India nuclear news and discussion

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Oct 2008 23:47

Prem wrote:
Acharya wrote:I agree with Philip's views
What if the price paid to India is the head of Pakisatan ?

It does not matter - I still agree with Philip's views.
Pakistan future is inevitable

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Oct 2008 02:29

so far it is not clear who is in charge in Somali waters... the French appear to have taken unilateral action today to arrest some pirates. There is no talk of anyone actually being in charge of the whole theatre. If IN ships escort Indian merchantmen, then that is India's business, if they interdict Somali pirates, then thats good for us, and good for others too, similarly vice versa.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2008 03:08

Gerard wrote:
The weird thing about the Uk tests is how many of them are low yield guessing them to be on the primary side.
It appears the UK used their own primary but kept the US designed secondary for their versions of the air dropped and Chevaline Polaris SLBM warheads.
With the move to Trident, they used the US primary but modified it.

One capability the UK military wants to keep is a low yield tactical option (no boost, partial boost etc). They seem quite satisfied with 100 kt yield for strategic weapons.

Gerard, why do you say that in the bolded part?

Johann which two times?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Oct 2008 03:34

The bit about the secondary came from a CND document I came across a while back. The specific claim was a UK designed primary and an 'anglicised' US designed secondary with later warheads having 'anglicised' US designed primaries (e.g. using a more shock insensitive explosive because of more stringent British military safety standards).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Oct 2008 05:15

According to other sources, the more insensitive HE was less powerful and could not be relied upon to produce a full yield in the US primary if simple substitution was done. Hence the need for a UK primary that would do the job.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Oct 2008 06:54

Radioactive buttons in lifts in France traced to India

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Oct 2008 06:56

'India's uranium reserves at 115,000 tonnes'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2008 18:53

Although not directly related to India, this article has an impact on Indian thinking and perhaps even decision making. Areva seems to be coming across as a bigger player than any US vendor.

Areva Will Build Reactors in U.S

Joint Venture With Northrop Grumman to Establish Nuclear-Components Facility
By REBECCA SMITH

France's Areva SA said it is forming a joint venture with Northrop Grumman Corp. to build nuclear-reactor vessels, steam generators and other heavy equipment at Northrop's Newport News, Va., shipyard.

The deal is a sign that the planned resurgence of nuclear power in the U.S. could help stimulate the country's manufacturing sector.

The two companies plan to invest a total of $360 million in Areva Newport News LLC to build a 300,000-square-foot manufacturing and engineering facility for Areva's nuclear reactor, known as the Evolutionary Power Reactor, or EPR.

Areva is seeking to get the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in the U.S., a process that is likely to take several years.

Areva, which is controlled by the French state, is competing in an industry in which Japanese companies, such as Hitachi Ltd. and Toshiba Corp., have come to play a major role. China, too, is building up its nuclear-power technology with hopes of exporting it.

Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, said she wants 80% of the content of nuclear plants built with Areva technology in the U.S. to come from American sources. The Northrop partnership will give Areva a competitive advantage in the U.S. over rivals who rely more on imported components, she said. {Does that mean that there is absolutely no knowledge base within the US?}

The U.S. nuclear supply chain atrophied after a construction boom ended in the 1980s. In 1977, roughly 1,350 American companies were members of the American Nuclear Society, the key professional association for the industry, compared with about 700 today. And many of those firms, while based in the U.S., have foreign owners.

The NRC has expressed concern that a majority of equipment purchases for new reactors appear likely to be made outside the U.S., complicating its task of conducting inspections to ensure quality. {Good lead for India to follow.}

Orders from U.S. nuclear operators could top $100 billion in coming years, and some are hoping that a wave of nuclear construction could also bolster the nation's ailing manufacturing sector. The highly automated Newport News facility will employ 500 skilled workers.

Mike Petters, president of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, the Northrop unit involved in the venture, said "we've watched manufacturing wane in shipbuilding, and we've watched for other opportunities....We think a nuclear renaissance is coming, and we have the work force."

Ms. Lauvergeon said Areva's existing heavy-manufacturing facility at Châlon/Saint-Marcel, France, is operating with a five-year backlog of orders. {Very good reason to build in India for Indian market} Nuclear plants built with Areva's design are under construction in France, Finland and China. And U.S. utilities Constellation Energy Group Inc., PPL Corp. and Ameren Corp. have selected Areva's design.

Areva's decision to invest in an American facility indicates that the company is confident plans to build new nuclear plants in North America will move forward.

In the U.S., Areva is marketing its reactor through a venture between Electricité de France SA and Constellation Energy called Unistar. Areva hopes to oversee construction of a slew of identical nuclear plants.

Standardizing the design and construction of plants helps simplify licensing and drive down costs. Constellation hopes to build two Areva reactors.

Boosting the number of America's nuclear-component suppliers could build political support for nuclear power and increase the amount of federal loan guarantees pledged toward construction of new reactors. Power companies are seeking $122 billion in federal loan guarantees, but only $18.5 billion is currently available.

Areva is in discussions with other manufacturers, including Lehigh Heavy Forge of Bethlehem, Pa., to become one of its suppliers.

Although the arrangement could provide a boost for U.S. heavy industry, it doesn't entirely eliminate bottlenecks in the nuclear supply chain. Ramping up forges -- needed to make reactor cores -- is difficult because skilled workers are scarce. Currently, the heaviest forgings are made only in Japan and France.

Last year, Areva had to remake some pipe forgings for a reactor in Finland because metallurgical problems prevented ultrasonic inspections. It said the problem showed its workers needed time to relearn a manufacturing process not used in years.

—David Gauthier-Villars contributed to this article.

Write to Rebecca Smith at [email protected]

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 24 Oct 2008 22:20

ramana wrote:Johann which two times?

December 1989 and November 1990.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2008 22:57

Thanks, ramana

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Oct 2008 04:45

Talks with French firm soon for nuclear reactors

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Oct 2008 05:32

Gerard wrote:'India's uranium reserves at 115,000 tonnes'

Wisely the censors in PMO thought it is now not damaging to release this news, peddling "Snake oil" vapourware with pet statements like:

India has not enough Uranium,
Indian power plants ideling at 50% capacity because not enough India Uranium reserves.

It is wonderful to note that after PM MM Singh signed the nuclear deal with massaland, even the barren Mother India is now bursting open with Uranium.

Increase in Uranium reserve from 65,000 tonnes till before signing the Nuclear Deal, to now 115,000 tonne.

Aaaaakk thooo ...

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 25 Oct 2008 06:43

But, but, we have become recognized as nws because of pm singh and team, isn't that correct?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Oct 2008 17:21

India scouting for uranium in Kazakhstan, Uzbek, Niger: Saran

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2008 21:02

AREVA and GE Consumer & Industrial India Announce Strategic Alliance

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Oct 2008 06:50

> Talks with French firm soon for nuclear reactors

hope this does not turn into a bofors type deal where allegations of kickbacks are rampant. french are king of kickbacks.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 26 Oct 2008 09:01

Neshant wrote:> Talks with French firm soon for nuclear reactors

hope this does not turn into a bofors type deal where allegations of kickbacks are rampant. french are king of kickbacks.

And Indian in inviting kick backs

I hear from some BRF worthies that lying to Indian populace and parliament is very much acceptable. Didn't they get India NWS status in return?

samuel wrote:But, but, we have become recognized as nws because of pm singh and team, isn't that correct?

With the bar set that low, what is the problem in french paying bribes, or Indian receiving bribes? or the Indian military receiving bribes to do enemies bidding, or Azharuddin getting bribes from bookies?

Sub chalta hai yaar, why do you have to love India so much, love your wallet more, and take the next door hot chick to party with that fat wallet. After all money is salvation to all problems, isn't it? Or if it really is the primal source of the problem!! hence one willingly endures and accepts the pain of rules and morality?

Just my personal observation onleee....

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Oct 2008 04:50

NTPC can only be a minority partner in setting up plants

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 27 Oct 2008 22:29

I always felt the need to quote myself and since this is the approved thread for that ......

cross-posting from some other stain filled thread.

hnair wrote:
vaman wrote:

"Behold! the Non-Proliferation Treaty"

harik · Post by **harik** » 27 Oct 2008 22:37

Gerard wrote:NTPC can only be a minority partner in setting up plants

Dabhol ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2008 23:50

Will all this economic bad news reduce the chances of buliding new nuke power plants?

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 28 Oct 2008 00:55

Sorry, OT...
Ramana or Arun, how can I send you a message off the threads? Need to forward something that I should not hold on to and should not delete. Don't know how to "access admin."

Best, S

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Oct 2008 02:20

India free to make nuclear bomb: Pranab

Addressing a seminar in Kolkata, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was free to make a nuclear bomb should the government feel it necessary to do so keeping in view the regional geo-political situation and the country's defence requirements.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2008 02:39

He is still in Kumbha nidra. Someone wake him up and tell him about Mrs Gandhi and 1974. But like his formulation- regional situation and defence requirements.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Oct 2008 04:41

Widespread fallout from India-US pact

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2008 16:41

Addressing a seminar in Kolkata, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was free to make a nuclear bomb should the government feel it necessary to do so keeping in view the regional geo-political situation and the country's defence requirements.

Translation: FMCT should be verifiable.

The FMCT topic is up for "review" some time in the very near future - per the Hyde Act.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Oct 2008 22:50

The exact quote, from the same website, is as follows:

The interpretation by PTI or NDTV:

Addressing a seminar in Kolkata, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was free to make a nuclear bomb should the government feel it necessary to do so keeping in view the regional geo-political situation and the country's defence requirements.

The actual quote:

"Just as India has the right to make a nuclear bomb, countries who are against it have the right to oppose. Among the 185 countries in the world, there are big powers like the US and very small countries like Fiji and the Solomon Islands. All are sovereign and have equal rights," he said.

How the phuck they came up with that interpretation from this quote, I don't know.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 29 Oct 2008 06:38

Gerard wrote:Widespread fallout from India-US pact

From the above:

Japanese officials and strategists also worry that the US-India agreement could pave the way for a nuclear-armed Korean Peninsula. Even though all six governments participating in the multilateral talks to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons programs have declared their goal is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, there is a fear in Tokyo (and elsewhere) that those talks will yield a "gray" Korean nuclear capability, neither confirmed nor denied. Japanese strategists argue this could be the tipping point that encourages their country to reconsider its nuclear options - even if the finger on the button is "Korean", not North Korean.

Here is a statement many might consider "preposterous":
It is in India's interest for both Japan and (a unified) Korea to be overt nuclear powers.

India needs to pay more attention to South Korea, build close links and collaboration across a broad spectrum of activities with it, and maintain an open, vigorous line of communication with North Korea.

Also, in relative order of importance, elimination of Pakistan's nuclear capability comes before signing up to any effort to restrain Iran.

Impossible? Dreams? Maybe.

But the first step to appropriate action is correctly and unambigously identifying one's national interests.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 29 Oct 2008 15:39

JE Menon wrote:and have equal rights," he said.

How the phuck they came up with that interpretation from this quote, I don't know.

May be it is possible that TV / News reporters were provided with this statement, purposefully by some one in the ministry ?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Oct 2008 16:07

International community 'approves' India's membership in the nuclear club by Takuji Nakao, Vienna: Mainichi Daily News

The 30-year-old nuclear embargo against India, who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has been conducting nuclear experiments, was lifted last month, allowing India to officially import nuclear technology and atomic fuel. This is the same as the international community approving India's membership in the nuclear club. Without a doubt, this is an "NPT crisis." The result will certainly erode countries' motivation in taking the NPT seriously, as well as inflate the egos of countries such as North Korea and Iran who are suspected of engaging in nuclear activities. As the only country to have ever suffered from a nuclear attack, should Japan not play an active role in sustaining the NPT framework?

It all started in 2005 when the United States began negotiations to conclude a nuclear power pact with India with the aim of opening the channels for nuclear trade. The pact was signed and put into force on Oct. 10 this month. American industry, expecting to engage in nuclear business with India, backed the negotiations. The Bush administration was intent on putting the pact into effect during its tenure, which ends in January 2009, and urged Congress to hastily conclude debate on the issue. As if competing with the U.S., France also concluded a nuclear treaty with India last month, followed by Russia taking a turn at the negotiating table.

The most difficult hurdle for the U.S. was the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that controls nuclear-related exports. The NSG is a framework designed to prevent nuclear proliferation and was established on the occasion of India's nuclear test in 1974.The last two days of discussions at the extraordinary plenary session of the NSG held in Vienna last month continued until 2 a.m.

Austria, New Zealand and other countries demanded that India "affirm the ban on nuclear testing." The U.S. invited representatives of the naysayer countries to a separate room, and pressed them, arguing, "Can we afford to lose an opportunity with India, a country of 1 billion people?" {RajeshA: The Ambush } The overly cautious nations were overpowered by the U.S. and Japan was unable to stem the tide. Ultimately, on Sept. 6, the NSG had but to agree with the "exception" and approve the export of nuclear fuel and technology to a non-NPT India.

The greatest problem here is that if India can import nuclear fuel for civil nuclear power generation, it can make use of its natural uranium to create nuclear weapons. Opponents point out that "India's capacity to produce nuclear weapons will expand from the current seven to a shocking 40-50 a year." The safeguard agreements that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded with India this August would only include inspection of 14 of 22 Indian nuclear facilities.

While the NPT requests nuclear arms reductions from the five nuclear nations (U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China), India only announced that it would "continue a moratorium on nuclear experiments." The U.S. explained that they will "acknowledge India, the world's largest democracy, as part of the mainstream of nuclear nonproliferation." However, this was nothing but a de facto approval of India's position as a non-NPT nuclear power.

Japan's handling of the matter was also poor. In the NSG negotiations, Nobutaka Machimura (ex-chief Cabinet secretary) stuck to ambiguity, arguing, "We will make comprehensive judgments." Japan claims that a shift from coal-fired thermal power to nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming countermeasures. However, that does not mean that nuclear nonproliferation can be laid aside.

There is also the question of India's reliability. The U.S. private think tank the Institute for Science and International Security exposes unexacting Indian business practices, such as revealing centrifuge drawings during the procurement process, and that India "does not appear to appreciate the sensitivity of nuclear information management."

The very basics of nuclear nonproliferation are now at stake. Who can say no to America, the singular superpower that discriminates against the "rogue nations" of North Korea and Iran in favor of its ally, India? Japan should be the one to take on the leadership role in the nuclear ban. Why can't we say a clear-cut "no" at this crucial time when the NPT framework is falling apart?

The NPT framework that is subject to review every five years stands at a turning point. Allowing an "exception" for India will be the beginning of the storm in the coming 2010 NPT Review Conference in New York.

At this time, Yukiya Amano, ambassador to the International Organizations in Vienna, is campaigning to succeed Mohamed ElBaradei as the next director general of the "nuclear watchdog" IAEA. Now is the time for Japanese leadership in the nuclear nonproliferation sphere. (By Takuji Nakao, Vienna Bureau)

When Japanese get indigestion sitting in Vienna!

It may not be a bad idea, if India finishes the negotiations on the Additional Protocol as long as the Indian-friendly Mohammed El Baradei is at the helm.

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Oct 2008 16:54

Prabu wrote:
JE Menon wrote:and have equal rights," he said.

How the phuck they came up with that interpretation from this quote, I don't know.
May be it is possible that TV / News reporters were provided with this statement, purposefully by some one in the ministry ?

Err, don't you think that's one conspiracy theory too many?

I mean for heaven's sake in other issues wrong reportage is immediately attributed to DDM. Why are we assuming that in this case the reporters were faithfully recording what Pranab Babu said and then someone else was trying to do some damage control?

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 29 Oct 2008 19:22

It will be a good move, if this Iran Gas pipe line is concluded successfully !

Mukherjee heads to Tehran Friday

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Oct 2008 19:33

Perhaps the IPI Pipeline should be enhanced with a parallel LNG shipping facility, transporting the gas to the same downstream petrochemical refineries, so that should the Pipeline supply of gas be disrupted because of the instability in Pakistan, the LNG transport would continue. It is essential that the infrastructure for LNG transport is created in parallel.

May be then, just may be then, IPI could pay off.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 29 Oct 2008 19:50

I am not sure the IPI needs to exist to be useful for the GoI -- SSridhar mentioned in another thread that the computations showed that the sea route was most optimal for India. It is not like this pipeline is going to ever get built (or if it does, it can be blown up easily by all the yahoos in the region) -- if the pipeline survives a year through the bad lands of pakistan, that would be an achievement. It seems prudent for India to focus on the sea route that is more secure and economical and keep the IPI as a negotiating point with Iran and Pakistan.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Oct 2008 20:04

Rye wrote:I am not sure the IPI needs to exist to be useful for the GoI -- SSridhar mentioned in another thread that the computations showed that the sea route was most optimal for India. It is not like this pipeline is going to ever get built (or if it does, it can be blown up easily by all the yahoos in the region) -- if the pipeline survives a year through the bad lands of pakistan, that would be an achievement. It seems prudent for India to focus on the sea route that is more secure and economical and keep the IPI as a negotiating point with Iran and Pakistan.

Is undersea pipeline non-feasible even with the latest technological developments?

Why this option is not actively explored and advocated? Wouldn’t it offer further risk reduction on supply continuity to India and also reduced $$$ to TSP?

Or is there something more than that meets the eye?

http://vinodksharma.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... eline.html

The IPI will cost $7 billion. The undersea pipeline, as per the latest proposal, will be a reality by 2012 for just $4 billion. This has been known to the government for a couple of months now. Yet, the Foreign Secretary speaks of the IPI as a good “doable” project “which has the potential to become a major confidence building measure among the three countries”!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Oct 2008 20:21

If one has a parallel LNG shipping route to the IPI, then one can be more assured of the supplies.

The IPI would be built mostly by Iran and Pakistan ending at India's borders. From there India would be laying the pipes to the downstream industry. In case of IPI, that would be India's additional expenses. So if Iran and Pakistan are carrying 85% of the cost for the construction, why should India be opposed to it?

IPI is there for some gas, the good vibrations, independent Indian foreign policy and Muslim votebanks. The 15% India pays is according to me, permissible.

Jaspreet · Post by **Jaspreet** » 29 Oct 2008 20:36

Arun_S

It is wonderful to note that after PM MM Singh signed the nuclear deal with massaland, even the barren Mother India is now bursting open with Uranium. Increase in Uranium reserve from 65,000 tonnes till before signing the Nuclear Deal, to now 115,000 tonne.

Quote from the article:

We have a reserve of 115,000 tonnes. However, the quality of domestic uranium is low and this necessitates imports. Right now, we are trying to balance the mismatch between the supply and the demand," Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan said during question hour in the Rajya Sabha.

Any comments on the bolded part?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Oct 2008 22:17

Jaspreet wrote:Arun_S
Quote from the article:
We have a reserve of 115,000 tonnes. However, the quality of domestic uranium is low and this necessitates imports. Right now, we are trying to balance the mismatch between the supply and the demand," Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan said during question hour in the Rajya Sabha.
Any comments on the bolded part?

I addressed this issue many weeks ago. But let me try again.

My backyard in a UP village also has Uranium with low quality. By definition an ore body is classified and accounted as "ore Reserve" when technically the material in the ore can be recovered and at a cost that economically viable. Economic viability depends on the cost structure and commercial value of the recovered material (i.e. internal medium/long term commodity price).

Pls see: CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves

A mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource demonstrated by at least a preliminary feasibility study.

Some countries have higher concentration of material in ore, that means their profit margin are hefty. But they sell the commodity at market set price, which is the same irrespective if it comes from Canada, Australia, Zimbabwe, India or Burma. So as a buyer India will pay market set price and NOT at 75% discounted just because India deserves special price because it is full of heathen or Canada is bestowed with high quality Uranium ore reserve.

BTW the 110,000 tonnes Indian reserve is based on new ore field discoveries and qualification, and based on old IIRC 1999 price of Uranium. The U prices have since then increased many times. Thus this does not account for the upside of many Indian ore bodies that were not accounted in the original reserve estimates but are viable now.

For a nation that pretends to be at sleep (or should I say the captain sleep at the wheel) it is sweat work to go to office and do assigned work as per "Job Description" and get small kickback; far more easier to make foriegn trips in comfort, to negotiate imported Uranium and direct deposit the baksheesh.

Just my personal thought onleee...

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Oct 2008 00:36

Canadian firm sees scope for nuclear biz here

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Oct 2008 14:53

Gerard wrote:Canadian firm sees scope for nuclear biz here

MONTREAL: Canadian engineering and construction giant SNC-Lavalin sees big business opportunities for collaboration between Indian and Canadian c
ompanies in setting up smaller nuclear plants, following the Indo-US nuclear deal.

“India has the generic design for smaller nuclear reactors of around 540 mw. The Tarapore plant is also working on a 700 mw design. Western countries such as US and Canada now have much bigger reactors with advanced design of over 1100 mw.

However, we see a big market globally for smaller nuclear reactors which can be jointly tapped by Indian and Canadian companies,” Ronald Denom, president of SNC-Lavalin International, told ET.

A top team from the company, along with the CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), is visiting Mumbai early next month for meetings with the Atomic Energy Commission of India and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India for discussions on ways to tap joint business opportunities.

Members of the delegation include Hugh MacDiarmid, president and CEO of AECL and Patrick Lamarre, executive VP, SNC-Lavalin Inc, and president, SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc.

“There is a big market globally, specially in the smaller countries for smaller nuclear reactors. If Indian and Canadian companies got together, they could offer the full range of reactors,” Mr Denom said. He feels that an Indo-Canadian offering in the mid-sized reactor space can take on Korean, Russian and French companies with products in the market.

“Many smaller countries around the world have powergrids which are not very robust and hence have trouble with the larger designs. For them a more practical and economical design will be between 300 and 750 mw,” Mr Denom, said.

Such a cooperation, IMO, can be extremely profitable, considering that India would find it difficult to export Indian-built reactors to the world, if we cannot offer assurances of nuclear fuel. A partnership with Canada, which has ample quantities of uranium, gives India the necessary options.