India Nuclear News And Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2010 01:29

Is this analysis or patterings of little child?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jul 2010 06:29

Need for strengthening clauses on env damages in nuke accident, panel told

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Jul 2010 08:30

The Cold War was scary enough. Now try to imagine a nuclear arms race between China and India.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... k_about_it

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2010 12:29

South Asia's nuclear war risk increasesd with China's planned N-deal with Pak.Good long article in the "Diplomat".

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/07/12/sout ... ar-risk/4/

Excerpt:

But it wouldn’t even take regime collapse for extremists to possibly gain control of a Pakistani nuclear weapon. In its 2008 report, the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism describes Pakistan as ‘the geographic crossroads for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction’ given the presence of so many Islamist extremists, with suspected sympathizers in the government and armed forces, in a country with a rapidly growing arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 14 Jul 2010 12:46

nukavarapu wrote: I was not aware that all coastal power projects do produce fresh/desalinated water. My question was that the desalinated water is just produced as a by product or is there a serious effort in the design stage itself to produce desalinated water so that the coastal power plant can fulfill dual roles of generating power and providing fresh water?

I think Power plants, including Nuclear power plants, Coal Power plants require Water for generating steam to run turbines etc. Since places like southern Tamil Nadu are anyways pretty dry, taking water from existing sources would have caused a lot of social tension in these areas. Hence, desalination plants being used. Hopefully finding use of this as a water supply source is a By product.

Philip,

With respect to TSP Nukes, the more nuke material they , the more tempted they will be to sell to other ROP nations for Profit and hence worrying western diplomats.

naren · Post by **naren** » 14 Jul 2010 13:01

nukavarapu wrote:Fellow Jingoes and SDRES, I was going through the following article:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderaba ... -state-662

excerpts:

The recently installed Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu produces desalinated water at the rate of 3,00,000 litres per hour. Taking seawater from the Gulf of Mannar, the plant uses mechanical vapour compression technology and has two 1,000 MWe Russian reactors.

The project commissioned to Aquatech is India’s first ultra mega power project and is located at Mundra in coastal Gujarat. The 4,000 MW coal-fired plant owned by Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd.

“More and more power projects and townships are going in for desalination given the success of the new technology. Thermal projects are proposed across coastal areas so that they can benefit from the desalination technology,” said Mr Vijayanand, MD, AP Genco.

If India’s 7,000 km coastline is put to use by the government as well as the private sector, we may see the beginning of the end of the country’s water shortage.
I was not aware that all coastal power projects do produce fresh/desalinated water. My question was that the desalinated water is just produced as a by product or is there a serious effort in the design stage itself to produce desalinated water so that the coastal power plant can fulfill dual roles of generating power and providing fresh water?

What I interpret from the article is that the vapour, after turning the turbines, is compressed mechanically to produce water.

sivabala · Post by **sivabala** » 14 Jul 2010 22:39

nukavarapu wrote:We are talking of two things here:
1.) Desalinated water for steam generation, which in turn to be used for generating electricity.
...
2.) After the electricity generation, the residual steam to be compressed back to fresh water.
...

Point 1: thats what coastal power plants do. Point 2 is not accurate. Steam for turbine is a closed cycle. It means hardly 10% of the steam/day has to be replaced. In all steam turbine plants usually the exhaust steam is cooled to water and pumped back in to the steam generator and then to turbine.
For cooling, the inland power plants have massive cooling towers, which is the symbol of nuclear power plants.
However, building such a mammoth structure and loosing the waste heat to atmosphere can be avoided if the excess heat is used to vaporise sea water which can be turned to fresh water through vapor compression desalination cycle. The desalinated water can be directly sent to industrial use, which will minimize the pressure on fresh water for human consumption.
Human consumption of desalinated water is not good unless it is fortified with sufficient minerals like calcium, zinc, etc... which may not be in abundance from in the desalinated sea water. These minerals are available from natural water from the region. How the change in minerals in water affect humans can be exemplified by observing the loss of hair or dental problems for some Indians in USA, who are also vegetarions and consume less dairy products.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Jul 2010 03:05

Any type of energy (or power-plants) could be used for desalination. Process "cogeneration" , as said before uses excess heat and produces portable water from sea-water... India, and also Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan (has one at Aktau been in operation for about 30 years), that I know of, already uses nuclear power plant for this kind of purpose. Japan has many - about 10 -- and some of the water is piped hundreds of miles.

Even TSP has (or is 'developing') one desalination plant coupled to its KANUPP (or whatever it is called - the one PHWR near Karachi) .. though I don't know the amount of water it claims to produce..

Some of the aircraft carriers in US uses their nuclear power-plant to produce desalinated water

There was Global Water Summit in Paris (April of this year), where the idea of desalination plants being co-located with nuclear power plants was supported by virtually all leading experts... And countries like Korea, China, Spain etc have projects in near future. (The cost per cubic meter was very comparable - for India, IIRC it is about same as others ( at present it is about $.70 or so per m^3 .. a little bit higher) or in fact in some studies cheaper than RO or gas-plant types)

BTW for India, at least research and initial works has, I believe, has gone since 1970s..Kalpakkam.. had some sort since 2002.. and future plans which I read/recall ( can some one confirm it) envision for about 50,000 tons of fresh water per day

naren · Post by **naren** » 15 Jul 2010 04:19

I think its "portable" water (saree for being spelling nazi

)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jul 2010 04:31

: India's growing appetite for uranium

In September 2008, a three-decade ban on nuclear supplies to India was lifted, following which the government signed civil nuclear agreements with several countries. In Africa, Gabon has said that it was not averse to supplying uranium to India and was willing to enter into a commercial transaction. The Indian government is said to be studying the possibility of reciprocating by enhancing its civil and military cooperation with Gabon. India has already signed agreements with USA, France, Russia and Kazakhstan to supply uranium. Of these, France has already completed its supply, whereas part supplies have been received from Russia, a top government official said. Now, the country is evaluating picking up stake in one of the world's largest uranium fields in Russia.
Russia's state-owned mining firm, ARMZ Uranium Holding Company, has the licence to the Elkon field. A stake was offered to India in the course of bilateral negotiations during the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's visit to India earlier this year. The possibility of a minority equity stake in the Elkon field in Russia's Yakutia province, which is estimated to hold 344,000 tonnes of uranium or about 5.3% of the world's recoverable reserves, is being seen by analysts as a step by India towards securing long-term supplies.
Confirming the trend, an official in India's foreign ministry said: ``India plans to grow its stockpiles of uranium in anticipation of a nuclear plant building boom. This is set to have a direct implication on uranium price targets and supply-demand fundamentals

http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/m ... pid=102055

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 16 Jul 2010 06:18

nukavarapu wrote:Fellow Jingoes and SDRES, I was going through the following article:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderaba ... -state-662

Resource document from World Nuclear Association: Nuclear Desalination (Updated June 2010)
Includes progress made by India since the 1970s.

May also see: Desalination plant at Kudankulam ready for commissioning (05 January 2009)

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jul 2010 07:38

Copied from India-US Thread

From the Book "Nuclear Apartheid: The Quest For American Atomic Supremacy From World War II to the Present" by Shane J. Maddock

Page 88-89

The plutonium and uranium would be stored underground in inaccessible vaults, "preferably in solution or other inconvenient form, guarded by nuclear eunuchs." Strauss's gendered language reflected a widespread practice among U.S. policymakers of coding perceived political and military threats in psychosexual terms. International "potency" hinged on nuclear strength; only non-nuclear powers( "eunuchs") could be trusted not to sully the atomic "harem" because because they had no power to do so and would long remain dependent on Western largesse to develop their own nuclear industries. Strauss also conveyed a double meaning with this language, for these eunuchs not only lacked nuclear armaments-- they often espoused neutrality in Cold War. Strauss implicitly invoked the cultural stereotype of the leading neutral nation, India, and its followers in the nonaligned movement as lacking virility and martial skill -- a bias shared by Eisenhower and his advisors, who often often referred to the "feminine hypersensitiveness" and "emotional" manner of Indian policymakers. These characteristics inspire contempt for their military and technological aptitudes and anger toward the neutrals' unwillingness to take sides in the Cold War.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 16 Jul 2010 18:39

Is this analysis or patterings of little child?

More like the latter.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jul 2010 17:58

Australian takleef over India-Japan nuclear deal
Anxiety mushrooms over Japanese nuclear exports

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jul 2010 23:59

^^^^

But Professor Koichi Toyoshima of Japan's Saga University, a critic of nuclear exports, says the Middle East and India are not stable enough to sell nuclear power technology to, and the gains for Japan are not worth the risk.

"If you look at the Middle East, they are in conflict with Israel and may be tempted to match its nuclear capacity," he said.

"India has very tense relations with Pakistan. It is not wise to export nuclear technology to these sensitive areas.

We have to make sure that even east Asia - China and the region are tense so that they also feel the heat of exclusion.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 19 Jul 2010 16:17

Really informative article ... and a must read ... every bit is interesting ... could copy the whole article but decided against it.

BTW it is written by BR member (Arun S Vishwakarma)

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2010 ... rrent.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jul 2010 16:27

Nuclear Reactor Units perk up on Uranium imports

Figures for April to June, 2010
Courtesy: Business Line

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 20 Jul 2010 05:54

From TOI, Jul 20, 2010:
4 proposed nuke plants hit green hurdle

Four new nuclear power plants proposed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd have hit a green roadblock with the environment and forests ministry rejecting their intial applications for statutory environmental clearances.

The NPCIL has proposed four power plants, one each at Fatehabad in Haryana (2,800mw), Mandla in Madhya Pradesh (1,400mw), Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh (6,000mw) and Bhavnagar in Gujarat (6,000mw). NPCIL intends to build these plants in three years once construction gets underway.

The statutory expert appraisal committee of the ministry has sent back the applications for all four projects pointing out that they lacked documentation on several counts. The applications were filed to secure what is referred to as "terms of reference" for conducting an environmental impact assessment study.

Makes me wonder whether NPCIL wanted these four proposals to be torpedoed

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Jul 2010 07:56

X Posted.

putnanja wrote:DIFFERING STANDARDS- The US must not wink at a Sino-Pak nuclear deal by Kanwal Sibal

......If, as the Chinese argue, they and Pakistan are respecting their international obligations and the new power plants will be under IAEA safeguards, where was the need for India to be put in the wringer of a tortuous, conditions-laden process by the US? Why did the US pressure others not to cooperate with India until the US cleared the way? We too could have obtained nuclear cooperation by simply agreeing to put internationally assisted reactors under IAEA safeguards.The US cannot have different standards for China/Pakistan and for us. Like China, the US, too, has supported over the years ‘strategic stability’ in South Asia. It has overlooked in the past Sino-Pakistan nuclear transfers as it needed Pakistan’s support for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and was reluctant to impose sanctions on China. History is in danger of repeating itself at India’s expense again. India must convey suitably to the US that the newly established strategic relationship with it will develop a huge fissure if it sacrifices India’s interests to protect its Sino-Pakistan relationship.
...

A very valid question.

Why did India have to put through hoops and rings for what Pakistan and China are demonstrating is a simple straight forward matter?

Sensible advise from Kanwal Sibal as well on what India needs to tell the US if the Sino-Pakistan deal for Chashma 3 and 4 goes through without NSG clerance.

naren · Post by **naren** » 20 Jul 2010 08:11

^^^ Let 'em go ahead with Chini-Pak nookular deal. We can cite it as precedent and offer a similar deal to Taiwan. Pak is already a nookular power and doesn't alter the equation much. Taiwan getting a deal, now that is something. Lets see how the dlagon likes it.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 20 Jul 2010 20:59

naren wrote:^^^ Let 'em go ahead with Chini-Pak nookular deal. We can cite it as precedent and offer a similar deal to Taiwan. Pak is already a nookular power and doesn't alter the equation much. Taiwan getting a deal, now that is something. Lets see how the dlagon likes it.

check & mate ???

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2010 21:59

naren wrote:^^^ Let 'em go ahead with Chini-Pak nookular deal. We can cite it as precedent and offer a similar deal to Taiwan.

Not just Taiwan. Vietnam & Philippines should also be considered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2010 22:20

All those are NPT signatories and are not in same league as TSP.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jul 2010 22:41

Apne Haath , jagannath
No need to offer deal to anyone but no refusal either if they ask help. All India need to do is allocate extra Salted stuff for China for every move they make to undermine India and let the rumor reach their ears. They should be made cognizant of the reward for every act of their's on this path. Every time they provide Paki with strategic strength they will know same amount has been added to the previous allocation made for them which will visit them in case of calamity.

naren · Post by **naren** » 22 Jul 2010 02:03

Propping up Taiwan would deal an emotional blow to PRC. Its not the strategic/tactical implications which matter - we ourselves could do more severe damage than what the proxies can do. Its the symbolism associated with it. CCP peddles "one China motherland" to the regular abdul constantly. Striking a blow there would sure rattle them.

Thats what China is doing with us - issuing stapled visas to Kashmiris. Their idea is to deliver an emotional blow to the national integrity. We must do the same to them.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Jul 2010 14:40

First of 12 L&T's nuclear-grade canisters for Areva ready

Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has completed manufacturing the first India-made nuclear-grade canister for Transnuclear Inc., an Areva company. This is the first of 12 canisters that L&T will locally manufacture for Areva as part of a planned dry storage installation for used nuclear fuel at a US customer's plant site, the French nuclear major said in a statement.

“The completion of the first Indian-made nuclear-grade canister represents a milestone for the country's nuclear industry, Areva, and L&T. This historic achievement widens Areva's international network of suppliers and reinforces Areva's confidence to increase the global reach of the Indian nuclear supply chain. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with Larsen & Toubro,” said Ms Tara Neider, CEO of Transnuclear Inc.

Areva has found the canister ready for use, and once inspected by the customer, it will be shipped directly to the facility, the statement said. The canister is the first example of nuclear-grade equipment manufactured for the US market by L&T

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 22 Jul 2010 18:01

ramana wrote:All those are NPT signatories and are not in same league as TSP.

Taiwan has the same status as a full nation, to be able to sign NPT? I didn't know that.

Anyway, they're led by another Karzai, who wants to "deal" with the enemy (more like defect to them)

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Jul 2010 13:16

X-posting from the International Nuclear Watch thread:

US to vote against Sino-Pak nuclear deal at NSG

The US has said it would vote against an exemption for China to sell two civil nuclear reactors to Pakistan at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting, in a new move to step up pressure to get the controversial deal annulled.

Making it clear that the US would oppose the recent decision of China to sell two nuclear reactors to Pakistan, a top Obama administration official told lawmakers that Washington would vote against the Sino-Pak deal when it comes before the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

This is for the first time that such a clear statement has emerged from the Obama Administration, days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Pakistan that US would work with it on civil nuclear energy, during her just concluded Islamabad visit.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2010 15:48

Sanjay M wrote:Taiwan has the same status as a full nation, to be able to sign NPT? I didn't know that.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf115_taiwan.html

Taiwan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it but after 1971 the People's Republic of China replaced Taiwan in the NPT and the IAEA. In terms of such treaties and organisations, and for those countries which adhere to a one-China Policy, Taiwan does not exist as an independent state. The USA recognises Taiwan as an independent state and has state to state relations with it. Taiwan has a unique status. Nuclear safeguards are applied in Taiwan under a trilateral agreement between Taiwan, the USA and the IAEA.
Thus the IAEA applies safeguards in Taiwan to all nuclear material and nuclear facilities as if it were an NPT non-nuclear-weapon state Party; it conducts regular inspections including Additional Protocol verification activities.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 27 Jul 2010 02:35

Dr K S Parthasarathy , a former secretary of AERB, tears huge new one into Purefool Bidwai. In fact he has torn so much out of Purefool, that there is nothing left...

Its almost a point by point rebuttal of Purefool...

This is a must read!

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/jul/ ... r-side.htm

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 28 Jul 2010 09:40

After years of years of negotiations and sustained backing from the US government to find acceptance as a global nuclear power, India's plans to go nuclear for a major share of its energy production are in limbo, stalled by the refusal of the Lok Sabha, the country's lower house of parliament, to pass legislation limiting corporate liability in the event of a nuclear accident.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=174

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2010 12:59

Karan Dixit wrote:After years of years of negotiations and sustained backing from the US government to find acceptance as a global nuclear power, India's plans to go nuclear for a major share of its energy production are in limbo, stalled by the refusal of the Lok Sabha, the country's lower house of parliament, to pass legislation limiting corporate liability in the event of a nuclear accident.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=174

After obama squeezed BP's very british balls over the oil spill, does anybody really support passing the legislation as demanded by the US??

What is sauce for the goose will not be sauce for the gander?

BP has just got a 32 billion bill for clean up charges.

Bhopal victims just got about a few hundred dollars a piece. Is it fair?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jul 2010 04:42

chetak wrote: After obama squeezed BP's very british balls over the oil spill, does anybody really support passing the legislation as demanded by the US??

What is sauce for the goose will not be sauce for the gander?

BP has just got a 32 billion bill for clean up charges.

Bhopal victims just got about a few hundred dollars a piece. Is it fair?

I have no doubt that the bill will be passed in the current session of parliament. Like the previous time, one or more parties( BJP/Left/RJD/BSP) will walk out during the voting on some vague issue, and the bill will get passed. Apart from the left, no one else is serious about opposing the bill.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Jul 2010 07:03

Britain Ready To Allow Nuclear Exports To India

Business Secretary Vince Cable disclosed that his country was ready to allow export of its civil nuclear technology to India...

This is the first time that Britain will give license to its civil nuclear firms to start business with India. The two nations are likely to sign an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation during a meeting between British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Thursday. Cameron began his first maiden two-day trip to India on Wednesday.

Talking to reporters, Cable said that British companies like Rolls Royce and Serco could potentially do big business in India. "There are obvious security sensitivities. We are conscious of those, as are the Indians. But within those constraints we really want to push ahead with civil nuclear cooperation. That would be quite a big sector within which we could really make progress," she said.

Referring to a policy change on export licenses to British nuclear firms, Cable said that the companies would receive export licenses on a case-by-case basis.

It may be recalled that India had signed civil nuclear cooperation pact with Britain earlier this year after signing similar deals with the U.S., Russia and France.
<snip>

Also WSJ story at :
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 ... 14234.html

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jul 2010 01:59

India-Russia nuclear talks hit liability snag

At the last round of commercial negotiations held in Moscow recently between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and Atomstroyexport for the supply of four additional 1000 MWe reactors at Kudankulam (KK 3,4,5,6), the two countries failed to agree on the issue of liability. The Indian side wanted the contract to include a ‘right of recourse' which would allow NPCIL to claim damages from Atomstroyexport in the event of an accident resulting from negligence on the part of the Russian supplier. But Russian officials refused, citing the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) the two countries signed in 2008 to back up their stand that all liability must be channelled on to NPCIL, the operator at Kudankulam.

Article 13 states: “The Indian Side and its authorised organisation at any time and at all stages of the construction and operation of the NPP power units to be constructed under the present Agreement shall be the Operator of power units of the NPP at the Kudankulam Site and be fully responsible for any damage both within and outside the territory of the Republic of India caused to any person and property as a result of a nuclear incident occurring at the NPP.”

Since Article 13 does not provide for the operator's right of recourse — a standard part of international conventions on civil nuclear liability — the Russian side says India's insistence on its inclusion in the commercial contract runs counter to the IGA.
Indian officials acknowledge the lacuna but put it down to India's weak negotiating hand in the days before the Nuclear Suppliers Group voted to lift its export ban on the country in September 2008. The language on liability was copied verbatim from the agreement for the first two Kudankulam reactors, though India — which is in the market for a mammoth 20,000 MWe of imported reactor capacity — is likely to drive a harder bargain in future negotiations with Russia.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 30 Jul 2010 07:28

Gerard wrote:India-Russia nuclear talks hit liability snag
At the last round of commercial negotiations held in Moscow recently between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and Atomstroyexport for the supply of four additional 1000 MWe reactors at Kudankulam (KK 3,4,5,6), the two countries failed to agree on the issue of liability. The Indian side wanted the contract to include a ‘right of recourse' which would allow NPCIL to claim damages from Atomstroyexport in the event of an accident resulting from negligence on the part of the Russian supplier. But Russian officials refused, citing the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) the two countries signed in 2008 to back up their stand that all liability must be channelled on to NPCIL, the operator at Kudankulam.

Article 13 states: “The Indian Side and its authorised organisation at any time and at all stages of the construction and operation of the NPP power units to be constructed under the present Agreement shall be the Operator of power units of the NPP at the Kudankulam Site and be fully responsible for any damage both within and outside the territory of the Republic of India caused to any person and property as a result of a nuclear incident occurring at the NPP.”

Since Article 13 does not provide for the operator's right of recourse — a standard part of international conventions on civil nuclear liability — the Russian side says India's insistence on its inclusion in the commercial contract runs counter to the IGA.
Indian officials acknowledge the lacuna but put it down to India's weak negotiating hand in the days before the Nuclear Suppliers Group voted to lift its export ban on the country in September 2008. The language on liability was copied verbatim from the agreement for the first two Kudankulam reactors, though India — which is in the market for a mammoth 20,000 MWe of imported reactor capacity — is likely to drive a harder bargain in future negotiations with Russia.

Wow - why was there no heartburn for this liability to the operators (NPCIL) without right of recourse wrt Russian reactors? The agreement for the first two reactors (from where the liability clause has been copied verbatim) was signed in 2001. The US liability bill seems to better since it offers a right of recourse from the manufacturers of reactors.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 30 Jul 2010 08:58

This is something I have mentioned before as well.

Liability is something that all the foreign suppliers want not just the US.

Nuke power is one area where we must surge ahead if we truly want to industrialize. Right now many reactor projects are stuck in land agitation issues. And this liability bugbear is also delaying matters.

There was nothing wrong with the initial draft either and it was pretty standard and could have been adopted without all the needless controversy.

China has a liability framework in place since 1986 and it is a pretty standard document. they aren't scared.

And they are on course to achieve 55 GWe by 2022 and 100+ by 2032-35.

They'll again manage to transform their industrial environment by bringing down recurring energy costs.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jul 2010 10:39

Well Russia offered us reactors when the rest of the bozos were smoking horse crap sitting on high altar of NP, we were in need and there was only one supplier so I don't see how we could have dictated terms then. Today we have many prospective suitors so no harm in throwing around some weight to extract some more juice , the hard part was the deal which has been done and dusted, liability and other things will fall in place its just a matter of time.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jul 2010 22:34

I'm surprised there is no clamor to have the Russian reactors shut down.
Suppose there is an accident? Who will pay? <insert whine here> Who will be jailed? <insert Warren Anderson/some other name here>
After all, we all know that nuclear reactors explode every Monday morning

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Jul 2010 01:27

India, Russia to iron out nuclear issues Monday