India Nuclear News And Discussion

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Oct 2010 18:35

I do not think there is anything in the piece which is self serving, or wishful thinking. On the contrary it think there is lot of thought, scientific integrity went into this well articulated piece. As a Ex-AEC chairman he does know about these things.

And yes, I believe (and lot of people who I respect concur with this) that practically speaking there is really no alternative and unless some real break through comes along in new technologies solar and other reusable types can only fill a fraction of the need.
Just my opinion...

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 24 Oct 2010 19:23

Pratyush wrote:Before it is too late
By Anil Kakodkar

choti muh badi baat but can someone clarify what is the point of this article coming from AK ji?

I thought the problems were well understood, "solutions" offered, the bitter pill - the separation, the "sell-out" deal signed, all according to convert India into a nuke screwed Japan model envisioned by people in power.

Now what? Why do I get a sense of whining in this article and whom is this directed towards?

- Indian public?
- Self?
- MMS, the uncle scam's man in India shop?
- opposition?
-Uncle scam?
- the "international" community?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2010 19:42

Satya_anveshi wrote:
Now what? Why do I get a sense of whining in this article and whom is this directed towards?

To me it seems directed towards P5 and "nuclear haves" who are putting brakes on nuclear exchange because of nuke weapons risk.

However - the way I see it is that if this is true then China supplying reactors to Pakistan is good.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 24 Oct 2010 20:38

shiv wrote:To me it seems directed towards P5 and "nuclear haves" who are putting brakes on nuclear exchange because of nuke weapons risk.
However - the way I see it is that if this is true then China supplying reactors to Pakistan is good.

So, China's strategy plays directly into our concerns and yet screws us where it hurts us the most. To me this sounds like an issue in articulating our concerns (even assuming that our concerns are legitimate). We should develop a framework/agreements/partners that seek safe/risk free techology and articulate those in the right perspective.

What China is doing is plan illegal and dangerous.

Perhaps we should go ahead and share the "safe" technology to some willing partners.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 24 Oct 2010 21:44

Amber G. wrote:I do not think there is anything in the piece which is self serving, or wishful thinking. On the contrary it think there is lot of thought, scientific integrity went into this well articulated piece. As a Ex-AEC chairman he does know about these things.

And yes, I believe (and lot of people who I respect concur with this) that practically speaking there is really no alternative and unless some real break through comes along in new technologies solar and other reusable types can only fill a fraction of the need.
Just my opinion...

I am merely looking at the forecasts by the DOE out to 2035. Note that even the agency that is unencumbered by any nuclear sanctions does not foresee any nuclear capacity additions. Nuclear energy may be necessary post 2035, but why should development wait for that mirage?

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2010

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Oct 2010 01:07

^^May be I am missing something but isn't above for USA (and not India). Average house in USA already uses quite a bit of power so needed growth rate is much different than India. US already has more (compare to India) power / power plants and coal/fossile fuel etc.

For perspective, even though only a fraction of total power in US comes from nuclear, it is still (at this time) the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power (in absolute sense - at around 8*10^14 wh).

BTW even then US is seriously looking at nuclear..In February of this year this US administration approved an $8 billion loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If all goes well these would be the first plants to start in US since the 1970s

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 25 Oct 2010 02:00

No, you are not missing anything. The point is that even though the US has no NSG sanctions, the luxury of a large existing installed capacity and therefore a much smaller requirement for additional generation capacity, it is not looking to turn to nuclear power even in the next 25 years, mainly due to economic reasons.

Now compare this to the situation facing Indian energy generation. If the economic projections are to be believed, the government is looking to take India to near-first-world standards by 2035 (~$4000 per capita income in 2025, ~$8,000 in 2035). This is only 25 years from now, and given the long gestation periods for nuclear projects, it won't be able to bridge India's development deficit. But nuclear may be useful to help Africa develop, and even help reduce Indian greenhouse gas emissions after it has already developed to first world standards.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Oct 2010 13:15

PM says won't 'force' nuclear deal issue on Japan

With Japan playing hard ball in the negotiations on the civil nuclear deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday said he would not "force" it on Tokyo as he recognises its sensitivity on the subject. However, Singh, who is in Tokyo on a two-day visit, said he would like Japanese firms to participate in expansion of India's nuclear industry.

"We would hope that Japan will be India's partner in expansion of its civil nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. But I do recognise the sensitivity of the subject in Japan and will not therefore force the issue," he told a business luncheon meeting here.

Singh told the business leaders that cooperation between the two countries in this area will "enable Japanese companies to participate in India's ambitious nuclear energy programme."

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Oct 2010 13:20

TOI..
India-Japan nuclear deal win-win proposition, says PM

Amid negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has batted for a win-win bilateral deal with Japan, citing huge opportunities offered by India's nuclear sector in which Japanese firms can become "partners" given their advanced capabilities. Singh said the proposed pact would be a win-win proposition for both the countries besides helping in the global efforts to combat climate change.

The two sides have held two rounds of negotiations which have made progress and the next round is expected in November to take the discussions further. "Developing countries like India seek new energy sources to sustain high rates of economic growth. We see nuclear energy as a vital component of our global energy mix," Singh told some Japanese journalists in Delhi ahead of his visit here which began today.

"Our nuclear industry is poised for a major expansion and there will be huge opportunities for the global nuclear industry to participate in the expansion of India's nuclear energy programme," he said. "We would like Japan to be our partner in this initiative". He said India was aware of the advanced capabilities of Japanese firms in the nuclear field and the important role they play in the global supply chain.

Referring to the proposed nuclear agreement with Japan, he expressed confidence that it would be completed but made it clear that there are no deadlines concluding these negotiations. When pointed out that Japan was putting the condition that it will annul the nuclear cooperation if India goes for a nuclear test and whether it was agreeable to India, Singh refused to comment on specific details as the negotiations are still underway.

Singh, however, said both countries would benefit from an agreement that provides a long-term and stable basis of cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This, he said, will contribute towards our energy security requirements and will also help in the global efforts to combat climate change. On India's refusal to sign NPT, Singh cited New Delhi's impeccable non-proliferation record which is recognised by the international community and said New Delhi is committed to maintaining unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing.

"India has been steadfast in its support for global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament in a time-bound framework," he said, adding "We are ready to work with Japan and other like minded countries in realising the vision of a nuclear weapon free world". Sources said that interest for civil nuclear cooperation was first expressed by Japan, apparently because its companies are very keen.

India sees this as a crucial development considering that Japan, the only country to have witnessed a massive atomic attack, has been very sensitive on nuclear issue and New Delhi is not a signatory of NPT. "Something that used to divide us earlier, now unites us," a source said while referring to the nuclear issue.

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 27 Oct 2010 06:04

India agrees to sign N-damages pact

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 817480.cms

India will sign the international agreement on nuclear damages, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, on Wednesday. The Manmohan Singh government has informed the IAEA that it's ready for a signature, which will be done by Dinkar Khullar, India's envoy in Vienna.

The accession to the CSC is being seen as the last Indian commitment for the India-US nuclear deal to be ready for commercial agreements. It was part of a promise India had made to the US in September 2008. Though India had said it would sign on, the US had stepped up the demand for India's accession after India's nuclear liability law left US companies deeply unsatisfied.

The US insisted the Indian law was non-compliant with the CSC, while India insisted it was compliant. But the US, which at one time, threatened that its companies would not participate in the Indian nuclear industry, then agreed that their companies' liability would be "managed" if India signed on to the international agreement. Indian officials maintained this had been India's intention all along.

But with the signing of the CSC, India can smooth away a deep wrinkle in bilateral ties with the US. President Barack Obama can rightfully proclaim the start of a nuclear relationship with India, which will provide jobs to Americans, a prime focus of his India visit. For its part, India can avoid being seen as "ungrateful" after all the heavy lifting by the US on the nuclear deal.

Accession to the CSC has been built into the Indian liability law, because it is the second tier of compensation in case of nuclear damage.

Indian officials said India had long meant to sign on to the CSC, because of the element of cross-border damage that could happen from nuclear incidents in places like, say Kudankulam, which is very close to Sri Lanka.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 27 Oct 2010 06:44

Deccan Herald, 27 October 2010:
India agrees to long-term supply of rare earths for Japan

Tokyo said today that India has agreed to provide a stable supply of rare earth minerals to Japan as the high-tech economy looks to diversify sources after a spat with key provider China.

India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who wound up his three-day visit to Japan today, made the pledge during talks with the Japanese side yesterday, industry minister Akihiro Ohata said at a news conference.

I think the term "Rare Earth" includes Monazite (Thorium mineral). If this is correct, then, in my view, it is a sad day for India. The Govt. is selling this valuable national mineral wealth instead of safeguarding and protecting it. Same is true of exporting high quality iron from our country for the sake of importing finish manufactured steel instead of enhancing indigenous steel manufacturing capacity and then selling the value-added product.

I thought that there is some Act/Law that prevents any one from exporting strategic material and that Thorium was one of the items in the list.

Would like to know the (f)actual position on this.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Oct 2010 06:48

There is some confusion about whether CSC supersedes national laws

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/22/stories ... 460100.htm

“As far as we are concerned, our law is fully compatible with the CSC, and there is no question of our blinking,” a senior Indian official told The Hindu. “We said we would sign the CSC and our intention is still to do so. But nowhere does the CSC say it will supersede existing national legal remedies such as torts.”

http://www.hindustantimes.com/N-liabili ... 18287.aspx

A senior Indian government official who was here in connection with discussions about President's Barack Obama's visit to India is believed to have offered the CSC as the way out of the morass.

“The convention would overtake the national law,” the official is believed to have offered to his American interlocutors.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Oct 2010 06:54

India will approach IAEA today to sign n-damages pact

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/India ... act/703067

According to the CSC, the operator will be fully responsible for all liability in case of a nuclear incident unless, of course, the damage is caused by war, military conflict or natural disasters.

The convention does state that national law can provide the operator with the right to recourse only “if it is expressly provided for by a contract in writing” or if the incident “results from an act or omission done with an intent to cause damage”.

The Indian legislation, however, goes beyond this. It also states that the operator can exercise this right if “the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services”.

For the moment, New Delhi is not that concerned about any possible incongruity between its legislation and the CSC because it does not need to enter into this argument just yet. By signing into the CSC before US President Barack Obama’s visit, India will be fulfilling one of the key demands placed by Washington to assure its suppliers that any legal action will be in line with norms set out in the CSC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2010 07:26

Also keep in mind MMS assurance to Japan to make up their mind when they are wiling to participate without any compulsion.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 27 Oct 2010 08:57

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... agnet.html

Some $hit-for-brains has unfortunately elicited a reasonable answer in the comments.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Oct 2010 09:52

Sanatanan wrote:India agrees to long-term supply of rare earths for Japan

I think the term "Rare Earth" includes Monazite (Thorium mineral). If this is correct, then, in my view, it is a sad day for India. The Govt. is selling this valuable national mineral wealth instead of safeguarding and protecting it. Same is true of exporting high quality iron from our country for the sake of importing finish manufactured steel instead of enhancing indigenous steel manufacturing capacity and then selling the value-added product.

I thought that there is some Act/Law that prevents any one from exporting strategic material and that Thorium was one of the items in the list.

Would like to know the (f)actual position on this.

I generally agree that India must no longer export simply raw material. That was how we were exploited by the Imperialists. But, decisions may not be made by GoI on this single point alone.

Now, the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 and the amendments thereto specify clearly licencing requirements by the DAE for 'equipments and substances'. Further, the circa 2006 guidelines specify that GoI must get assurances from end-user Governments that these 'equipments and substances' would not be used in nuclear explosive devices.

It would be fitting if India demands such a written assurance from Japan (and gives it a wide publicity too) if it ever determines that India must export limited quantities of rare earth material to a friendly country such as Japan to tide over a difficult period.

I also believe that Cerium (Monazite) should not be exported at all even in limited quantities.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Oct 2010 10:07

Well I could see this coming specially in the wake of PRC's antics with regards to stopping export of rear earth minerals to Japan and obviously our dependence on latter's high pressure vessels and other critical items required for the western reactors.

Btw I thought jingos knews this but fwiw (don't know if its reliable)

There’s nuclear gold in this sand, and it’s being sent out with impunity

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Oct 2010 11:58

Under Indian (Constitutional) law, an International treaty cannot and does not override "enacted" domestic Indian law

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Oct 2010 12:00

"Prime Minister Singh told us that he will cooperate in long-term supply of rare earth minerals," Ohata said, according to a trade ministry official. Singh met Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Ohata and other Japanese officials yesterday and agreed to broadly cooperate in rare earth deals.

In a statement, the premiers "decided to explore the possibility of bilateral cooperation in development, recycling and re-use of rare earths and rare metals and in research and development of their industrial substitutes."

MMS has given away nothing except words. Till now for all the heartburning I have found nothing wrong in what MMS has done TILL DATE.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 28 Oct 2010 09:31

India signs nuclear liability treaty

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/28/stories ... 770100.htm

Though India passed its liability law last month, the U.S. has objected to Sections 17(b) and 46 of the Act which open the door for legal action against nuclear suppliers if an accident is caused by faulty or defective equipment. Washington says these provisions violate the CSC, a charge New Delhi rejects.

With GE and Westinghouse lobbyists up in arms, the U.S. side initially suggested that the Manmohan Singh government find a way to delete or negate the two offending sections. When the impossibility of this was pointed out, they suggested that NPCIL be asked contractually to accept the entire liability burden of its suppliers in the event of an accident. This suggestion has also been vetoed.

Leaving aside the explosive political implications of a public sector company granting a free pass to an American supplier, legal advisers have pointed out that neither NPCIL nor the government can sign away the provisions for tortious and criminal liability that have been embedded in the new law.

Now that the CSC has been signed, Indian officials hope the U.S. will ease up on its pressure. “We have delivered on all our commitments. Now there is nothing which stands in the way of American companies having commercial negotiations for the sale of their reactors,” a senior official said.

The CSC provides no forum for signatories to challenge each other's national laws. Article XVI allows for arbitration as well as adjudication by the International Court of Justice, in the event of a dispute. But the U.S. entered a reservation while ratifying the Convention in 2008 declaring “that it does not consider itself bound by [these] dispute settlement procedures.” When it eventually ratifies the treaty, India is likely to make a similar declaration.

That would leave the Supreme Court of India as the only forum competent to rule on the compatibility of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010 with India's international obligations stemming from its accession to the CSC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 09:51

Here is an article about rare earths in India and how much Monazite goes to Japan
http://ibm.nic.in/rareearths.pdf

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 28 Oct 2010 11:47

The signing of the Convention on Supplemental damages by India is significant. The recently passed Nuclear Liability Bill's provision does contradict the limitations and the arrangements sought to be made in the Convention.

What is important to note is that other than the US, no other major power (P5) has ratified this arrangement. The entry into force criteria is still not met. Why did the GOI sign up so quickly and what will be the stand of the GOI in terms of which provisions shall prevail is something that is not yet clear.

It is important that supremacy of the Indian legislation should be clearly asserted in the process of ratification. The precedence is there in the act of the US itself. In their ratification they have recused themselves from the dispute resolution arrangements made in the convention. Will the GOI do the same?

Please bear in mind the original Nuclear Liability Bill and the final version that became an act, have been framed with this Convention in mind.

If indeed, the Convention supercedes the Act passed by the Parliament recently then it would tantamount to diluting the effect of the Act passed. One needs to study the ratification document (when it is done), the Convention and the Nuclear Liability Act carfully.

Yet again this GOI administration has shown its willingness to move away from the twin fundamental principles of every GOI over the years -

1. There will not be any compromise or dilution in any way or form of India's soverign right to take decisions on strategic issues - no matter what the benefits or costs attached to them.

2. The GOI will not surrender any of its strategic options no matter what the economic costs, political pressures or potential benefits in exchange.

The present GOI is the only one which has shown a willingness to push these fundamental positions to the background and enter into negotiations.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 28 Oct 2010 19:20

shiv wrote:Here is an article about rare earths in India and how much Monazite goes to Japan
http://ibm.nic.in/rareearths.pdf

The link above does not seem to work. Can you please help?

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Oct 2010 19:33

^^Seems to work for me!!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Oct 2010 19:37

Doesn't work for me either but here is an alternative:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... Ouevepzb-w

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Oct 2010 20:17

^ That rare earth file mentions the following

Resources of Monazite
Andhra Pradesh 3.73 million tons (40% of Indian total resources).

This source {http://www.nbl.doe.gov/htm/lists/certif ... e_list.htm} puts the price of Monazite at
Monazite Sand-Silica Mixture (1% Th) 50g $420

You do the math

Now I understand why YS Rajashekar Reddy's Son-In-Law (Brother Anil Kumar) got the mining allocation of AP Beach sands and why American satellites are looking for YSR.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 29 Oct 2010 02:41

Cosmo_R wrote:Doesn't work for me either but here is an alternative:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... Ouevepzb-w

Shiv, sum, Cosmo_R thank you for your helpful posts. I have now been able to access the article, both at the original link and at the alternative link.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 29 Oct 2010 11:40

The monazite deposits in Andhra Pradesh also explains another fact. Why Andhra Pradesh is a target for frenzied evangelical activity. Courtesy YSR and his son Jagan. Many of you may not have heard the tremendous investments and well organized attempts that are underway. Like Project Joshua. http://www.joshuaproject.net/

These are well funded. It is also well known fact that the intelligence agencies of the west are known to use these initiatives to fund and build networks. Over a few years, you will see the key mineral areas, in key states would be in the thral of the west, with a change in demographics in these key areas.

The uranium deposits in the North East of India has been untapped and a subversion based on religion and ethnicity has been there since independence. The threats are all interlinked.

The post may not be relevant to the subject of the thread, but not completely irrelevant either. FWIW.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 29 Oct 2010 15:33

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hugs Korean President Lee Myung-Bak during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 17th ASEAN summit in Hanoi, Vietnam on Friday.

India, South Korea reach agreement on civil nuclear cooperation

India and South Korea have reached an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation, marking the ninth such pact that New Delhi has finalised since getting the NSG waiver in 2008.

This announcement was made after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met South Korean President Lee Myung-bak here on Friday on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit.

“We have finalised agreement on cooperation in civil uses of nuclear energy which is now awaiting signature,” National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon told reporters after the meeting.

Korea will be the ninth country with which India will be signing the nuclear agreement after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in 2008. The others are the U.S., France, Russia, Canada, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Argentina and Namibia.

The NSA noted that the two countries have made considerable progress in various aspects of the relations, including civil aviation and space.

The two leaders also discussed issues relating to G-20 and stressed that it is important not only to take decisions but have a system of systematic implementation so that they are carried forward over several years.

Both agreed to work together in G-20, whose Summit is taking place in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, next month.

Dr. Singh and Mr. Lee also discussed various aspects of the relations but significantly Korean steel project POSCO in Orissa, which is stuck in clearances, did not figure in their talks, according to Mr. Menon.

On the eve of the meeting between Dr. Singh and Mr. Lee, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma on Thursday promised to address the clearance issues related to POSCO steel plant in Orissa in a “very constructive manner“.

The 12-billion-dollar POSCO project of South Korea, the largest foreign investment project in India, has got stuck because of clearances.

“There are issues which have delayed clearances. These are being deeply seen by the government,” Mr. Sharma had said, adding India would “reassure” Korean leaders and business that investments will be encouraged and “any issue still to be addressed, will be addressed in a very constructive manner.”

Korea has been repeatedly expressing concern over the delay in the project and pushing India that the clearances should be given fast.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article857139.ece

vic · Post by **vic** » 29 Oct 2010 21:14

I am astonished that no pact has been signed with France, UK, Germany, Italy etc

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Oct 2010 22:00

vic wrote:I am astonished that no pact has been signed with France, UK, Germany, Italy etc

That may be because only government companies seem to be involved from these countries. They become government to government deals.

The US and Japanese companies are mostly private.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 02 Nov 2010 02:50

From Edit page of Indian Express, Nov 01, 2010 (which in turn is from a leader in `The Washington Post' )

China's rare-earth monopoly

. . .

The cut-off, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday, "served as a wake-up call [about] being so dependent on only one source." Japan is especially concerned because it appears to Tokyo that China used rare-earth metals as a weapon during a flare-up of the two countries' long-standing dispute over maritime boundaries. China denies that, claiming it's limiting production to repair environmental damage and divert supply to its own industries. The truth, industry experts say, may lie somewhere in between. China cut export quotas before the territorial dispute with Japan erupted, but it may be using market power to force Japan and others to shift more lucrative rare-earth-based manufacturing to China. . . .

I think in this case (highlighted part, above),China is following a wise policy.

Earlier, I had read that China has denied the news report that it is going to stop rare earth exports to Japan and has indicated that the present suspension of its rare earth exports is only temporary. If true, it seems to be doing India a favour, albeit unwittingly perhaps, for I feel India should conserve its resources of this precious raw material.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Nov 2010 07:14

Reactor Sale: NPCIL's talks with Kazakhastan at an advanced stage

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is in advanced stages of discussion for export of two indigenous reactor units to Kazakhstan. Detailed talks have also been initiated with utilities in Vietnam and Thailand.

The nuclear major had launched a 220-MWe single-unit pressurised heavy water reactor design for exports and is marketing it as a proven and cost-effective option for countries with small grids.

“Discussions are in advanced stages for two units for a company in Kazakhstan. Detailed discussions are also on with South East Asian nations, including Vietnam and Thailand, who plan to get into nuclear generation,” an NPCIL official said.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 06 Nov 2010 01:12

SSridhar wrote:Reactor Sale: NPCIL's talks with Kazakhastan at an advanced stage
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is in advanced stages of discussion for export of two indigenous reactor units to Kazakhstan. Detailed talks have also been initiated with utilities in Vietnam and Thailand.
The nuclear major had launched a 220-MWe single-unit pressurised heavy water reactor design for exports and is marketing it as a proven and cost-effective option for countries with small grids.

“Discussions are in advanced stages for two units for a company in Kazakhstan. Detailed discussions are also on with South East Asian nations, including Vietnam and Thailand, who plan to get into nuclear generation,” an NPCIL official said.

The subheading to the above article says "Eyes orders from Vietnam, Thailand too. "

On the contrary, here is a report that says: Russia to build nuclear plant in Vietnam

And here is a report that says Vietnam has selected Japan as a partner for cooperation in the construction of nuclear power plants: Japan boosts cooperation with Vietnam. The report goes on to say:

Prime minister Naoto Kan welcomed the decision, and assured that Japan would "meet the conditions that Vietnam had set out, such as assistance in conducting feasibility studies for the project, low-interest and preferential loans for the project, the use of the most advanced technology with the highest safety standards, technology transfer and training of human resources, and cooperation in the waste treatment and stable supply of materials for the whole life of the project."

In the face of competition from Russia and Japan who can offer much better seller's-credit-based pricing for their npps, India's chances of selling to Vietnam, Thailand (and perhaps even to Kazakhstan, from whom we have recently received some Uranium fuel), to me, seem dim. In my view, India should concentrate on meeting its own internal manufacturing and construction requirements for indigenous PHWRS, rather than frittering away its manufacturing and nuclear-specialised man-power resources on low probability export ventures. Export must come after local needs are well met.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Nov 2010 06:44

India's Nuclear Liability Dilemma

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23305/in ... lemma.html

Mostly, the concerns over the liability bill have been in the United States. French and Russian companies have already begun projects with India. Are they similarly concerned?

I have had Russian representatives over the years tell me directly that "We don't care what India's laws say. Once we hand over the keys to a completed nuclear power plant in India, all liability entirely rests with the Indians."

From the Russian point of view, they think of this legislation as being completely academic. Because even if it were found that Russia was liable because of some product defects, there is simply no recourse in a material sense that any Indian plaintiff can have to enforce that judgment. And so the Russians just don't care what the Indians say . Now, in the case of the United States, that's obviously very different because our approach to the judicial process and the idea of having a rule-defined set of interactions is very different from Russia.

France has companies that are partly owned by the state. They have significant concerns about Indian law. But the French position seems to be somewhat different. The French position is, "Well we don't know if the CSC is actually going to come into effect after all, so we are willing to give India the benefit of the doubt for now. But we do want to make certain that India does adhere to some international liability regime, even if it's not the CSC, because we are not certain about what the status of the CSC eventually will be." So, it's midway between the Indian position that there is complete convergence with the CSC, and the U.S. position, which is to say "No, there is substantial deviation."

WT* is wrong with the Russians.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Nov 2010 08:41

Shortcomings in U.S. firm's reactor design may delay deal conclusion

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/07/stories ... 631100.htm

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 07 Nov 2010 09:07

abhishek_sharma wrote:India's Nuclear Liability Dilemma

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23305/in ... lemma.html
WT* is wrong with the Russians.

on the contrary, they have quite rightly anticipated the outcome of any such eventuality - India has no tangible leverages yet to ensure that the Russians obey & respect the rule of the land here

India could threaten to stop funding any joint development programme it may undertake with the Russians, but then it would hurt India just as much, or possibly even more, than it would hurt them - they could choose to collaborate with the Chinese and develop it and India would be left with no access to the Technology it had begun funding for

It may choose to decide to stop any further purchase of mil hardware from the Russians, but that would only mean India would now be at the mercy of some other country for its acquisitions, in absence of any mil-ind complex of its own & what about the spares for the existing hardware, a throwback the situation in the 90s when we went hunting for spares scavenging abandoned mil hardware from former Soviet nations

India can legislate all the laws it wants in the world, but in absence of any perceived sense of power infused with a tinge of fear about the same, it would be nigh impossible to enforce it once the issue involves entities outside our national boundary

Americans probably feel the same, but the Russians being more brutish in their approach, we heard it from them

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 07 Nov 2010 09:41

abhishek_sharma wrote:Shortcomings in U.S. firm's reactor design may delay deal conclusion

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/07/stories ... 631100.htm

A second related safety issue had also been highlighted by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive and chief engineer of the Fairewinds Associates, an energy consultancy company, in April. In a detailed report, he pointed out that in AP1000's design the concrete shield building in the reactor was separated from the steel containment vessel. Typically in pressurised water reactors, the concrete shield is reinforced with steel. In the AP1000, however, there is a space between the two and the shield building also has a hole in its roof.

So they learnt no lessons from Chernobyl? How can a reactor with an imperfect containment structure be permitted?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Nov 2010 15:54

Hiten wrote:India can legislate all the laws it wants in the world, but in absence of any perceived sense of power infused with a tinge of fear about the same, it would be nigh impossible to enforce it once the issue involves entities outside our national boundary

Americans probably feel the same, but the Russians being more brutish in their approach, we heard it from them

Lack of any Russian physical assets in India (read investments) to seize as collateral is the problem. The only thing India could damage is their reputation but that would be obvious once the reactor went BOOM.

That's why buying Russian stuff can be a liability.

IMO nuclear energy is not worth the risks involved and India should not invest heavily in it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Nov 2010 16:01

I think we should not allow reactors from any country (US or Russia) which does not accept our liability law.