India Nuclear News And Discussion

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 03 Jan 2010 03:11

South Korea to push for nuke deal with India

...
Diplomatic sources said on Saturday that South Korea’s state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) is keen to export its APR-1400 reactors to India. The KEPCO and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) have been engaged in a joint study of ‘licensibility and constructability’ of APR-1400s in India over the past few months
...
...
A KEPCO-led consortium on December 27 last won a US $ 40 billion contract to build four nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates by 2020.

The KEPCO, with its installed capacity of 17716 MWe as of the end of 2008, also ranks sixth among world’s nuke powerhouses.
...
...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Jan 2010 07:21

NRao wrote: My point WRT Matthews is that he was in RadioChem at BARC - and IIRC during 1998 tests. IF SO, he must know more than anyone else on that topic. His signature is an indicator IMHO which way he is leaning, but I would love to hear more from him.

The following in a Dec 11 article of KS, is probably from Matthews.

However, according to the former director of BARC’s radio-chemistry division (RCD), he had measured the yield of India’s first nuclear device in 1974 (P1) using the Mass Spectrometry (MS) method, internationally accepted as even more accurate than the officially tom-tommed RCM. It is also far less sensitive to the major weakness of the RCM method: If a sample is taken even slightly off the geometric centre of the core cavity (the heart of the nuclear weapon), the yield estimate can be way out from correct value. That was the principal reason why Raja Ramanna, the “Father of our Nuclear Weapon Parogramme”, insisted on using the MS method for yield estimation in 1974. If the MS method was used in P-2 also, the results should be made public. If it was not used, why not?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Jan 2010 01:40

Koodankulam project may go on stream by June

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 07 Jan 2010 20:02

From DNA (Jan 6, 2010). Quoting in full.

Who says nuclear energy is more effective: Experts
Ashwin Aghor / DNAWednesday, January 6, 2010 1:01 IST

Mumbai: The debate over the proposed nuclear power plant at Madban, near Jaitapur, has heated up with environmentalists claiming that renewable sources of energy are more effective and economical.

“The government is trying to impose nuclear power plants on people under pressure from multinational companies. But the fact is that in 2009, energy generated from renewable resources was at 13,242 MW, as against 4,120 MW of nuclear power,” said Girish Raut, an environmentalist.

The budget allocated for atomic power during 2003 was a whopping Rs3,350 crore, while the same for renewable energy resources was Rs470 crore.

“Renewable energy resources are definitely economical, as the source of energy is free and only one-time investment is required to set up the facility,” said Nishikant Kale, an expert on global warming and climate change. “On the other hand, operating a nuclear power plant involves huge investment, as the fuel is costly,” Kale added.

Also, nuclear power plants involve high risk of disasters if the radiations are not controlled, Kale added. If a similar disaster happens here, the radiations would destroy entire Goa and Mumbai, Raut said.

He also pointed out that since the supplier of the nuclear reactor is liable for risk covering, Areva, the French company supplying the reactor, has pressurised the government to cap the maximum limit of insurance cover in case of such incidents. “While the maximum limit in the USA is Rs48,000 crore, it is Rs1,700 crore in India,” Raut said.

Solar energy is the ultimate solution for countries like India. “The wind power sector is progressing fast and as on today is generating 7,400 mw of electricity,” Kale said. Solar dryers and water heaters have directly contributed to the conservation of electricity. But due to some technological limitations, solar photovoltaic has failed to gain necessary popularity.

Though it is a very costly option, the breakthrough will soon be achieved to make it cost-effective. {Sanatanan: How soon will "soon" be? May be as soon as in electric power from "Fusion".}

According to Kishor Rithe, president of Satpuda Foundation, “Grid interactive solar energy getting popular in European countries as it does not require a battery to store generated energy which is actually the biggest trouble.”

Solar plates tap the solar power and provide it to grid from where it is distributed. “People who install solar panels get money for maintaining it in addition to the earnings through the sale of power,” Rithe said.

I think there is a failure to recognise the difference between
(i) "bulk power", that is, electrical energy required to run industrial establishments such as heavy forge shops, metallurgical (steel etc) factories and chemical plants such as petroleum plants.
(ii) the relatively lower quality of energy required to heat/cool and illuminate homes and offices, and
(iii) energy required for transportation which at the moment is "oil based". To some extent, depedance on petroleum could be reduced if we invest in building a national net work of electric traction, essentially based on distributed small and medium sized power plants. Small-sized (say 50 or 60 MWe capacity), under-ground located with a small foot-print, automatically operated, indigenously engineered and built npps might prove to be ideal for this.

Solar and wind may be useful in contributing to the requirements at (ii) but not (i). India must look to invest "heavily" in establishing with in the country, more heavy / intermediate manufacturing plants / factories.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Jan 2010 01:58

Thorium reactors more secure, says Kakodkar

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Jan 2010 10:18

Uranium mining in Meghalaya in 6 months: CM

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jan 2010 09:23

Malawi offers joint uranium exploration; inks 3 pacts with India1

Mineral-rich Malawi today expressed interest in joint exploration of its uranium reserves with India as part of its efforts to attain energy security, even as the two countries inked three key pacts in the fields like agriculture and small enterprises.
...
After singing three important agreements for cooperation in various fields, Vice President Joyce Banda said that India and Malawi can work together to explore uranium sites as her country has huge deposits of the mineral.

"We have discovered Malawi has huge deposits of uranium. We can work with Indian government to explore other sites of uranium deposits," Banda said replying to a query on what kind of assistance it wants from India in exploring the mineral deposits.
...
...

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 11 Jan 2010 15:04

NDTV Exclusive: Inside India's largest nuclear plant

Monday January 11, 2010, Kudankulum, Tamil Nadu

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 12 Jan 2010 19:46

From World Nuclear News, 11 Jan 2010
Foundation for Indian component plant

If successful, this venture might prove to be good for India.

Also, see this link, given in the above report. Apart form a description of what is happening in other countries, there is a full section of about eleven paragraphs, describing the scene in India which seems to be, as of now, a lot of sales talk, about what is going to happen in the future.

Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants (Dec 29, 2009)

I think the article on heavy forgings linked above fails to highlight the following point:
One of the main advantages of PHWR / CANDU reactors is that the nuclear side does not need very heavy forgings (the vessel for the steam generator may be the biggest amongst the lot, yet it is much smaller when compared to the Reactor Vessel of a LWR). The forgings required for the "conventional side", say the turbine shaft, and its rotors may turn out to be larger in size compared to any forgings required in the "nuclear island". India must also develop manufacture of the relatively large forgings of complex shape and material, required for the turbine blades to be fitted in the low and high pressure rotors particularly for turbines of 500 MWe and greater capacity.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Jan 2010 23:17

^^^^^ Thank God for L&T.

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 13 Jan 2010 02:26

India, Britain set to sign nuclear deal

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jan 2010 02:04

Russia to lease nuclear submarine to India for decade: report

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Jan 2010 23:54

Indo-French civil nuclear energy pact enters into force

he Indo-French agreement on the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy enters into force today, giving a new impetus to the bilateral partnership envisaging multiform civil nuclear cooperation and paving way for companies to build atomic power plants in India.
<snip>
The Indo-French nuclear agreement allows for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from French atomic reactors under safeguards, and gives an assurance of lifetime supply of nuclear fuel for these reactors. It does not bar the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.

France becomes the second country after Russia to give unconditional rights to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to India. The agreement makes it mandatory that reprocessing be done under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 15 Jan 2010 01:10

a video of last month's Fast Breeder Reactor core lowering event - probably not been posted

India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor core being transported & lowered into Safety vessel

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jan 2010 02:27

India-France nuke deal comes into force

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2010 05:07

From Tribune, Chandigarh, 15 Jan 2010

SOURCE

India and NPT, CTBT
Need for non-proliferation consistency
by O. P. Sabherwal

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) are back on centre-stage. First, President Obama’s renewed commitment to the NPT during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and now the Japanese Prime Minister’s quest for India to join the CTBT stare this country in the face. It becomes necessary for India to clarify its standpoint on the two nuclear treaties.

Widely held is the perception that the NPT, and even the CTBT, is a threat to this country’s de facto nuclear weapon power status. The fact of the matter is that the renewal of global interest in the NPT and the CTBT is a fresh opportunity for India to redress a wrong and for winning back its rightful place as a weapon power within the NPT structure, in order to give a momentum to global nuclear disarmament. And in this aim, the CTBT fits in neatly.

There is a forgotten history of the NPT worth recalling. The NPT was launched on the plea for freeing the world from the nightmare of nuclear weapons — as a nuclear weapons non-proliferation organisation that curbed their spread not only horizontally but also equally vertically. These objectives are enshrined in the NPT preamble, in the shaping of which India contributed a great deal. The operative structure of the NPT, however, contains little that makes it binding on the weapon states to curb their nuclear arsenals. India’s plea for such a binding insertion in the NPT text was deliberately not accepted by the NPT promoters — primarily, the United States, aided by Britain and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

The preamble is thus no more than an illusion to lure the non-weapon states into permanent inferior nuclear status so as to perpetuate Big Power nuclear hegemony with the help of the NPT. The upshot: the NPT has belied its promise and, instead, has become a major proliferation agent — vertical proliferation at first, allowing the big powers a free run in the nuclear arms race.

The Cold War years witnessed a frightening build-up of nuclear arsenals by the two super powers, the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union, to the extent that the two — or either of them — could destroy entire world civilisation twice or three times over. This realisation pulled the two super powers back from the brink, resulting in rewinding of the Cold War. But the damage had been done. The real face of the NPT was revealed, and countries desired to free themselves from the big powers nuclear straitjacket.

Countries like Libya that unsuccessfully sought to build nuclear weapons were termed “rogue” states by the United States. So was North Korea, who not only pulled out from the NTP but also defied the big powers by openly building nuclear weapon devices. India had special relevance for the NPT, for this country alone — among the non-weapon states — had acquired nuclear weapon capability when the NPT was formed.

The question has been posed: was India cheated of its right to a weapon status in the NPT structure by virtue of its acquisition of weapon capability well before the 1969 deadline? The answer is in the affirmative.

Indian nuclear scientists assert that BARC, the premier Indian R&D centre, was delivering weapon-grade plutonium 239 from 1964 onwards — five years before the NPT proclaimed Lakshman Rekha. And this weapon grade plutonium was tested in 1974 and found perfect. True, India did not go in for a nuclear test by the NPT deadline. Instead, India used its plutonium capability for peaceful purposes. The NPT, with its declared purpose of curbing nuclear weapons, should not have had a problem in this regard. The criteria for the NPT should be nuclear capability, including weapon capability, and not the explosions, for which India had ample know-how, as was shown, first in 1974 and later in 1998. But the United States was bent on bringing India in the NPT with a non-weapon status for obvious reasons.

Consequently, India refused to join the NPT because it was a discriminatory treaty, debarring the bulk of the nations from testing nuclear weapons while giving a free run to the five declared nuclear weapon states. Also, because it barred India from nuclear tests if and when it considered it necessary to do so for its national security. For 20 years India successfully fought a tug of war with the US on this issue and has now emerged a victor.

That phase is over, with the US recognition of India’s advanced nuclear capability built indigenously, and urging the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to allow India international nuclear commerce and interaction even while it retained its nuclear arsenal. By virtue of entering a “separation” clause which allowed India a free hand in retaining and building its nuclear arsenal, the Indo-US nuclear accord accepts India’s international nuclear commercial and scientific interaction — keeping the imported nuclear material and technology for peaceful uses under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

It is, therefore, time to re-examine India’s status vis-à-vis the NPT. If India joins the NPT, it would be as a weapon state. It would be in the interest of the NPT to restructure its relevant clauses to accept India as a weapon state member. If India joins the NPT as a member with weapon status, it would use its standing to propel the NPT for complete non-proliferation — not only horizontal but even more vertical — aiming at total nuclear disarmament. The forthcoming NPT review conference should be an occasion to bring about these changes in the interest of ending the nightmare of nuclear weapons.

Where does the CTBT fit in? After having failed to hook India for the NPT, the US conceived of another stratagem for the same purpose, namely, to draw India in its “non-proliferation” plans through the CTBT, thus debarring an Indian nuclear test. That is why India vetoed the CTBT at the Geneva disarmament conference. Subsequently, the US virtually blocked the CTBT by refusing Congressional ratification. China too followed suit, by refusing to ratify the CTBT till the American Congress ratified it.

Now we are being assured by President Obama that he will pressurise the American Congress to ratify the CTBT. If and when this transpires — and ensures a full global endorsement of the CTBT — a new situation would arise, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said. Having built a nuclear deterrent for its security concerns, it would be in India’s interest to join the CTBT and become a leader of global nuclear disarmament. While retaining and strengthening its nuclear deterrent, Indian objective henceforth should be to side by side campaign for global nuclear disarmament. The CTBT, in such an eventuality, can be acceptable to India.

This may not be to the liking of our hydrogen bomb nuclear fundamentalists, arduously campaigning for more nuclear tests to further add to Indian nuclear lethal capability by perfecting a super hydrogen bomb. That is not Indian thinking and strategy, which has since its inception aimed at global nuclear disarmament, hitherto not acceptable to the big powers. If the CTBT comes giving parity to all nations, India should welcome it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jan 2010 06:59

Having built a nuclear deterrent for its security concerns, it would be in India’s interest to join the CTBT and become a leader of global nuclear disarmament.

And what does India gain by this leadership?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 19 Jan 2010 10:17

From a tweet I follow:

B. Raman says be prepared for Swarm Attacks on Nuke facilities in India http://bit.ly/7PN5Oi

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jan 2010 17:51

Two units of Rawatbhata to go under safeguards in 2010

“In 2010, the two units of Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant (RAPP) at Rawatbhata will be placed under ISSA and the process has already begun,” Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Limited (NPCIL) officials said.

The process of placing all the 14 reactors under ISSA will be completed in 2014, the officials said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jan 2010 20:20

Hari Seldon wrote:From a tweet I follow:
B. Raman says be prepared for Swarm Attacks on Nuke facilities in India http://bit.ly/7PN5Oi

Super article. A must read.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jan 2010 08:02

India, South Korea to discuss nuclear cooperation Monday
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 08279.html

Civil nuclear cooperation will be among key issues that will be discussed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh holds talks with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak Monday.A South Korean consortium won $20.4 billion contract to build four 1,400-MW civilian nuclear power units in the UAE, beating American and French companies for one of Middle East’s biggest energy deals.ndia has signed civil nuclear accords with seven countries - the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Argentina and Mongolia. India has finalised a nuclear deal with Canada, which is expected to be signed later this year.Accompanied by ministers, parliamentarians and businessmen, Lee begins his four-day visit to India from Chennai Sunday. The South Korean president will be the guest of honour at the Republic Day celebrations, an honour reserved for the leaders of those countries with which India enjoys special relationship. Manmohan Singh and Lee will discuss a range of bilateral, regional and global issues, including intensification of economic and defence ties. More at : India, South Korea to discuss nuclear cooperation Monday http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... z0dOqnblF3

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jan 2010 07:59

Nuclear generation up on improved uranium supplies

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jan 2010 07:30

Sixth reactor at RAPS attains criticality

Chennai: The sixth reactor at the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS-6) at Rawatbhatta reached its first criticality at 9.54 p.m. on Saturday, S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), told The Hindu .

He said this was the 19th reactor in India to be commissioned and it had a capacity of 220 MWe.

...
...
He said the excavation work for building two indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) of 700 MWe each at Kakrapar near Surat in Gujarat, had begun 10 days ago. These 700 MWe reactors are the biggest indigenous PHWRs to be built in India by the NPCIL.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jan 2010 07:36

April date in America with peace of mind- PM to visit third time in seven months -K.P. NAYAR

...
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) took the final decision this weekend on accepting an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend the Global Nuclear Security Summit to be hosted by the White House on April 12 and 13.
...
A severe political setback to Obama last week with the loss of Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat from Massachusetts will now force the President to put some of his pet proposals such as ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), on the backburner.

India has been concerned ever since Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election that a US ratification of the CTBT will result in international pressure on New Delhi to sign and ratify the treaty.

...
...
For ratifying treaties, 67 votes — not just 60 — are needed in the 100-member Senate. There is no way Obama can muster that number during the rest of his presidential term, unless he turns into Midas and pulls Americans out of the economic mess they are in, a miracle that would send the President’s popularity soaring.

...
The PMO appears to have been persuaded to agree to a third US visit by Singh in seven months after it received crucial inputs on the composition of the April summit.

India’s present surmise is that China’s President Hu Jintao will boycott the Global Nuclear Security Summit in protest against a planned meeting between Obama and the Dalai Lama in the White House in the coming weeks. Such a meeting and a package of arms sales to Taiwan that is said to be on the cards are part of the Obama administration’s efforts to deflect criticism of weakness in its foreign policy which has contributed to the President’s recent political setbacks.

...
A Chinese absence will make India the most important emerging power, a star, at the summit.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Jan 2010 00:48

‘India-U.S. deal a major hurdle’

United Nations: Australia’s non-proliferation envoy Gareth Evans has slammed the India-U.S. nuclear deal, saying it was a major hurdle in the goal of a nuclear-free world.

“Everybody knows that from India’s point of view it was a brilliant success but from the point of view of non-proliferation objectives it wasn’t as helpful as it could have been,” Mr. Evans told journalists here.

Mr. Evans, who is the co-chair of the International Commission for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament — a joint initiative of the governments of Japan and Australia, was speaking after presenting a report called ‘Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers.’

One of the contributors for the report is the former National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra.

Mr. Evans said the commitments made by the Indian government were insufficient and set a bad precedent.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jan 2010 02:15

negi wrote:‘India-U.S. deal a major hurdle’

United Nations: Australia’s non-proliferation envoy Gareth Evans has slammed the India-U.S. nuclear deal, saying it was a major hurdle in the goal of a nuclear-free world.

Mr. Evans said the commitments made by the Indian government were insufficient and set a bad precedent.

Why did the International community keep India isolated for 35 years. There was no reason for it when India was not a party to any proliferations.

India did not create the world we live in and it was a global understanding to go in this direction.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Jan 2010 02:19

One of the contributors for the report is the former National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra.

I do not know how to read into this. Any insight?

TIA.

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 27 Jan 2010 07:41

Porki slave and Gora master have conjured up a new plea to rid the world of nucular weapons (dont know how this gem was missed the WKK jannat out here in des):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-material

Some interesting quotes:

A cutoff treaty would make irreversible the moratoria in the first five nuclear-weapon states {Gora saab shows his hypocrisy} and end production in the others. It would strengthen resolve among non-weapon states for collective action against challenges such as those currently being mounted by North Korea and Iran. And it would give all nations greater grounds for insisting that the weapon states reduce their stocks of weapons-grade materials. {hear hear: Gora saab has moral right to tell us what to do} .At a minimum, those states could declare that existing stocks outside weapons will never be used for weapons. Pakistan has already made this call because India has a large stockpile of separated plutonium; although 90 percent of it is intended to be used as start-up fuel for its plutonium breeder reactors, all of it could be used for weapons.

^^^^Paki GUBO-mian has introduced some good psy-ops here: India conducted its first test BECAUSE the pigs across the border decided to test even if mango-abdul has to eat grass, which he still does. All along the article it mentions that Porkis are holding gun to their temple coz India did it first. Porkis are good at crying "Mommy!" I hear.

The

/psy-ops continues, I admire the respect with GUBO-mian and his slave master have for China. No mention of Tarrel friend violating NPT

As far as we know, the first five nuclear weapon states—the U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China—all stopped producing fissile materials for weapons before the end of the Cold War or soon thereafter. But they have not formalized their respective moratoria and no on-site verification arrangements exist. India and Pakistan are the principal countries building up today. Pakistan is investing heavily in new production facilities to try to keep up in its nuclear arms race with India. Israel continues to operate its 50-year-old plutonium-production reactor at Dimona, most likely to replenish the tritium used to boost the yield of its weapons (tritium has a 12-year half-life). {Yindu, Yehudi Nexus forcing Porki pigs to steal nuclear weapons from tarrel the mountains, deepel than .... } North Korea had suspended production but claims to have started again in 2009.

Porki/Unkil/PRC wet dreams continue:

These provisions, if passed, would have far-reaching effects. Fissile material stockpiles are huge. For example, about half of the separated plutonium in the weapon states was not produced for military purposes but is weapon-usable. Declaring it civilian and submitting it to IAEA safeguards would significantly reduce concerns that it might be used for weapons. Indeed, we have been told authoritatively that Pakistan's concerns about India's large stockpile of power-reactor plutonium—enough for about 1,000 warheads—would be much reduced if the material was declared civilian and placed under IAEA safeguards.

Only India is known to be producing HEU for its naval-reactor program. Given concerns that large stocks of HEU would raise in a world moving toward much smaller weapon stockpiles, all countries with nuclear navies should move to LEU fuel.

Wonder why Kashmir was not mentioned... well GUBO-mian almost tried to do it here:

But political challenges would have to be overcome, too. Countries that are still building up their nuclear-weapon stocks—especially India and Pakistan—would have to decide that they have enough fissile material.

And the crux of this rather mediocre article is a LOT of

but no ENFORCEABLE solution without the creation of an entity more powerful than ALL the powers of the world combined. So wet dreams onreee, however they might just get their with India because of our WKK netas in their Bumbling dhotis on the driver seat.

And countries and nuclear establishments within them that are reluctant to accept international inspections, including China, Russia and the U.S. Navy, would have to be willing to cooperate. {Enforced by whom? GOD?}

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Jan 2010 10:38

Scientists conduct awareness meeting for neutrino observatory

Scientists involved in the setting up of a Rs.900-crore underground neutrino observatory in Theni district have kick-started the process of allaying the “radiation fears” among local people and environmentalists.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Jan 2010 11:24

Apart from the PFBR, Kalpakkam will have two more FBRs of 500 MWe each

Work on two more Fast Breeder Reactors, each of 500 Mwe, would begin here soon, according to Dr Baldev Raj, director, Indira Gandhi Centre For Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam.

“These reactors are in addition to the FBR of 500 MWe that is fast coming up at Kalpakkam. While the first reactor would be commissioned in 2011, we hope to commission the other two reactors by 2020,” said Dr Baldev Raj.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jan 2010 23:43

RamaY wrote:
One of the contributors for the report is the former National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra.
I do not know how to read into this. Any insight?

TIA.

The report and not the news confernece is about getting to zero, which is still a goal of GOI.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2010 07:50

negi wrote:‘India-U.S. deal a major hurdle’

Though India’s past behaviour in non-proliferation had been “excellent,” Mr. Evans said

Mr. Evans said the commitments made by the Indian government were insufficient and set a bad precedent.

Would not good commitments and precedents get you "excellent" past behavior?

Or is that a result of a baked brain?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2010 08:15

NRaogaru - the man is talking about future hypothetical deals - presumably with un-named others.

Though India’s past behaviour in non-proliferation had been “excellent,” Mr. Evans said similar deals should have much more stringent future commitments criterion to get uranium or cooperation on nuclear technology.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 29 Jan 2010 10:43

Mr. Evans need not worry. There are plenty of others willing to sell India uranium. As for nuclear technology, we will just have to learn to get by without Australia's assistance in this regard

After having a good opinion of Australia my whole life, I was shocked back to reality by the undiplomatic, hypocritical and almost hysterical Aussie reaction to the 1998 tests. After whoring themselves out to the UQ and letting the Brits test on Australian soil, they had the gall to lecture India? Their sale of uranium to China and not India took the cake.

I especially like it when Aussie gov't spokesmen state this won't hurt ties with India. Shouldn't India, the aggrieved party be stating that? I hope GOI tells these A**holes where to shove there free trade pact. The only thing we need from these descendants of former UQ convicts is their natural resources. If they don't want to part with that, they are completely useless to us.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jan 2010 12:51

10-fold scale-up on nuclear capacity

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 31 Jan 2010 14:05

Canada is looking to diversify its economy away from US markets. Babus just need to play the cards right.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Jan 2010 23:31

SSridhar wrote:10-fold scale-up on nuclear capacity

Wow! that is ~35k MW nuclear power capacity. It would be very valuable if all of this realizes in next 10 yrs.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Feb 2010 08:07

Russia says it is ready to build reactors at Haripur

Though no land acquisition issues had surfaced in a big way at the sites allocated to U.S. and French companies, the Trinamool Congress is against the move to acquire land for nuclear reactors powered by Russian technology and has resolved to launch an agitation in case the Centre begins the process.

So, we can already remove 6000 MW from the 40000 MW scale-up.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Feb 2010 09:46

Koondakulam has variously been described as
1000 x 2 + 1200 x 6 = 9200 MW
Russian VVERs

The first two 1000 MW units are complete, work on the next two has started.
There is a port constructed right next to the plant to bring in stuff from Russia via sea.

Bargi, is just south of Jabalpur, around the site of the Bargi Dam. Hard to miss on Google Earth.

Haripur in WB is between Digha Beach and Haldia, right on the Bay of Bengal. The russians were miffed that they were alloted the WB site, Mamta Di had promised the villagers of haripur that she would not stand by and let their land be looted by the CPM - or words to that effect.

This leaves out three other sites announced at various times: This is my compilation of the various announcements. From the list above:

1. Kumaharia, Haryana: (Fatehganj Dist) 2800 MW (4 x 700 PHWR) India
2. Bargi, MP (South of Jabalpur) - 1400 MW (2 x 700 PHWR) India
3. Koondakulam, TN - My compilation says - 9200 MW (1000 x 2 + 1200 x 6 VVER-LWR) Russia
4. Jaitapur, Mah - Areva 9900 MW (6 x 1650 EPR-LWR) France
5. Mirthivirdi, Guj (Close to Along) - 6000MW (6 x 1000 LWR) USA
6. Kovvada, AP (Kakinada) - 6000 MW (6 x 1000 LWR) USA
7. Haripur, WB (Close to Digha) - 6000 MW (6 x 1000 VVER-LWR) Russia
8. Pati Sonapur, Orrisa (next to Gopalpur)
9. Sri Kakulam, AP (Across the border from Pati Sonapur)
10. Pulivendula, AP - 2000 MW (2 x 1000 MW LWR) ? Builder.

A total of 43,300 MW announced at various times over the last one year.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 04 Feb 2010 08:15

Cross Posting from India-US News and Discussion

US takes new step on India nuclear deal, certifies Indian nuke facilities safeguarded