India Nuclear News And Discussion

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2010 12:43

French Areva confident liability law won't stop Indian contract

French nuclear reactor vendor Areva is "confident" that a new Indian
nuclear liability law won't prevent signature of a contract with Nuclear Power
of India Ltd, or Npcil, to build up to six EPR reactor units at Jaitapur near
Mumbai, Areva spokeswoman Pauline Briand said Monday.
The 1,650-MW European Pressurized water Reactor is Areva's flagship
product.

She said "a lot of people" at the state-owned firm "are working with
Npcil to find a solution that will allow us to work in India the way we are
able to work with other countries."

Areva remains hopeful a way would be found to protect the firm and enable
it to sign the deal soon. "We are confident...We have a great contract."

President Nicolas Sarkozy is scheduled to visit India in early December,
following on the heels of US President Barack Obama. According to media
reports, Npcil and its partners hoped that reactor contracts could be signed
during both those visits.

The law, which passed the Indian parliament last week, contains a clause
that allows a nuclear plant operator to seek reimbursement from suppliers for
compensation it has paid to members of the public for nuclear-related damages,
if the accident is due to defective or substandard equipment or services.

The Indian legislation is the first in the world to make suppliers
potentially liable for nuclear damage.

Twenty-eight national laws and three international nuclear liability
conventions all channel such third-party liability to the operator of a
nuclear installation, but limit the amount of operator liability, under a
no-fault principle that is designed to facilitate and accelerate compensation.

Under the existing international system, suppliers do bear commercial
liability for their products, but that is usually limited in time and scope,
whereas nuclear liability is long-term--up to 80 years--and covers a broad
scope of potential damage.

Last week, a spokesman for Atomstroyexport parent Rosatom said the
Russians thought their industry would be protected from liability by an
intergovernmental agreement, which would take precedence over the Indian
domestic law.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2010 14:32

Homi Sethna,a great loss indeed.A truly great hero of modern India.May he RIP.

I cannot understand why in the BP US oil spill accident,where 11 died,and the liability to BP is now estimated at $22 billion which might even go upto $50 billion,for which the US govt. and the Messiah vow to get "every nickel and dime" from BP,while we have placed such a paltry figure by comparison as compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.Obama must be asked this question when he visits India.There cannot be double standards.Sadly,our great major parties have agreed upon a pittance instead,more's the pity.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2010 16:17

Philip wrote:Homi Sethna,a great loss indeed.A truly great hero of modern India.May he RIP.

I cannot understand why in the BP US oil spill accident,where 11 died,and the liability to BP is now estimated at $22 billion which might even go upto $50 billion,for which the US govt. and the Messiah vow to get "every nickel and dime" from BP,while we have placed such a paltry figure by comparison as compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.Obama must be asked this question when he visits India.There cannot be double standards.Sadly,our great major parties have agreed upon a pittance instead,more's the pity.

Philip,
I really hope you realise that BP is liable as the operator (actually joint operator in partnership with Anadarko Petroleum) of the oil rig off the Gulf of Mexico.

Meanwhile, the liability bill passed by Parliament has essentially two parts to it. One is it fixes the operator's liability in case of a nuclear accident. The second part allows the operator to pursue action against the equipment supplier in case it is proved - after the operator pays out compensation - that the accident occurred due to equipment failure or negligence on the part of the equipment supplier.

Now here's the crux. The sole operator of nuclear power plants in India will be NPCIL which, in case it slipped your mind, is a GoI entity. Now I'm all for NPCIL being held liable for $22 billion, $50 billion, what the heck, $100 billion in liability as the operator just as BP is being hauled over the coals as the operator of the oil rig.

But can you tell me how the fish President Obama comes into the picture of what the GoI and the parties represented in Parliament decides is the correct compensation figure to be paid out by NPCIL in case of a nuclear accident?

Or are you one of those Indians who literally take the Messiah title conferred on Obama?

I'm amazed that you don't realise that the BP incident, is not comparable to equipment supplier liability, the portion of the liability bill that's being discussed.

Or does the mathematics go like this:

a) (Oil rig) Operator = BP = firangi company

b) (Nuclear) equipment supplier = Westinghouse (say) = firangi company.

Therefore, a=b that is: Oil rig Operator = Nuclear equipment supplier! [Because both are friangi]

Hence catch Ombaba since he's going after BP therefore he should go after Westinghouse? (Of course we shouldn't go ahead of ourselves, let them supply equipment for a N-plant first)!

I suggest you read up about the compensation given out after the Three Mile Accident.

Added later:

Have a look at what the new law provides for:

The law sets the maximum operator liability for any single nuclear incident at a reactor greater than 10MW in power at Rs 1500 Cr ($322 million), according to the text of the law. An incident at a spent fuel reprocessing plant is capped at Rs 300 Cr ($64 million). Incidents during transport, at other fuel cycle plants and at research reactors below 10MW are capped at Rs 100 Cr ($21 million). The maximum amount of liability for each incident is the Rupee equivalent of 300 million International Monetary Fund special drawing rights ($300 million). The legislation expects that operators will take out insurance to cover the risk.

After paying compensation, operators have the right of recourse to suppliers or other parties in three cases: when the right is written into a contract, when the damage is caused by a malicious individual, and "where the nuclear incident resulted as consequence of act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services."

Source here

If you don't like the compensation amounts why don't you write an open letter to the Messiah complaining about the Indian system!

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 08 Sep 2010 20:39

abhishek_sharma wrote: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.

As though in answer (from DNA, 8 Sep 2010):
BJP against any 'changes' in nuclear liability bill

. . .

"It is a law passed by Parliament (in the Monsoon session). Parliament is supreme. The government cannot suddenly change anything surreptitiously without coming before Parliament," BJP spokesperson Prakash Javdekar told reporters replying to a question on the issue.

. . .

I guess, if the Govt. is not sure about getting an amendment passed by the Parl., then it can promulgate an ordinance but that too must get approved by the Parliament within six months. But six months is a long time - many things can happen in the mean time!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Sep 2010 21:12

The design life of an nukepower plant in US is 40 years. With life extension it could be more maybe even 80 years. If GOI stuck that 80 year life clause it could be with inputs from scientists. Design defects in complex systems show up over long periods of operating lief. In simple systems they show up early in life aka infant mortality of systems.
If the liability amount is paltry then its effective period has to be the operating life of plant. Can't have it both ways.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 08 Sep 2010 21:23

I don't see this bill as a problem to the suppliers of equipment and services. Equipment and components have a warranty life, and if operations exceed that warranty life, then the operator must replace the component to keep the power plant safety certified. It is the same for commercial aircraft operating a long number of years. It can be broken down to commercial-off-the-shelf and critical components.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Sep 2010 22:03

ramana wrote:The design life of an nukepower plant in US is 40 years. With life extension it could be more maybe even 80 years. If GOI stuck that 80 year life clause it could be with inputs from scientists. Design defects in complex systems show up over long periods of operating lief. In simple systems they show up early in life aka infant mortality of systems.
If the liability amount is paltry then its effective period has to be the operating life of plant. Can't have it both ways.

This is karat's revenge. BJP has followed him in a ball less fashion. This time karat has remained in the background having learned a great lesson by pissing off the congress earlier. Congress has had to eat crow because MMS owes something to the US. If we know exactly what he owes then maybe we can figure out the next moves. To continue to stay as the PM and that too on so tight a leash and work under such humiliating circumstances means that he has a different objective. He remains stuck to his gaddi like a limpet.

In any case, history will not be kind to MMS. This ex babu guy was reborn because of PVN.

I do not think that any brand new reactor system is coming to India soon, this hopefully takes care of the infant mortality theory ( if applicable at all ). No company wants to jeopardize their commercial future by bringing in unproven or dodgy technology.

Regular checks and preventive maintenance systems will usually spot weak links and hopefully improve reactor safety.

The lefties will never forget Bhopal or even let any one else forget it. The goras are very wary after Bhopal. This is after all the age of 24 hours TV coverage. No company or country will ever get more than one single chance if there is a mishap. The stakes are huge.

The amount that has been legislated is for the purpose of insurance only. Any amount of liability can be placed on the offending party but the insurance companies need a number for the paper work to be completed. Without such basic insurance no company will step into India.

The 80 year liability is a karat googly

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Sep 2010 22:11

Do you know how mature was the GE BWR in Trombay?

Regular checks and preventive maintenance systems will usually spot weak links and hopefully improve reactor safety.

This gets the mundane problems and not the deep flaws. Bhopal was also due to the deep flaw. I guess you seem to think UC was not treated fairly in Bhopal.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Sep 2010 22:22

ramana wrote:Do you know how mature was the GE BWR in Trombay?

Regular checks and preventive maintenance systems will usually spot weak links and hopefully improve reactor safety.
This gets the mundane problems and not the deep flaws. Bhopal was also due to the deep flaw. I guess you seem to think UC was not treated fairly in Bhopal.

Ramana saar,

Bhopal was not due to any deep flaw but systematic and callous cost reduction that went a bit too far.

After all only kalus were involved, no big deal.

These faqers would never have dared do what they did to us if they were in europe or else where.

In their bid to save money, UC purposely let things slide hoping that they would squeak through.

I do not support UC or ANY other amreki company for that matter. These buggers should be kept out of India at all costs, IMVHO. They sell not on merit but on state dept intervention and that can't be good for any customer.

The brits have also appointed their PM as chief salesman or woman since Dame Thatcher.

Caveat emptor.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Sep 2010 05:36

India Law Threatens U.S. Energy Deals

The U.S. government is scrambling to preserve the benefits of a civil nuclear agreement with India—the cornerstone of a broad new relationship between the world's two largest democracies—after India passed a law that threatens to effectively exclude U.S. companies from its market for nuclear power.

But the payoff of the agreement for the U.S. has been thrown into doubt by the new Indian law, which exposes firms supplying equipment to nuclear plants to liability in the case of accidents—unexpectedly making India a difficult market for U.S. suppliers to operate in. In nearly all countries with nuclear power, suppliers are immune from lawsuits while all liability is channeled to nuclear-plant operators.

The provision also caught Washington off guard, according to people familiar with the talks, and has sparked discussions between the countries on how to deal with it.

The U.S. and India are now discussing ways for American nuclear suppliers to circumvent the new law, people familiar with the matter said. If they can't find a workaround, American companies could effectively be left on the sidelines in India. Russian and French state-controlled nuclear-equipment companies have an advantage, since their governments provide a certain amount of liability protection, but even they are concerned about the impact of the Indian law, people familiar with the matter say.

The U.S. industry isn't confident any of those measures would work perfectly and would prefer that the law be amended outright so all supplier liability could be explicitly removed, people familiar with the matter say, but such a move would face stiff opposition in New Delhi.

The nuclear deal altered the trajectory of relations between Washington and New Delhi, positioning India after years of nonalignment as a firm U.S. ally in a troubled region and as a democratic buttress to China's rise. Washington has made it clear to India it wants to see movement on the nuclear issue before Mr. Obama's visit.

Last year, Washington also signed a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates for some of the same reasons it signed one with India: It would be good for business and aid global nonproliferation efforts. At the end of the day, though, American firms got almost nothing out of the agreement with almost all the major contracts bid out by the U.A.E. going to a consortium led by South Korea's Korea Electric Power Corp.

He summed up the party's stance: "India is a huge market. Come on my terms or don't come at all."

Under India's law, the cap on liability for any nuclear accident is about $322 million . Though plant operators would be primarily responsible for accidents, they could seek "recourse" by suing suppliers.
Shielding suppliers from liability "is a major element of the international nuclear liability regime," said Norbert Pelzer, a nuclear law expert at Germany's University of Gottingen, adding that India's law "will cause a political problem with the United States."

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Sep 2010 09:10

>>>I don't see this bill as a problem to the suppliers of equipment and services. Equipment and components have a warranty life, and if operations exceed that warranty life, then the operator must replace the component to keep the power plant safety certified. It is the same for commercial aircraft operating a long number of years. It can be broken down to commercial-off-the-shelf and critical components.

That is exactly my point also..(though my earlier one liner could have been read the other way round by people). Something additional applicable for a Nuclear reactor could be the behaviour of material exposed to radiation. Here again, the clause in the law could act as a deterrent for the supplier to do experiments at the cost of Indian life - i.e., they would hesitate to supply things which are not sufficiently tested or unproven in the harsh radiation environment (because it would have taken years for them to complete the cycle of tests, or they want to do it at someone else's cost). Then there could be deliberate attempt of sabotage, which once happens would close the nuclear option for India for ever..

As they say, if they want, let them enter the Indian market at our own terms and not at their terms.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 09 Sep 2010 20:31

The Indian law is fine as passed by Parliament. There can be no changes to the law as it would require an amendment to the law or replaced with another proposed bill. Any further concerns that the US nuclear power suppliers may have must be addressed in the individual contract.

What US companies must be told is that they must be very clear in the contract regarding safety certification and proper operation mandated by the warranty of individual components or certification of the said manufacturer. This is easy as these facilities will in fact be monitored by the IAEA and US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement inspections regime. The analogy would be the DAE builds nuclear power plants in India and buys components from any manufacturer worldwide. Should there be an accident due to a faulty component from improper installation, servicing, or outside of normal replacement period, then the liability falls in the hands of the operator which would be DAE in this example.

You can be assured if the faulty component is Russian or French, India will be given the middle finger by these countries regardless of what is the law or contract. However, we can never have another UC Bhopal disaster and that is why the law is what it is.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 21:23

There is an article by Kanwal Sibal on why the Indian law is good for India.

http://www.ewi.info/india-rewrites-nuclear-rules

and

India rewrites Nuke rules

rahuls · Post by **rahuls** » 10 Sep 2010 05:17

US picks holes in N-deal

Washington has urged New Delhi to be sensitive to its concerns and those of American corporates while framing the rules for the Nuclear Liability Bill which was recently passed by Parliament.

The US ambassador to India, Mr Timothy Roemer, is understood to have conveyed similar sentiments to South Block as both sides determine how to proceed with the last leg of the journey towards operationalising the India-US nuclear deal.

The envoy’s meeting coincided with the US state department making it known that it was in talks with New Delhi to see what changes can be made to the Bill.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Sep 2010 07:30

India to approach IAEA on liability convention

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/11/stories ... 071600.htm

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Sep 2010 19:13

Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 13 Sep 2010 13:50

After US, Russia upset over N-law

Moscow is now looking for an "official clarification" from the government on the law, recently passed by Parliament, which leaves a window open for making suppliers of raw material and equipment liable for damages in case of an accident. Russia's ambassador to India Alexander M Kadakin told TOI that Moscow wants to know about implementation of the contentious clause 17(b) which is being looked upon as a deterrent for suppliers.

"We expect from the Indian side official clarification as regards the implementation mechanism of the respective paragraph of the nuclear liability bill. As per our knowledge, at present such position is being prepared," Kadakin told TOI, emphasizing that the onus was on India, and not foreign partners, to find a solution.

Kadakin said, keeping in mind role of foreign partners, there was reason for India to find "mutually suitable formulae" that will serve the implementation of these ambitious plans. "We expect that to come out. One should not shift solution-finding to the shoulders of partners in the nuclear sphere, including Russia, who are sincerely ready to help India. Russia has been an all-weather friend of India. That will remain in the future. Hopefully, in this crucial issue, India will take the lead by herself," said Kadakin.

Recalling Russia's support to India in acquiring waiver from NSG for carrying out nuclear commerce, Kadakin said Russia has real, not virtual, and long-established experience, unlike other newly found partners, of cooperation with India in the field of peaceful atomic energy.

"That's why we hope that opportunities for its expansion and strengthening will be found with consideration to the interests of both sides," he added. While the liability law does not cover the nuclear plants Russia is building in Kudankulam, it will impact the proposed Russian reactors at Haripur and another site not yet allotted. The US state department had suggested last week that it was already looking at the possibility of changes in the law.

As a report in Wall Street Journal said on Friday, US is considering a government-to-government agreement with India which could take precedence over the law, but in that case, India will have to pledge indemnity to suppliers. Even Indian business honchos have criticized the law, which was passed with over 75% majority in Parliament, for making suppliers liable.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 13 Sep 2010 22:27

Kalpakkam Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor to Achieve Fourth Milestone

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4521

The Rs.5,600 crore ($1.25 billion) prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) under construction at Kalpakkam, around 80 km from here, is expected to get its fourth critical component, the inner vessel, this week.

The sodium cooled fast reactor designed by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) has three vessels - a safety vessel, a main vessel and an inner vessel.

The 11-metre tall inner vessel, the smallest of the three, would support reactor components like pumps, heat exchangers and others.

'We hope to lower the inner vessel Wednesday. However it depends on the rain gods as the weather department has predicted rains over the next 48 hours,' Prabhat Kumar, project director, Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd (Bhavini), told reporters.

The fast breeder reactor, which breeds more material for a nuclear fission reaction than it consumes, is one of the key projects of India's three-stage nuclear power programme. India became the sixth country to have such a technology, way back in 1985.

The PFBR is expected to start operations next September.

The project achieved its third milestone in May this year when another critical component, thermal baffle, a cylindrical safety vessel weighing 60 tonne, measuring 12 metre in diameter and more than six metres in height, was lowered into the main vessel.

The thermal baffle is crucial equipment which helps in keeping the sodium used in the plant cool.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 14 Sep 2010 00:53

Dr A.N Prasad about Dr. H.N Sethna (Rediff, 13 Sep 2010):
Dr Sethna: Firebrand who realised India's N-dreams

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Sep 2010 02:27

Nuclear bill must be compatible with global standards: U.S.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/16/stories ... 501200.htm

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 17 Sep 2010 00:10

India nuclear talks progress with U.S. companies

U.S.-based General Electric (GE.N: Quote) and Westinghouse Electric, owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp (6502.T: Quote), are in advanced talks about build nuclear power plants in India, head of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) of India said on Thursday.

An Indian newspaper, citing unidentified sources, said in early September the two deals were expected to be formally announced when U.S. President Barack Obama visits India in November.

Russia's Rosatom hopes to build up to 16 nuclear reactors in India, competing with French and American firms for lucrative contracts to build nuclear power plants for energy-hungry India because Asia's third-largest economy needs to boost its supply to help sustain rapid economic growth.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 17 Sep 2010 11:00

a old NDTV report about the PFBTR at Kalpakkam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvE4jRpNfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk

another one of NDTV's report of India's test reactor at BARC running the Thorium cycle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1RRNiYQAAI

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 17 Sep 2010 12:40

Shielding suppliers from liability "is a major element of the international nuclear liability regime,"

Hard to understand how suppliers cannot be liable. This liability regime is being framed purely in the interest of the seller. Yet when it comes down to it, US extracted 20 billion out of BP even with a 75 million dollar liability cap proving their laws are applied as and when it suits their interest.

I do not support UC or ANY other amreki company for that matter. These buggers should be kept out of India at all costs, IMVHO. They sell not on merit but on state dept intervention and that can't be good for any customer.

You are right about that. One really has to question the wisdom of buying stuff that has US state department involvement in it. India should ban involvement of any govt entity in contract negotiations with private companies.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 18 Sep 2010 12:05

India's fast breeder reactor gets critical component http://sify.com/news/Indias-fast-breede ... ebcjc.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Sep 2010 18:50

The nuclear man: Dr. H.N.Sethna - T.S.Subramaniam
Those unforgettable days: Interview with Dr. H.N.Sethna - T.S.Subramaniam

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Sep 2010 23:36

I've got a question:

Can a country test nuclear weapons on the moon or on some asteroid? Does it go against CTBT? Would it violate India's terms of agreement of IUCNA? Thanks

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 00:03

There is a intl treaty against nukes in space that India has signed.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2010 00:11

ramana wrote:There is a intl treaty against nukes in space that India has signed.

Thanks

Outer Space Treaty

Wikipedia wrote:The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Sep 2010 01:09

China expands Nuke plans

China’s largest nuclear power company, which revealed plans to build a one-gigawatt nuclear power plant in Pakistan on Monday, has set targets to invest $117.6 billion in nuclear projects by 2020. The investment was disclosed to the state media on Tuesday. An official of the state-run China ....

National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) told China Daily the firm would also look overseas for uranium resources to feed the firm’s current construction of 10 nuclear reactors and 12 approved reactors. CNNC plans to list its subsidiary, CNNC Nuclear Power Company, to fund the expansion.
“We plan to rope in strategic investors,’’ Chen Hua, assistant president of CNNC, said.

China and India both depend on coal-fired power plants to supply at least 70 per cent of their power requirements. Nuclear power in China accounts for only 1 per cent of total energy capacity, but that’s changing with the world’s largest number of nuclear power projects underway to meet China’s official targets to achieve 15 per cent power from renewable energy by 2020.

.... China’s civilian nuclear investments in Pakistan have raised strategic concerns in the US and India.

China's foreign ministry says the Sino-Pak civilian nuclear cooperation is for peaceful purposes and that China has kept the International Atomic Energy Agency informed about it.

Also: China to set up a new 1 GW nuclear plant for Pak

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 01:13

RajeshA wrote:
ramana wrote:There is a intl treaty against nukes in space that India has signed.
Thanks

Outer Space Treaty
Wikipedia wrote:The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.

There is special need for prohibiting from the Moon. Moon has a couple of locations that point to earth all the time. One of the objecties of moon colonisation is to occupy those locations to dominate the earth.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Sep 2010 02:16

Moon has a couple of locations that point to earth all the time. One of the objecties of moon colonisation is to occupy those locations to dominate the earth..

Like about half of the moon.. One side of the moon always faces earth while the other never

(Except from small "liberation")

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 22 Sep 2010 17:10

India Offers Small-Mid Sized Nuclear Reactors for Sale

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Sep 2010 04:29

India setting up Integrated Nuclear Recycle Plant: Banerjee

India ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Sep 2010 04:48

The nuclear man

Excerpts from a 2008 interview with Homi Nusserwanji Sethna.

narrated how Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “orally” asked the Department of Atomic Energy to conduct the nuclear test at Pokhran in May 1974 and how “no written orders” ever came from her. When Sethna phoned Indira Gandhi to ask for written orders soon after the nuclear device was buried in the shaft at Pokhran, she said: “Have you become chicken-hearted?”

Institution builder

Liability has been taken by the operator'

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Sep 2010 09:56

100000 MWd/t is an international benchmark.

155 GWd/t is pretty awesome. Its actually the most comprehensive statement about the maturity of our FBR programme.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Sep 2010 08:58

Kudankulam commissioning getting further delayed to March, 2011

“As we've planned to go for the ‘hot commissioning' of the reactor during November, actual fuel loading will take place in December. Hence, electricity from the first unit will start flowing in the first quarter of 2011,” Shreyans Kumar Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) told reporters at Kudankulam on Thursday.

The 220 KV electrical output systems and the internal distribution system of the first reactor of KKNPP had been commissioned and the 400 KV electrical output systems had been tested and ready for power evacuation. In addition to that, the seawater cooling system, diesel generators, auxiliary boiler, chlorination plant, fire water system, chilled water plant, compressed air system and other auxiliary systems had also been successfully commissioned and were operating.

The turbo generator had been boxed up on barring gear and was ready for receiving the steam. Condensate and feed water system erection had also been completed and commissioning was in progress.

On the reactor side, flushing up of reactor had been completed. Subsequent to the loading of 163 dummy fuel assemblies into the reactor for conducting full-scale thermo-hydraulic tests of the reactor systems, all reactor components like protective tube unit, reactor pressure vessel head, control rod drive housing etc. had been installed and the reactor had been boxed up. Now the reactor is ready for conducting ‘hydraulic test' and the subsequent ‘Hot Circulation Flushing' of the primary coolant circuit system. “Following this exercise, the actual fuel loading will commence during December this year. The main control panels and workstations had been energised and the operations have been commenced from the control room,” Dr. Jain added.

The second reactor of KKNPP would be ready for commissioning during September or October 2011 as internal assembly, fuelling machine erection etc. had been completed. Pre-commissioning of systems required for spillage to open reactor is in progress.

Even as the NPCIL had opened techno-commercial negotiations with the Russians for the construction of the third and fourth reactors at Kudankulam, grading and levelling of the proposed site for this expansion programme had been completed.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 30 Sep 2010 06:53

From Mumbai Mirror, 29 Sep 2010:
Radioactive boiler suit found in TAPS sweeper’s locker

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Oct 2010 06:45

NPC threatens to shut two Tarapur units

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Oct 2010 07:57

Indian Neutrino Observatory HQ to be set up at Madurai

The headquarters of the Rs.1,200-crore India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) project, coming up in the Western Ghats, will be set up in Madurai.

While the country's first-ever underground neutrino observatory will be set up in Theni district, it was decided to have the headquarters in Madurai to provide facilities for scientists, administrative operations and for residential quarters.

The INO Project is an underground facility with a huge detector and two man-made caves amidst a rock mass to study the properties of neutrinos through experiments and understand the various processes in the universe. Once started, this project is expected to take five years for execution.

Steps for getting various mandatory clearances for the proposed project have been taken up.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 05 Oct 2010 08:23

Japan-India nuclear deal: Striking a balance (5 Oct 2010)

Author of the article says Japan should insist that, if India tests a nuclear weapon, Japan has the right to request the return of any components it has supplied -- this would mean heavy forgings such as Reactor Pressure Vessels etc for GE and Westinghouse reactors -- thus implying that after the Japan supplied components are installed and have become radioactive/contaminated, India would find it extremely costly if not impossible to renege the vow (figuratively speaking, delivered, while negotiating/signing the agreement, with a "sashtanga namaskaram" at the feet of the Japanese) not to test.