India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Sanku]

Why is the Indian situation unique? don't the laws of statistics and rewards vs risk probabilities apply to India?

It just is, statistics and probabilities are contextual.

[Krishna_V]

If Chini aggregation continues can we use this as an opportunity to test once and for all our Thermo nukes?

[Prem]

GE Hitachi, Westinghouse Could Benefit From India's Shift on Nuclear Energy
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10848732 ... nergy.html

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a partnership between General Electric(GE) and Hitachi(HIT), and Westinghouse Electric, a Toshiba unit are likely to benefit from the recently approved Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill in India.
Monday, the Indian Parliament approved the compensation bill for nuclear accidents subsequent to tougher provisions on supplier liability. This move would end the two-year nuclear ban on India, whose atomic energy market is estimated between $150 billion and $175 billion.
It would enable U.S. companies to compete and invest almost $100 billion to $150 billion in India's nuclear power industry. Additionally, these companies would compete with European state- run rival companies as India boosts nuclear power generation to increase thirteen-fold by 2030 to spur economic growth.

[Sanatanan]

Two-part article:
Nuclear damage: Should suppliers be liable? By Nilendra Kumar, Director, Amity Law School and G D Mittal, Team Leader, Nuclear Public Relations, PM Dimensions

[amit]

The Business Standard version of the article quoted above

Some interesting points made by GD Mittal:

But there are two other opinions from the real stakeholders in the nuclear business.

First, Sudhinder Thakur (executive director, corporate planning and corporate communications, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.) wrote, “Undoubtedly, the government has powers to make laws, but in the process of making such laws we should not defeat the purpose for which the laws are made since with the current formulation of 17b, no manufacturer, Indian or foreign, would be able to serve the nuclear power industry.”

Thakur added that in the process of setting up nuclear power plants a large number of suppliers contribute in varying degrees and they, in turn, have many sub-suppliers. All these suppliers provide material according to the specifications of the operator and their obligations in terms of latent or patent defects are incorporated in the respective contracts. “No supplier, Indian or foreign, would be willing to take the liability on account of recourse of the operator for the period of some 80-odd years after the contract is executed. Under the circumstances, the provisions of 17b are neither practical nor implementable,” he concluded.{Please note its 80 years and not 20 years}

He welcomed the move to pass the civil nuclear liability Bill to provide prompt compensation to victims of an unlikely nuclear accident. “In this respect it is a welcome move and has become a pre-requisite for the rapid expansion of nuclear power in the country,” Thakur said.

The other view is of A M Naik, chairman and managing director of Larsen & Toubro. He pointed out that typically, 300 to 400 suppliers and service providers (including small and medium enterprises) are engaged for each nuclear plant. The Bill has introduced clause 17, under which after settling the civil nuclear liability claims, the operator shall have a right to recourse against the suppliers. Naik pointed out that this clause on suppliers’ liability beyond their terms of supply — that is for 60 years of plant life plus 20 years of the claim liability period — is neither practical nor justifiable. “Any clauses requiring a unreasonably high liability would deter participation from major suppliers,” he said.{Here's the explanation for the 80 years}

Naik also pointed out that since all suppliers are commercial organisations, they would not be in a position to accept contracts with unlimited liability. In the case of unreasonably high liability, most suppliers would not be in a position to obtain insurance coverage to back these orders and, therefore, will not be able to contribute to the programme. Alternatively, suppliers would have to pay extremely high premiums for insurance coverage during the life of the plant. The costs of this insurance coverage would be transferred to the plant operator and ultimately to the consumers. All this, put together, would deter large-scale participation in the programme by the Indian nuclear industry.

It is also worth highlighting that the nuclear industry is highly disciplined and maintains the highest standards and precautions in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants. In particular, the Indian nuclear industry’s track record is unblemished and there is no reason to believe that it would be otherwise in the future.

The 80 years liability which these industry users are quoting - if correct - makes it a totally different ball game from the 20 years we were assuming. Insurance premiums would be ridiculously high.

However G D Mittal also writes:

There are always apprehensions in the beginning but when things start moving according to the law, all the stakeholders would be happy to get the right business. Over time, as agreements are signed between operators and suppliers, the law could be suitably amended to account for possible problems in implementation that may crop up.

[Muppalla]

Flawed liability bill threatens Indo-US nuclear deal: Expert

US policymakers and industrial leaders were thus taken off guard when the legislation (titled the Civil Liability for the Nuclear Damages Bill, 2010) passed the Upper House of the Indian parliament yesterday despite retaining language inconsistent with international standards for engaging in nuclear commerce, she noted.

The law includes language that makes suppliers of equipment, raw materials, and services liable--beyond the recourse already available through the courts--for 80 years after the construction of a plant in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident, Curtis said.

[chiragAS]

Some fancy media writing.
dont know much about this field. but i Hope we continue to maintain the lead in this field.
(not much has been talked about india though)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... orium.html

[Sanatanan]

Edit in The Hindu, 03 Sept, 2010
Not so much of a liability now

[Sanatanan]

Brahma Chellaney in The Economic Times, August 24, 2010
Nuking rights of citizens - It’s no-risk, all-profit business for four firms

[Karan Dixit]

Some fancy media writing.
(not much has been talked about india though)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... orium.html

Of course, the article is from UQ. Are you surprised?

[SSridhar]

Further delay in Kudankulam project

The commissioning of the first unit of the Kudankulam nuclear power project has been put off by a further three months from the (previously revised) scheduled date of completion.

According to the Web site of Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), the first unit is expected to be commissioned in March 2011.

Previously, the site had mentioned December 2010 as the ‘expected date of commercial operation'.

The 2,000-MW (two units of 1,000 MW each) nuclear project that is coming up at Kudankuklam, southern Tamil Nadu, with Russian technology, reactors and fuel, has suffered a huge delay in commissioning.

The first of the two units was originally supposed to begin commercial operations in December 2007 – which means, the project has already slipped by three years and three months.

The second unit, initially scheduled to start commercial operations in December 2008, is now expected to go on stream in December 2011.

In April, the public sector power equipment company BHEL, which is tasked with the erection of all equipment other than the reactors, said that about a third of the components for the ‘turbine-generator' had yet to arrive from Russia.

On Wednesday, a senior official in NPCIL told Business Line that all the equipment had arrived and the project is entering the ‘pre-commissioning activities' phase.

(NPCIL's Web site says that as of July 96.2 per cent of the works has been completed for the first unit, and 90.6 per cent for the second).

Fuel loading is expected to happen in December.

Commercial electricity from the plant in March 2011 is very likely.

[amit]

Edit in The Hindu, 03 Sept, 2010
Not so much of a liability now

Reasonable edit from the Hindu, save for the last part which seems to me a bit of downhill skiing by the Hindu after having taken such a strident stand.

If some private lobbyists are worried about the supplier being held liable after “80 years” for products sold now, they should at least concede that the operator will not find it easy to establish fault liability eight decades on. In any event, with operator (and hence supplier) liability capped around $320 million for a plant likely to be sold for more than $5 billion, the insurance burden will be far from onerous — especially if it is set against the human lives, welfare, and futures at stake.

First of all the executive director of NPCIL is hardly a private lobbyist. He's the end user for God's sake!

Also, private companies don't work on the assumption that, perhaps, 80 years on it would be difficult to prove fault and so we can ignore it. And hence they will buy insurance for the full 80 years and 80 years term for insurance is a lot.

The last bit on setting it against human lives is very touching, similar to SV's earlier comment that foreign companies should pay a premium for the priviledge of working in India which is a democracy. However, I don't think that's going to tug the heart strings of company managers.

Personally I'm not too disturbed if the likes of Westinghouse feel they've been sc**wed. What disturbs me is the initial reaction of L&T. If we accept that the ultimate aim is to develop a thriving indigenous nuclear industry, we've already burnt one bridge by not allowing the likes of Reliance to get into nuclear generation - I bet these guys would/could have negotiated a far tougher deal with equipment suppliers than any GoI babu. But that's water down the bridge.

However, if L&T and other Indian players decide to stay away then we can kiss good bye to all notions of becoming a hub for nuclear power generation equipment. I don't think the public sector has the business acumen and discipline (caveat: It certainly has the talent!) to become a globally competitive equipment maker without the private sectors help.

Added later: Just to reiterate this is what L&T MD AM Naik said:

...In the case of unreasonably high liability, most suppliers would not be in a position to obtain insurance coverage to back these orders and, therefore, will not be able to contribute to the programme. Alternatively, suppliers would have to pay extremely high premiums for insurance coverage during the life of the plant. The costs of this insurance coverage would be transferred to the plant operator and ultimately to the consumers. All this, put together, would deter large-scale participation in the programme by the Indian nuclear industry.

[SriSri]

GE, Westinghouse Electric to Build Nuclear Plants in India (FE)

The Financial Express reports that the General Electric and Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse Electric could be the first overseas suppliers of nuclear plants and services. Estimated $200-250 billion business that India can offer to overseas suppliers of nuclear plants and services over the next two decades would go to four firms.

New Delhi has identified these firms and Paris-based Areva and Russia’s Rosatom as the first four to set up nuclear reactors in the country. The two reactors that GE and Westinghouse will build will have a combined cost of roughly $10 billion, official sources told FE.

Areva and Rosatom are already present in Indian nuclear energy market, while GE and Westinghouse are making the foray. Westinghouse, which is majority-owned by Japan’s Toshiba Corporation, has the world’s largest installed base of operating nuclear plants.

According to sources, agreements with GE and Westinghouse are in the process of being firmed up ahead of the expected India visit of the US president Barack Obama in November. Obama’s visit will be followed by a visit by French president Nicolas Sarkozy and, later, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in December.

While the two US firms were keen to be suppliers for India’s nuclear reactor market, it was the liability issue that hindered their plans, putting them at a competitive disadvantage over Russian and French firms whose accident liability is underwritten by their governments. Now that the bill has become law, the US companies can start work on building reactors at least at two sites identified for them.

However, negotiations between India and Japan on the civil nuclear deal are going slow, despite efforts to reach some conclusions ahead of Prime minister Manmohan Singh’s Tokyo visit in October.

The India-Japan nuclear deal has a lot riding on it. Besides the strong strategic statement, the deal will give top Japanese nuclear companies like Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba and Marubeni a foothold in the Indian nuclear energy sector. At least three of them have tied up with GE, Areva and Westinghouse respectively, all of whom have been allotted nuclear parks in India.

Sources clarified that even if the India-Japan agreement gets delayed, it will not have any effect on these joint ventures accessing Japanese technology for India’s reactors.

[Philip]

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article615818.ece

‘In the event of a nuclear incident, victims must get prompt compensation'
T. S. Subramanian

The Hindu SRIKUMAR BANERJEE: 'We want to make a victim-friendly legislation and make the operator liable.'
Interview with Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission

[Dmurphy]

Nuclear scientist Homi N Sethna passes away

An energetic engineer and a quick decision maker, Sethna, the then AEC chairman, was the guiding force behind the first peaceful nuclear explosion project 'Smiling Buddha' at Pokhran on May 18, 1974.

[amit]

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article615818.ece

‘In the event of a nuclear incident, victims must get prompt compensation'
T. S. Subramanian

The Hindu SRIKUMAR BANERJEE: 'We want to make a victim-friendly legislation and make the operator liable.'
Interview with Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission

Philip Saar,

Why just quote something out of context and not quote everything Banerjee Babu said? Lot of interesting and deflationary stuff there!

Q: There is an impression that the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of the Indian Industry (CII) were scaremongering that the American companies would not give India nuclear reactors and that the Indian companies would not provide components and equipment to them if clause 17(b) of the Civil Liability for the Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, remained in the legislation. (Clause 17 says that “The operator of the nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear damage in accordance with section 6, shall have a right of recourse where – (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage”). Top officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) went on record that clause 17(b) would deter the suppliers from engaging in nuclear commerce with India. Why are the DAE/the NPCIL batting for the American suppliers?

No. Before discussing the right of recourse of the operator, let me tell you about the basic purpose behind the introduction of the nuclear liability Bill. In the very unlikely event of a nuclear incident, we do not want the victims to go for an extended process of litigation to claim compensation. The victims must get prompt and no-fault compensation. Prompt in terms of time, and no-fault meaning that you don't have to prove the fault of the operator or anyone to get the compensation.

The Bill identifies clearly who takes the liability. It is clear that the liability is taken by the operator.

There are many undue apprehensions that all this is being done for the private sector's entry into the Indian nuclear business. Private participation even today is very high. If you look at the nuclear industry in India, all the major manufacturers of equipment and components are in the private sector. However, for this Bill, there is a specific requirement that the nuclear power plant operator will be either the Government itself or a Government company, as defined in the Atomic Energy Act. So this apprehension that this is only a precursor to allowing the private sector to come in as operators of nuclear power plants is totally dispelled.

The second point is the suppliers' liability. What is the meaning of the phrase, “the right of recourse” of the operator? It means the operator first takes his own liability to compensate the victims and after the compensations are paid, he has the right of recourse to sue the suppliers, provided he has definite proof of faulty supply [in the equipment] which has been the primary cause of the incident. The Bill establishes prompt compensation from the operator to the victim.

This whole Bill is between the victims and the operators. It creates a new legal authority called the Claims Commission or the Claims Commissioner. That authority will determine, depending on the scale of the event, how much compensation should be given. The Bill also mentions that the Indian laws, whatever is available today, are in no way affected by the introduction of this new Act. The right of recourse in this case is available to the operator through other Acts [also].

Q: Tort law?

Tort is there. Defect liability is there…. Only in this Act, it has been mentioned that they have the right of recourse. We [the DAE] are not taking sides. We just want to make a victim-friendly legislation and make the operator liable. One of the points is that you are inculcating safety-consciousness in the operator because you are introducing a heavy liability in case any incident occurs which affects the people. We sincerely believe that no situation will arise where it will be necessary to invoke this law.

Q: There was an attempt in June to delete clause 17(b). There was a DAE internal note to that effect.

It was not an attempt.

Q: The perception is that there was pressure on the DAE from the Prime Minister's Office to delete the clause.

No. Let me explain. There are two contradictory requirements. On the one side, you have to look at the international practice, what are the laws available in several countries. In most of these legislations, there is no mention of the right of recourse…. In some way, there is a mention and statements are similar to what is indicated in 17(a) and (c).

On the other side, when you are getting equipment and components from several suppliers, in case a fault in any of them leads to a nuclear accident, there should be some suppliers' responsibility. This is the contradiction.

That is why this point was discussed in detail during several discussions of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Based on its recommendations and a broad political consensus, the present language in clause 17 was evolved.

Q: Was there no pressure at all from the American suppliers to remove 17(b)?

It is a legislation made in India. So we have to ensure that it is India-centric. It cannot be based on what you are calling pressures from other countries. In any case, there will be many things published in the press, many viewpoints being expressed. But you cannot say that an Indian lobby is being created by pressure from other countries. {Pricks a conspiracy theory bubble, I guess}

[Tanaji]

Personally I'm not too disturbed if the likes of Westinghouse feel they've been sc**wed. What disturbs me is the initial reaction of L&T. If we accept that the ultimate aim is to develop a thriving indigenous nuclear industry, we've already burnt one bridge by not allowing the likes of Reliance to get into nuclear generation - I bet these guys would/could have negotiated a far tougher deal with equipment suppliers than any GoI babu. But that's water down the bridge.

However, if L&T and other Indian players decide to stay away then we can kiss good bye to all notions of becoming a hub for nuclear power generation equipment. I don't think the public sector has the business acumen and discipline (caveat: It certainly has the talent!) to become a globally competitive equipment maker without the private sectors help.

Wasn't one of the main benefits of the nuke deal, the opportunity to be a major player in the global nuclear industry in addition to meeting our energy needs? It is quite strange that a bill gets passed that essentially nips one of the principal driving factors of the nuke bill in the bud. So as it stands, even before things take off, of the main drivers are a non starter.

I am curious why GoI agreed to this 80 year , 1200 crore liability thing. Or is it a case of the initial nuke deal opponents forcing this change so that they can later gloat "I told you so"?

[amit]

Wasn't one of the main benefits of the nuke deal, the opportunity to be a major player in the global nuclear industry in addition to meeting our energy needs? It is quite strange that a bill gets passed that essentially nips one of the principal driving factors of the nuke bill in the bud. So as it stands, even before things take off, of the main drivers are a non starter.

I am curious why GoI agreed to this 80 year , 1200 crore liability thing. Or is it a case of the initial nuke deal opponents forcing this change so that they can later gloat "I told you so"?

Tanaji,

Sad to say but I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's still early days yet - and I hope my reading is wrong - but we may have yet again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think this 80 year liability thing is just a piece of legislative glory for a few MPs.

A majority of our nuclear plants are and will be of Russian origin and it's pretty clear that they will not be governed by this liability criteria. I have a feeling the French will also waltz around this clause through govt-to-govt contracts. So all this talk about safeguarding the future of the Aam Janata in case of a nuclear accident and making sure equipment suppliers pay by going bankrupt, yada yada, are just good bedtime stories. (I must say again I hope I'm wrong on this.)

I don't see the US getting more than a couple of reactors. As I've written before, I personally don't mind if they don't come but if the Law of Unintended Consequences puts the brakes on the nascent indigenous nook industry, it will be tragedy of unparalleled proportions. Of course the usual caveat IMVVVHO.

Another point is not letting private sector participation in nuclear power generation. I maintain the likes of Reliance Power would have been able to negotiate a far better deal with foreign suppliers than govt babus because they are hard as nails and know how to squeeze the last bit of advantage.

Yet on the basis of a bogeyman that US companies would enter into power generation, the Indian private sector power generation players were left out. It may be my shortcoming that I don't know, but I find it strange that nobody, on this thread, has yet been able to point out to me a single instance of a foreign power generator running a nuclear power plant in the private sector in another (major) nuclear-capable country. Sometimes facts are tossed out of the window in the eagerness to brand some folks as "Quislings".

[darshhan]

Guys , Sad day for Indian nuclear industry.Former Atomic energy commision chairman H.N.Sethna has passed away.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 506075.cms

May he rest in peace.

[Muppalla]

I am curious why GoI agreed to this 80 year , 1200 crore liability thing. Or is it a case of the initial nuke deal opponents forcing this change so that they can later gloat "I told you so"?

This is the crux. Why did government in the end accepted this line? To me it is something unbeleivable. They fought everything and put everything that they could on the line of fire starting from 123. In the end it is something that they accepted. Either I am missing something or they gave up.

MMS did not even shake hands with anyone after passing the liability bill as he was very unhappy.

[Sanku]

The 123 deal was done clearly against the will of the Parliament, in fact the allies of the Govt deserted it on the issue and if it was not for Mulayam Singh Yadav and cross voting by a few members the Govt would have fallen on the issue. In fact if the bill was presented before the parliament to vote on it would probably go the same way as the Nuclear liability bill.

A combination of changing the direction of discussion from the 123 deal to one of "Govt survival and power politics" the matter was scraped through in one of the darkest chapter in Indian parliament to date.

In any case whats the point of the above -- basically to highlight the fact that 123 was NEVER really accepted by Indians, like the Islamist victories of Turko-Mongols, a few decisive battles were indeed won, but the underlying resistance never faltered.

In the end, the undying resistance prevailed or prevails. At least thats what I would like to hope.

[Sanatanan]

From the Economic Times, 6 Sep, 2010
Railways in talks with NPCIL to set up nuclear power plant

KOLKATA: The Indian Railways has approached Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) for setting up 1000 mw of captive nuclear capacity on its behalf.

The proposal put forward by the Indian Railways includes setting up two units of 500 mw on railway land. Power generated from the plants will be used by the Railways.

. . .

According to current estimates, two 500 mw nuclear power plants will cost around `10,000 crore for the plant and equipment. Sources said this venture with NPCIL could be in line with the one that has already been floated with NTPC.

. . .

NPCIL, which would be the executing agency, is likely to use indigenous high-pressure water technology reactor, that is considered cost-effective. “Our 500-700 mw nuclear power plants are more cost-effective than imported technology,” Mr Banerjee said.

I had in Sep 2007, in my blog (see section titled "Paradigm shift"), had advocated setting up dedicated indigenous npps for Railway (electric) traction. While applauding the present proposal, I still maintain that for purposes of Railway traction, a distributed set of dedicated smaller capacity npps may be better than building large sized plants. It is my guess that economy due to larger number of smaller capacity indigenously built plants ordered may turn out to be just as good in comparison with economy that is supposed to be obtained from a fewer number of large-sized plants.

Perhaps it is no surprise that this news item with a Kolkata dateline (I presume that the proposal emanated from that geographic location, said to be the Union Railway Minister's HQ), has come up in Dr Srikumar Banerjee 's watch as Chairman, DAE .

[svinayak]

Guys , Sad day for Indian nuclear industry.Former Atomic energy commision chairman H.N.Sethna has passed away.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 506075.cms

May he rest in peace.

'
What a coincidence. Last weekend I was talking to a person who was is retired from the dept and who used to interact with Dr was talking about how great a person Dr Sethna was.

[Muppalla]

^^ RIP sir Dr.Sethna.

[SSridhar]

FBTR at Kalpakkam is 25 years old

Come October, the Fast Breeder Test Reactor at Kalpakkam will be 25 years old. The experimental FBTR, which supports a 40 MW power project, is the pilot project that has done the mine-clearing for all the fast breeder reactors that India is going to put up in the coming years.

The FBTR is what has given the Indian nuclear industry the confidence to proceed with fast breeders, an important technology for a uranium-starved country like India.

Fast breeders use a mix of Uranium-235 and Plutonium (a man-made element and an isotopic mutation of Uranium), typically in the ratio of 30:70. They produce more plutonium than they consume (hence they are “breeders”).

They produce plutonium for themselves and lower quantity of fissile uranium would need to be used in the reactors — this helps to conserve uranium.

A tonne of fuel that was put into the FBTR has spent 165,000 hours in the reactor and is still going strong.

The reactor was designed for a fuel burn-up of 25,000 hours.

On October 3, 2002, when it burnt up up 100,000 hours, it was such an important milestone that the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), which runs the FBTR, held a commemorative function.

Today, the experiment is mostly over, and the scientists have removed most of the fuel from the reactor. But they have retained a part of it so as to see how long it continues to serve. “As we are speaking it is 165,000 hours, and counting,” says Dr Baldev Raj, Director, IGCAR.

FBTR has given Indian nuclear scientists many important lessons.

For example, in handling liquid sodium. In most of the reactors that India has (‘pressurised heavy water reactors') water is the coolant, whereas in fast breeders, the coolant is liquid sodium. Handling liquid sodium is tricky – if it comes in contact with water (it comes very close, in steam generators) it will react with hydrogen, and explode.

Scientists at IGCAR have learnt to manage. They have developed a sensor which will detect the presence of hydrogen in terms of parts per billion. If the presence of hydrogen exceeds 50 parts per billion, it will trigger a mechanism that will prevent any accident, says Dr P R Vasudeva Rao, Head – Chemistry Group, IGCAR. These sensors have been validated by France (a country that has fast breeder reactors) and the French are amazed, Dr Rao said.

[SSridhar]

Sethna: the man who dared to dream

Dr. Sethna played a key role in the country's first peaceful nuclear explosion of May 18, 1974, called the Smiling Buddha, or Pokhran-I.

Virtually encapsulating his achievements and qualities, Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Director Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), who worked with Dr. Sethna, said: “He was the one who dared to put Indian technology in nuclear science to this level. He was not afraid to do things for the first time. He believed in self-reliance and never asked for favours. He went ahead in areas in which information and technology were denied. He made plutonium in 1964 and he was not afraid of politicians. He never asked for obligation or favours. He was a great Indian technologist and worked all his life in India.”

Dr. Sethna pioneered reprocessing technology in India and played a crucial role in the designing and setting up of the first plutonium separation plant at BARC. This plutonium went into the making of the nuclear device that was tested in on May 18, 1974 at Pokhran. India's first nuclear explosion, the Peaceful Nuclear Experiment, took place when Dr. Sethna was AEC Chairman.

Anil Kakodkar, former Chairman AEC, described Dr Sethna as “a no-nonsense person” who gave “bold and courageous leadership to the DAE during several times of crisis.” When the Tarapur fuel supply from the U.S. was interrupted in 1974, there was an “angry” school of opinion that said India should press for its legal rights to get the enriched uranium from the U.S. “Sethna showed tremendous courage at that time, preparing the country for alternative fuel supply. The French stepped in and gave us enriched uranium. If that had not happened, Dr. Sethna was getting ready with his MOX programme to run the Tarapur reactors on MOX fuel. We got the supply from France and we also developed the MOX fuel.”

Sir, a grateful nation salutes you.

[abhishek_sharma]

On Homi Sethna

He helped India weather a prolonged nuclear winter storm

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/He-he ... orm/678109

[amit]

MMS did not even shake hands with anyone after passing the liability bill as he was very unhappy.

Can one really blame him?

I suspect he had already spent too much political capital in the initial round for the nuclear deal to be able to get this through the way he wanted it.

It's easy to question his motives but two years on the nuclear deal did work out the way he had promised. No CRE, No alphabet soup treaty, reprocessing rights, uranium deals. And now the reactor deals are starting to come in.

Let's see how this one pans out. I have a feeling that there will eventually be amendments to this bill. The 80 year clause looks ridiculous, more so when you consider that one nuclear power plant may have this liability clause while the another one a few hundred miles away would have no liability clause whatsoever for the equipment suppliers (a Russian plant).

JMT

[Tanaji]

In any case whats the point of the above -- basically to highlight the fact that 123 was NEVER really accepted by Indians, like the Islamist victories of Turko-Mongols,

Laying it on a bit thick are we?

Most Indians simply dont care, a fewer of those that do really spend the time to understand it. The treaty was slammed through the parliament, yes, but that is par for the course as with most amendments and bills these days.

The real power is not with the people, but with the babus, and coalition interests. The days of intelligent debates in Parliament are long gone.

[SSridhar]

IGCAR to develop boilers for power plants

After developing the Fast Breeder Reactor, scientists at IGCAR will now pool their expertise to design advanced super-critical boilers for use in coal-based power plants.

The Kalpakkam-based Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) recently in this regard.

The MoU came in the wake of suggestions in this regard by Principal Scientific Adviser R Chidambaram.

“IGCAR has the capacity to design such high-temperature boilers, BHEL can manufacture these plant components while NTPC can put up such plants. The MoU will help build synergy between the three entities,” IGCAR Director Baldev Raj told PTI.

He pointed out that the IGCAR expertise of equipment design, development of materials that can operate in very high temperature has been demonstrated while developing the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR).

Raj also made a presentation on the subject at a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Council to the Union Cabinet headed by Mr. Chidambaram held here on Tuesday.

The advanced super-critical boilers, to be designed and developed by IGCAR, will be able to operate at a pressure of 350 bar and withstand temperature of 700 degree centigrade.

Raj said he expected the project, which could cost to the tune of Rs 10,000 crore, to be realised by 2017.

He said as India aimed to generate at least 4,00,000 MW power by 2030 through coal-fired power plants it was necessary to develop advanced super-critical technologies that would be less taxing on the environment.

The super-critical boilers used by the industry today operate at 250 bar and 600 degree centigrade and are very expensive, he said adding that indigenous development of such technology will help India save on equipment costs.

IGCAR has successfully designed and developed India’s first 500 MW PFBR which is being built at Kalpakkam.

IGCAR, NTPC and BHEL on Tuesday signed an MoU for indigenous development of next generation of super-critical technology August 26.

The technology would have substantially higher power plant efficiency with 15-20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions.

[amit]

In any case whats the point of the above -- basically to highlight the fact that 123 was NEVER really accepted by Indians, like the Islamist victories of Turko-Mongols,

Laying it on a bit thick are we?

Most Indians simply dont care, a fewer of those that do really spend the time to understand it. The treaty was slammed through the parliament, yes, but that is par for the course as with most amendments and bills these days.

The real power is not with the people, but with the babus, and coalition interests. The days of intelligent debates in Parliament are long gone.

The point is if you oppose the 123, you are in effect also opposing the nuclear deals being struck with the Russians and the French, plus the Uranium deals with an host of countries that have occurred. 123 is one of the keys that opened the door to nuclear commerce. I would think only a committed Jhollawalla who gives a Lal Salam everyday and prays looking in the direction of China would oppose all this.

Sometimes the sequence of events are forgotten.

[geeth]

>>>I am curious why GoI agreed to this 80 year , 1200 crore liability thing.

I don't know how many engineers/firms/companies would accept a patent or latent design manufacturing defect for 80 years..

[Sanku]

In any case whats the point of the above -- basically to highlight the fact that 123 was NEVER really accepted by Indians, like the Islamist victories of Turko-Mongols,

The real power is not with the people, but with the babus, and coalition interests. The days of intelligent debates in Parliament are long gone.

And the Babu's et al are not Indians? Of course when I say *Indians* I mean to say that the subset of Indians who cared about what is happening. Isnt it generally true? When some one says *Indian* on the forum he does not claim to represent 76.7777% of votes polled in a referendum on the issue?

The decision to not debate the 123 in terms of a bill in the parliament (this would be a combination of something like a Hyde act + a framework within which the Govt would commit to making external promises -- and yes I KNOW that its NOT NEEDED as per the LETTER of the law) but deal with it in terms of Govt survival was a step to exactly leverage the factors that you have outlined.

Change the game, take the ball from those who care about the issue and turn in into rah-rah political demagoguery.

The basics still dont change -- Indians were not comfortable with 123 in the way it was done and the resistance exists.

[Sanku]

The point is if you oppose the 123, you are in effect also opposing the nuclear deals being struck with the Russians and the French, plus the Uranium deals with an host of countries that have occurred. 123 is one of the keys that opened the door to nuclear commerce. I would think only a committed Jhollawalla who gives a Lal Salam everyday and prays looking in the direction of China would oppose all this.

Sometimes the sequence of events are forgotten.

This is like saying if you were opposing the previous version of Nuclear liability bill you were a Luddite against Nuclear power.

No the issue was not with all those things that you talk of but ONLY the specific behavior in 123 seen then and seen later in terms of pushing non Indian interests.

I know that Congress was successful in pulling that line on general Indian public, but unfortunately for such views, BRF is a little better informed and such snake-oil gets called for what it exactly is.

[amit]

A good example of how to change the terms of the debate from the difficulty of arguing one's position on the liability bill that may stunt the growth of local nuclear industry to the alleged wrong doing during the passage of 123 two years ago.

Talking of snake-oil...

[Sanatanan]

A nuclear interaction

Towards the end, Pitamaha describes what seems to be machinations of a babu.

[ramana]

Wrong conclusion. Its active participation by an informed bureaucrat. machination has negative connotation.

BTW, Mr. H.M. Patel was great man and a great bureaucrat.

[Sanatanan]

I was referring to the description of the role played by PM’s Secretary (in the very last paragraph).

[abhishek_sharma]

State Dept Press Briefing

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/09/146872.htm

QUESTION: P.J., let me ask you – I believe next week, some of the high-class Indian officials are expected in Washington, but as far as U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement is concerned, is that problem is now solved? Or because of this new bill in the Indian parliament which is not making U.S. businesses happy --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we continue our discussions with the Indian Government on this issue and we note that Indian business leaders are concerned about some specific aspects of that – the law that was just passed by parliament, and we will look to the Indian Government to see what changes can be made.

[ramana]

I was referring to the description of the role played by PM’s Secretary (in the very last paragraph).

PM's Secy in the past have been known to meddle in areas beyond their ken to India's detriment. PVNR had one such person.