with care and courage and throw these scum into not the dustbin,but the incinerator of history.
Last edited by Suraj on 21 Jul 2008 13:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Deleted disrespectful reference to PM. Criticize actions, but do not denigrate the persons.
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 »

Katare wrote:Since Arun-S has conveniently ignored all requests to back his own calculations let me at least put an independent view as counter on record - (just a back of the envelop calculation)

World has 430 commercial nuclear reactors operating today with installed capacity of 373 GWe.

World uranium consumption for these plants is 67,000Tons

67,000/363 = 179.2 Tons of uranium consumption/GWe

IAEA, world-nuclear.org and US energy department provide ~162 tons of uranium/year as the rule of thumb for 1GWe installed capacity for 90% PL factor.

Lets take the actual world average figure of 179.2 tons/year/GWe, which is more conservative -
For 40GWe we would need
40*179.2 = 7185 tons of uranium/year

A nuclear (or any other power plant) project has life of 40 years, which is based on current depreciation rates and tax laws. This is what IAEA draft and GoI refers to as lifetime of the reactor/project. This is what Banks would use to finance the projects and this is the lifetime over which entire expenses would be depreciated and paid for.

So to stock lifetime of natural uranium for 40GWe of installed capacity we would need to make a strategic reserve of
40*7185 = 287399 Tons of natural uranium

The cost of this stock at $67/lb ($148/Kg or $148,888.00/ton) would be
287,399*148,888 = $42,790,517777.00

$42 Billion is 1/5th of annual federal budget or ~4% of our GDP

Those 40GWe of plants would generate revenue worth $756 Billion dollars at Rs2.4/unit

We are building strategic reserves for crude oil and natural gas similarly we should build strategic reserves for natural uranium too.

What would be the added cost for funding that extra ~40Billion dollar of cost over the life time of the reactors -

Per unit cost would go up from Rs2.4/unit to Rs 2.55/unit.

Cost of reprocessing is operating expanse and would be bourn as per demand and supply. There would not a strategic reserve of reprocessed/enriched uranium.

Also such large purchases would mean Indian companies buying strategic equities in mines and getting those supplies at much cheaper rate than the market rates.
Katare: Perhaps you did not see it, but I did earlier post a detailed breakdown to back the numbers that I posted earlier. For your benefit let me restate that. These are calculated from first principle, and thus more direct and verifiable from Physics and calculations.
Arun_S wrote:
Suraj wrote: Don't your lifetime cost list the combined figure of capital cost and continuous operational costs, rather than just the latter ? What does the $100 billion component for the LWRs constitute, for example ?
Two separate things:
  • 1) When I said ">>although I challenge to say why settle for high lifetime cost when there is option for lower cost!" I am mentioning only the cost of running and maintain the facilities to operate the reactor I.e. reactor + spent fuel yard for cooling, reprocessing plant and fuel rod fabrication. I am not including the cost of acquiring these infrastructure in the first place that per std project planning are catagorized as Capital Cost.

    2) The $100 billion component is just the capital cost of acquiring the LWR reactor. It is based on internationally accepted (and reported by AK in his PPT) $2000/KWe capital cost per KW electricity generation times the 50GWe that AK's graphs it on page 13 of his PPT presentation for teh year 2020.
    50GWe X $2000/KWe = $100 Billion
Let me also show the basis and breakup of other numbers:

3). 100 year reactor operating life is the norm for new reactors including AHWR (one can easily find reference in DAE/BARC website).

4). To operate 50GWe over the assumed 100 year life time will need from first order approximation ~1,513,000 tonnes natural Uranium. of that :
  • i) 1MWe-Year generation in LWR or HWR requires completely fissioning 1.21Kg of fissile material but since Natural U has only 0.7% of fissile U235, that corresponds to needing to buy 173kg of Nat-U (for simplicity let us keep out second order effect like discharge enrichment, that will make the number even worse).
    ii) Now LWR need enriched fuel. So assuming from the 0.7% U235 available in in Nat-U, enrichment process leave a depleted Uranium tail with U235 enrichment of 0.3%, the amount of Nat U required for running 1MWe of LWR is thus = 173 Kg/((0.7-0.3)/0.7) =>303 kg Nat-U to run a year LWR at 1MWe.
    iii) So for 50GWe that AK envisages involves buying and enriching 50,000MWe*303kg = 15,150 tonnes of Nat-U per year, so for 100 year one will need to buy 1.515 million tonne nat U.
    iv) Cost of natural uranium in metal market is $68/Lb assuming it holds for next 6 years and goes down (forget about upside for the time being) so it will cost at current prices $226.5 Billion. Enrichment cost for to LWR level enrichment will cost 77 billion. The net total, assuming no profit for the commercial enterprise and middle man that is = $303 billion.
5). Cost of building FBR is definitely higher than a LWR or PHWR. The conventional wisdom is 2 to 3 times. So I assume it will be $5,000/KWe compared to $2000/KWe for non FBR reactors. AFAIK this does not include the cost of building backend facilities required to run the reactor liek cooling yard, re-processing and fuel fabrication.

So 330 GWe for LWR based FBR capacity that AK perprots (on slide# 13)for 2050 will cost 330,000 MWe X $5,000,000/MWe = $1650 Billion.

6). Indian 3 stage fuel cycle envisages feeding the deficit neutrons of multiple AHWR (based on Thorium) reactors from a FBR. For Wattage to Wattage the ratio IIRC 1:1 or 1:2 (I.e. 100 MWe FBR able to excess fuel to drive 200MWe AHWR) depending on when they reach FBR with metallic fuel rod rather then Oxide or Carbide based fuel element. In the first few decades of technology improvement that ratio will be lower. Assuming an average of slightly lower than 1:1 ratio between FBR and AHWR the average capital cost comes to ~$3750/KWe. Again I am not including the cost of building back-end facilities required to run the reactor like spent fuel cooling yard, re-processing and fuel fabrication.

So 275GWe for LWR based FBR capacity that AK purports (on slide# 13)for 2050 will cost 275,000 MWe X $3,750,000/MWe = $1031 Billion.

That should be enough to start to think about weakness of Shri Kakodkar's power point presentation.

That was a rather long post and given the paucity of time I have fulfilled 7 good deeds quota for the week.

Thanks for listening.
Please note that the 50GWe quoted above was from reading and measuring the bar graph. Later the CPI document indicated the DAE plan for LWR is ~40GWe and not 50GWe. So the numbers can be scaled accordingly.

If OTOH you did see this detailed post, then I am at loss to understand what more details in particular you sought from me!

Now back to your estimates. I commend your genuine effort to get to the bottom of reality, even though it is back of the envelop estimate. There are some corrections that I would like to suggest to your quick estimates. Pls bear with my limited response due to my constrains.
  • 1.) LWR don't run on natural uranium. They require medium enriched uranium (typical 4.5%). Thus the cost of the fuel for LWR is cost of uranium plus cost of enrichment. So please also calculate enrichment cost.

    2.) The basic presumption of this argument built on global annual consumption and N power generation capacity. As I outlined in an earlier post the global Uranium consumption is far higher than the global Uranium production.
    • Image
    Thus drawing heavily from Uranium inventory of varied enrichment (repeat varied enrichment). Thus consumption of 1 tonne of say 4% enriched Uranium inventory is reported as 1 tonne Uranium, but that 1 tonne was obtained few decades ago from a much larger amount of natural Uranium that went through enrichment process.

    So your estimate of 179.2 Tons of uranium consumption/GWe is misleading because that uranium is of various grade of enrichment and NOT natural uranium.

    I.e. 179.2 Tons of uranium consumption/GWe NOT= 179.2 Tons of natural uranium consumption/GWe

    So use of natural Uranium price in that calculation is wrong.

    3) It can be easily shown that 179.2 Tons of natural uranium can not generate 1GWe-Year energy, as following:
    179.2 Tons of natural uranium has 1,274 Kg fissile U235 (@ 0.711% natural enrichment)

    Great majority of global nuclear plants are LWR, that on an average use 4.5% enriched fuel and its spent fuel leaves behind 0.5% U235. I.e. 89% fuel is used. Enrichment process inputs 0.71% Natural enrichment Uranium and leave behind a tail enrichment of 0.3% (average). I.e. Enrichment process extracts 57% fissile material from the mined Uranium. Thus the LWR reactors fission only 51% of U235 present in the natural Uranium originally mined to fuel the LWR.

    HWR/PHWR is the other significant but small power reactor type in world. It uses natural-Uranium and the spent fuel of HWR leaves behind 0.22% U235 enrichment. I.e. 69% U235 fission efficiency (for the time being let us ignore effect of in-situ Pu fission that has a significant but second order effect in total energy output of HWR).

    Now to generate 1 MWe for 1 year requires fissioning 1.21 Kg fissile material.
    Thus if 179.2 Tonnes of natural Uranium is used to feed a LWR, it will only fission 51% of 1,274 Kg originally present in the mined Uranium; I.e. 650Kg. That in turn generates 542 MWe-year energy.

    This proves the fallacy of 179.2 Tonnes of natural-Uranium generating 1GWe-year energy.

    4) One could argue that globally some of the spent fuel is reprocessed to recover the Plutonium to feed it back into reactor as MoX fuel rod reduced Uranium consumption. While that will certainly be true in future decades when ~15% of the LWR fuel is expected to come from reprocessed MoX fuel, that IMO is far for reality today.

    In fact if India does import LWR per DAE/Kakodkar's pie in the sky vision, the reprocessed Pu will NOT be recycled back into LWR but be exclusively used as starting fuel for FBR. Thus the Uranium fuel inventory required for lifetime use will be as calculated in my estimate that is based on first principle. I earlier posted some information 3rd gen reactors
    http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
    all of them have a design life of between 60 to 100 years, that is much greater than 40 years.

In the end I acknowledge and appreciate you taking the initiative and effort, to do your own research and calculations.
pauldevis
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: India
Contact:

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

Post by pauldevis »

'Nothing against N-deal, want it renegotiated'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Not_ ... 258373.cms
NEW DELHI: The leader of the Opposition LK Advani has said that his party and NDA are not against the deal nor do they want it to be scrapped, but would certainly want it to be renegotiated.
Readers comments, to get a sense of what Indians think (albeit, Indians with an Internet connection)
Sunny, Rathod, says: stupid politicians are objecting just because they wont get any recognition through this deal as its a landmark deal however since when in dirty corrupt politics they become patriot
[21 Jul, 2008 1429hrs IST]

shafiuddin, Saudi Arabia, says: Advani now in a defensive mood, once the agreement is cleared and signed, his position in front of America will be weak. With this comment, I think few BJP members may vote UPA, and government survive.
[21 Jul, 2008 1312hrs IST]

krishan, H, says: Now left should think even if NDA comes into power, nulear deal will be considered again. They should think for national interest in place of going with MAYA JAAL and putting india into another crisis.
[21 Jul, 2008 1305hrs IST]

Gautam Dalal, Mumbai, says: We appreciate your eagerness to come to power(as PM in your golden years), at any cost, and your aggressive stand on nuclear Issue, and other issues like inflation etc., but you have not outlined any viable alternative to this, and your party in any case had done no better to improve the economy. Before you move the motion to unseat the govt., please look behind you to and to the people of this country, you would lose any respect that you may have acquired over your career in politices from the educated and elite Indian, and the world community at large. If you lost your patient to face the electroate for a few months more, let us assure that your stand on various issues including nuclear issues is extremely hollow, and stinks of personal ambition than national interests.
[21 Jul, 2008 1304hrs IST]

Varghese Joseph, Kochi, says: Is Advani the person saying all this? Well the country knows that during BJP rule, they had approached USA for the nuclear deal. So, if he thinks that nobody knows the matter, its wrong. But, why Mr Advani cannot make his party understand the benefits the country is going to get out of the deal instead pulling the country to slip down against the development process by way of not supporting in the parliament which is a matter of national interest? Is it for these reasons, the citizens have elected them to the Parliament? I pity them.
[21 Jul, 2008 1252hrs IST]

Deepak, Delhi, says: It is very shameful to see the leader of the opposition lie so blatantly to the whole country. He could have said that he along with senior BJP members had actually approved this deal and had in fact complimented Manmohan Singh on it.The fact is that he could not get the likes of Sinha and Shourie to agree to it. People will not forgive turncoats such as him and Prakash Karat.
[21 Jul, 2008 1252hrs IST]

Hari Kumar `, Abu Dhabi, says: If L K Advani says " Nothing against the N Deal but needs for negotiation " then BJP will win the HEARTs (VOTES) if it does not vote for or against the motion. Let us see what BJP is going to do tomorrow
[21 Jul, 2008 1252hrs IST]

Sushil, UAE, says: YES HE IS RIGHT UPA IS IN ICU BECAUSE OF LEFT'S TREACHERY AND BJP IS ALREADY MARCHING TO THE GRAVE. BJP'S TRUE COLOR IS OUT NOW, THEY NEED POWER AT ANY COST BECAUSE BANGARUS HANDS ARE EMPTY SO IS BJP'S.
[21 Jul, 2008 1245hrs IST]

Tushar, Kolkata, says: I agree 100%. The government itself is responsible for the current crisis. The cost the country is paying does not commensurate the benefits of Nuclear deal. The whole coutntry is held to ransom by the Government for a deal, the benefits of which is contested. The opposition and Left can not be blamed because they have stated poistion to the deal from a longtime now. In a parliamentary democracy you got to respect the views of parliament. I do not believe in what politicians say because every party has an agenda and cumpulsons for election. But in this case the scientific community is also devided, which means there are opposition from credible quarters. Even if the government stays it will be run by SP in proxy which is dangerous. If it looses most likely there will be early election. Even Mayawati has an outside chance to become PM for few months. All these options are hugely expensive for people of India in comparision to the nuclear deal itself. I think the government bungled it big time in its eagerness to keep the focus away from inflation and price rise.
[21 Jul, 2008 1243hrs IST]

Dharmesh, Mumbai, says: I am not for NDA but I feel Advani is right in his comments. Manmohan is nothing but a babu character still a YES SIR type since Indira Gandhi days. He was always a govt officer - a goverment babu type.
[21 Jul, 2008 1239hrs IST]

Randeep rajpal, Gurgaon
, says: I think national interest should be the priorty for all political parties. High time Political parties/Opposition should stop behaving like crabs & selfish. All of us are well aware & are seeing the progress China has made.They had the political will & today they have excellent infrastrture/industry/ Nuclear power/planned cities etc They are holding Olympic Games & where are we & what are we doing ?? I think Nuclear deal will help improve our power /infrastrture/industrial sector where we are lagging far behind similarly we should push forward for more reforms & better policies/ simplify all systems.Most importantly eradicate corruption which is eating our System/society
[21 Jul, 2008 1238hrs IST]
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

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

Post by vsudhir »

Rangudu wrote:vsudhir,

Let's just be careful with the tone. As to TSP, it is not about aiming high. Its just that the idea of asking another country for "help" with TSP is in itself pretty pathetic.

As Raja Ram eloquently posted above, this deal is neither exceptional nor a clear trap. With a clean NSG waiver, this deal represents an opportunity for us. We can reject it now but the manner of and reasons for rejection have to be commensurate with our global status. Rejecting it because we want a super perfect deal would only make us a global joke. Rejecting it because one of the two biggest political parties did not get their wish for a JPC is again flippant, especially when key leaders of that party got exclusive briefings on the deal. Rejecting it because Chinese puppets were able to manipulate our system is again quite pathetic.

Serious opportunities demand serious discussion. Conspiracy mongering and blaming "hidden hands" would only make us a global lightweight.
R-man,
CRS makes part of the point I'm trying to make. That TSP is still around and harassing Delhi isn't entirely on account of Delhi's weak kneed wavering oir anything like that.

Recall, during the kargil war, when the IN attempted to move and cutoff TSP's oil supply by blocakding the Karachi harbor, the USNavy actually escorted oil tankers and helped them dock in the harbor. THis is just one instance, albeit pre 9/11 and post-USSR (and yet the US founbd keeping TSP alive and well, useful) but it's precisely this kind of life-support that perhaps the US could reconsider.

In another thread I posted on how unkil could cause financial collpase of TSP in a few days merely by amending the SD rogue states list by a quiet executive decision. Sure, its too much to expect unkil to doom TSP only to help India. But seemt to me, the converse actually happened for a longtime now - that TSP continues to be propped up precisely to contain India. And that cannot be the action of a player that claims good intentions and strategic partnership down the line.

IOW, don;t get me wrong. Am not saying we want or need unkil to fight our TSP war. 'Just stay out of our fight and don't help the other guy' is all that's needed. If that is too much to ask for, then perhaps unkil's intentions w.r.t. India in the longterm really do involve serious containment with terror and bloodshed against our civilians very much kosher, apparently. Is that a deliberately dark interpretation? Maybe so, but is it untrue?

Unkil has references to our attitude and behavior w.r.t. Iran coded into the Hyde act. Is it too much to make our concerns w.r.t. TSP known? I understand it may be too much to expect our concerns to be heeded. It isn't unthinkable that perhaps, as part of the 123 negotiations, Delhi has reached some understanding w.r.t. Unkil's TSP support down the line. That could also partly explain the fervent marxist oppn to the deal and the constant playing up the IM angle. Just throwing questions out there. And no, these aren't empty hopes or fears without basis or thought. They are, IMO, pertinent ones and not unreasonable as has been implied.

/Have a nice day.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

Damned if you do, and, damned if you don't.

Sadly, no matter who wins the gloating will not cease.

I think all should cool, and, pass it in a month.

Or, let UPA die, Congress propose a new PM (not bacha party please) (Mam should resign too), hold elections in Dec, and, everyone then vote for this deal. 123 will survive into the next US presidency ...... in fact I feel although the US will not renegotiate, they will "look the other way" in some respects.

India needs to get as close to unanimous as possible.
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 we keep waiting for unanimity, we might as well wait for India to win 100 gold medals in the Olympics. The fact is that both the ruling party and the largest opposition support this deal. Advani's explanations make me laugh. Who will he renegotiate with? If his idea of renegotiation is to pass a Jekyll act to counter Hyde, then that can be done without stopping the NSG/IAEA progress now.

The fact is that both the Congress and the BJP are fundamentally in favor of this deal. The only people who are totally against this are those that see Satan's shadow behind anything that is made in the USA. Its just politicking by both parties that has created an image of discord.
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 Rangudu. Also was hugely tickled to see the "TOI-let" post! Good one. Will seek indulgence to make these points again:
  • The debate should have been focused on national security, then it could have exposed those who are jockeying.
    They should offer BJP early elections in return for support to N deal, since that may be the factor driving Advani.
    China is upset at Tibet, and telling everyone it is us who staged it and reading us the riot act, they are laying down the law all over the world, just see how US climbed down and stopped Taiwan arms sales tc. , they cannot conceive of genuine opposition, being the paranoid country they are. So they told ISI to go ahead. Merit is in confusing India and stopping the CBMs with the civilian govt. in Pakistan who are for peace with us.
    Thats why i am so appalled at the horse trading over the deal, everyone has forgotten that a national security issue is at stake and Govt seems to be unable to lead the debate. Debate it on those grounds by all means, but please dont convert it into a bazaar. :(
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

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

Post by John Snow »

Folks,

I have now conclusive evidence that all our cabinet members,MPs. Politicians serving bureaucrats are true Nuclear Engineers and scietists. Those employed by BARC, DAE are just literate people who get confused and write alphabets and number on top, sideways, some times elongate the S to mean something and if they cant do with english they go to Greek alpha bets.

The proof of my contention lies in one statement of Nuclear physics that will revolutionize the thinking and will find many followers....
"It is not just Uranium that is prone to enrichment but all people, business institutions goverments can also be enriched in the process."
Spinster uvacha

100 crores for MP is only 10% enrichment still large enrichment potential exists without being radio active.

"In the process of enrichment it is possible that birds of the same feather may break ranks and form ions with opposite radicals "
Spinster Uvacha

See during this enrichment process BJP and CPM are opposite radicals and they are forming (in hindi it is called) Namak haram in english its called salt
Last edited by John Snow on 21 Jul 2008 18:51, edited 1 time in total.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

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

Post by kshirin »

Great to know we can still laugh...good joke, on enrichment.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

Philip wrote:No matter which side wins ,India and the ever-suffering Indian is the loser.The entire country has been shown to have been mortgaged either to foriegn powers or desi industrialists,businessmen and murdereres and convicts of the most contemptible kind.It is past time for "good men" of India,who have been doing nothing so far,to rise up politically and counter this disastrous plunge in Indian politics,or as Edmiund Burke said,"evil" will triumph.When the next election comes along,we must exercise our vote with care and courage and throw these scum into not the dustbin,but the incinerator of history.
Thats the way all democracies work. Its the informed elites who make crucial foreign policy decisions and take the public along. Most of the time it works, at least in US, to its overall benefit. Recall, how a bunch of criminals with collusion of dork media in this country pulled of the Iraq WMD scam; with ordinary people just mute spectators. Of course, in the case of US, the ruling criminal elite who manged to pull of Iraq did so with supreme national interests in mind: Iraq oil loot & and a castrated mid-east that can't raise a little finger at the west and Israel. And I think for all the cacophony, these objectives have been achieved sans finishing touches. In India's case, sure, there may be a few good men who well and truly believe that this deal is in India's supreme national interests, but the manner in which the horse trading is taking place is sickeing.

R-Man,

you are absolutely right about Advani's position being laughable. He thinks he is going to re-negotiate, I say he'll be lucky to get a US visa given how Modi has been humiliated. Far from renegotiating with Advani, Unkil will launch a massive villifcation campaign with active collusion by both Indiana and NRIs arrayed against him will be launched starting with Ayodhya etc etc and demonizing him in the court of international public opinion.

I would have taken Advani's opposition more seriosuly if suggested another strategy to meet India's energy/security demands than this re-negotiation and "US and India are natural allies" crap.

My prediction: MMS will pull it off. Whether or not one is for or agianst the deal, anybody must squeal and squirm at the amount of CIA involvement & money going into buying off India's venal politicians. The manner in which MMS has pulled this off suggests that India is just another banana republic with a veneer and pretense of independence.
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 »

CRS,

Since you asked for evidence of Left's China ties, what evidence do you have that the CIA is paying off anyone in regard to this deal?

You seriously need a chill pill with regard to Americans. If Advani becomes PM, he will get all the respect due to his office from every world leader, especially US. There is no party that is more willing to explore Indo-US common interests more than the BJP does.

Your posts remind me of TSP's Urdu papers that see a Jewish conspiracy everytime someone breaks wind.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

R,

I think (or hope) everyone agrees that India needs Uranium - there is "unanimity", no two ways.

However, in this era of emoticons and laughing at others, Indians seem to be cutting the nose of other Indians. Which is why I would like a cooling off period ....... the deal can pass 123-122 for all I care. The issue is not MMS pulling it off - I think he will. It is the cracks that will remain after that among Indians ......

But........ Chai-biscut and total lack of transparency seems to be the current mood...................
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 »

NRao,

This is not some grihapravesh for us to take the time and find the right lagnam and day.

There is zero chance for a clean IAEA and NSG clearance without the US pushing hard. If we choose to pass on this window then we have to wait till the next US Govt takes office, gets comfortable, appoints its own diplomats, makes its own priorities etc. Just because a few do not feel 100% comfortable, we cannot keep changing timelines. Every family has a few procrastinators. But the decision makers will have to pull the trigger regardless.

The timetable was clear from July 18, 2005.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

Acharya: Classy cartoon. Wonder if we can get a high-res version to use as screen saver.

Everyone: I strongly disagree that the internal political debate in India has hurt Indian credibility in any way. So if MMS goes to G-8 and the snooty ones there look down on him as a "weak leader", he can proudly laugh at them, and say that they are leaders of ignorant savages who just Follow The Leader without any thoughtful consideration. I think this debate is unprecedented in Indian democracy, and shows a sign of excellent maturity. The Pied Piper is Oirope's poster boy of Independent Thought - I bet that story was a political satire when first written.

True, it would never have happened in Pakistan or China or the Soviet Union. The US experience with so many "treaties" shows what happens when there is free and intelligent debate - and remember, that is the cited reason for the "rush"- that the US President, despite all his powers, has no certainty that he can get a deal that he very much wants, through Congress. As for the British, they just follow the US like poodles, so phoooey to their "democracy", since they still go around curtseying and spreading jackets on the ground for some overdressed non-entity with stolen property from India on her head.

And In France they elect a Manager and then don't worry about it till the next election, however bad he is. "Apres moi le Deluge!" or "Je suis France" (a gender confusion there).

I was really worried that the US was going to sneak through a deal with India where the COTUS had its say and the Indian Parliament did not have its say. Even the IAEA agreement says it is between the IAEA and the GOVERNMENT of India, as if the Republic of India and the People of India did not matter. Now, whatever happens, THAT has been blown out of the water very nicely, and they see what happens in India - a real, live, vibrant democracy. With Highly Enriched Parliamentarians. :mrgreen:

This is far more important that this Deal or that Deal.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

Rangudu wrote:CRS,

Since you asked for evidence of Left's China ties, what evidence do you have that the CIA is paying off anyone in regard to this deal?

You seriously need a chill pill with regard to Americans. If Advani becomes PM, he will get all the respect due to his office from every world leader, especially US. There is no party that is more willing to explore Indo-US common interests more than the BJP does.

Your posts remind me of TSP's Urdu papers that see a Jewish conspiracy everytime someone breaks wind.
Just as good scientist does, a good journalist start off with a hunch, a premise, based on extrapolations, current observational data etc, and goes on to investigate further. And like all endeavours in life, exploring this further needs funds, wherewithal etc; a scientist needs resources, and likewise a journalist; for example, a John F. Burns goes into Iraq with the full force of US power behind him, NYT gives him the best of conditions to operate under, CIA will offer him tips, he goes into the 'green zone' with US army protection, and in return he cuts & dissects every issue of concern to US and wins a pulitzer in the process. Thus, I don't have any hard evidence to present, just informed speculation that CIA is working overtime to buy off Indian MPs, just take it for what its worth.

Should BJP come to power, with undoubtedly Modi having a role in BJP, my specultion is that Unkil will not take too kindly to that. BJP may be pro-US, but from Unkil's PoV, his larger interests: show off his 'love of Muslims' credentials are better served by taking on BJP over this issue. This is not a conspiracy, one just has to observe how US works to undertstand this. Thus, my gut feel is that not only will US show the middle finger to Advani regrading re-negotiating the deal, he will actively work with many Indians and NRIs to undermine and demonize him.

Bottom line: either the deal is passed now or its dead for the forseeable futire. MMS will score a sixer off the last ball :-).
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 »

My earnest request to postors here. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable accusations of politicians, scientists, journalists, and officials being on the payroll of CIA. It is at best laughable. It adds no value. Thank you.

narayananji, I agree that it is good that the Indian parliament is having a say on the deal. However, let us not forget that this is not a sesssion on the nuclear deal but a confidence motion brought by the government as a consequence of Left withdrawal of support. The deal is a proximate cause for the Left's decision to pull the plug but not the only cause.

In any case, it will not be possible for the government, even if it wins the vote of confidence, to keep the deal out of sight of parliamentary review. They are likely to get a wafer thin majority and will be forced to build a broader consensus and may be enact some law to balance out Hyde Act. I think it is a must. But we may want to do that after IAEA signs up the draft and NSG gives its waiver. But before the US Congress votes to ratify 123.

If the government fails, the deal will fall through and it will probably go down as a missed opportunity
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

Yes, I don't want the deal to fall through - but one may argue that in that case, the reasons why the West wanted the deal stay unfulfilled, and India comes out stronger in that respect (though "greener" since we won't be using so much electricity) 8)

But the point is that the wheeler-dealers' assumption that Indian Govt can be bought easily by talking to a couple of mantris, and that the 1.1 billion people and their elected representatives don't need to be informed until after everything is signed and sealed, gets properly blown out of the water, and THAT is a huge positive.

Look at the way the ENRON deal was rammed through - when it was blatantly obvious to even kindergartners that depending on imported naptha to generate baseload power, and guaranteeing ROI in dollars to a foreign company with revenue coming in paise from Indian farmers during a time of continued devaluation of the rupee, was a stoooooopeeeeeed move. In THAT case, I cannot avoid smelling the stink of corruption all the way from the top levels to the Maharashtra govt. And the results were all too predictable.

In this case, if the nuke deal DOES come through, one can at least say that it was done after due debate and participation by an informed public and their enriched representatives, and that the whole political process in India is richer for it. :mrgreen:
Last edited by enqyoob on 21 Jul 2008 19:30, edited 1 time in total.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

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

Post by John Snow »

Classic example of a bumbling PM with a bunch of equally bumbling advisors and bureaucats who are acting on cues from some one outside with piece meal script handed over to them.

How can a MEA, NSA, DAE, FM, PMO not have a game plan except by hook or crook sign the dotted line.

Congratulations, Dave! I don’t think I’ve read a more beautifully evasive and subtly misleading public statement in all my ...
by James Stevenson
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

This is not some grihapravesh for us to take the time and find the right lagnam and day.

There is zero chance for a clean IAEA and NSG clearance without the US pushing hard. If we choose to pass on this window then we have to wait till the next US Govt takes office, gets comfortable, appoints its own diplomats, makes its own priorities etc. Just because a few do not feel 100% comfortable, we cannot keep changing timelines. Every family has a few procrastinators. But the decision makers will have to pull the trigger regardless.

The timetable was clear from July 18, 2005
I do not think it is that bad. The US is not going anywhere - as long as they are certain that it will go thru'. And, no matter who is elected, in India or US, will push it thru'.

IAEA will pass it, so will NSG. And, when the next GoI stands they will push it thru'.

It may not happen in Dec of 2008, but it will happen by May of 2009.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

Raja Ram wrote:My earnest request to postors here. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable accusations of politicians, scientists, journalists, and officials being on the payroll of CIA. It is at best laughable. It adds no value. Thank you.
No more than informed claims that Karat & co are acting at the behest of Beijing which by the way I happen to agree with with but neverthless these are well informed, most likley accurate claims, but unsubstantiated claims at best. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Who was it, Acharya (and sorry boss if I am putting words in your mouth)? who said that he knows an American from here who has camped in Delhi to do what it takes to get the deal through.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

Come on Sir, you know how US operates; all this Congress has 'no time', international laws & treaties BS are artifical impediments touted by Dormandy. If MMS signs the dotted line, as he sure will, US will make sure rest (IAEA, NSG, and even Chicom opposition) is a cake walk. This deal is in Unkil's national interests, and nothing will come in the way. The hall mark of a self-absorbed super power that US is.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Op-Ed from ReDiff. Note its by a NRI prof of psychiatry and not the other kind!

Every one is suspected as a Judas

Dr Shashi K Pande was a full-time associate professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University in USA.
Raju

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

Post by Raju »

In Latest news:
MMS uvacha:

Allegations that we are buying votes must be proved.

CNN-IBN.


p.s. which means if they are not proved, then it is A Ok.
paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

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

Post by paramu »

Extraordinary. Never seen anything like this. Dealers are all around and people are asking for proof. Naming of airport is one such which every one can see.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

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

Post by John Snow »

It is sham democracy to start with and shall be for very long future.
Raju

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

Post by Raju »

hmm .. apparently he walked upto the press standing near the gates to express his thoughts on this matter of vote buying.
A usually shy and reticient dude walking upto the press to challenge the opposition to prove UPA's attempts at buying votes. When allegations of vote buying ring the air of Delhi.
this when he could have easily avoided all those standing near the gate.
And walked away quietly.

All I ask is why did he do this ? unprecedented really in Indian demo-cracy.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

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

Post by vsudhir »

I hope the deal goes through and GoI passes a lot of reform that the left stymied all these years - from insurance to pensions reform, from labor law to SEZs. And the NDA should have better sense than to try to oppose these reforms for opposition's sake . Somehow, I doubt they will try to block these reforms. What better way to let the left have it!
Raju

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

Post by Raju »

from insurance to pensions reform
which means opening insurance and pensions to western companies.
So this is an added incentive for western lobbies to hustle in New Delhi for votes for trust vote.
If later BJP comes to power, they just need to ensure status-quo and do nothing drastic.
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 »

Sure Western companies are all evil.

We need to make sure we have Swadeshi concept and national self sufficiency. Let's all ban software exports because Infosys, TCS etc. are full of CIA agents and Western spies. We need to get back to khadi garments and two square meals a day. Why do people need to eat more and get fat.

Inquilab zindabad! 8)
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

A hearty welcome to Rangudu to the NSN school. :mrgreen: Exile to FATA cannot be far behind..
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

I know the confidence vote is no longer about thenuke deal but
Pioneer, 22 July 2008
10 myths about N-deal

PK Iyengar

The India-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest. It presents the very serious danger of capping our strategic programme by bringing us into the non-proliferation regime. That alone is reason enough not to go forward with the deal

In spite of the fact that the India-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest, many in the country, and in Parliament, support it because of misconceptions about the deal, which need to be clarified.


Myth 1: The nuclear deal is an agreement between India and the US for the American Government to supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India.

Contrary to common perception, the nuclear deal is not a commitment on the part of the US Government to provide us with uranium or nuclear reactors. Presently American law prohibits nuclear cooperation with India because we have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All the nuclear deal does is to grant a 'waiver' from that law, so that American companies can now pursue nuclear trade with India. However, if India conducts a test at any time, the waiver is revoked.

Myth 2: Imported uranium and nuclear reactors will be cheap and cost-effective.

Even if the nuclear deal is made operational, the actual sale of uranium and nuclear reactors will be governed by market forces -- there are no guarantees of cheap or competitive nuclear power. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will be expensive. The cost of uranium in the international market has gone up four-fold in the last few years, and will rise further with further demand. The same is true of the cost of steel and other materials used in a reactor. Manpower costs are much higher in the West. The example of the Dabhol power plant has already shown us that importing power plants from the West is not necessarily a viable option. We would do well to learn from that experience.

Myth 3: The nuclear deal will safeguard our energy security.

It is true that nuclear energy is green energy, and therefore essential for our long-term energy security. But this does not translate into the nuclear deal ensuring our energy security. Power from the nuclear reactors that we buy will definitely be more expensive than indigenous nuclear power. Further, to keep the reactors running, we will always be dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a cartel -- the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Therefore, the nuclear deal, by making us dependent on the cartel, will only compromise our energy security. Only our indigenous nuclear power programme can truly ensure our energy security. And in any case, for the next few decades, nuclear power will not exceed six per cent of our total electricity production.

Myth 4: Importing nuclear plants is a quick-fix solution to the present power crisis.

Nuclear technology is sensitive. Even if the nuclear deal goes through, it will take time to buy and set up new reactors. We have examples of the French reactors in China, and the Russian reactors at Kudankulam in India. It will actually take longer to set up foreign reactors compared to indigenous ones. Just the negotiations and legal formalities could take years. It will be at least eight years before we see the first power.

Myth 5: The nuclear deal does not stop India from further nuclear testing, and, therefore, does not compromise our national security.

It is very clearly stated in the 123 Agreement it will be subject to national laws, and the Hyde Act is a law of the US. Therefore, the 123 Agreement is certainly circumscribed by the Hyde Act, which very clearly states that if India tests a nuclear device, all further nuclear trade is to stop, and the nuclear materials that have already been sold to us have to be returned. No future Indian Government would dare to jeopardise such a huge investment in nuclear power by testing. So, for all practical purposes the nuclear deal caps our strategic programme -- which is precisely what the Americans intend.

Myth 6: We can pass a national law to counteract the Hyde Act, and this will protect our strategic programme.

Just as the Hyde Act is not binding on us, our laws are not binding on the US. We can certainly amend our Atomic Energy Act to enable participation of the private sector in nuclear power. But if we pass a law saying that we will retain the right to test, it will have no influence on the actions of the US. If and when we test, they can simply quote the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, and pull out all their nuclear materials, leaving us devastated. The only option here is to renegotiate the 123 Agreement and have the clause inserted there. However, the Americans are unlikely to agree to this, since it goes against their non-proliferation policy.

Myth 7:The nuclear deal and the safeguards agreement give India the status of a nuclear power.

While the July 18, 2005 India-US joint statement did indeed talk about India being treated as an equal by the US, neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA safeguards agreement has borne this out. In fact, the IAEA safeguards agreement that has been negotiated is closely based on the model agreement that IAEA has for non-nuclear weapon states. The safeguards agreements that the nuclear weapon countries have signed with the IAEA require them to put very few reactors under safeguards, and allow them to take reactors out of safeguards. India, however, will have to place most of its reactors under safeguards for perpetuity. Therefore, we are certainly not being treated as a nuclear weapons country.

Myth 8: Without the nuclear deal, we cannot get adequate uranium for our domestic nuclear programme.

The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. There is talk of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear power, which will cost not less than $ 100 billion or Rs 4 lakh crore. If even 10 per cent of this money were to be spent on uranium mining in existing mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, on searching for new uranium deposits, and negotiating with non-NSG countries, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme, until such time as thorium reactors take over.

Myth 9: The safeguards agreement with the IAEA guarantees fuel supplies even if India conducts a nuclear test.

The safeguards agreement only notes, in the preamble, that India's concurrence to the safeguards is linked to getting fuel supplies. However, the IAEA has no role in this matter, and certainly, no such commitment is given in the safeguards agreement. It also notes that India may take 'corrective measures' in the event of a disruption of foreign fuel supplies. It does not specify what these measures will be, it does not provide for any role for the IAEA in this, and it does not bestow legitimacy on any such measures that India may take. It may well be that any such measures that we suggest, such as importing fuel from another country, will be disallowed by the NSG. The only tangible corrective measure is for India to explore and mine more uranium, and to enhance enrichment capability to provide fuel for those reactors. The latter is subject to uncertainty.

Myth 10: The nuclear deal has no impact on our foreign policy.

The Hyde Act states clearly that it is the policy of the US to secure India's cooperation on a number of issues involving Iran, including its capability to reprocess nuclear fuel (in spite of the fact that Iran, as an NPT signatory, has the right to enrich uranium for use in light-water reactors). This has nothing to do with the deal, and can only be related to influencing our foreign policy.

It can, therefore, be seen, that the India-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest. It presents the very serious danger of capping our strategic programme. That alone is reason enough not to go forward with the deal. Additionally, it does not guarantee the energy security that we are seeking, and, in fact, may only end up making us as vulnerable to the nuclear cartel, as we are today to the oil cartel.

It is easy to see why the US wants this deal so badly. At virtually no cost, since there is no commitment towards fuel supplies, they can cap our strategic programme, bring us into the NPT net through the back door, as a non-nuclear power, keep a close eye on our nuclear activities, including R&D, through intrusive IAEA inspections, and subjugate us to the wishes of the nuclear cartel.
-- The writer is former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Interesting Interesting - Hoola Boola about nothing

Safeguards inspection not necessary for India: IAEA official
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

Interesting Interesting - Hoola Boola about nothing

Safeguards inspection not necessary for India: IAEA official
Interesting indeed.

It could mean one of two things:
* That India has to self inspect. And, that will have its own consequences, and
* That we are seeing the end of all the old acronyms: NPT, CTBT, etc. And the start of another set.
Last edited by NRao on 22 Jul 2008 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

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

Post by kshirin »

I found NSN but couldnt find FATA. What is FATA please?
Locked