India nuclear news and discussion

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Sep 2008 20:02

As long as we are on China:

The phrase "constructive participation" is a code word used by losers, when they've been caught red-handed. This is not even sophisticated. Any pissing match on a playground will produce this "constructive participation" nonsense.

I'll give you an example from academia, because in some ways, this NSG thing is a lot like the dynamics of academia. They are both, in some way, fighting for space. So, if distraction accepted, here goes (otherwise just skip to bottom):

One time, a graduate student of mine came up with a great idea and I encouraged him to pursue. He went to another faculty to discuss it. This other faculty said that he was interested in helping out. My student, somewhat naively (in hindsight) got excited, and over time found out what "helping out," meant. In the low-intensity conflict that ensued over a year, the lad just kept coming back and winning intellectual battle after battle, yet steadily losing the war because he did not see the game unfold. He was on about sharing ideas and everybody else was about getting powerful. The last straw that broke the back was when the other faculty asked the student for his code. My student just gave it away with total pride. The other guy tweaked some parameters and came back to say, see it doesn't work. The other guy, who with his student would be the most polite participants in our meetings, went on to publish an article criticizing an idea that wasn't even published using a friend sitting at an el-cheapo journal. That's when my student came, broken spirited and upset that the recognition his idea so rightly deserved was being run into the ground, just because he chose to trust open competition. After telling my student he got what he deserved here, I confronted the other faculty, who tells me: "But S, we are being constructive, you benefit from our inputs, don't you." I f**king flipped. He did not get tenure. My student was hired as faculty upon completion of a postdoc a couple of years later. He'll make tenure but he'll never let things so out of hand to "express disappointment."

China don't got truth on its side and it don't got what it takes to get tenure. Learn to anticipate the game and turn it on its head, India!

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 09 Sep 2008 20:04

New York Times slams N-deal

Tuesday, September 09, 2008
New York:The Indo-US nuclear deal was a "bad idea" from the start, a leading American daily said today and asked the Congress to resist pressure to approve the agreement which it dubbed as "ill-conceived".

In an editorial highly critical of the deal, the New York Times has urged lawmakers to hold off considering the deal at least until the new Congress takes office in January.

The suppliers group, the editorial said, gave its approval after India said it would abide by a voluntary moratorium on testing but said it does not require any member to cut off trade if India breaks that pledge.

"That means that if India tests a nuclear weapon, it could still bypass American suppliers and keep buying fuel and technology from other less exacting sellers," it added.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Sep 2008 20:15

On one of the channels,Bharat Karnad said that we shouldn't "beg" demeaningly for a UNSC seat,etc.He said build up a massive arsenal of missiles and warheads and then the ROW will come begging for you to join! Ptanad's demeaning posture at Vienna has left a bad taste in the mouth,but worse have been almost all networks,when they said that India was no longer a "pariah" state,which i9t had been for 35 years!This is an absolutely deplorable statement and should be roundly condemned.India has had an exemplary track record of non-proliferation,in fact,even better than the US which winked at the Sino-Pak pclandestine proliferation and the AQ Khan network.We did not sell nuke dsigns and missiles like the Chinese or N.Koreans or the Pak/ISI/AQK bazaar boys.Unfortunately,even our dear leaders of this dispensation have had no self-respect and touted the lie themselves.We have been behaving like a bunch of colonial serfs,afraid to enter the portals of the white man,humbly waiting in the verandah with crossed hands and bowed heads.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2008 20:17

So WP and NYT are on the pro-chini pro-NPA bandwagon. another example where this episode
helped map out clearly who is really with us and who is playing games.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2008 20:19

In case, the Congress does not pass the 123 Agreement in George W. Bush's term as is recommended by New York Times, it will be the biggest gift to India.

Just like in the disclosed letter, the State Dept. claims that assurances of perpetuity of fuel in exchange for perpetuity of safeguards, was only a personal assurance of President Bush and does not have any legal sanction, similarly afterwards India too can say, signing the 123 Agreement which is heavily eschewed against Indian interests as it is based on the unpopular Hyde Act was only a personal assurance of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to President Bush.

If 123 Agreement does not come through, India can't wait indefinitely and will proceed with civilian nuclear cooperation with other countries like Russia and France. There is no imperative need for an agreement with US, except maybe for dual use techonology in other fields.

Should BJP come to power and 123 Agreement is not signed till then, then everything may need to be renegotiated. This may not necessarily sour the relation too much as defense cooperation and armament procurement would continue.

So N.Y. Times, please keep up the good work.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Sep 2008 20:20

Singha wrote:So WP and NYT are on the pro-chini pro-NPA bandwagon. another example where this episode
helped map out clearly who is really with us and who is playing games.

Economist is also anti-India on this issue... their collective takleef seems to be 'why make an exeption?' - which gets to the heart of the '(anti-)discriminatory' piece of the Indian arguement - and totally ignores the China-Pakistan axis of proliferatory evil

it smacks of intellectual idealism and does not look at the ground realities

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Sep 2008 20:22

NYT has always been anti deal. It is no coincidence that most DIEs like Mishra, Sengupta etc. write for this rag.

The WSJ OTOH was okay with it.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 09 Sep 2008 20:24

samuel wrote: I am reading on the IAEA inspection process, but I must say that this is not the route India will take. Osmotic transfers of ideas because people work on either side is one thing, transfer of material and tools from one to the other entirely different. I do hold the same view that this deal is no help to the 3-stage.

Sir,

In my previous post quoted by you, I was not referring to implementation of leak-tight separation between civil and strategic sectors in India. Rather, I had intended to convey my thesis that, post deal, unless India placed its nuclear power plants [be they PHWRs, FBRs, LWRs or AHWRs] in the civil category, it may no longer be possible to build them under project schedules that are projected as required for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd stages. This situation might continue till such time India is able to fully indigenise the required high-tech manufacturing technologies -- given the necessary leadership and support, it may take a decade or two, may be?. [For comparison, the turn-key Koodangulam project has been on for more than 10 years now and by no means is it a 'First Of A Kind' design].

By the same argument, India might not be able to construct nuclear power plants in the strategic sector, if the implementation of the J18 / Hyde / 123 / NSG Waiver / bilateral agreements with other countries etc, is as per the letter and intent of the agreements.

In making the above observations, I am trying to project the concept that this deal is likely to kill indigenous initiatives and innovation that obviously have been going on all these (pre-deal) days. It is this aspect President Bush might have had in mind when he said that more than 90% India's nuclear facilities would come under the international inspection regime.

It is my understanding that the capital cost of an India-designed-and-built reactor [a large portion of manufacture and construction work done in India with only minimal imports limited only to commercially available, cheaper-to-import materials and equipments -- nothing that requires an end-use certificate to be given by India to the foreign Supplier], would be less than an imported plant of similar capacity. This might be even more true if a comparison is made between an India-desigend-and-built PHWR vs. an imported LWR. I think that the 'per MWe' capital cost numbers, after suitably 'levelising' (eg same vintage, same assumptions for 'cost of money' etc), if available for Tarapur 3 & 4 (540 MWe PHWR) vs. Koodangulam (1000 MWe LWR), might bear this out. The life-time fuelling cost of a PHWR (Indian Nat U) is said to be lower than that of an LWR (imported enriched U) for the same number of Units of electricity generated. However, I do realise that such a cost comparison could be rather a contested issue since there seem to be differences in opinions as to whether there are any "hidden" subsidies (and if so, what the quantum of subsidy actually is / should be), in either of the systems under comparison.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2008 20:30

Philp in the Orwellian world of managed media, perception is reality. The US had to fight hard to change the image at the NSG, for it was the creator of the image of bad India from Jimmy Carter onwrds in 1978 with his stiff message.

In the long run the PRC seems to be run by duffers. They managed to create implacable enemies within Indian elite who were so China friendly. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

The prolif to TSP was bad but allowed India to break out. Having provided more weapons for the Chagai tests to negate POKII, PRC should have been more circumspect in its opposition to India at NSG. They seem to be affected with headswellitis.

Also for observers, Seema Mustafa's rants show that the old IM elite based on privilege and access will be cast aside. The NSG waiver has changed the whole Great Game and spun it in a different direction.

A new kind of India centric nationalism will come to the fore in India.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Sep 2008 20:37

Hi, Sanatanan,

Thanks much, I misinterpreted what you were saying earlier. We are on the same page, though a few points of clarification pop up in my mind, which I'll come back to you with in a bit (after I've sorted it through a little more).

S

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 09 Sep 2008 20:44

Atomic Energy Act of 1962 to be amended

After getting the NSG waiver, the government today said it will amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 to allow private parties to enter the field.

"Till now no private party was able to do nuclear trade and commerce. Now whatever amendment required in the law will be brought to allow them do nuclear trade," Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal told reporters on the sidelines of a function to mark the India-Germany strategic partnership on innovation.

Sibal did not elaborate but government sources said the amendment would enable and encourage private participation in the form of investment, both from India and abroad, to help the country generate 2000 mw of power by 2020.

The first India Atomic Energy Act was put in place in 1948 when the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was formed. It was later repealed and transformed into Atomic Energy Act in 1962.

The Act provides for development, control and use of atomic energy for welfare of people of India. In 1971, under one of its guidelines, radiation protection rules came into force under the director, directorate of radiation protection, which was meant mainly for non-DAE units or industries.

In 1983, under section 27 of the act, regulation and safety function were delegated to the newly formed atomic energy regulation board.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=606684

now waiting to hear ambanis grand plans on nuclear power

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 09 Sep 2008 20:44

Gerard wrote:
Mr. Sibal also addressed concerns over the risk of disrupted fuel supply in the event of a nuclear test. Indian reactors would be put under safeguards in phases till 2014 only when they were assured of fuel supply with a strategic reserve in place, he said.

“We will build up strategic reserves and if and when in the future, any tests are required to be done because of a changed geopolitical situation at that point of time, we will have a strategic reserve of fuel so that there is no problem of disruption.”
Perhaps not the most appropriate thing to say in the presence of the German minister

Ha ha haaaa...

The DW link posted here:

RajeshA wrote:Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India: Deutsche Welle

German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner said this week Germany -- as chair of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology -- had tried to balance conflicting interests during tense negotiations that led to the landmark agreement.

"There were several countries that put critical questions to India, but also the United States, about how this arrangement is compatible with the common goal of nuclear non-proliferation," Ploetner told a news conference on Monday, Sept 8.

"It is not an ideal solution. The negotiations were very difficult and we cannot say that we could not have imagined something better."

Jostling for contracts has begun

Meanwhile, the US forecasts that India's growing energy needs mean it will have to build at least eight new atomic energy plants by 2012. Britain, France and Russia have already joined the US in jostling for lucrative contracts.

And during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of a German-supported technical university earlier this week in Chennai, India, German Technology Minister Annette Schavan was warmly greeted by her Indian counterpart Kipal Sibal.

"We have to see the next 50 years of cooperation in the light of the events of this past weekend," Sibal said at the celebration. In cooperation with Germany, India could find out "which components and what know-how is important for us," he added

We should all give positive feedback in the feedback column at the bottom.

The uranium-Niger articles posted on this forum are excellent. I hope policy is not dictated by the deal, esepcially if Palin comes to power! Haerd the latest on her?

Governor Sarah Palin gave her speech tonight at the GOP Convention, and it gave people who didn't know anything about her the chance to finally meet her, you know, like John McCain." --Jay Leno

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Sep 2008 20:49

ramana wrote:Philp in the Orwellian world of managed media, perception is reality. The US had to fight hard to change the image at the NSG, for it was the creator of the image of bad India from Jimmy Carter onwrds in 1978 with his stiff message.

In the long run the PRC seems to be run by duffers. They managed to create implacable enemies within Indian elite who were so China friendly. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

The prolif to TSP was bad but allowed India to break out. Having provided more weapons for the Chagai tests to negate POKII, PRC should have been more circumspect in its opposition to India at NSG. They seem to be affected with headswellitis.

Also for observers, Seema Mustafa's rants show that the old IM elite based on privilege and access will be cast aside. The NSG waiver has changed the whole Great Game and spun it in a different direction.

A new kind of India centric nationalism will come to the fore in India.

Not yet. A war only will bring a India centric nationalism

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2008 20:50

Civil nuclear cooperation with India (September 8, 2008): France diplomatie

On 6 September 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group adopted a decision authorizing cooperation with India on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. France salutes this major advance.

We have long been supporting, in the framework of the Franco-Indian strategic partnership, the opening of civil nuclear cooperation with India, which will allow her to reconcile satisfaction of her energy needs with action to combat climate change.

This decision also signals a significant step forward for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In this respect France welcomes India’s reaffirmation on 5 September 2008 of her commitments in this sphere.

achy · Post by **achy** » 09 Sep 2008 20:55

ramana wrote:In the long run the PRC seems to be run by duffers. They managed to create implacable enemies within Indian elite who were so China friendly. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

IMO, At this point of time China is very unsure of its intentions and dealings with India. I think confusion is because of two competing visions of peaceful rise vs the middle kingdom.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2008 21:09

Tink-Tank Support to Deal

U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal: A Sprint to the Finish by Lisa Curtis: The Heritage Foundation

Though time is tight—with only three weeks left until the 110th Congress recesses for elections—lawmakers should do everything possible to finalize the deal before the end of the year, since it will solidify ties with a key Asian nation that shares our democratic values and geopolitical concerns.

The Chinese—buoyed by the unexpected opposition from the smaller NSG nations—threatened the agreement with last-minute concerns first signaled last Monday through an article in the Chinese Communist Party's English language daily. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is in India this week, where he is facing tough questions from his Indian interlocutors on its role in Vienna and the unexpected public rebuke of the nuclear deal, despite several earlier assurances from Chinese leaders that Beijing would not block consensus.

Indian strategic affairs analyst Uday Bhaskar attributed the maneuvering to longstanding competition between the two Asian rivals. Bhaskar said, "Clearly, until now China has been the major power in Asia. … With India entering the NSG, a new strategic equation has been introduced into Asia and this clearly has caused disquiet to China."

Additionally, if the deal lapses into the next U.S. Administration, it could take several months before it is considered in the new Congress, which is about the time India heads into its own national elections, casting more uncertainty over the final fate of the deal.

New Delhi cannot, however, legally bind itself on this sensitive matter, since it does not have control over the actions of other nuclear-armed states in its strategic environment, namely Pakistan and China.

If this historic nuclear deal is finalized, it will contribute to strengthening global nonproliferation by making New Delhi a stakeholder in a system seeking to adapt itself to the most serious proliferation threats of the 21st century. There is no good reason to delay this landmark initiative any longer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2008 21:15

Much as PRC has been perfidious, its important for India to ensure that Asia doesnt become a zero-sum game. We need to help PRC realise its in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game and learn to cooperate for the world is big enough to accomodate the rise of two Asian powers. For this to happen the Jiang Zemin accolytes have to be diminished.

RajsehA, I think your post should be in the PRC thread as its more about bilateral ties.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Sep 2008 22:45

achy wrote:
ramana wrote:In the long run the PRC seems to be run by duffers. They managed to create implacable enemies within Indian elite who were so China friendly. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
IMO, At this point of time China is very unsure of its intentions and dealings with India. I think confusion is because of two competing visions of peaceful rise vs the middle kingdom.

China behavior towards India is a part of the China group (Ziang Zemin) and external power. It is not completely independent behavior of Chinese group alone. It is well timed based on how other countries behave towards India. Chinese policy towards India in the last few decades from 1972 shows the same trends.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 09 Sep 2008 23:31

In the early pages of the PRC political news and discussions thread (which was created after a brief discussion on the subject involving Johann, myself and a few others) there are several posts covering the CPC (moderates) vs PLA (extremists) faction. Hu isn't necessarily entirely within the CPC faction, but is somewhat a 'dovish hardliner', while Zemin was a hardliner (recall the anecdote of him telling Chirac how he'll 'crush India', with handsqueezing gesture included.

The extremists faction lost out their primacy after Mao's demise, and particularly over the course of Deng's reign. However, the two factions had some kind of an agreement going, where the PLA faction gets its say on contentious matters and play the 'bad cop', though there are times when differences between them come to the fore. However, the opaque nature of Chinese political intrigue makes it hard to see how the dynamics are.

While the moderates see the benefit of growing trade ties with India, the extremists are out and out anti India. There are several fissures in their polity that are worth exploring in the PRC political thread:
* Who are the moderates in the US-India deal subject, and who are the extremists, both the current and older generation ones.
* Understanding Zemin's insecurity and thirst for a legacy, and how it motivates his actions. A lot of credit for the Chinese economic boom in his days goes to Deng and to Zhu Rongji, his Premier, instead of to him.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Sep 2008 00:07

Wasn't Lisa Curtis one of the MemSahibs apart from Robin Raphael to visit the Kashmir valley and hob nob with the likes of Mir-not-wise Umarfakroo? I have always seen her dole out equal equal stuff and I find it interesting she supprts this deal. Once agian that thought that MMS agreed to some kind of quid pro quo on Kashmir for the nuke deal sticks out.

Sean · Post by **Sean** » 10 Sep 2008 00:25

Is this related to the nuclear deal?
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ir/359197/

New Pak Prez Zardari promises 'good news' on Kashmir
Islamabad, September 9:
Asif Ali Zardari on Tuesday took over as Pakistan's President and swiftly pledged to come out with ‘some good news’ on Kashmir before this month-end.

The 53-year-old businessman-turned politician, who spent over a decade behind the bars on corruption and other charges, was administered oath of office by Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar in a ceremony at the presidential palace attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai among others.

Zardari, husband of slain former premier Benazir Bhutto, said he would work together with all neighbouring countries.

"We shall stand with each other, we shall not stand in each other's way."

He assumes charge at a time when terrorism and extremism have touched new heights in Pakistan and the economy is in shambles.

Apart from striving to restore political stability, Zardari, the 12th President of Pakistan, has to meet pressures from one-time ally Nawaz Sharif of PML-N who parted ways with the ruling coalition last month on the issue of reinstatement of sacked judges.

Zardari's predecessor Pervez Musharraf and Sharif were conspicuous by their absence at the swearing-in ceremony that saw his son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the co-Chairman of the ruling PPP, and daughters Bakhtawar and Asifa cheer for him in presence of Army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the two other service chiefs.

Soon after being sworn-in, Zardari, flanked by his Afghan counterpart, addressed a press meet during which he suggested that there could be some forward movement soon on resolving the Kashmir issue with India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Sep 2008 01:00

there was no point until now to try and open formal talks over uranium supplies as Kazakhstan is not only a NSG member but is also a signatory of the NPT, sources said.

What the hell does the NPT have to do with buying Kazakh Uranium?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Sep 2008 01:35

CRamS wrote:Wasn't Lisa Curtis one of the MemSahibs apart from Robin Raphael to visit the Kashmir valley and hob nob with the likes of Mir-not-wise Umarfakroo? I have always seen her dole out equal equal stuff and I find it interesting she supprts this deal. Once agian that thought that MMS agreed to some kind of quid pro quo on Kashmir for the nuke deal sticks out.

There is secret EJ support here and the reason is that the EJ group in the establishment have been sold that EJ access will increase with this deal. Lot of discussion in DC was based on this topic.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2008 02:13

India in dilemma over 123 agreement by Siddharth Varadarajan: Hindu

Speedy approval sought, but doubts remain

New Delhi: Forgotten amidst the euphoria over the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver, the State Department letter revising key provisions of the 123 agreement continues to worry Indian officials who say it will be risky for the country to buy American nuclear equipment until this issue is sorted out.

The letter, made public on September 2, shows the U.S. understanding of the 123 agreement is sharply at variance with India’s. Senior Indian officials told The Hindu that the State Department assertion limiting the circumstances under which fuel supply assurances would apply was tantamount to undoing an agreed text. The U.S. letter also questions the agreement’s provisions on fallback safeguards and reprocessing rights. Describing the letter’s claim that the Indian government agrees with these American understandings as a “blatant lie,” one official said India was formulating a response that would be communicated to Washington at the political level.

“On all these issues, the letter simply reiterates the U.S. starting position [from 2005 and 2006],” said an official. “It is almost as if two years [of talks] count for nothing.” “They’re trying to claw back concessions they were forced to make during the negotiations” was the assessment of another highly-placed source.

Despite this internal clarity, however, the government has been reluctant publicly to join issue. If anything, say officials, Ministers who tried to engage in political firefighting after the domestic controversy erupted actually undermined India’s position by insisting the letter contained “nothing new,” thereby implying India concurred with these damaging U.S. interpretations. And though the Ministry of External Affairs said India would be guided “solely by the terms of the [123] agreement,” it called the letter “internal correspondence ... of another government” and did not contest the State Department’s incorrect assertions.

However, with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee publicly committing India to deferring commercial nuclear agreements with Russia and France till the U.S. Congress approves the 123, the government may not have the luxury of remaining quiet much longer.

Disappointed at the failure of the U.S. to include Hyde Act-type provisions in the NSG waiver, nonproliferationists want Congress to attach riders to the 123 agreement reiterating the State Department’s formulations. Officials say India’s silence only serves to encourage such efforts.

Anti-deal lobbyists in the U.S. say one approach that might be explored is to mandate penalties against countries offering India better terms than what Hyde envisages. While penalties might not deter Russia or France, smaller suppliers, especially of uranium, could be scared off by any extra-territoriality of U.S. law.

India appears politically committed to allowing a modest amount of time for the U.S. domestic process but senior officials warn that neither the country nor its other suppliers can afford to wait very long before signing deals.

“If anything, this letter, by reopening the 123 all over again, makes it easier for us to say we can’t wait,” said an official. “But this call has to be made at the political level,” he added.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Sep 2008 02:21

as i understand it, India is now more or less cleared to transact with France and Russia re nuclear reactors. With 80% of French supply being nuclear generated and their overall expertise, makes it a good prospect to invite EDF to invest in and build up large chunks of Indian power sector... good compensation for not buying Rafale

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 10 Sep 2008 02:55

Nuclear power will be competitive’ - Less than Rs 2.5/unit for upcoming Koodankulam plants
Added later......
I think it is important article and shoul be posted in full...

. Venugopal
M. Ramesh

Chennai, Sept. 9 Electricity generated by nuclear power plants will be very competitive compared with thermal power stations located in the same region, according to Dr S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

The corporation expects to sell power generated by the two Koodankulam plants “at not more than Rs 2.50 a unit,” Dr Jain said in an interview with Business Line. The tariff of the Koodankulam power underscores his point about nuclear power being very competitive.

Dr Jain said that as a consequence of the ‘NSG waiver’, NPCIL would put up ten light water reactors, using imported uranium. Each of these would be “1,000-plus MW”, the actual capacity would be determined at negotiations with vendors.

This programme will run concurrently with the existing schedule of NPCIL, which is to put up eight Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors of 700 MW capacity each, three Fast Breeder Reactors of 500 MW each and one Advanced Heavy Water Reactor of 300 MW (which is an experimental project.)

All these projects are likely to come up at two or three greenfield sites, apart from Koodankulam and the other identified site at Jaitapur, Maharashtra.

The first (two) of the LWR projects that will be based on imported uranium will come up in 2014-15, he said.

Securing supplies

On the question of securing fuel supplies, Dr Jain noted that there were two approaches and NPCIL would pursue both.

One is to enter into a fuel supply agreement, usually with (and linked to) equipment vendors, under which the other party would provide fuel for the full life of the nuclear plant, including for a ‘strategic reserve’.

The other option is for NPCIL to secure uranium assets abroad by taking stakes in a uranium mining company with the help of the collaborator.
Dr Jain also stressed that NPCIL would like to reprocess the spent fuel.

NPCIL has been in talks with global nuclear majors such as GE, Westinghouse and Areva and has told them of its keenness to secure fuel supply through these arrangements and its desire to reprocess the fuel.

Dr Jain said that consequent to the ‘NSG waiver’, NPCIL would be in a position to export reactors. The public sector nuclear power monopoly has built up expertise in building and running reactors of the size of 230 MW.

Many smaller countries need just this kind of reactors and NPCIL looks forward to exporting to these countries. However, there is a catch.

Just as India expects equipment suppliers to also guarantee lifetime fuel supply, the countries that would buy the reactors from NPCIL would also expect similar arrangement. But India is hardly in a position to supply fuel.

NPCIL could, however, join hands with a fuel supplier to export reactors, Dr Jain said.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 10 Sep 2008 03:09

One thing India must not do is rush for gold for deals with Russia or France. This is what the US pushed through with hard diplomatic skill and it was done by GWB Admin in good faith. India is certainly prepared to live without the deal. Lets see what the Ayatollahs on Capitol Street have to say. India should negotiate. And tell the US the deal falls in case of any amendments detrimental to Indian interests.
Its imperative 'character precedes any step towards a total boycott of US. If the US does try and screw up the 123, we then sign with Russia and France. There's much more beyond now.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2008 03:16

Yes, but this "letter to US Congress" which revises terms previously agreed upon is cause for India to look more towards Russia. India should certainly give its US sponsor a share, but the question of how much of a share should be related to any backpeddling on the US part of the deal.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Sep 2008 05:00

EU nations eye single nuke pact with India

The European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.

Doesn't the European Commission also take decisions by consensus ?
Looks like Ireland, Austria et al get another bite of the apple...

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Sep 2008 05:01

Don't handicap US firms eyeing $100 bn nuclear pie: Rice

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2008 05:28

Gerard wrote:EU nations eye single nuke pact with India
The European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.
Doesn't the European Commission also take decisions by consensus ?
Looks like Ireland, Austria et al get another bite of the apple...

They want a single pact in order to minimize the opportunities for individual states going their own way on whether or not to trade with us.

It's their means of a "Euro-NSG" or "Euro-NPT"

But as India's economic challenge to EU rises, let's see how long the Euro-solidarity holds up.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 10 Sep 2008 05:30

India should deal with them one on one! Make separate deals

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2008 05:56

We should certainly be vigilant and on the lookout for the other big rivals - USA, China, trying to rope in the various smaller countries under their larger umbrellas for nuclear purposes.

This would then amount to creating second tier pseudo-NSGs, that could undermine the value of our waiver.

Perhaps we should likewise look at using some local bloc -- maybe not SAARC, but perhaps the Indian Ocean Rim organization -- to tie up countries for more reliable nuclear trade with us. This could shore up the value of our waiver.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2008 06:03

These yahoos are taking the NSG debate to another room where the US is not allowed.

Another acronym for India to break.

I suggest that India does not attend any meeting that has a "EU" in it (related to nukes).

These Europeans are getting to be ridiculous. No need for India to go down to their level.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2008 06:06

NRao wrote:These yahoos are taking the NSG debate to another room where the US is not allowed.

Another acronym for India to break.

I suggest that India does not attend any meeting that has a "EU" in it (related to nukes).

These Europeans are getting to be ridiculous. No need for India to go down to their level.

Nonsense, attitudes like that are what caused us to turn down the UN Security Council seat when it was offered to us, and also caused us to delay our N-weapons program while China tested ahead of us.

We should be going down to that level ahead of anybody else, so that they don't beat us to the punch and then shut us out. The early bird catches the worm. The laggard is always left chasing the bus.

Let's make sure the Atlanticists don't rope Japan in before we can engage them.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2008 06:30

France, with its AREVA, was supposed to be one of our great hopes in maintaining some independence/autonomy on nuclear ties. What would the effect of the single-EU thrust be upon them?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2008 06:42

SM,

Perhaps I was not clear, let me try it again. Nuke Ireland. How about that? Does that make your speed dial?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Sep 2008 06:55

NRao wrote:These yahoos are taking the NSG debate to another room where the US is not allowed.

Another acronym for India to break.

I suggest that India does not attend any meeting that has a "EU" in it (related to nukes).

These Europeans are getting to be ridiculous. No need for India to go down to their level.

The idea is that India outside of NPT will still be inside a NPT like pact with these agreement with large group of countries.That way they get India inside the tent

Sean · Post by **Sean** » 10 Sep 2008 06:56

Sanjay M wrote:France, with its AREVA, was supposed to be one of our great hopes in maintaining some independence/autonomy on nuclear ties. What would the effect of the single-EU thrust be upon them?

I do not expect the French to agree to a Euro-India bilateral as it would lose most of the deals to Russians.

IMO, India should work on getting fuel first , and build up enough of a reserve so that its in a position to say no to any bilateral which talks about testing, or denies ENR equipment/technology. Does India really need to import any reactors when it is able to produce its own PHWR reactors? Why not build more of these once fuel is secured. PHWR will provide Pu which in turn can be utilised for FTBR, and thus help India achieve fuel independence through thorium reactors.

India should look to do deals with Russia for LWR reactors conditional upon receiving Pu for the FTBR program.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2008 07:24

The idea is that India outside of NPT will still be inside a NPT like pact with these agreement with large group of countries.That way they get India inside the tent

and ......

I do not expect the French to agree to a Euro-India bilateral as it would lose most of the deals to Russians

Do not know know what tent or FR vs. RU. They ALL have signed on to GNEP - the BIG tent.

I really do not think NPT/CTBT is a major hurdle for India, from an Indian PoV. I have my doubts that India will be able to escape GNEP - this is a super cartel that benefits the suppliers. And, India, in that game plan, is a recipient - not a supplier.

And, what one can see form 123, etc fits in the GNEP plan. So far. AK has fought very hard to escape the normal rules of the game and also GNEP. To get out of the GNEP straight jacket we should see India talk a great deal about Indian reactors, etc that are economically beneficial to all. IF thorium can be proved to be a major contributor then there is no stopping India.