India Nuclear News And Discussion

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Jul 2009 13:28

Japan says what US wants it to say at the time and place of US choosing. It does not have a independent policy, I would consider it B team of US (like Norway etc) which Uncle trots out when needed.

There is no reason to assume US did not consider Japan when making its various moves, one its main chess pieces.

As to what did India consider in the geo-pol sense while making the deal, I can only wonder......

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Jul 2009 13:29

Vikram_S wrote: Posting more will drive the thread OT, so I shall stop

Good idea, I will only say that a lot of blame has been directed on to IA by DRDO in the internal babu wars to keep their own skin safe. We can discuss this more on the other thread if you want.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jul 2009 13:56

In a couple of years, when Japan keeps on being a stumbling block, especially after the elections when the Democratic Party comes to power, India can notify the Americans that we are getting impatient, and they should better accelerate their process of consultation with the Japanese.

Who knows, may be Americans will start giving us concessions elsewhere so that we don't reallocate the two nuclear sites to other companies. After all, it will be a huge embarrassment for the Americans that after all they did to get the Indo-US Nuclear Deal through, they don't get to enjoy any of the fruits of their labor.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jul 2009 19:27

The safety inadequacies of India's fast breeder reactor

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2009 20:29

arun wrote:Clinton Chooses India by Gordon Chang: Forbes

The above article seems to provide some support to my earlier conclusion that Mrs. Clinton did not mis-speak about ENR for India. I now suspect that her motive was perhaps to weaken who ever is conduction US foreign policy from within the White House - someone other than Obama (the article does have a person identified).

I suspect the Japan "card" was a counter to Clinton's assurance that the G-8 agreement does not apply to India. It is - I think - a card played by the White House policy formulator.

As I had mentioned earlier, any Japanese concern/s should have been fully known to the US prior to the Indo-US nuclear agreement. So, to bring up the issue now has to mean that it is being used as a "card" in another game. It cannot be intrinsic to the Bush designed Indo-US 123 deal.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Jul 2009 03:00

India, U.S. hold talks on reprocessing of spent fuel

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 27 Jul 2009 01:45

http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/27/stories ... 851000.htm

“A technology demonstrator”

T.S. Subramanian

CHENNAI: Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Sunday that the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), by building the miniaturised reactor that propelled the country’s nuclear-powered submarine, had demonstrated “that we have our indigenous Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) technology.” He called the launching of INS Arihant “an important milestone” in the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) programme. “This PWR technology is very complex. We have been able to compact this reactor and pack it in the cramped space” of the hull of the submarine, Dr. Kakodkar told The Hindu from Visakhapatnam where the submarine was launched.

The shore-based PWR has been working at Kalpakkam, 60 km from Chennai, for the past three years, he said.

...

To a question, the AEC Chairman said, “Yes, we miniaturised the reactor [on our own]. The basic complexity is that you have to make it into a compact power system to fit into a submarine.”

Srikumar Banerjee, BARC Director, also stressed that “the event marks the beginning of PWR technology in India.” The BARC made many design features to make this reactor compact. “There are novelties not only in the reactor’s design but in its manufacturing,” he said. For instance, the steam generator which drove the turbine to generate electricity, was compacted in a novel manner. The heart of the reactor is the steam generator.

...

Asked whether the Russians helped the BARC in miniaturising the reactor, Dr. Banerjee said, “No, no. They were consultants…Consultancy was done for the whole submarine, not for the power part alone.”

...

http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/27/stories ... 200100.htm

In an informal interaction with correspondents , Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar on Sunday said that India should not be targeted and denied the Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) rights by the G8 countries.

Dr. Kakodkar said while the country had the indigenous capability in all aspects of ENR, it should also be given the same rights as other countries.

He said India conducted itself with responsibility and “should have the same benefit of countries with such technology. It [India] should not be targeted.”

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Jul 2009 08:40

Saturday, July 25, 2009
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 725a1.html

Obama jeopardizing nuclear deal with India

By HARSH V. PANT
Special to The Japan Times

LONDON — Even as all eyes were focused on the issues of global economic revival, world trade and climate change, the Group of Eight sprung a major surprise on India during its summit at L'Aquila. The G8 statement on nonproliferation committed the advanced industrial world to implement on a national basis "useful and constructive proposals" toward strengthening controls on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items and technology "contained in the NSG's 'clean text' developed at the Nov. 20, 2008, Consultative meeting."

The G8 underscored the importance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) toward the pursuit of nuclear disarmament by insisting that those states that have not yet signed the treaty become a part of it.

It was just last September that the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) had agreed to grant a clean exemption to India, thereby allowing nuclear exports of sensitive technology under safeguards to India. The latest G8 agreement on banning ENR items to countries that are not signatories to the NPT effectively puts the future of the landmark U.S.-India nuclear deal of 2005 in jeopardy.

While India will still be able to buy nuclear fuel and reactors from G8 or NSG countries, questions will arise about the intention of the Obama administration regarding the future of the deal and if it would try to dilute the bargain contained in the "India exemption" of the NSG waiver of last year.

If the Bush administration was willing to work with India in convincing other countries about the strength of the nuclear deal with India, the Obama administration is lackadaisical. It is troubling for India that the Obama administration effectively sought to persuade the G8 countries to undertake the latest move at L'Aquila.

It was the promise of full civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India that made the deal so important for India and that changed the basic contours of U.S.-India ties. Now with the Obama administration trying to change the basic rules of the game, the situation is rapidly returning back to square one.

Though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has remarked that "there is no basis for the apprehension that the Obama administration will be less sensitive to India's concerns than the previous U.S. administrations," the stark reality is that distrust of U.S. intentions vis-a-vis India at an all-time high in New Delhi.

Whether it's the Obama administration's stance on outsourcing, its Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy or nonproliferation priorities, there is an underlying attempt at sidelining or ignoring Indian concerns. Now with a very aggressive U.S. stance at the G8, the ground realities of U.S.-India bilateral ties have become more complicated.

Even U.S. Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's visit to India this week, which resulted in the signing of a defense pact allowing U.S. defense companies to sell sophisticated arms to India and a pact on space, cooperation has done nothing to dispel apprehensions in New Delhi about U.S. intentions.

If 2008 was the acme of Indian diplomatic heft, 2009 is proving to be a difficult one. That the G8 adopted a declaration that is targeted at India should be seen as one of the major diplomatic failures for India, especially as Singh was an invited guest at the G8 forum. This is not only due to a change of guard in Washington but also an inability of Indian diplomacy to anticipate scenarios and adapt to new developments.

For India, the game seemed effectively over once the U.S. Congress gave a go-ahead to the 123 agreement. But there is no endgame in international politics and successful diplomacy anticipates new challenges that might emerge and takes them into account while formulating policy options. Indian diplomacy, on the other hand, is prone to getting blindsided by unexpected developments — it was this mentality that prevented India from enlisting the support of states that are going to be major beneficiaries of nuclear trade with India, such as France and Russia.

With the Obama administration likely trying to make a push toward the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, trouble for India might just be beginning. In many ways the G8 fiasco underlines the unique position that India holds in the global nuclear hierarchy. It is an outlier in every way. While the nonnuclear weapon states resent the special treatment that the U.S.-India nuclear pact gave to India, the nuclear-weapons states are reluctant to allow another nuclear state to emerge.

As the debate intensifies as to what needs to be done about the global nuclear architecture, India can credibly make a case that it is an outlier not out of choice but out of compulsion. When the basic bargain inherent in nuclear nonproliferation treaty was not adhered to even by the states that were supposed to be guarantors of the system, the treaty regime was bound to come unstuck.

China, a nuclear-weapons state, perhaps has the worst nonproliferation record among major powers and has actively colluded with Pakistan in letting nuclear security deteriorate in South Asia and beyond. Meanwhile, Pakistan's nuclear record is so dubious that the world is still trying to come to terms with the nuclear Wal-Mart spawned by the father of the Pakistan's nuclear program, A.Q. Khan. The international community has not yet been able to fully understand the spread of the Khan network, its consequences for the nonproliferation regime and how to avoid such situations in the future.

In neither case did the international community demonstrate the will and the capability to rise up to the challenge. The West kept on ignoring the proliferation records of China and Pakistan for its short-term ends. And India had to fend for its own security.

The Bush administration recognized the importance of resetting the terms of global nuclear discourse and of bringing India into the larger nonproliferation framework as a responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technological base. The Obama administration has decided to take a more traditional view of the problem and in doing so has once again put India on the defensive.

A defensive India flanked by two nuclear adversaries that have been colluding on nuclear issues for three decades is never going to be a part of the nuclear nonproliferation regime as designed in 1968. This is the challenge that confronts the international community as it tackles nuclear proliferation.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London and is a visiting professor at IIM-Bangalore.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 28 Jul 2009 15:03

^^^^

Note the tone in the article above appearing in Japan. The nuclear deal is important to Japan as well.

The following are the 3 main nucelar equipment manufacturers in Japan:

Mitsubishi
Toshiba
Hitachi

These companies supply parts to the big players like Areva.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 28 Jul 2009 16:53

BARC's second campus in AP expected in three years

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 29 Jul 2009 07:23

Countdown begins
‘Kudankulam power early next year’

arun · Post by **arun** » 29 Jul 2009 14:17

X Posted.

A scathing attack by Brahma Chellaney on the development of the Indian nuclear deterrent:

India stands out as the country with the slowest rate of progress in deterrent development.

India's 'credible minimal deterrent', far from being credible, has yet to deliver minimalist capabilities against China. India still does not have a single deployed missile of any type that can reach Beijing.

From here:

TOI

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jul 2009 18:18

There is a slew of articles in Frontline on Kudankulam.
Massive expansion of Kudankulam
Precision weld at KKNPP
Safety Net at KKNPP

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 29 Jul 2009 23:05

A Sharma wrote:Countdown begins
‘Kudankulam power early next year’

From the article "Kudankulam power early next year" linked above:

The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) that India and Russia signed, on Kudankulam, in 1988 was based on constructing two units at Kudankulam on a turnkey basis. When a supplementary agreement was signed in 1998, a decision was taken that instead of Russia building the reactors the task should be done on the basis of technical cooperation. [That is, while Russia will supply the two reactors’ design, equipment and components, NPCIL will build them.]

And from the article "Countdown begins" (in the latest issue of Frontline Magazine), also linked above

With the project nearing completion, things are on course for the commissioning of the first unit of the KKNPP in the first quarter of 2010. Pre-commissioning activities for starting the first reactor are in full swing and all is set for the loading of the dummy fuel into the reactor in August/September. Then the commissioning activities will begin and the reactor will be made ready for the loading of the real fuel by November/December 2009. S.K. Jain, Chairperson and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), said, “We are preparing the reactor for the ultimate milestone of the loading of fuel and the start of criticality. We are confident that Unit-1 will start generating power early next year.”

I could not find what the promised completion schedules were in 1988 and ten years later in 1998. But here are quotes from two articles which were published in Dec 2006 and, not too long ago, in Feb 2009:

(1) From The Hindu 2nd Feb 2009:
Kudankulam first reactor work nearing completion

Of the two Russian reactors under construction at Kudankulam, the first unit is fast nearing completion. ]It will be commissioned by the middle of 2009. Each unit will generate 1,000 MWe. Although the reactors are imported from Russia, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited is building them.
{The above assessment was apparently based on the following:}
K.C. Purohit, Project Director, KKNPP, said: “About 98 per cent of the civil construction has been completed for the first unit. On the mechanical side, we have completed 95 per cent of the equipment erection. On the piping side, which is an important front, we have the primary and secondary circuits, and on the turbine side too, a majority of the piping has been installed … The good news is that our Indian engineers have absorbed the [Russian] technology and executed the erection work in the most efficient manner.”

(2) From a report in Business Standard, 26 Dec 2006:
Two more NPCIL reactors at Kudankulam

The first of the two under-construction 1000 MW reactor is expected to be ready by December 2007, with the plant expected to start producing electricity by March 2008, Purohit said.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Jul 2009 05:14

Interview with Vyacheslav Trubnikov

So why is Russia now party to a G-8 statement which will deny sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries like India which have not signed the NPT?
I think sometimes you don’t pay attention to your own leadership. Finance minister Mr Pranab Mukherjee has explained everything perfectly. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, as it lifted sanctions against India last year, declared openly and loudly that it was making an exception only for India. The G-8 declared its own attitude only recently, and we are of course part and parcel of the G-8. But India is excluded from this. On the basis of the NSG exemption last year, we have an agreement with India…

We don’t have the agreement yet…
We do have an agreement. We may not have a contract yet, but the over-arching agreement was signed when President Medvedev came in December 2008. We have an agreement to cooperate in full with India. France was the first and we were the second to sign this agreement.

And this includes ENR technologies?
Definitely.

But isn’t this contradictory?
No, this is our usual policy, which is why we are with the G-8. But the point is that India is excluded by the decision of the NSG and also by its agreement with the IAEA.

So India need not fear from the G-8?
Of course not.

But you heard what the Americans have said…
With the Americans it is far more complicated. Unlike the French and Russians, the US administration can say one thing, and the US Congress can say another. Independent of what Madame Hillary Clinton said in India (that full nuclear cooperation would take place), a lot of things will depend on what the US Congress decides.

... irrespective of what the Americans decide?
We have our own approach to this matter…

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Aug 2009 06:40

Chavan: We will buy parts for reactors on our own terms

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 02 Aug 2009 19:23

India will achieve uranium self-sufficiency by 2013: Kakodkar

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Aug 2009 20:33

No abnormal radioactivity around Kalpakkam: Kakodkar

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 03 Aug 2009 00:52

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/03/stories ... 810100.htm

A BEGINNING: The 80 MWe indigenous PWR at Kalpakkam. In the foreground is the pressure hull and behind is the shield tank that contains water and the reactor.

PWR building shows indigenous capability, says Kakodkar

T.S. Subramanian

CHENNAI: India building an 80 MWe Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) at Kalpakkam near here “marks the beginning of its indigenous PWR capability,” Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Sunday.

An identical PWR of the same capacity would propel the indigenous nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant that was launched on July 26. The two PWRs were built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). Enriched uranium would fuel them, and light water was both coolant and moderator. The Rare Materials Project at Ratnahalli, near Mysore, produced the enriched uranium. “For nuclear power generation also, the PWR technology is most popular worldwide,” Dr. Kakodkar said.

On Sunday, reporters were shown the PWR built on a beachhead at Kalpakkam. The reactor, built under a highly secretive project called Plutonium Recyling Project (PRP), has been operating from September 2006. The non-descript PRP building has the display of a sculpture of a dolphin outside.

The PWR, housed in a huge hall, has a massive pressure hull, a shielding tank with water and reactor inside, a reactor pressure vessel made of special steel, a control room and an auxiliary control room.

“The reactor is running now. All the safety related parameters are monitored in the auxiliary control room,” said A. Moorthi, scientific officer, BARC, who showed reporters round the reactor. The land-based reactor and the PWR that has been packed into Arihant’s hull are on a 1:1 scale.

Dr. Kakodkar said the PWR at Kalpakkam was an addition to the nation’s family of reactors. The Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which use natural uranium as fuel, “are world class.” “Our Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) are globally advanced. Our Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) is globally unique,” he added.

The FBRs would use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel. The AHWR, to be built, would have thorium as fuel.

Srikumar Banerjee, Director, BARC, called the introduction of indigenous PWR technology in the country “a major step” in the activities of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). The BARC was mandated to develop a land-based prototype PWR and also a compact nuclear pack for submarine applications.

“The complexity increases manifold in a submarine due to the miniaturisation of the already complex systems,” Dr. Banerjee said. Besides, power should rise fast from 25 per cent to 100 per in a few minutes in the reactor of a nuclear-powered submarine. It should reach full speed in a few minutes. So, special attention had to be paid to the design of the reactor.

S. Basu, Director of BARC Facilities at Kalpakkam, said the successful operation of the PWR at Kalpakkam for the past three years generated data for the submarine version.

Arihant was a joint project of the DAE, the Navy and the DRDO.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 03 Aug 2009 00:57

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/03/stories ... 871100.htm

Nuclear power reactors’ capacity factor will go up, says Anil Kakodkar

T.S. Subramanian

CHENNAI: With natural uranium production going up in India, the capacity factor of its nuclear power reactors, which is around 55 per cent now, will go up to 65 per cent by the end of this financial year (2009-2010), said Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), on Sunday.

“Next year, it will rise to 70 to 75 per cent.” The capacity factor would go up although three new reactors — two units at the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS-5 and 6) and the fourth unit at Kaiga in Karnataka — would be commissioned “in a phased manner between this year and next year,” he said, addressing a press conference at Kalpakkam.

Dr. Kakodkar was confident that the capacity factor of the reactors would go up because the capacity of the mill at Jaduguda in Jharkhand, which converted natural uranium into yellow cake, had been augmented. Another mill at Turamdih, also in Jharkhand, was commissioned and its production of yellow cake was going up. “We have launched an expansion programme at Jaduguda and it is complete. Turamdih expansion will be completed next year,” he said. The uranium mine and the mill, which were under construction at Tummlapalle in Kadapa district in Andhra Pradesh, would go on stream in 2013. Exploration mining was taking place at Gogi in Karnataka. “By 2012-2013 horizon, we will overcome all the problems” relating to the shortage of natural uranium that led to a drop in the capacity factor of the reactors, he said.

(India has 15 Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors — PHWRs — that use natural uranium as fuel, and heavy water as coolant and moderator. India also has two Light Water Reactors that use enriched uranium as fuel, and light water as coolant and moderator).
New projects

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was looking forward to the start of the construction of four PHWRs of 700 MWe each, for which the Union government had given approval. Dr. Kakodkar said, “That is where the new mines will come in handy. After a while, we will start the construction of four more reactors of 700 MWe each. It is a question of progressively increasing the capacity factor and also adding capacity.”

Srikumar Banerjee, Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), said the successful development of the 80 MWe Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) at Kalpakkam, which used enriched uranium as fuel, ushered in the PWR technology in India. The experience gained in this project would help in the indigenous development of PWRs for large-scale electricity generation. The reactor pressure vessel used in this PWR was made of special steel, which only a few countries had developed. It had high strength at a high temperature, Dr. Banerjee said.

(An identical PWR, built by BARC, forms the powerhouse of INS Arihant, India’s indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine).
Russian role

Asked whether the Russians had any role in developing the PWR, Dr. Banerjee said the development of a technology like this occurred in stages, and the PWR at Kalpakkam had been operating from September 2006. “In doing so, we have used the Russians as consultants. As far as efforts in designing, developing and maintaining the reactor are concerned, they are entirely ours,” the BARC Director said.

S. Basu, Director, BARC Facilities at Kalpakkam, also asserted that “everything is totally indigenous” about the PWR developed at Kalpakkam. “It has been developed by us. It is 100 per cent our reactor,” he said. Arihant was a demonstration of India’s indigenous capability to build a nuclear-powered submarine, and it was a joint endeavour of the DAE, the Navy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Mr. Basu said.

Rear Admiral Michael Moraes, Flag Officer Commanding (submarines), was sure the design of Arihant was good. The Navy had already trained the crew who would man it. For submarines, “it is a constant between stealth technology and the detection technology. Any strong nation will like to have a submarine fleet because they can go anywhere in the world,” Rear Admiral Moraes said.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Aug 2009 02:31

Cross posting from India's power sector thread (posted by Omar)

India will achieve uranium self-sufficiency by 2013: Anil

With the Jadugoda Uranium mill in Jharkhand expanded and the proposed expansion of Turamdih mill expected to be over next year, uranium production would go up. ...Besides, exploration of uranium is underway at Tummalapalle in Andhra Pradesh and it is expected to go on stream by 2013, he told reporters here. ..We are also working to explore uranium at Gogi near Gulbarga in Karnataka," he said and expressed the hope that a proposed project at Meghalaya would also be cleared soon

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Aug 2009 03:35

Krish's screencap of the centrifuge hall from the NDTV video

This is probably the first public image of the RMP facility

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Aug 2009 06:47

India has tech for n-warship

The AEC chairman said that the kind of reactor built for the nuclear submarine could be used to electrify villages and remote areas not covered by the national grid. “We are not ruling out the possibilities of using such reactors for rural electrification. Though the cost of power production may be a bit expensive, we can always explore the possibilities for using this compact reactors for bringing light to the villages.”

This (village electrification) was actually proposed for the three stage reactors too.

Dr Kakodkar said the commissioning of the first reactor at Koodankulam had been delayed. “It will be ready for fuelling early next year. The 500 MW fast breeder reactor will be ready for commission by 2011.” Dr S Banerjee, director, Barc, said the LWR was more flexible than other reactors. “It can work 30 times faster than the conventional reactors. This will help the Navy personnel to manoeuvre the vessel to speeds of their requirement,” he said.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Aug 2009 07:07

Procurement of Tri Butyl Phosphate for India's unsafeguarded nuclear program

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 03 Aug 2009 08:10

vera_k wrote:Procurement of Tri Butyl Phosphate for India's unsafeguarded nuclear program

Can't India make this chemical? One less thing for Albright to worry about.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Aug 2009 08:12

^^

The report does say that there is an indigenous manufacturer, but that it may be more convenient to import for capacity or cost reasons.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Aug 2009 08:28

NPA's as usual have become too predictable and boring they raised a hue and cry over Indian import of heavy water in 80's and today we are second largest producer of heavy water infact we even export it.
Tri Butyl Phosphate is manufactured by 'Diamond Chemicals' in MH if push comes to shove (which won't for this is not some earth shattering stuff) we can ramp up in house production.

Infact read the article it compares India's import of Tri Butyl Phosphate with illicit import of dual use items by TSP and Iran.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Aug 2009 02:27

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Its the Pakis outsourcing their testing again. Recall the bit about Pakis increasing their bums. Well here its being tested via Noko.
On six pages later, this could be a two-step process to acquire TN capability by TSP and Noko under PRC tutoring. Let me explain myself. The first test of ~ 5 kt was the trigger. This May 25th 2009 test is the pry. Some sources say it was ~20 kt. Others play it down. If the former are right then it could be the outsourced capability that we feared. Too bad the old thread is lost. I had wondered then if this test was a distributed development of the TN by the TSP-Noko with PRC guidance.

So why are others downplaying? For obvious reasons for India might be forced to breakout if this is true.

Its in Indian interests to forestall this omnious development and signal the PRC and US.

No more tests by any rogues or "good guys" via rogues. Or weapon upgrades by anyone with the help of non-testing technologies.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Aug 2009 04:05

negi wrote:NPA's as usual have become too predictable and boring they raised a hue and cry over Indian import of heavy water in 80's and today we are second largest producer of heavy water infact we even export it.
Tri Butyl Phosphate is manufactured by 'Diamond Chemicals' in MH if push comes to shove (which won't for this is not some earth shattering stuff) we can ramp up in house production.

Infact read the article it compares India's import of Tri Butyl Phosphate with illicit import of dual use items by TSP and Iran.

It is the image they are creating which is to put India in the same bracket as other proliferaters. This is a global game and a high stake game going on for the last 40 years.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Aug 2009 04:06

Clinton goes off-script, 'clarifications' follow

twice during her trip to Asia last month, Mrs. Clinton made comments in which the accuracy was questioned by specialists and later had to be "clarified" by the State Department.

At a press conference in New Delhi on July 20, she was asked by an Indian reporter whether the United States opposed the transfer of sensitive reprocessing and enrichment nuclear technology from India to other countries.

"Well, clearly, we don't," she said. "We have just completed a civil nuclear deal with India. So if it's done within the appropriate channels and carefully safeguarded, as it is in the case of India, then that is appropriate." The Indian reporter got excited, because what he heard was a policy change. Since the beginning of the U.S.-Indian negotiations on the civil nuclear deal in 2005, both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to allow India to transfer sensitive technology, citing proliferation concerns. Now Mrs. Clinton was saying the opposite.

A diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi immediately noticed the discrepancy and alerted the State Department, which speedily compiled "press guidance," anticipating questions from reporters about the secretary's remark.

"U.S. policy on restricting transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology, equipment and facilities has not changed," the guidance said. "Efforts… to restrict transfers of [such] technology are not aimed at India, or any other country, but reflect our global nonproliferation efforts."

The department tried to explain the confusion by saying that Mrs. Clinton "was referring to the fact that the United States has granted India advance consent to reprocess U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel."

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 04 Aug 2009 05:15

“We will have rights to reprocess spent fuel”

Koodankulam N-power project delayed

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 04 Aug 2009 05:32

Sanku wrote:Good idea, I will only say that a lot of blame has been directed on to IA by DRDO in the internal babu wars to keep their own skin safe. We can discuss this more on the other thread if you want.

Far more has been done by IA, in both internal and external wars, including leaks and even including "targeted" deposition to Standing committee for defence, not based on facts. And attempt to skew trials by using pressure on officers and what not. In Arjun case, Army is not even fraction "dudh kha dhulla". I dont want to discuss this more, because it will put a blemish on otherwise excellent organization (Army) and since this forum is public, it is best it is not discussed. That was my point.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 04 Aug 2009 11:11

JaiS wrote:“We will have rights to reprocess spent fuel”
"Koodankulam N-power project delayed"

“We will have rights to reprocess spent fuel”

No word as yet on reprocessing "rights" for spent fuel from Tarapur 1 &2!

Koodankulam N-power project delayed

THE Koodankulam nuclear power project has been delayed due to late arrival of some components and the first unit may be ready by the end of the year or early next year, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Sunday.

According to this report, the Kudankulam project was initiated as early as 1988!
What a pity! The Indian Amm Admi does not seem to have an effective way of exposing and holding to account politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and media commentators (as in opinion-makers) who justify and resort to importation on the specious plea that it would be faster to import than develop requisite indigenous technologies, and then fail to meet this justification. Importation only stifles the indigenous developmental efforts.

. . .
“Indigenous nuclear programme will go on although we will be importing light water reactors from vendors abroad”
. . .

According to me, this is optimistic. Resources are "always" too scarce for two parallel streams (indigenous and import) to be simultaneously functional. Persons-in-the-hot-seat, in general, are afraid the perceived possibility of "failure" in the indigenous route. When importation fails on parameters such as schedules or performance, one can always lay the blame on the foreign palyer who is not accountable in India. In reality, importation results in grievous set back for indigenous development of technology, if not a killer altogether.

Nuclear power reactors’ capacity factor will go up.
. . .
Russian role
Asked whether the Russians had any role in developing the PWR, Dr. Banerjee said the development of a technology like this occurred in stages, and the PWR at Kalpakkam had been operating from September 2006. “In doing so, we have used the Russians as consultants. As far as efforts in designing, developing and maintaining the reactor are concerned, they are entirely ours,” the BARC Director said.
. . .

If Russians could be hired as "consultants" to DAE, why was such a hue and cry made when selling and sealing the sell-out that India was subjected to "nuclear apartheid"?

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 04 Aug 2009 20:15

From Hindustan Times, 04 Aug 2009:
Russian atomic engineer robbed in Tamil Nadu

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 04 Aug 2009 20:54

Here's an update on (so-called) U contamination in Punjab (quoting in full). My earlier post on this topic was on 21 Jun 2009 08:07 am, in this thread.

Uranium may not be cause: Expert
Published on Friday, July 31, 2009 by A Kaur

Jalandhar, Punjab: As the Punjab government has failed to set up any medical commission to find out why cancer has become a major killer and what is leading to its spread, especially in the Malwa region, experts continue to differ on the cancer-causing agents there.

Joining the debate with other scientists, who fear the presence of uranium in the soil as well as in the water in the Bathinda belt of the Malwa region, Dr HS Virk, Director, Research, DAV Institute of Engineering and Technology, here today said experts should not create a scare among people without reaching a definite conclusion on cancer-causing agents.

Dr Virk, with PhD in nuclear physics from Marie Curie University, Paris, said, “A research group headed by me collected data from soil samples all over Punjab in 1997-99 under a national project sponsored by the Board of Research in Nuclear Science (BRNS), an agency set up by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). The result of the survey were published in Current Science, Bangalore, on June 25, 2000,” said Dr Virk.

“The average radon concentration was measured over a period of one year in 300 houses spread over the state. We found the highest concentration of radon in indoor air in Bathinda district, 20 per cent higher than the average concentration of radon in Punjab. But this concentration was much lower than the recommended value by the International Commission of Radiation Protection (ICRP) for taking remedial action in residential areas”. The reason for higher radon concentration in Bathinda district was attributed to sandy soil with high porosity and not to some uranium content anomaly of the soil, he added.

During 2001, Dr Virk said a team led by him conducted the survey to check the radon and uranium content in water of the Bathinda area. And that the report prepared in this regard was published in international journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry, London. The latest equipment was used to check the radon and uranium content.

“Our report contradicts the report published by Dr Surinder Singh. Our result showed the normal distribution of radon concentration in sub soil water of Bathinda district”, said Dr Virk.

Again a comprehensive survey was conducted during 2002 to check the anomalies in the soil and water from where high uranium concentration was reported by Dr Singh. The highest value of uranium content in water was observed in Thermal Colony at Bathinda (16.61+0.13 microgram/per litre). The result of the final survey was published in international journal during 2005 for radon concentration in water samples collected in Bathinda district.

“All values of radon in water were reported in the range of 2-8 Bq/ per litre, much lower than the same limit 400 Bq/litre determined at global level,” said Dr Virk.

He said one of the experts, who was claiming that high concentration of uranium and radon was causing cancer in Bathinda region, was contradicting his own report which he co-authored and was published in 2005.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Aug 2009 00:27

Sanatanan wrote:From Hindustan Times, 04 Aug 2009:
Russian atomic engineer robbed in Tamil Nadu

Cant rule out covert action to harrass and dissuade these folks. Please try to post follow-up.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Aug 2009 01:35

Hillary visit over, U.S. says it backs ENR ban on India

New Delhi: A day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed U.S. policy by telling a press conference here last month that “clearly we do not” oppose the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to India, the State Department quietly issued a “press guidance” contradicting her remarks.

But curiously, the guidance was never publicised in India, where America’s attempts to block ENR sales at the G8 and NSG had triggered a huge political controversy and where the confusion caused by her remarks was the greatest.

“U.S. policy on restricting transfers of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology, equipment and facilities has not changed,” the State Department noted on July 21 in guidance made available to The Hindu on August 4, one day after The Washington Times first reported the existence of this clarification.

“We support the policy set forth in the recent G8 summit non-proliferation statement to implement on a national basis strengthened controls on such transfers,” the guidance noted, adding: “Efforts by the U.S. and members of the G8 to restrict transfers of ENR technology are not aimed at India, or any other country, but reflect our global non-proliferation efforts. Efforts by the G8 to restrict transfers of ENR technology are independent of our civil nuclear cooperation agreement with India and in no way diminish our strong commitment to fully implementing the agreement.”

The guidance also clarified that in mentioning the U.S. agreement with India, “the Secretary was referring to the fact that the United States has granted India advanced consent to reprocess U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel.”
...
..
Although the U.S. is the prime mover behind the G8 ban and the NSG proposal to exclude non-NPT signatories from ENR transfers, the latest State Department guidance is the first time Washington has publicly acknowledged its support for the anti-India move.
...
...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Aug 2009 01:49

RaviBg wrote:Hillary visit over, U.S. says it backs ENR ban on India

Wow and we want to sign EUMA with these guys. Wow....

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 05 Aug 2009 04:59

I say ban Boeing (and Lockheed-Martin) in the MMRCA contest. Also since we can deal with Russia and France don't give any contracts for US reactors.

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Aug 2009 15:55

Self Deleted seeing that Gerard had already posted the Washington Times article.