India Nuclear News And Discussion

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 18:53

I thought one thing that can be done with absolute certainty was measuring the amount of radiation in a spot. Does the paper specify the increased levels of radiation when it claims that "radioactivity has resulted in temperature rise"? IF not, why not?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Apr 2011 18:55

amit wrote:^^^^^
Can we afford to junk nuclear from our energy mix?

That is indeed the crux of the issue which various essays above fails to address.

Sorry to say but apart from Theo everybody else has been waffling on this issue and so we are seeing various kinds of argumentative gymnastics being performed.

For eg supporting BC when he rants about lack of competitive bidding and then suggesting dumping the deal and depending only on a special monopolistic relationship with Russia for nuclear reactors! And the example touted is Pak dependence on China! Some posts here look as if they are straight out of Ripleys Believe it or Not!

Anyone directly involved with the nuclear industry here? All others are talking out of google and some access to some papers. The large majority of analysis typically support the inevitability of nuclear in the mix - out of two considerations, either because of supposed current higher costs of setting up alternative energy sources, and carbon emission considerations - in meeting projected energy demands in India. The cost of environmental disasters, or radiation poisoning of people and environment are a grey zone of risk calculation. Moreover, the purely financial/actuarial POV and calculations may not reflect the actual compensatory and mitigation mechanisms in place or promised to be put in place. The political impact of people's perceptions may be even further nebulous.

It is not a bad idea to keep as many different sources of power generation in hand as possible, but some of us seem to be making nuclear the core source to be relied on. Given the costs of fallout, and projection about alternative energy costs going lower in the future both nuclear and non-nuclear should be pursued.

Many alternative power sources/stations could by their very nature be vulnerable to natural catastrophes themselves - like wind-power say. Large scale solar reflector - salt heat storage power systems could similarly be vulnerable to seismic activities or acts of war. A nuclear power plant could be made more secure to such things on the other hand. But given radiation hazards, I think it should be treated like a minimal backup and reserve core - rather than the mainstay - which would have to then increase the scale of the system massively with corresponding increasing radiation hazards.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Apr 2011 18:59

excuse me, but time to ask: "Who was Sita?"

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 19:00

However having said the above, say we need to have ADDITIONAL Nuclear NPPs from Russia, would that come in the way? In terms of real politic not. This would be a issue that would need to be worked out, however given that in the past Russia had made some excuse or the other and carried out the trade anyway, there is no reason to assume the same can not be done again.

If we see the China-Pakistan trade they happily give the NSG/IAEA a bye-bye and go ahead. So what does that tell us about the utility of NSG or IAEA.

Saar, Russia has already said they wont sell any more NPPs/fuel without a NSG sanction. You may think they will, but right now they seem to be saying something opposite. And we should then be 100% reliant on them for this, given the past history of price escalation in defence purchases?

As for China-Pak yes, true. IAEA never stopped China from proliferating nukes to PAk either. Pak does have such a "friend" that does not care for such treaties. Please list a similar friend for India that currently exists, and is willing to contravene existing IAEA/NSG guidelines. Our reactors were running at 50-60% capacity, precisely due to lack of such a friend. So yes, as far as Pak-China is concerned, NSG is something to be ignored, for us though, it is very real.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Apr 2011 19:05

Guruprabhu ji,
In using [

]'s I thought I was in august company, because it is liberally used by some data-driven supporters of nuclear power. I do support nuclear-power as I have stated already.

Your paper's pie chart produced 33%industry. The industry+commercial sector makes up 40%. Agriculture 25%, and 7% traction which contributes to both agriculture and industry no doubt. 25% residential.

It still makes industry+agriculture+commerce the major consumer, and hence I do not see any need to revise my statement that all the commons indirectly share in this sector of consumption.

You may not agree to all parts of all papers, and agree to only that part that supports your views. That is not ideal but understandable. If the author has pushed for unreliable data-points and arguments in one part - what makes his other parts impeccable? Anyway! I do not think I started out by declaring you as belonging to some "classification" of posters, but merely pointed out that your quoted paper contains a section which is similar in content to what has been declared to be "unknowable unknowns fear" pushed by green terrorists. This was neither any aspersion on you or your arguments about nuclear power.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Apr 2011 19:12

amit wrote: Sorry to say but apart from Theo everybody else has been waffling on this issue and so we are seeing various kinds of argumentative gymnastics being performed.

It would be so much more sensible to discuss energy issues if those who oppose nuclear power were to provide their own energy mix for the 2050 time frame. I have not seen this yet, either in the media or on BRF, even from Theo.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 19:21

GuruPrabhu wrote:excuse me, but time to ask: "Who was Sita?"

True. It seems we are destined for another round of base load and peak load discussion. Sigh!

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 19:24

GuruPrabhu wrote:
amit wrote: Sorry to say but apart from Theo everybody else has been waffling on this issue and so we are seeing various kinds of argumentative gymnastics being performed.
It would be so much more sensible to discuss energy issues if those who oppose nuclear power were to provide their own energy mix for the 2050 time frame. I have not seen this yet, either in the media or on BRF, even from
Theo.

True. But my point is Theo at least has the conviction to say ALL NPP is bad. I don't agree but I respect his unambigious stand.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 19:33

Tanaji wrote:Saar, Russia has already said they wont sell any more NPPs/fuel without a NSG sanction.

Tanaji, the Russian VVER deal pre-123 is very similar to the Chinese deal with Pak...An exceptional "exception" taken from NSG in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink version...You are right, Russia made it very clear that its "this far and no further"...the political/diplomatic energies spent in securing these one-off deals far outweigh the economic benefits, at least for India...

In the Sino-Pak case, Pak doesnt need more than a couple of reactors, that are anyway going to be used in some way or another for their military programme..For India, with much larger aspirations, a "clean waiver" from NSG was needed...

As for the rest - fuel, trade et al - as GP said, "who is sita"?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 19:41

GuruPrabhu wrote:It would be so much more sensible to discuss energy issues if those who oppose nuclear power were to provide their own energy mix for the 2050 time frame

The reason is simple..At current level of "knowns" in technology, stripping out nuke globally (or in India) only means one line of strategy - "pray"...Either for new discoveries of coal/gas, or a Eureka moment in "alternates", or indeed, for a shift in people's tastes to the vedic age...Given the probabilites, not sure if the last option is the least plausible or most, I think the latter!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2011 19:51

Tanaji wrote:. Our reactors were running at 50-60% capacity, precisely due to lack of such a friend. .

The Uranium shortage has many fathers. Even if no one wants to own up.

But note, this was in context of energy security, and my point is simple. The imports are not going to add to energy security. Can we tide over the temporary Uranium shortage? Yes we can, but lets please not extrapolate it further.

We are even more sanction prone than before (since there is something than that can be taken away easily) -- and no further on 3 cycle towards Energy independence.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Apr 2011 20:51

The real advantage of the VVER deal was the fuel supply clause. Some thing like 2000 Tonnes IIRC. Very cheap and advantageous when it was signed. Also the exemption applies to the Kudankulam site not to the reactors or fuel as such.

This is why 6 more are proposed there even though the site was acquired only for 4 more. No doubt more land will be needed.

AFA the energy mix in 2050 I've already posted a chart on a energy mix to 2100. Kinda convenient that it is being ignored. How about the nuclear types post their energy mix for 2050. And show one where nuclear, you know, saves the planet by taking on 60% of demand. Doesn't exist. You don't say!

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 20:56

Didnt your chart have 40% or so solar in 2100?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Apr 2011 23:04

somnath wrote:<snip>

I would give very high marks to the UPA-II dipensation for its handling of the Fukushima aftermath...they played it by the book..

<snip> ...

I wish the govt showed similar surefootedness in handling some of the other issues as well

Somnath, thanks for this and many other very informative posts. Thanks to GuruPrabhu too for the same reason.

Here is x-post from the other dhaga:
Indian response to safety calls

Indian leaders are preparing to reassess some aspects of nuclear policy following the Fukushima accident and violent protests against a proposed nuclear plant at Jaitapur.

Yesterday the Indian government announced it would table a new nuclear safety law to create an autonomous nuclear regulatory body in the country and it would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) operational safety review team (OSART) to help with future Indian nuclear industry safety reviews and audits. These measures would bring it into line with practice around the world, where nuclear safety is recognised as an area where neither business nor politics should have influence.

The Indian government also said it would incorporate "standalone safety systems" in the design of each reactor in Jaitapur in Maharastra. The move follows intensifying demonstrations near the planned site, with one person being killed and 20 others injured on 18 April when police opened fire on an angry local population which attacked a police station in parallel with a planned demonstration at the plant site.

In addition, India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh, a member of the government's dominant Congress party, had been shifting in his public statements over nuclear safety in general and Jaitapur in particular. In his most recent pronouncement, on 23 April in Ludhiana, Punjab, he said: "The [Jaitapur] nuclear plant issue is a wakeup call after Fukushima and we cannot ignore the panic of the residents." Furthermore, he advocated a "pause button for the time being" on approving new nuclear plants. On 15 April, he clarified his position on Jaitapur: he had not "called for a re-think, I have called for a deeper thinking."

India has plans to increase its nuclear power capacity from the present 4780 MWe to 20,000 MWe by the year 2020 with the expansion of capacity to include 2500 MWe of fast breeder reactors and 8000 MWe of light water reactors. However, the Japanese crisis and the Jaitapur dispute have caused anxiety in the industry. Madhukar Vinayak Kotwal, senior executive vice president – heavy engineering for Larsen & Toubro, said that he was concerned that misinformation was being spread through the Jaitapur protests. "I just hope that the protesters do not derail the entire nuclear program, which is vital for the energy needs of the country," he told World Nuclear News.

Indeed some protesters are insisting on complete rollback. "All the new nuclear plants that are being proposed should be scrapped and all the existing nuclear plants be gradually shut down," said Neeraj Jain, an organiser for India's National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements. He said his group's strategy was aimed at persuading the central government that nuclear power is so unpopular, it supports the industry at its electoral peril. "It has to come from the prime minister's office and only public pressure can force a change like in Germany," he said.

However, in Maharashtra state, the chief minister Prithviraj Chavan (also a Congress party member) has already ruled out any possibility of abandoning the Jaitapur proposal. "We are determined to complete the project and that too on schedule," he told Mumbai journalists on 21 April.

Kameswara Rao, energy and utilities leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers India, stressed that there was positive political capital associated with India's nuclear industry and that this could win the day in government assessments of future policy. He noted India's indigenous nuclear program had a good safety record and the imported reactors that will form part of the planned capacity expansion use the latest technology.

He backed the government's latest announcement, saying there is a need for an independent nuclear sector regulator in India, periodic reassessments of safety, and more safety related information in the public domain.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Apr 2011 23:41

Consolidation for US nuclear generators

Exelon and Constellation Energy have announced a $7.9 billion merger. Under the name Exelon, the resulting firm will be America's largest generator of nuclear power by an even greater margin.
<snip>

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 29 Apr 2011 01:00

Shyamji,

The warnings are all mind games: though PRC is capable of causing damage unless we take a very strong deterrent stand along the lines that "any limited military strike on our strat. prog. will lead to an all out response irrespective of the consequences". Once such a stand is firmly taken, they can at most condemn us verbally in the event of our retesting.
The other option they have is to cause a conventional small scale tactical embarrassment at the border.

In the long run, we must test. We do not have an ally that plays the role PRC plays for TSP. I therefore, do not believe there is any way out of testing. At least as important is the necessity to systematically test and deploy the A-II, A-III and above in substantial quantity. A-II/III for starters. Tests of A-I, A-II and K-15 should have happened by this month. But no sign so far. This is not good.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 06:07

Theo_Fidel wrote:The real advantage of the VVER deal was the fuel supply clause. Some thing like 2000 Tonnes IIRC. Very cheap and advantageous when it was signed. Also the exemption applies to the Kudankulam site not to the reactors or fuel as such.

This is why 6 more are proposed there even though the site was acquired only for 4 more. No doubt more land will be needed.

AFA the energy mix in 2050 I've already posted a chart on a energy mix to 2100. Kinda convenient that it is being ignored. How about the nuclear types post their energy mix for 2050. And show one where nuclear, you know, saves the planet by taking on 60% of demand. Doesn't exist. You don't say!

what was the "fuel supply clause" in the VVER deal, pre 2008? how was it "very cheap and advantageoeous"?

It is absolutely wrong that the NSG exemption was for the "site"...That was the interpretation that the Indian side had been trying to sell, but no one, Russians included bought that...The Russians were very clear - this 2, and no more till we get NSG clearances...Absent the nuke deal, VVER would have been a bit of a millstone...Not scalable and dependent on one supplier for fuel! (even if its Russia, it only would have left us exposed to any random price demands, of the sort that Russians are well known for!)..

People forget how much political energies had to be regularly spent to procire fuel for Tarapur - we had to beg, borrow and scrounge periodically - from Russia, from China (!!) just to keep the one small reactor going..

BTW, on the energy mix 2050, it would be good if you can repost that again...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 06:09

Here is one projected scenario for 2030. The numbers were generated in 2007. Read it as: 2007 -> (current levels) -> 2030

Thermal 84 -> (112) -> 390 GW
Hyd-el 34 -> (37) -> 150 GW
Renewable 6 -> (12) -> 97 GW
Nuke 3.9 -> (4.8 ) -> 63 GW

Total 128 -> (166) -> 700 GW

I will not state the source for these numbers just yet. Let folks criticize without the baggage of prejudice.

Also, let's do it in steps. 2030 is not controversial regarding availability of coal. 2050 is dicey. I will post the 2050 scenario later.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 06:46

For a more accurate snapshot, see: http://indianpowersector.com/

My renewable numbers above did not include:

Small-scale Hydro = 2.9 GW and Bio-mass/gas = 2.3 GW

So, the total is 173.6 (the numbers in my earlier post add up to only 166 GW -- there is some round-off error as well -- but you get the idea).

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 07:45

GuruPrabhu wrote:Also, let's do it in steps. 2030 is not controversial regarding availability of coal. 2050 is dicey. I will post the 2050 scenario later

As a persective, Coal India is already in the process of buying mines in Indonesia and Australia. Why? Because supplies are getting constrained in India...It would be useful to trasnpose the cost of generating power, pithead, domestic trasnported and imported coal..As well as the other sources - that would give some estimates to go by..

Pithead coal
The checquered Sasan UMPP is with Reliance @ 1.2/unit..(for a moment lets ignore the "excess coal" subsidy given post facto to them by the govt!)..
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070731/a ... 128816.asp

Imported coal
Krishnapatnam UMPP, the "model port-based" power plant based on imported coal, again with Reliance. Winning bid @ 2.33/unit..(again for a moment ignoring the concessions on the port development packaged along with the project, post facto!)..
http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/30/stories ... 191700.htm

Gas
Trickier, as gas pricing is very volatile..But bids have been won @ 2.7-3.2/unit..To be honest, these numbers are underballed, depends on govt under-recoveries on ga prices in most cases...Real costs delivered at much higher, @ 4-5/unit..
http://www.crisil.com/pdf/infra-advisor ... n-cris.pdf

We have seen various estimates of nuclear power costs on this thread, incl from the EPR...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 09:13

somnath wrote:BTW, on the energy mix 2050, it would be good if you can repost that again...

I do recall seeing that graph. Can't find it now. Would be good to post again and critique. I believe that 2030 data can be extracted from that stacked graph as well.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 10:03

We shouuld also superimpose expected price levels of gas and coal on the projections, that would make the comparisons more like-to-like...

On a separate note, there was a lot of chest-beating about "sellout, MMS US agent" after the 123..they said we will buy 50 reactors from satan, we will do foreign policy by diktat from US, we will buy the MMRCA...Well, well...No commercial contract yet with the US on nukes...No towing Us lines on Iran or Myanmar..Heck, even the MMRCA contract is now given to the Europeans!

We must still conclude that MMS is a US agent, and the US is intent upon "destroying" India, no debates

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 10:19

All those who are so convinced of our apparently new found nuclear leverage should think of what would happen say TSP attacks us again, say with a dirty bomb and we mobilize to retaliate.

Sanctions would come done on our heads so quick our much prized $150 Billion reactors will be dead in the water in under 6 months. Uranium is a very small portion of world trade. It can also be very easily stored long term and there is no pressure to sell. I remember the shame inflicted on many of us working in the US when the 1998 sanctions were imposed. Many of us were frog marched to the gates of US facilities and abandoned. People here fool themselves if they think that can't happen again. It was so easy for the US last time. Nothing has changed.

WRT the VVER's even the first two reactors were originally outlawed by the NSG. Russia ignored the NSG objections to supply us the reactors. The Russians always wanted to sell more reactors on that precedent , even signed MOU's to do so but India was confident we'd get the waiver by then so we didn't press the issue with the Russians. If it ever came down to it we could have paid more to get the Russians to agree as we did for the first 2 reactors.

Also for Kudankulam we have a lifetime sovereign fuel supply guarantee , namely sanction free. No other reactor in our fleet enjoys that advantage. Trying getting that guarantee from the French building the EPR, in fact the nuclear boosters on here should try that and see how far they get.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Apr 2011 10:29

Theo_Fidel wrote:All those who are so convinced of our apparently new found nuclear leverage should think of what would happen say TSP attacks us again, say with a dirty bomb and we mobilize to retaliate.

Sanctions would come done on our heads so quick our much prized $150 Billion reactors will be dead in the water in under 6 months.

Sorry Theo - Can you elaborate why sanctions would be imposed? Does the 123 Agreement contradict India's NFU policy?
Second, Areva has recently signed a 25 year guaranteed fuel supply agreement with DAE. They have also asked for Indian investment in their uranium mines in Mongolia and Kazhaksthan - a direct impact of the NSG waiver.

Re Russian 'soverign guarantees'. I'm afraid such guarantees are only as strong as the soverign. Cryogenic Engines come to mind for e.g.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 10:56

arnab wrote:Can you elaborate why sanctions would be imposed? Does the 123 Agreement contradict India's NFU policy

Arnab, sanctions are a sovereign prerogative...No treaty, no agreement can prevent sanctions...The NSG waiver effectively immunises us against such decisions taken by one country - so no one joker can stall the entire business...Which wasnt the case in 1974, or 1998! the genie, once uncorked, canot go back in...That is the simple issue!

And yes, in many cases, supply of reactors would come with "g'teed fuel supply"..For Russia, given that the VVER is being exported by Rosatom, the fuel supply is "overeign g'teed"! Tomorrow if NPCIL were to export its reactors to (say) Bangladesh, we would probably have Indian "sovereign g'tee" supplies of fuel, since NPCIL is a state-owned entity...

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 10:56

This has been discussed before but the 123 agreement is built on several Indian guarantees, NFU is not one of them. Our right to respond is not guaranteed. There is no way the NSG group will not sanction a response by India or a mobilization to weaponize by India. Remember they were getting ready to sanction us if we responded along the international border during Kargil. The spirit of 123 for instance can be seen from its refusal to let us stockpile fuel to avoid the pain of sanctions. Waivers can be easily withdrawn if it came down to it. The bottom line is we are not even a full member of the NSG, just a supplicant.

WRT the GSLV cryogenics there was no sovereign guarantee. Even after the 1998 tests the Kudankulam fuel supply was never in jeopardy. Similarly the Areva fuel agreement is between 2 commercial entities. The French Govt. can always intervene. Kudankulam is between Russian Govt. & GOI directly. Despite your skepticism sovereign guarantees are not easily given or revoked. Kudankulam was built and supplied through the teeth of NSG disapproval.

That agreement with Kazakhstan is promising, esp. the mining part. The crucial thing will be if they let us buy the actual mine rather than just equity partner. Nothing has happened yet.

Meanwhile...
I have said previously that these reactors will probably never be built. The ground level opposition is becoming quite fierce. This is the first salvo in this battle...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 73712.html

India Holds Back Approval for Four Nuclear Reactors

India's environment ministry Thursday deferred approval for four nuclear reactors being built by state-run Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., signaling a likely tightening of regulations following the recent nuclear crisis in Japan and protests at home.

A panel set up by the environment ministry cited environmental hazards and the need for a fresh risk assessment while holding back clearance for the reactors at the Kudankulam Atomic Power Project in Tamil Nadu state.

The committee said a proposal to dispose of water into the sea after being used in cooling systems isn't acceptable due to "various environmental problems, including the adverse impact on marine life."

Reports handed in by NPCIL on the project's environmental impact don't contain fresh data after 2004 and need to be resubmitted to include marine life and disaster management plans, considering the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan, the panel said.

"Overall, the reports submitted were not readable and far below the basic requirements for consideration of coastal regulation zone clearance," the panel said, adding that the clearances have been deferred and will be reconsidered after the issues raised are addressed.

The deferral of additional clearances for units three, four, five and six at Kudankulam will exacerbate state-run monopoly NPCIL's problems emanating from public resistance to nuclear energy.

With that background, the environment ministry's move Thursday to hold back clearance for the Tamil Nadu project is likely part of the federal government's attempts to bolster confidence in nuclear energy by tightening safety regulations, revamping the country's nuclear watchdog and increasing the transparency of nuclear policies.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Apr 2011 11:09

Theo_Fidel wrote:This has been discussed before but the 123 agreement is built on several Indian guarantees, NFU is not one of them. Our right to respond is not guaranteed. There is no way the NSG group will not sanction a response by India or a mobilization to weaponize by India. Remember they were getting ready to sanction us if we responded along the international border during Kargil.

eh? During Kargil NSG sanctions already applied. What more would they sanction us with? So if India has not abrogated its NFU policy, why would NSG sanction? Besides, As I see it, the 123 Agreement is confined to the 'civillian' sector and ensuring that the imported maal stays there.

The Dispute Resolution states - both parties have 1 year to convince each other before any steps are taken.

So IMO such fears are unfounded. Besides if India is hit with a nuke - all bets are off anyway. Sanctions won't stop retaliation.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 11:26

arnab wrote:So if India has not abrogated its NFU policy, why would NSG sanction?

Arnab, there is no link between NFU and the NSG exemption...NFU is a strategic doctrine, not an international obligation for India...What is India's obligation is on "testing"..Even if/when we test, if the sanctions are to be fully restored on India, the group has to take a consensus decision..Which means France, UK, of course dear fried Russia, uncle, aunty have to agree..
the NSg draft here..
http://www.hindu.com/nic/rev-nsg-draft.pdf

On what happens if India tests, refer to this..

Participating governments will meet, and then act in accordance with para 16 of the Guidelines..

Which guidelines? Here..
http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/Le ... 071107.pdf

Para16..

In the event that one or more suppliers believe that there has been a violation of
supplier/recipient understanding resulting from these Guidelines, particularly in the
case of an explosion of a nuclear device, or illegal termination or violation of IAEA
safeguards by a recipient, suppliers should consult promptly through diplomatic
channels in order to determine and assess the reality and extent of the alleged
violation. Suppliers are also encouraged to consult where nuclear material or
nuclear fuel cycles activity undeclared to the IAEA or a nuclear explosive activity
is revealed.
− Pending the early outcome of such consultations, suppliers will not act in a manner
that could prejudice any measure that may be adopted by other suppliers concerning
their current contacts with that recipient. Each supplier should also consider
suspending transfers of Trigger List items while consultations under 16(c) are
ongoing, pending supplier agreement on an appropriate response.
− Upon the findings of such consultations, the suppliers, bearing in mind Article XII
of the IAEA Statute, should agree on an appropriate response and possible action,
which could include the termination of nuclear transfers to that recipient.

Without consensus, there is no way anyone's going to be able to inflict damage...Its Game Theoretic, precisely because of that, getting even one guy to break off is a near impossibility...

As GP said, some of this is like "where is sita"?

Theo_Fidel wrote:There is no way the NSG group will not sanction a response by India or a mobilization to weaponize by India. Remember they were getting ready to sanction us if we responded along the international border during Kargil. The spirit of 123 for instance can be seen from its refusal to let us stockpile fuel to avoid the pain of sanctions. Waivers can be easily withdrawn if it came down to it. The bottom line is we are not even a full member of the NSG, just a supplicant

Thats a jumble of different things..

One, NSG has no point of view or role in "mobilisation"..
Two, they cannot possibly have any role in "weaponisation" - we have already weaponised..
Three, Waivers can be withdrawn only be "consensus", which means at the very least dear friedn Russia needs to acquiesce..
Four, the process of getting NSG membership is on - its part of the larger deal...
Five, you dont need to "stockpile" imported fuel..You can run all reactors with foreign fuel while stockpiling domestic fuel...Which is what most NPAs "fear" India will do anyways..

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Apr 2011 11:27

Theo_Fidel wrote:This has been discussed before but the 123 agreement is built on several Indian guarantees, NFU is not one of them. Our right to respond is not guaranteed. There is no way the NSG group will not sanction a response by India or a mobilization to weaponize by India.

Can you explain why a nuclear retaliation to a dirty bomb attack which is directly traced back to the ISI would be considered a violation of NFU?

Do you for a moment doubt that if there's dirty bomb attack in a major Western city which is traced back to Isloo there's not going to be mushroom clouds?

Sorry boss this kind of comments amount to uninformed fear mongering.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Apr 2011 11:30

somnath wrote:Five, you dont need to "stockpile" imported fuel..You can run all reactors with foreign fuel while stockpiling domestic fuel...Which is what most NPAs "fear" India will do anyways..

This was/is one of the main purposes of the nook deal. Domestic fuel can be conserved and used in our strategic program while foreign fuel can be used in civilian nook generation.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 11:39

The Kargil threat was not nuclear more economic. The NSG waiver was built on the US agreement.

The POTUS has the right to suspend the act for any reason. The NSG will not go against the POTUS. IIRC bush specifically told congress that India's right to fuel was just a commitment not a guarantee. The dispute resolution thing is new to me. Does that mean they supply fuel for a year while arguments continue or is it for something else.

In any case the act passed specifically limits our ability to hold a fuel stockpile. There can only be one reason for this.

Our domestic fuel amounts to a hill of beans compared to what we need to import. In any case we don't have the technology to manufacture the fuel rods which is no simple matter in it self.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 11:44

Theo_Fidel wrote:The POTUS has the right to suspend the act for any reason. The NSG will not go against the POTUS.

So all the balance 44 countries told you so? Or have they given such a commitment?

Why dont you go through the actual drafts of the agreement with NSG and the relevant docs - posted above...All this and more have been discussed ad infinitum during the nuke deal..

BTW, are we importing any fuel from the US?

amit wrote:Can you explain why a nuclear retaliation to a dirty bomb attack which is directly traced back to the ISI would be considered a violation of NFU?

amit, NFU isnt germane here...It isnt an international obligation for India...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Apr 2011 11:51

Rediff: is reporting that a BARC Nuke Scintist has comitted sucide

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2011 11:51

It is GoTUS whose pet dog is NSG et al. No point running away from basics.

Otherwise we could have gotten Uranium even earlier.

Not understanding the basic power politics and writing 50000000000000000000 words about Sun rises in the west if you have the right perspective is pointless.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 29 Apr 2011 11:57

Sanku wrote:
Otherwise we could have gotten Uranium even earlier.

So the GOTUS has giveth

what we are questioning, can it taketh away? now that the genie has been uncorcked? If so the steps please - given that US is a declining power to be overtaken by China in 2016 if the IMF is to be believed.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Apr 2011 11:59

Theo_Fidel wrote:The NSG will not go against the POTUS. IIRC bush specifically told congress that India's right to fuel was just a commitment not a guarantee.

You need to ask what happens, hypothetically, if say the US suspends fuel but the Russians don't or the ever money loving French don't? How about the Khazaks or some of the places in Africa where we've invested in uranium mines? What makes you think that the genie will slide back into the bottle the moment POTUS says "HAACK THOO"? For Pete's sake the Gotus couldn't even do anything when North Korea, as everyone expected, went Nuclear.

Also take the hypothetical case further. Say Westinghouse has a reactor and US suspends fuel supply. India then puts in domestic maal to run the reactor. Now tell me does it/will it still remain within IAEA safeguards?

The dispute resolution thing is new to me. Does that mean they supply fuel for a year while arguments continue or is it for something else.

Do read up on the dispute resolution "thing". You'll find our babus did a lot of hard work on this and other aspects of 123. You'll then understand why the Ayotollahs were/are hopping mad. That should be the clearest indication of what's the value of this deal.

Remember this dog did not stay silent but barked like no tomorrow. Doesn't that say something?

In any case the act passed specifically limits our ability to hold a fuel stockpile. There can only be one reason for this.

Could you elaborate on this?

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Apr 2011 12:08

somnath wrote:amit, NFU isnt germane here...It isnt an international obligation for India...

I know but this is periodically brought out like a rabbit from the top hat. Very similar to 950,000 people died of radiation in Chernobyl and a similar number will die due to Fukushima.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2011 14:45

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Otherwise we could have gotten Uranium even earlier.

So the GOTUS has giveth what we are questioning, can it taketh away? now that the genie has been uncorcked? If so the steps please - given that US is a declining power to be overtaken by China in 2016 if the IMF is to be believed.

Yes US is a declining power yet a mill stone has been bought from it to tie around our necks.

I am sure India will sooner or later break through the shackles. However the current bunch of people running GoTUS agenda inside India have ensured that when the time comes, the cost is higher and the time is away longer.

They won a battle, but India is resisting and will win the war.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 17:06

amit wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:This has been discussed before but the 123 agreement is built on several Indian guarantees, NFU is not one of them. Our right to respond is not guaranteed. There is no way the NSG group will not sanction a response by India or a mobilization to weaponize by India.
Can you explain why a nuclear retaliation to a dirty bomb attack which is directly traced back to the ISI would be considered a violation of NFU?

Do you for a moment doubt that if there's dirty bomb attack in a major Western city which is traced back to Isloo there's not going to be mushroom clouds?

Sorry boss this kind of comments amount to uninformed fear mongering.

I am curious. So here you are saying that India can react in exactly the same way as "major" Western powers if "hypothetically" there is a dirty bomb attack "traced back to Isloo"? Of course it can - but may it react in exactly such a way?

Hypothetically speaking, and given that we have to model future behaviour by past reactions - for example, the 26/11 attack was "traced" to Isloo, too, but what was the retaliation? if any? Of course the yelping will start that these two situations are not comparable, out of context, we are committing a crime in not trusting GOI, yadda yadda. But then how do you really know or guarantee that the current political type regime in power will decide to act in a way for which there has been no precedence? Who decides that "dirty bomb" has been "convincingly traced back to isloo"?

Surely you could not have failed to notice that a certain political leader from a political party in current GOI power, practically alleged that 26/11 could have been sourced from within India from forces he considers enemies of his party - because he insisted on highlighting the supposed fears of an investigating officer just before the officer was killed on 26/11? How do you guarantee that continuations of such regimes will not be undecisive about "reacting"? How do you guarantee that such decisions will not be affected by another round of yelping - also pushed on this forum - that any act of hostility or war, especially with respect to Pak, can stop FDI and the fadtastic economic growth and prosperity path that India is on - because of economic sanctions declared or undeclared from the "west" - etc?

If all those "fears" (of course which are not unknowable unknowns - because they are aligned to hopes of pocket-filling perhaps and hence cannot be ridiculed) are justified, why is it unreasonable to "hypothesize" that GOI will be "forced" not to retaliate because of "reasonable and considered financial opinion" that any such retaliation would be considered a violation of NFU by the "west" and the consequences will be "disastrous" for India's prosperity?

So does it not in reality represent a virtual imposition of the condition that NFU acts on Indian moves in such a way that India can but may never be allowed to retaliate to a dirty bomb "traced" to isloo?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 17:25

One of the factors being consistently ignored or suppressed is how the potential "disastrous economic fallouts" of India contravening one or more "clauses" in formal agreements - can be raised and used as a bogey by Indian political forces [or their professional HMV's] to make it impossible for governments to contravene such "clauses".

The very fact of existence of such clauses can be most effectively used by both internal and external forces in raising "unknowable unknown fears" of consequences to restrict GOI action space.