India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Sanku]

Active/Passive systems are not the issue, the issue is how safe the reactors are.

Active/Passive systems are quite the critical issue to safety, it is not valid (to put it charitably) to say active/passive system are not the issue but safety is -- akin to making a statement that your age is not important but how old you are is.

I do not see why the need to downplay critical technological factors in the discussion.

Sorry whichever way you look at it, nuclear is something you cannot ignore in any rational energy mix for India.

That statement is again sorely misrepresentative of what was said by both Sanatanan and Theo, who said that for India the option of Nuclear energy must be based on Indian approach so far.

This has been portrayed as being opposed to Nuclear energy, which is of course untrue to say the least.

The need to contradict the points that have not been made, and to side the steps the ones that have been, in itself, goes a long way in adding noise to a perfectly valid discussion.

This fear of being locked is IMO just a throwback from our protectionist era, when everything foreign was bad.

This is useless rhetoric, for it makes unnecessary assumptions about others. It can quite easily be said that those who are pushing for Imports are essentially markeeters of XYZ.

That sort of exchange adds no value and serves to inflame others. I would recommend that people stick to making detailed point rather than try their hand at "painting others".

[arnab]

Ah yes - 'strategic properties'. Assuming of course that attempts to enhance energy security over the longer-term is not strategic enough; But even so - why the hell should we stop emulating those shining success stories of TSP and North Korea who are closely guarding their 'strategic properties'? Too bad NK has agreed to be nook nude in exchange for food and those pakis want a similar non-strategic deal that India has.

Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).

I'm also learning that the best way to deal with agit-prop would be to turn India into one vast cantonment area - everything would be strategic and GOI's woes would be over

[Sanku]

Ah yes - 'strategic properties'. Assuming of course that attempts to enhance energy security over the longer-term is not strategic enough; But even so - why the hell should we stop emulating those shining success stories of TSP and North Korea who are closely guarding their 'strategic properties'? Too bad NK has agreed to be nook nude in exchange for food and those pakis want a similar non-strategic deal that India has.

If one is reduced to doing equal-equal between India and Nort Korea/Pakistan, then it is clear that the plot has been lost, and the frustration of not being able to convince anyone of the premises of value of taking a import based regime results in empty rhetoric.

After the posters have learned to differentiate between North Korea, Pakistan and India, will there possibly in any sense in engaging them. Right now, I believe that first basics need to be sorted out, however this is not the right thread to start informing others on why India != Pakistan.

Kindly let the thread be a place for more useful discussion.

[amit]

That statement is again sorely misrepresentative of what was said by both Sanatanan and Theo...
This is useless rhetoric, for it makes unnecessary assumptions about others. It can quite easily be said that those who are pushing for Imports are essentially markeeters of XYZ.

That sort of exchange adds no value and serves to inflame others. I would recommend that people stick to making detailed point rather than try their hand at "painting others".

Fair enough but don't you think it would be better for Sanatanan and Theo to respond if they think I'm misrepresenting what they are saying? And in case you didn't notice I'm having a very interesting discussion going on with Sanatanan and pardon me but I really don't see him very inflamed by my responses.

Regarding Theo, let me tell you I have the highest regard for him and his posts. You should visit the Economics Forum to see his contributions. We may not share the same POV on the nuclear issue but that doesn't mean we can't and don't have a civil dialogue on the issue - I dare say we can learn from each other. And I'm firmly convinced he's always has the best interests of India in mind and so I'm always willing to listen to what he has to say.

Finally that leaves you to feel inflamed by my posts. If you do, please ignore them. They are anyway not directed towards you. And also I'm not going to stop posting because you feel combustible after reading them.

Thanks.

[Sanku]

Amit-ji; I will continue to put things as I see them, admins permitting, in a civil language. Ignoring is not an option. Thank you for the consideration shown in the above post.

[amit]

Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).

Arnab,

Now, now boss why bring up embarrassing little factoids and spoil the party?

On a more serious note, in all this discussion on strategic properties, there two things that are just being ignored.

One is the fact that one of the major objectives of the civil nuclear deal was to open up uranium supplies, so that we could conserve our domestic supply for the three-stage, which now, it seems, will not come online in any meaningful way till after 2020.

The second point is the sky-rocketing increase in coal prices at pitheads which have effectively tossed out of the window all calculation on which all those UMPPs were being built or are being built. That considerably changes the security calculus as far as energy security is concerned.

I'll leave you with another thought! :-0

I believe Afghanistan and Sudan are two of the most strategic energy secure countries in the world. You know why?



Because they hardly have any energy demand.

[amit]

Amit-ji; I will continue to put things as I see them, admins permitting, in a civil language. Ignoring is not an option. Thank you for the consideration shown in the above post.

[Sanku]

Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).

Arnab,

Now, now boss why bring up embarrassing little factoids and spoil the party?

Didn't reply to this earlier since this was a fundamentally incorrect factoid so I did not think that a post with India == Pakistan and other such material would be actually discussed, however since this is being done, it is important to put the record straight.

Fundamentally incorrect factoid. Strategic reactors do not use imported nuclear material in the first place.

In the second place, the little uranium that has been obtained, could have easily been supplemented with better management of internal resources, as has been discussed earlier. In any case fuel from Russian sources for Russian reactors was under grandfather clauses and would continue.

Overall, there is hardly a noticeable difference in energy generation due to the deal, and this was fully expected.

On a more serious note, in all this discussion on strategic properties, there two things that are just being ignored.

One is the fact that one of the major objectives of the civil nuclear deal was to open up uranium supplies, so that we could conserve our domestic supply for the three-stage, which now, it seems, will not come online in any meaningful way till after 2020.

Those points are not ignored, they are seen and are not of any significant consequence.

Also the fact that "will not come online in any meaningful way till after 2020" is the most significant contribution of the Nuclear policy as pursued by Man mohan and UPA.

The cause and the effect are all mixed up, the cause of nuclear policy is not that the Indian tech was delayed, the nuclear policy has ensured that the focus on Indian tech has been diluted in favor of looking at imports.

The second point is the sky-rocketing increase in coal prices at pitheads which have effectively tossed out of the window

And has been shown many times, this argument is moot, since Nuclear energy is not going to meaningful substitute coal requirements in any manner whatsoever.

Therefore Nuclear because it saves coal was/is and will continue to be a false argument.

I'll leave you with another thought! :-0

I believe Afghanistan and Sudan are two of the most strategic energy secure countries in the world. You know why?



Because they hardly have any energy demand.

Clearly the repeated flippancy on serious matters leads one to believe that the only goal of the discussion is to some how create a market of shoddy imported goods by spreading FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) by repeatedly raising discredited and incorrect arguments.

============================

The real outcome of imports
1) Plans for mega setups with periods of 30 years.
2) Massive land and capital locked up for HUGE gestation periods of 30 years without any productive output.
3) Reduction of focus from important critical areas in energy sector towards questionable long term policy
4) A dependence on imports
5) Loss of tech independence.

Basically a mess where the "unobtainum" after 30 years is used as a goal to sell all the family silver today.

"Give me all your money today and I will make your grandson a King if all goes well" -- type of deal.

[amit]

Talking about safety features of latest generation nuclear reactors, this link provides some useful information:

Third-generation reactors have:

* a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time,
* a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets,
* higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,
* further reduced possibility of core melt accidents,
* 72-hour grace period, so that following shutdown the plant requires no active intervention for 72 hours,
* resistance to serious damage that would allow radiological release from an aircraft impact,
* higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,
* greater use of burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life.

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

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

Hope the above explains the confusion about passive/active cooling - all of it, at the end of the day, is meant for safety.

And this point deal with the stress on the grid:

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

[Sanku]

Man mohan led regime has throttled Indian effort to such a great extent over last 10 years that India will be left with no choice but to import, on the worst possible terms.

That will be Man mohan's enduring legacy.

================

This is a mirror image of Shastri's "let us suffer today but ensure no imports tomorrow" policy -- and we know what he did for food security.

[amit]

Arnab,

Now, now boss why bring up embarrassing little factoids and spoil the party?

Didn't reply to this earlier since this was a fundamentally incorrect factoid so I did not think that a post with India == Pakistan and other such material would be actually discussed, however since this is being done, it is important to put the record straight.

Fundamentally incorrect factoid. Strategic reactors do not use imported nuclear material in the first place.

In the second place, the little uranium that has been obtained, could have easily been supplemented with better management of internal resources, as has been discussed earlier. In any case fuel from Russian sources for Russian reactors was under grandfather clauses and would continue.

Overall, there is hardly a noticeable difference in energy generation due to the deal, and this was fully expected.

The credibility of a poster rests on his/her ability to back up assertions with facts and references.

This is what the AEC Chairman Srikumar Banerjee said at the 55th annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna in September last year:

This year, India’s nuclear power generation shot up by about 40 percent over the previous year because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported. India is able to import nuclear fuel because of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

In other words, with import of uranium the total quantum of yellow cake available for all the reactors went up substantially. In other words, locally produced yellow cake, which would conceivably have gone to civil nuclear power plants were available for use in the strategic sector. And yes a 40 per cent jump in generation in one year (that is the year right after the deal)is "hardly a noticeable difference in energy generation due to the deal".

Banerjee informed the global gathering of nuclear leaders that the average capacity factor of the nuclear reactors in India was currently more than 80 percent – and seven of them had even exceeded 90 percent.
Banerjee reported that 20 reactors were in operation with the total capacity being 4,780 MW. He said that India is planning a major expansion of its nuclear installed capacity to 20,000 MW by 2020, touching 60,000 MW during the early 2030s.

But of course what does Srikumar Banerjee know? Right? He must be a marketeer for all those big, bad nuclear companies which are trying to screw India.

[Sanku]

Tcchhh Amit;

Overall, there is hardly a noticeable difference in energy generation due to the deal, and this was fully expected.

The credibility of a poster rests on his/her ability to back up assertions with facts and references.

This year, India’s nuclear power generation shot up by about 40 percent over the previous year because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported. India is able to import nuclear fuel because of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

.

It might be better to respond to what was said rather than what you imagine is being said right?

Overall, the nuclear energy generation, despite making significant progress in terms of Nuclear energy generation, remains a small %. And why is that? Because essentially the current size of nuclear plant generation is "modest"

The fun part is:

Banerjee reported that 20 reactors were in operation with the total capacity being 4,780 MW. He said that India is planning a major expansion of its nuclear installed capacity to 20,000 MW by 2020, touching 60,000 MW during the early 2030s.

Wake me up when it happens, especially given the current policy making.

Also I noticed that you posted something, but would not have if you had actually read what you were posting.

Dr Banarjee said

because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported.

What to do onlee. Why let facts get into opinions.

[Sanku]

Anyway the whole issue of Nuclear fuel shortage was a false one, manufactured after 2006 at best.

Indeed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India

this domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year.[48]

The issue of fall in Nuclear enegry production by 12% was manufactured between 2006 and 2008 to buttress the claim of need of imported yellow cake. This was done by a "go slow" on Indian efforts locally.

When in reality, the imported yellow cake was neither needed critically, nor is the power output in short term so dramatic that the same could not be achieved through many other power management needs.

[Kailash]

The real outcome of imports
1) Plans for mega setups with periods of 30 years.
2) Massive land and capital locked up for HUGE gestation periods of 30 years without any productive output.
3) Reduction of focus from important critical areas in energy sector towards questionable long term policy
4) A dependence on imports
5) Loss of tech independence.

Completely agree with points 3,4,5. But 1 and 2 are problems which are not specific to imported reactors.

The key here is, if this were a scientific/technological decision, may be our scientists could convince GoI/PMO of the risks and futility of imports. But these decision are linked with geo-political and strategic interests. To the political quarter making these decisions, problems with imports are illogical/detremental in short-term, immaterial in long term.

[Kailash]

The issue of fall in Nuclear enegry production by 12% was manufactured between 2006 and 2008 to buttress the claim of need of imported yellow cake. This was done by a "go slow" on Indian efforts locally.

When in reality, the imported yellow cake was neither needed critically, nor is the power output in short term so dramatic that the same could not be achieved through many other power management needs.

IF this is a deliberate attempt to get the 123 approved quickly or buying something which wont make a differece, quite a few individuals should have profited from this. We have unnecessarily put reactors under IEAE safeguards, let foreign companies set camps, injured our own long term strategic interests. Where is the logic in that?

[amit]

Aha, Sanku as expected, downhill skiing has started.

This is what Arnab wrote:

Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).

To which you replied:

Didn't reply to this earlier since this was a fundamentally incorrect factoid

When pointed out that no less a person than the AEC chairman has said the same thing with the addition that imported uranium has played a significant role in enhancing generation capacity by 40 per cent in one year, you come back with:

Overall, the nuclear energy generation, despite making significant progress in terms of Nuclear energy generation, remains a small %. And why is that? Because essentially the current size of nuclear plant generation is "modest"

The fact that nuclear in terms of overall composition of generation capacity is modest was never called into question by anyone. In fact the assertion has always been that the Civil Nuclear Deal is an effort to change "modest" to "significant".

[Sanku]

The real outcome of imports
1) Plans for mega setups with periods of 30 years.
2) Massive land and capital locked up for HUGE gestation periods of 30 years without any productive output.
3) Reduction of focus from important critical areas in energy sector towards questionable long term policy
4) A dependence on imports
5) Loss of tech independence.

Completely agree with points 3,4,5. But 1 and 2 are problems which are not specific to imported reactors.

.

I see what you are saying, however let me try and clarify. While all large Capex projects have issues 1 & 2. The issues shoot up more than linearly for larger Capex project.

The inherent nature of 4-5 1000 MWE reactors at a site, ensure that all the issues around land aqusition, integrating equipment etc become even more pronounced.

Further since this is all imported, many additional bottleneck not present in Indian execution would come to play.

Net net, this approach is guaranteed to have FAR LONGER and FAR GREATER issues in areas 1 & 2. By orders of magnitude greater.

[Sanku]

Aha, Sanku as expected, downhill skiing has started.

No Sir-ji, it is just that it takes four-five posts to communicate the basics of type

"this is a black cat"

to some people; at the end of which they will come and accuse me

"why are you against white rats"

Sorry Sir-ji, kindly do not misquote or misrepresent. When I say "energy" I mean "energy" and not "nuclear energy" or "djinn energy" or some other energy.

Thank you in advance for keeping the nose clean.

This is what Arnab wrote:\

Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).

To which you replied:

When pointed out that no less a person than the AEC chairman has said the same thing with the addition that imported uranium has played a significant role in enhancing generation capacity by 40 per cent in one year, you come back with:

AEC chairman did not say that.

AEC chairman said something else viz

because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported.

The rest of "123 deal led India to produce 1999099999999 KW per second extra" type of statements are your and arnab's (the two of you) own.

Cheers.

I repeat -- stick to what has been said, and not what you think has been said, no useful discussion that way.

[amit]

Nice try Sanku to get a reaction from me so as to bring in moderation.

However, tough luck!

I would of course, very respectfully, point out that as usual you did not read the link. This is what it says:

This year, India’s nuclear power generation shot up by about 40 percent over the previous year because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported. India is able to import nuclear fuel because of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

The important announcement was made on Wednesday by the chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Srikumar Banerjee, at the 55th annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The link also says:

Banerjee informed the global gathering of nuclear leaders that the average capacity factor of the nuclear reactors in India was currently more than 80 percent – and seven of them had even exceeded 90 percent.

Now will you still say:

AEC chairman did not say that.

But anyway as usual a debate with you gets childish after some time. I'll let you live with your conspiracy theories and wild allegations. I must say they count for something when one wants some entertainment.

Cheers!


Added later:

Sorry Sir-ji, kindly do not misquote or misrepresent. When I say "energy" I mean "energy" and not "nuclear energy" or "djinn energy" or some other energy.

The misquoted portion:

Overall, the nuclear energy generation, despite making significant progress in terms of Nuclear energy generation, remains a small %. And why is that? Because essentially the current size of nuclear plant generation is "modest"

[Sanku]

Amit, just what are you talking about? I have no first clue as to what trying to cobble together words from different sentences to make a story which is as weird as justifications by Man mohan on the issue of bribing MPs in parliament during 123 vote.

Let me repeat,
1) the external yellow cake need was always a issue created by mismanagement of internal resources specifically post 2006.
2) the external yellow cake requirements were never critical since internal requirements are enough
3) the recent improvement in reactor utlization are to do with recent improvement in domestic fuel generation to a great degree as well.
4) The strategic sector does not use imported nuclear material anyway, the imported fuel, is only for commercial plants, some of which get direct fuel rods from outside (Russian ones) and have no cross-linkages with strategic sector.

Overall message?

External yellow cake is not really a issue, a small delta this way or that, but hardly the BIG thing that some people are making it out to be.

And no Shri Banarjee has not said what you claim he said.

And the moral -- stick to what has been said, and not what you think has been said, no useful discussion that way.

[member_21708]

Experts Say Uranium Shortage by 2014: Reality, It’s Already Here?

There could be a uranium shortage by 2014 though in actuality there is already a shortfall. He notes that in 2010 global demand for uranium was 65,000 tonnes while only 53,663 tonnes were mined. The difference (11,337 tonnes) was derived though an agreement with Russia that transforms demilitarized uranium into usable nuclear fuel. The caveat here is that this agreement is set to end in 2013 -- so how then will supply meet demand when it appears that uranium miners will not be able to make up for the deficit?

http://www.uraniumblog.com/2012/01/expe ... -here.html

[JTull]

Sanku, upon speaking to a former insider at NPC, the fuel shortage had been there for over two decades. Several projects were not being sanctioned because of shortage despite completing all site clearances and site development. There are several instances where big equipments (like reactor cores, shields, boliers, etc) of being mothballed as previous orders (as early as early 90s) were made without consideration of fuel supply. Govt. prevented excavation to begin at couple of sites despite sanctioning the projects. Once new reactors started going online in early part of last decade the shortage became acute and all (not most and not some, but all) PHWRs were running below capacity (some less than 50%). 2006 wasn't any special year in this context. Shortage was there well before that and only now that utilisation factors have gone up.

You can take my word for it or you may not. My first and last post on the subject.

[Sanku]

You can take my word for it or you may not. My first and last post on the subject.

Thanks for the inputs JTull. I wont reply further, since clearly you want this to be dragged about in discussion.

[Prem]

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-e ... nt-2-1.jpg
India’s Government Grudgingly Releases Report on Nuclear Power’s Effect on Human Health

After being in denial for years, last month the selfsame Department of Atomic Energy for the first time admitted that the deaths of its employees and their dependents at the Kalpakkam nuclear site were caused by multiple myeloma, a rare form of bone marrow cancer linked to nuclear radiation.
Not that the DAE willingly divulged the information – it came to light in response to a Right to Information (RTI) inquiry from October 2011, with the DAE acknowledging that nine people, including three employees working at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam, 44 miles from Chennai, died of multiple myeloma and bone cancer between 1995 and 2011. The DAE had previously stonewalled all previous requests for information.The report paints a troubling picture of the policies at the DAE, which sends out high-ranking officials with bland assurances for the public about the nation’s NPPs while privately compiling reports about their health effects, concerns that can only grow as New Delhi presses forward with its nuclear program. Furthermore, the statements that Indian NPPs can withstand earthquakes and tsunamis, made in a country vulnerable to both, smacks of more than a little hubris, as Tokyo Electric and Power Co. made similar pronouncements before the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami destroyed its Fukushima Daichi nuclear power complex.
But rising to the occasion, on 6 January the project director of the Kalpakkam Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research, Prabhat Kumar, asserted that the recent “Thane” storm proved without doubt the “foolproof safety, safe technology and design, concrete stability, and enviable worth of all nuclear power plants.”
But as for the Japanese following nuclear events in India, what can they conclude if “totally secured as per international standards” NPPs nevertheless caused cancer deaths from radiation? Given the immense releases of nuclear material from Fukushima, what will the country’s health profile look like decades from now?
Opposition to India’s nuclear power program is growing, most notably at Kudankulam. Accordingly, given the projected scope of India’s proposed nuclear future, the country may well prove to be either the salvation or graveyard of nuclear power worldwide.And one can only wonder what other reports the DAE is sitting on. While no doubt all Indians without electricity would like a light bulb, is appeal is considerably diminished if its hanging over one’s hospital bed years from now as one slowly expires from radiation-induced cancer.
Accordingly, the fishermen protesting the Kudankulam NPP could be doing their fellow countrymen a greater service than they currently realize.

[Theo_Fidel]

- Lets keep in mind the main reason DAE can claim 80% PLF with a straight face is because several reactors have been 'de-rated' to a lower power level.
- India imports on the order of 1000 tonnes of Uranium annually, much of it enriched. This is a rounding error for the exporters. It is the oddity of India that even after increasing PLF by 40% nuclear power is less than 2% of electricity generation.
- WRT oil imports, there are fundamental differences. For one anyone can use oil and there is an open world market for it despite cartels. Uranium has a political cartel in charge. If say Santorum comes to power in 12 months nothing stops him from denying India Uranium unless we change say our abortion laws. If you think this can't happen look up a certain George. W. Bush. Also WRT oil. We import roughly 3 million barrels per day. Or roughly 1 billion barrels per year. This is the equivalent of 1 Billion MW at 40% efficiency. 1 billion/365x24x.8 (plf) ~ 142,000 MWHR equivalent of power for India. Yes in electricity equivalent we get an energy equal to our entire Electricity production from oil. At which point one grimaces and bears with it. But yes at some point we will have to deal with that as well. Still Nuclear is not in the same league as oil.
- The DAE's stance on the rare blood cancers that keep turn up around its facilities is that its radiation test don't show elevated background so the cancer rate is not statistically significant. It does this by diluting the sample size with the general population. The key problem is that there is no independent monitoring. The DAE has a mindset that Nuclear is safe at all times only. A counter viewpoint is Nuclear is unsafe at all times only and does not get enough rebuttal time. Truth is somewhere in the middle.

[nachiket]

- Lets keep in mind the main reason DAE can claim 80% PLF with a straight face is because several reactors have been 'de-rated' to a lower power level.

Source?

It is the oddity of India that even after increasing PLF by 40% nuclear power is less than 2% of electricity generation.

Why is it odd? The installed capacity itself is 2% of total. So even if the load factor rises to 100% the share of nuclear power will never go beyond 2% unless new reactors come online. The only thing I find odd is you opposing new reactors on the one hand and then talking about the piddly 2% share of nuclear power.

[krisna]

NGOs receiving foreign funding to fuel anti nuclear protests with dubious intentions-

1) Nagarcoil-based Rural Uplift Centre (RUC)
2) People’s Education for Action and Liberation (PEAL), Madurai, and Good Vision, Nagercoil.
3) Tuticorin Diocesan Association (TDA) of the Latin Catholic Diocese of Tuticorin.
4) The Tuticorin Multi-Purpose Social Service Society (TMSSS)--TMSSS is run by Bishop Yvon Ambroise of Tuticorin who is one of the main persons behind the protests.

[ramana]

Are these the famous four NGOs whose names were top secret because of the good community work they do?

[Theo_Fidel]

I can see why they kept it secret and resort to wild accusations. To accuse CRIN of all such things is breath taking chutzpah. I have to say I'm speechless. Lets keep in mind there is no proof yet. Just wild accusations based on fishing expeditions. I can personally say WRT to Bishop Ambrose that such an accusation is laughable if you knew anything about the man.

[krisna]

What happened to the Rs 94K cr that Indian NGOs received over 17 years?

The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act was passed in 1976. It was repealed and FCRA 2010 was passed along with the Foreign Contribution Regulation Rules 2011. Both became effective from May 1 2011.
They seek to regulate the receipt of funds by NGOs. The FCRA is managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

If an NGO, whether registered or not, receives a contribution in excess of Rs 1 cr (rs 10 million) during a period of 30 days, the bank has to report this to the central government within 30 days of the date of such last transaction.

The NGO has to annually submit audited receipts, payments account, balance sheet etc to the ministry. The MHA scrutinises the returns to ensure that contributions received for a particular purpose are used for that purpose only. It does a detailed check of randomly picked associations and collates the data received to present the FCRA Annual Report [uploaded on http://mha.nic.in/fcra.htm].

The associations could be religious, social, educational, cultural or educational organisations. MHA wants to ensure that foreign contributions are utilized for bona fide activities and do not compromise national security.

( If the named christian NGOs by GOI comes under this category they could be in serious trouble)

In 2009-10, 7,275 of the 21,508 associations who submitted their accounts did not receive any foreign contributions. This means thatonly 46 per cent of the associations who received foreign contributions filed their annual returns with MHA. Hence, the actual amount of contributions received by NGOs would be much higher than Rs 10,338 cr (Rs 103.38 billion) reported above.

Is such unreported contribution being used for money laundering, terrorist activities or funding protests as mentioned by Prime Minister Singh?

The top three donor countries for many years have been USA, Germany, and UK. Remittances from the U.S. between 2002-03 and 2009-10 have nearly doubled. Despite the economic downturn, the West has continued contributions to Indian NGOs? Why?

Spain and Italy are in dire economic straits, Britain had a fiscal deficit of 11% of GDP in 2009-10 yet they remitted over Rs 1000 crs to Indian NGOs per annum.

Significantly, barring the UAE, all countries listed above belong to the West. Media reports indicate that some countries in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia, made large remittances to India, but these contributions are not listed officially. They are either not coming, or are coming through the hawala route.

Most of the reported inflows are concentrated in the four southern states, Delhi and Maharashtra. Why?

Tamil Nadu and Chennai district have been amongst the largest recipient of foreign money for many years now. This was known to the Government all along. So why has the PMO woken up to the perils of foreign money now?

Because foreign money has been used to delay commissioning the Koodankulam nuclear power plant? As we have seen in the past, any policy matter that has the words 'nuclear', such as nuclear power or Indo US Nuclear deal, makes the Prime Minister unnaturally assertive and stubborn, notwithstanding threats from UPA allies.

Lot of unanswered questions.
nearly 90% of foreign money comes to christian orgs compared to non christian ones. desert religion thru hawala and is difficult to estimate.
some where I read over the internet (forgot the link), what in one year christian ngos receives , it takes more than 10 years for non christian ngos to equal it.

[krisna]

NGO mischief goes beyond N-plants

Over a dozen crucial infrastructure, power and mining projects worth Rs 30,000 crore are stuck because of the silly objections and roadblocks raised by various NGOs in many part of the country. All of them are working in the areas of environment, health and children welfare. They have also been receiving money from abroad and are misusing these funds for the purpose of blocking developmental activities. A large of number of them have also been accused of settling scores against those who opposed the UPA government. Some other NGOs have been charged with or have been accused of forcible religious conversions in some communally sensitive states. Truthfully speaking, NGOs have become the most powerful pressure groups for settling intra-sector or intra-party disputes. In fact, the growth of the NGO is never affected by the economic fluctuations of an economy. On the contrary, it thrives on natural calamities, economic deprivation and human conflicts. While the number of NGOs has risen by over 100 per cent over the past decade, their funds have grown by almost 500 per cent. According to unofficial estimates, there are over 2.5 million NGOs operating in India, who directly or indirectly employ around 20 million people. In other words, there is one NGO for every 500 people in India, as against one doctor for 1,000 persons. These NGOs raise amounts varying between Rs 80 crore to Rs 40,000 crore annually. Over 21,000 NGOs collectively received foreign contributions to the tune of over Rs 49,968 crore during 2005-06 to 2009-10. The dominance of the NGO sector is the outcome of a liberal democratic set-up. Big corporate houses, retired civil servants or their wives and left-of-the-centre intellectuals have set up most of these organisations. Rebels by nature and opulent by lifestyle, a large majority of them have always been working against liberal economic policies and nationalist culture. They have, knowingly or unknowingly, been used by the ruling party to target its opponents in every state. Now, when its most pampered monster threatens mayhem, the UPA has unleashed all its weaponry to go for the kill shot.

Undoubtedly, foreign-funded and controlled NGOs pose a serious threat to India’s economic growth, political stability and cultural harmony. The success of the government lies in taming them, irrespective of the colour of the causes they espouse or oppose.

[ramana]

Isn't that almost half of 2G scam though spread over 17 years?

Interesting slide:

List of donors and amount



List of reciepients and amounts


Mission Statements of some donors

[krisna]

I can see why they kept it secret and resort to wild accusations. To accuse CRIN of all such things is breath taking chutzpah. I have to say I'm speechless. Lets keep in mind there is no proof yet. Just wild accusations based on fishing expeditions. I can personally say WRT to Bishop Ambrose that such an accusation is laughable if you knew anything about the man.

The GOI has been scrutinising their activities for some time. Normally PMO does not invovle in these aspects. in fact MMS hardly ever opens his mouth. he makes politically correct and innocous statements.
Last I recall was a private conversation regarding china which was leaked thru" TOI editor to the masses. (This is OT here)

Now MMS has said something about these NGOs.
At least GOI has taken its sweet own time to name them unlike non christian NGOs which it says at the drop of a hat for political/communal angle.
Somehow I suspect NGOs will be let off with some fine/warning etc due to may levers in the GOI. They are not communal onlee.
later alz vell.

[arnab]

[quote
AEC chairman did not say that.

AEC chairman said something else viz

because of increased fuel availability both indigenous and imported.

The rest of "123 deal led India to produce 1999099999999 KW per second extra" type of statements are your and arnab's (the two of you) own.

Cheers.

I repeat -- stick to what has been said, and not what you think has been said, no useful discussion that way.

Arrey Sanku ji of course everybody knows the difference between India and Pak and NK; but that doesn't mean that some folks do not have a vicarious admiration for the latter (for instance you have commented on the fact that had India not been a democracy the corrupt political 'turds' would have been in prison)

Amit,

Our mathematically challenged friend is trying to make a case that since 'indigenous and imported uranium' increased the efficiency rates to >90 % - therefore the imported uranium doesn't matter

Afterall if you are primarily interested in the electoral cycle and pretend to know stuff about the nuclear cycle - this is where one ends up

As an analogy - The LCA was conceptualised as an idea in the early 1980s; 30 years later that idea will be translated into a reality when the Tejas is inducted. Over-time this will be the basis for large scale indigenisation of high end defence technology (both imports and technology absorption will have contributed to this end).

Of course nobody made the suggestion that once the indigenous LCA was conceptualised, India should stop importing foreign fighter aircrafts and rely on indigenous technology which was cheaper (the fact that the imports were primarily Russian may have something to do with this).

The same goes for the three stage nuclear cycle that Bhabha envisaged. The role of new and imported technolgy is as important to the nuclear cycle as it was to the LCA development. The methodology of reinventing the wheel must be eschewed if we want India to leapfrog to the big league.

[krisna]

NGOs involved in fund diversion in Kudankulam protests: Chidambaram

Union home minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday refused to attribute allegations of fuelling anti-nuclear protests in Kudankulam against four NGOs. He claimed that he was not aware of what his colleague, minister of state for PMO, V Narayanasamy had said.

Earlier Narayanasamy had blamed 12 NGOs for diverting foreign funds meant for social service causes for anti-nuclear protests in Kudankulam. Clarifying that he has not said a word about Kudankulam, Chidambaram said the cases have been filed against four NGOs after it was found prima facie that they were involved in diversion of foreign funds to different activities.

Sources, however, said that cases against Tuticorin Diocese Association and Nagercoil based Rural Upliftment Centre have been registered by the CBI, while Kanyakumari based Good Vision Trust and Trust for Rural Upliftment and Education have been referred to the TNpolice.

Interesting piece of news-
1) PC distancing from PMO.
2) 12 NGOs blamed but only cases against 4 NGOs filed.
3) more interesting is some filed by TN police and some by CBI.

what to make of it.
Lucky they are christian ngos with deep influence. they will probably be scot free soon.

[Tanaji]

Although not addressed to me, I can't resist adding my own hot air to this discussion:

1) The projected power deficit, requirement of 40,000 MWe nuclear power "additionality", uranium shortage, having visions of impossible-to-achieve-targets etc are, to my mind, exaggerated reasons to justify import of nuclear (and/or some other as-yet-unknown-to-me) technology. I carry the impression that in GOI (and perhaps even amongst the "thinking population" of our country) there is a significantly powerful segment that feels imported nuclear plants are better than indigenous ones.

That may be true. The other way to look at it is the whole thing would not have come to pass had DAE been able to successfully design, test and commission a > 500 MW reactor design. For whatever reasons despite claiming competence, it has not delivered. Given our precarious power situation currently, and also taking into consideration the availability of fuels such as gas, oil and coal in the future at an acceptable cost, do you blame the GoI for going in for imported reactors? It may not be a question of foreign is better, rather simple question of lack of a indigenous alternative. The real question to ask here is why has DAE failed to deliver higher capacity reactors?

It is a myth that imported npps can be constructed more quickly than indigenous ones. Not too many countries as yet have 1000 MWe or larger sized npp units; I think Canada, for instance, does not have one. Large sized (1000 MWe or more) npp units have their downside also, particularly in India, where, as of now, the Grids are not very large and stable. So, I feel construction of 1000 MWe plants may not be a panacea for our electricity demand situation.

Agreed, imported ones cant be constructed more quickly. But imported ones are bigger and denser than indigenous ones so if one looks at watts delivered per unit time, the imported ones are still ahead. This is especially true for us given the problems in land acquisition and NGOs for hire and tools like Udaykumar that rent themselves out to the highest bidder

3) My worry and apprehension is that once the 'lollipop' of an imported npp is allowed into the country, the all-too-eager-to-import bureaucracy would further stifle indigenous development, because it is always the easier and "safer" (one's career/job protection-wise) path. My contention is that, notwithstanding all kinds of promises that indigenous development will "go hand in hand" with construction of imported reactors) the reality most likely would be that imports will flourish because it is the easier path, and local technology development will get much lower priority and will ultimately get killed.

That is certainly one possible outcome. But if I were to use your logic we should never have signed a MMRCA deal for the fear that LCA will get scrapped and the MCA development will be on the back burner. We should never have opened up our oil sector for exploration and a myriad other examples. In short it is back to PSU days.. Nothing is perfect but let not the fear of unknown future sabotage our present.

4) In my understanding, use of enriched Uranium in LWRs for land based npps is not eco-friendly. To generate the same amount of MWe, more Uranium ore would be required to be mined for an LWR compared to the highly neutron economical PHWR with fuel reprocessing to reuse the Pu. It hardly matters whether this ore comes from India, or from anywhere else on the earth, it is still a sub-optimal use of natural resource, particularly when better solutions exist.

I am not an expert but let me grant you that point. Since you say "currently existing better solutions" can you give me an example of an indigenous PHWR that is ready at > 500 MW capacities? I dont think there is one.

5) When importing, almost all countires resort to protectionism of their strategic assets. Mr Obama, may perhaps consider himself duty bound to resist outsourcing of IT and other jobs to India. So why should we not take necessary steps to protect our family silver, namely indigenously developed nuclear technology?

How does importing steal the family server? Are we signing away in the treaty details of the thorium programme? Besides if Theo_fidel is to be believed we dont have any family server anyway: as per him DAE is stupid and duping everyone since they havent been able to get a working thorium reactor... so what family server? You guys cant have it both ways...

6) Before I end this post, I would like to present a scenario. Suppose the nuclear deal had not been entered into. Then there would not have been this artificial "civilian-military separation". Then, the Koodangulam plant site would have carried the tag of "strategic property". In that situation, options available to GOI to overcome the recalcitrant and agitational approach of a few NGOs, and get the plant up and running might have been totally different and more effective.

JMT.

You left out the bit where these "strategic" reactors all operate at 40% , do not generate designed power are inefficient and deliver a power at a cost that is prohibitive.

[Tanaji]

I can see why they kept it secret and resort to wild accusations. To accuse CRIN of all such things is breath taking chutzpah. I have to say I'm speechless. Lets keep in mind there is no proof yet. Just wild accusations based on fishing expeditions. I can personally say WRT to Bishop Ambrose that such an accusation is laughable if you knew anything about the man.

So.... raising questions on funding is wild accusations, especially given that PM himself has stated it (its unlikely he a PM will make such allegations without basis) but going on fishing expeditions by Udaykumar and asking sensitive questions unrelated to the project is not? What about statements such as "we will meet all shortfalls by windpower / solar power" by Udaykumar, are they wild enough for you?

[Tanaji]

Good to see amit back... I was a bit "Bemused" to see him on this thread though...

[negi]

[Philip]

I can personally vouch for how NGO's "thrive " on disaster.In the aftermath of the Asian tsunami,which I missed being a victim by 24 hours,I returned to SL a few months later and was consulted by a particular ministry as to how an accelerated programme could be worked out in the affected areas to restore normality asap.The Indian armed forces had already done a magnificent job of rescue,removal,repair and basic rehabilitation,so that when the US Marines landed over a month later,there was nothing for them to do at all!

The first sight that greeted me was my 5* hotel filled to bursting point with NGOs from all over the world.There was not a single room in town available.Since my (non-NGO) group had extra rooms,we gave one to two Buddhist ladies from Thailand desperate for a room,who had brought a huge amount of money to be given to the affected.Like cockroaches,the NGOs infested the island's hotels and disaster areas.I mentioned earlier how busloads of aging US "Peace Corps" types were trying to convert the afflicted "down south"! Open discussions in the hotel lobbies and lounges about the deals that could be made were common.The poor GOSL was besieged by the NGO invasion and didn't know where to turn .The inevitable chaos and confusion resulted in total stagnation,with competing NGOs sabotaging the chances of their rivals,paralysing the GOSL which desperately needed much money for rehabilitation work to start.The NGO's like locusts preyed upon their victim and when they found that they had stripped the tree bare of its leaves,most left just as they had come,hardly scratching the surface of the affected areas with concrete relief projects,but however left behind many parasitic "human rights" species which exist in the island even today trying to destabilise the GOSL!

It was past time for the crackdown upon the NGOs.While freedom of blah,blah,democracy,etc.,etc., is all very well,and many indigenous NGOs do play a very useful role in the country,watchdogs to prevent rampant landgrabbing and devious "schemes" supposedly for the poor but meant to enrich the powerful,the funding of many NGOs by firang purses has a definite vested interest to scuttle India's development and steer it into a perpetual "borrower" of firang money and aid and keep it technologically still if possible at "turd world" levels,where as in the N-deal,we abandon our unique indigenous masterplan based upon our natural resources of fuel,to buy at phenomenal expense foreign fuel and reactors,some with serious doubts about their safety.The KKM agitations however were foreign funded and led and the chickens are now coming home to roost for the guilty NGOs,who thought all along,many of them at least,that their cassocks,surplices and crucifixes would prevent them from being hauled up to the bright light of expose!