India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Gerard]

Bah humbug. Who needs electricity when they can have a liability law instead. I'm sure India's GDP has increased by 2-3% just because of this fantastic legislation. Surely the inspiring words of India's lawmakers will provide comfort to those sitting in the dark. India is far safer than those countries like France and Japan that rely heavily on nuclear generated electricity. When you consider all those reactors that blow up in France and Japan every other Friday, you can really appreciate the wisdom and foresight of those who hobbled the growth of nuclear power in India.

[abhishek_sharma]

If we do not want to deal with people like Warren Anderson, then we must live in the dark!

[Sanku]

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."

The gospel truth about Russian behavior, from Ashely Tellis and American citizen on CFR THE impeccable source on all things Indo-Russian from all news entities owned by Americans and run according to their interests.

[abhishek_sharma]

^

India-Russia nuclear talks hit liability snag

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/30/stories ... 460100.htm

[Airavat]

nuclear liability differences

A resultant rise in tariffs of electricity has been one of the major arguments used by the US to oppose the provisions related to supplier liability in the Indian law, recently passed by Parliament. US companies, mostly privately owned, would have to take insurance for vast amounts in case liability is shifted on them and this would ultimately raise the cost of electricity produced. The inclusion of the phrase “viable tariff regime” in the joint statement, therefore, gives the indication that the last word on supplier liability is still to be heard.

The issue of making suppliers liable for financial damages had been the subject of a major political discussion before Parliament passed the Civil Damages for Nuclear Liability Act. After extensive discussions, it was decided that while the operator of the nuclear facility would be solely liable for financial damages in the event of an accident, it would have a right to recourse against a foreign supplier in case the accident had “resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes the supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects of sub-standard services”.

The US had taken up this issue with the Indian government, arguing that also making suppliers liable for financial damages in case of accidents might not even be consistent with international nuclear conventions like the Convention for Supplementary Compensation (CSC) that India has only recently signed on. But in view of almost complete political unanimity at home on this score, New Delhi has so far resisted any cajoling from the US on dropping of this provision from the law.

[abhishek_sharma]

India works on fusion in n-bill fission

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/India ... ion/708462

The joint statement envisages a strong India-US nuclear energy cooperation to be built through participation of US nuclear energy firms in India, on the basis of mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and “conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for the electricity generated”. It goes on to say that India is committed to “ensuring a level playing field for US companies seeking to enter the nuclear energy sector”.

A resultant rise in tariffs of electricity has been one of the major arguments used by the US to oppose the provisions related to supplier liability in the Indian law, recently passed by Parliament. US companies, mostly privately owned, would have to take insurance for vast amounts in case liability is shifted on them and this would ultimately raise the cost of electricity produced. The inclusion of the phrase “viable tariff regime” in the joint statement, therefore, gives the indication that the last word on supplier liability is still to be heard.

Especially so as India on Monday also promised to provide a “level-playing field” to US companies. American firms have been arguing that suppliers for existing nuclear facilities are free from any financial liability and the move to pass on such liability to future suppliers distorts the balance.

[Sanku]

^

India-Russia nuclear talks hit liability snag

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/30/stories ... 460100.htm

Friday, Jul 30, 2010

India-Russia nuclear talks hit liability snag

Siddharth Varadarajan

Nevertheless, the current stand-off is likely to further complicate the Manmohan Singh government's efforts to pass a nuclear liability law that is acceptable to all domestic stakeholders and foreign partners.

Sorry Ashey, Sorry Sid, your side lost, Indians won!!

[Sanatanan]

Why India needs to opt in for Nuclear Submarines?
By Cmde (retd) Ranjit B. Rai | Frontier India | November 10th, 2010

[abhischekcc]

^^ Sanku,

This is the Jekyll act we used to talk about during the good old days of fighting YBs.
Trust the bureaucracy to tie up anything in chai-biskoot if they don't like it.

What is surprising is that even an experienced old hand like MMS (who has been a bureaucrat as well) could have been caught flat footed by this? Or does this have his blessings?

Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing, or a sheep in wolf's clothing?

[Sanku]

Yes Sir, I know!!

And I have been wondering about the last part too.

[ramana]

I dont want any comments on MMS here. He did what he needs to do.

[Sanku]

I dont want any comments on MMS here. He did what he needs to do.

No comments on MMS Ramana-ji, merely evaluating our own understanding of him.

[darshhan]

First concrete for Kakrapar 3 and 4

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fi ... 11107.html

India's first pair of indigenously designed 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) are now officially under construction with the first pouring of concrete at Kakrapar 3 and 4.

Ground breaking for the two units, in Gujarat state, began in January 2010 and excavation works and other preparatory site works were completed by August, in record time according to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Approval from India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was needed before concrete pouring could go ahead. The units are slated to start up in 2015 and 2016.

Indian plans call for 20,000 MWe of nuclear capacity to be on line by 2020 and 63,000 MWe by 2032, with nuclear supplying 25% of the country's electricity by 2050. It already has 19 operating reactors totalling 4183 MWe, and Kakrapar 3 and 4 mean the country now has 6 reactors under construction, the others being a 220 MWe PHWR at Kaiga 4, two 1000 MWe Russian-design VVER pressurised water reactors at Kudankulam, plus the 500 MWe Kalpakkam prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR). All are scheduled to start up by mid-2011, although reports earlier this year suggested that the Kalpakkam PFBR could be delayed by up to a year.

NPCIL's 700 MWe PHWR design is a scaled-up version of its 540 MWe design, two of which have been in operation at Tarapur 3 and 4 since 2005. Two more 700 MWe PHWRs are to be built at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan, referred to as RAPP 7 and 8. Ground breaking took place at Rawatbhata in August 2010, and NPCIL now says that first concrete is expected by March 2011.

Meanwhile, reports in the Indian press suggest that another proposed nuclear construction site at Jaitapur in Maharashtra could be nearer to gaining necessary governmental clearance. According to the Business Standard, citing Maharashtra state chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has indicated to the Maharashtra state government that it is willing to permit the project to go ahead. Ministry clearance is seen as an essential step in the permitting process for the site, earmarked for up to six Areva-supplied EPR pressurised water reactors.

[BijuShet]

Russia Offers To Partner With India On Uranium Mining

11/22/2010 4:58 AM ET
(RTTNews) - Russia has reportedly offered to partner with India in exploration and exploitation of uranium resources within its territory and third countries in a bid to ease shortage of fuel for India's nuclear power plants.

State corporation Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said Moscow had invited New Delhi to participate in uranium mining projects, but with a condition that the controlling stake in the joint venture projects must remain with Rosatom, with the partners getting up to 49 per cent share in the projects inside Russia.

The spokesman said talks in this regard were held by Rosatom CEO Sergei Kiriyenko in New Delhi with officials from the Uranium Corporation of India Ltd.(UCIL) during the 16th session of Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission last week, according to Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Rosatom spokesman said in Elkon project in Russia's South Yakutia, one of its largest uranium deposits, the Indian stake would be less than 49 per cent as there were already some foreign stakeholders whom he declined to identify.

Kiriyenko also said the first unit of India's Kudankulam nuclear power plant, being built with Rosatom's help, would be operationalized soon. He further said that the two countries would cooperate in building nuclear fuel manufacturing facilities both in Russia and India.

During Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's India visit in March earlier this year, Kiriyenko had offered UCIL stake in Elkon project and setting up nuclear fuel JVs in Russia and India.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: contact [email protected]

[SSridhar]

An interesting interview with Areva's Chief on the India project

[Philip]

New NATO (tactical weapons) Nuclear doctrine,a step backwards for N-disarmament?

Nato's tactical nuclear weapons: the new doctrine
Arms controls advocates and nuclear weapons experts are divided over whether Nato's new strategic concept represents a step towards disarmament

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian- ... ar-weapons

Next Previous Blog home Nato's tactical nuclear weapons: the new doctrineArms controls advocates and nuclear weapons experts are divided over whether Nato's new strategic concept represents a step towards disarmament

There is a debate underway among nuclear folk over whether Nato's new strategic concept, adopted in Lisbon, is a glass half-full or half-empty from the point of view of disarmament.

Front and centre are up to 200 American B-61 bombs stored in six bases in five European countries. The tactical weapons have long served a symbolic rather than a military purpose in the post-Cold War world, and three of their host nations - Germany, Netherlands and Belgium - have been pushing for their removal as an expression of Barack Obama's self-declared mission to pursue gradual but determined disarmament.

Nobody expected the new strategic concept to sweep them away, but many arms control advocates anticipated that it might at least open the door a crack for their future departure. So did it?

In the "no" corner are the Arms Control Association and the British American Security Information Council (Basic) who have issued a joint statement describing the new doctrine as a "conservative, backward-looking" document and "a missed opportunity".

Two nuclear policy experts have since weighed in, suggesting that the doctrine is not nearly as bad for disarmament as it could have been, and that it does leave room for further steps.

Hans Kristensen at the Federation of American Scientists calls it "one step forward and a half step back", while Martin Butcher at the Nato Monitor, argues that "overall this could have been much less positive".

Who's right? It depends how you parse the language. More importantly, perhaps, it depends what happens in the bigger picture. If the New Start treaty dies in the Senate, it is hard to see where the momentum for reducing Nato and Russian tactical weapons is going to come from any time soon. That may have to await terminal obsolescence over the next decade or so

[arun]

Kaiga Unit 4 goes critical. NPCIL press release:

India at Sixth Rank in the World with its 20th Nuclear Power Reactor Commencing Operation

[arun]

Two 700 MW indigenous PHWR nuclear reactors planned at Kaiga for a total of 6 reactors at that site:

NPCIL to add 1400 mw to Kaiga plant

[arun]

Environmental clearance received for the Jaitapur nuclear island where the NPCIL plans to setup 6 Areva EPR nuclear power plants of 1650 MW each:

Jaitapur nuclear power project gets green nod

[RamaY]

Kaiga Unit 4 goes critical. NPCIL press release:

India at Sixth Rank in the World with its 20th Nuclear Power Reactor Commencing Operation

Congratulations to all NPCIL scientists and engineers!!!

Addressing journalists at Kaiga, S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), said criticality, in nuclear terms, signified the start of the self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction in the reactor core, which led to the production of energy. The new unit would produce 250 MWe of nuclear power, which would be distributed among the southern States. The unit would be synchronised with the southern grid after certain mandatory tests are carried out early next month.

He said units 5 and 6 would raise the nuclear power installed capacity in the country from the current 4,560 MWe to 4,780 MWe. Kaiga-4 is an indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR).

Dr. Jain said two Light Water reactors (LWRs) of 100 MWe each, at Kudankulam and a prototype fast breeder reactor of 500 MWe at Kalpakkam were at advanced stages of completion. He said the NPCIL was unique in having comprehensive capabilities in various facets of nuclear technology — namely site selection, design, construction, commissioning operation and maintenance, renovation, modernisation and life extension of nuclear power plants

[SriSri]

French Company Areva to Set Up Nuclear Power Plant in Maharashtra

[wig]

France echoes US, wants changes in India’s N-Bill -Says civil liability law must adhere to global standards

Like the Americans, the French too are asking India to bring its civil nuclear liability rules in conformity with international norms. Sarkozy coming tomorrow
This has been conveyed by France to New Delhi ahead of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s visit to India from Saturday, sources today said.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Law passed by the Indian Parliament caps the liability in case of a nuclear accident at Rs 1,500 crore. New Delhi says there is no question of amending the legislation, contending that it provides a level-playing field to all nuclear players desirous of entering the huge civil nuclear market in this country. India has, meanwhile, also signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) on nuclear damages with the IAEA.

The two countries are finalising a framework agreement for civil nuclear cooperation. France is learnt to have told India that it must ensure the legal security of French suppliers of nuclear equipment and its civil liability law should be in conformity with international standards. Sarkozy is expected to convey this to the Indian side when he holds wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, the sources said, adding that discussions on a framework civil nuclear cooperation agreement were going on.

If discussions are wrapped up by then, the framework agreement between the French nuclear giant Areva and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) for building two European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) could be signed during Sarkozy's visit. The framework agreement is expected to lay down broad rules for Areva, which is initially likely to build two nuclear reactors and eventually take that number to six. France was the first country to sign a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation pact with India soon after the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted New Delhi an exemption to resume global nuclear trade in September 2008.

Indian officials said the agreement between Areva and NPCIL was likely to be commercial in nature. However, in addition to this accord, it might be necessary to have some government-to-government agreements for such arrangements, such as the confidentiality agreement and intellectual property rights which were also being looked at by the two sides.

Areva, which plans to set up two atomic power plants of 1,650 MW capacity each at Jaitapur in Maharashtra, has made it clear that it is awaiting notification of implementing rules of the nuclear liability law to know the extent of the compensation it will have to pay in case of an atomic accident in the facilities it sets up.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101203/main1.htm

[ramana]

They were alright till the US piped up. Well they can sell if they want to or stay at home. The Indian nuke power market is for them to participate not dictate.

[Pratyush]

After Bhopal, it will be a falacy to remove the liability of Nuke suppliers. They ought to be greatful that the limit is just 500 Mil and not more.

[amit]

After Bhopal, it will be a falacy to remove the liability of Nuke suppliers. They ought to be greatful that the limit is just 500 Mil and not more.

Pratyush,

In my understanding the grouse is not about the quantum of liability but the length of liability - 80 years, a world first.

We may stand firm since we have a huge marketing opportunity waiting but it's a fact of life that it would very difficult to get insurance cover (that is from the POV of equipment suppliers) for that length of liability. And this applies to local equipment suppliers as well, including ones who may be just supplying small widgets (as a random example). The bolded portion is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.

Also remember that while our market opportunity is huge, we on the other hand, are dealing with what is virtually a oligopoly when we are shopping for bideshi maal which includes urgently needed fuel supplies. And I think we're seeing (perhaps orchestrated by the US) classic textbook moves that a oligopoly traditionally takes in such situations - that is gang up against the customer.

Have to wait and see how this pans out.

PS: It's been reiterated time and again that comparing nuclear liability with Bhopal is an apples to oranges comparison. In Bhopal, Union Carbide was the operator of the plant and operational negligence led to the leak and not equipment failure.

In the case of the nuclear plants NPCIL will be the operator while all the bideshi companies who are cribbing about the liability are equipment suppliers. Do note that the equipment would be thoroughly inspected and tested by our experts before they are installed and agreements are signed.

[Pratyush]

Amit,

Agree largely with the gist of your post. However, the liability of the supplier is ment to be the life span of the component supplied and still being utilised in the powerplant. Which is what it is intended to be. The 80 year limit is just the upper limit of life of the component.(last right out of my musharraf)

e.g, where the supplier qurantees the life of any component as say 48000 hrs continous usage. He cannot he held liable, if the component fails after 50000 hrs of continous usage as he himslef had pointed out that the component will be life expired. But if it fails after say 30000 hrs usage. Usage as directed by the supplier then the supplier is liable for the consequences of the loss.

[amit]

Amit,

Agree largely with the gist of your post. However, the liability of the supplier is ment to be the life span of the component supplied and still being utilised in the powerplant. Which is what it is intended to be. The 80 year limit is just the upper limit of life of the component.(last right out of my musharraf)

e.g, where the supplier qurantees the life of any component as say 48000 hrs continous usage. He cannot he held liable, if the component fails after 50000 hrs of continous usage as he himslef had pointed out that the component will be life expired. But if it fails after say 30000 hrs usage. Usage as directed by the supplier then the supplier is liable for the consequences of the loss.

Pratyush,

I suggest you read up the discussion we had in the earlier pages of this thread on this topic.

In a nutshell: The point is not how long the plant will run and it could very well be that the particular part (mind you the 80 year thing is not only for the reactor and other critical components) could be replaced in normal wear and tear.

The point is about how all equipment that is supplied worldwide need to have insurance cover - for $500 million - for the liability. And in insurance liability the calculation is always for the upper limit and in this case it is 80 years. You can't get a 40 year insurance with the argument that, "Hey my product will work only for 40 years and then it will be replaced."

Sure insurance companies will sell policies for 80 years but the premiums will be mind boggling. That IMO is the crux of the matter. Not the liability of $500 million.

And in the Indian case some of the companies supplying parts may not be worth $500 million in terms of turnover.

Added later: If you're interested try reading this thread from around page 48 or so. You'll find both sides of the discussion (both for and against the 80 year liability) well argued.

[SSridhar]

Russian company eyes Indian vendors for N-power projects

Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, has started the process of shortlisting three-four Indian equipment vendors for future nuclear power projects being jointly planned in India.

The focus is on moving to a serial construction model, starting with localising mechanical engineering production to produce components and equipment in India in order to avoid time and cost overruns, as experienced with the first couple of units of the Koodankulam (in Tamil Nadu) project.

Rosatom has begun negotiations for identifying local partners and a final list of Indian vendors is expected to be firmed up by next year, Government sources said.

The frontrunners for the collaborations include state owned equipment firm Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) and private sector engineering firm Larsen & Toubro (L&T).

On the back of its serial production plan, Russia has offered a 30 per cent discount on the $2-billion price tag for each of its new reactors under discussions for sale to India.

[wig]

Global nuke centre to come up at Jhajjar - Will work on secure, proliferation-resistant reactor systems

haryana will host the world’s first Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership at Kheri Jassaur village, near Bahadurgarh, in Jhajjar district.

Addressing a joint press conference here today with Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Dr Sri Kumar Banerjee said the centre would be set up with the assistance of France, Russia and the USA for research and development of secure and proliferation-resistant reactor systems.
The assistance of England might also be taken for this project, he said. As part of India’s efforts to promote non-proliferation, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced the setting up of Nuclear Security Summit in April this year at Washington.

An MoU on cooperation in building the centre was signed by Dr Banerjee, the then Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, and Timothy Roemer, US Ambassador to India, on the sidelines of the talks between US President Barack Obama and Manmohan Singh.

Banerjee said the centre would facilitate discussions among international experts on various issues, including innovation in nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel cycle, development of proliferation-resistant reactors, security technologies and the effects of radiation exposure.

The centre would also host short-term training courses for international nuclear experts in the field of nuclear security. Hooda said there would be no nuclear reactor at the site and the AEC had today issued a cheque for Rs 67 crore for about 200 acres of panchayat land.

Banerjee said the centre would consist of four schools dealing with advanced nuclear energy system studies, nuclear security, radiation safety and application of radioisotopes and radiation technology in healthcare, agriculture and food.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101204/main1.htm

[shukla]

Only on paper but for first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguards
Indian Express

[shukla]

France, Russia to assist India to set up global centre for nuclear energy
DNA News

Besides the US, France and Russia would also assist India in setting up the first global centre for nuclear energy partnership in Haryana to carry out research in areas of advanced nuclear energy systems, nuclear security and radiation technology applications. "The Centre in Jhajjar district would be set up with assistance of France, Russia and the United States for research and development of secure and proliferation resistant reactor systems," chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Kumar Banerjee told reporters in Chandigarhafter making a presentation to chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda on the Centre.

Banerjee said assistance of the United Kingdom may also be taken in this project, he added. An MoU for cooperation on the Centre was signed during President Barack Obama held with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his visit to the country last month. "The Centre will facilitate deliberation and discussions of international experts on various issues including innovation in nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel cycle, development of proliferation-resistant reactors, security technologies and the effects of radiation exposure," Banerjee said.

The initiative was announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington on 13th April 2010. Banerjee apprised the chief minister of the facilities that would be available at the global centre and the likely benefits for the people in the fields of agriculture, health and industry. He said the Centre would also host short-term training courses for international nuclear experts in the field of nuclear security.

[Pratyush]

Amit,

My reply may seem disjointed to you.

But, if the concern is the cost of insurance then it is unwarranted on part of the vendors. The contact price quoted for the Item it self will include the cost of Insurance premium for the component. That being the case the end product for the Indian operator becomes a lot more expensive.

Since the operator of the plants has not spoken against the act and the resultant price escalation. The vendor ought not be worried about the raised cost, as he can transfer the same to the operator.

Because the project cost quoted for the seeking a works or supply tender always includes the costs of Insurance and only then the final price is quoted for the tender.

Moreover, the current practice at least for the performance of civil contracts in India where statutory insurance is applicable, is, that, only those vendors are selected who show that they have valid statutory insurance cover or will have a valid insurance during the currency of the project. In case they unable to show a valid insurance policy for the duration of the project, the payment for performance of the tender is not made to the vendor.

There is no reason to believe that for the Nuke plant and in the era of the nuke liability bill the practice will be come different. Form the practice mentioned in the preceding pragraph. ( At this time I have not read the act it self or the rules framed thereunder, Google is most unhelpful. Though, I am well versed in both the Works man compensation act & Employers liability insurance thereunder along with the Public Liability Insurance acts, the rules framed there under and the Public liability Insurance Compulsory and otherwise as well.)

Therefore, in case of nuke liability it makes no sense that the vendor when submitting the tender to supply the component not to include the cost of Insurance in the final price quoted for the component. As it is an input cost for him.

So the vendors need not worry about the cost of insurance in this case which is to be born by the Indian operater..

The Statutory Insurances that I am referring to is primarily the Worksman's Compensation Insurance. It is made mandatory by the WC Act 1923. The premium for the Insurance is published by the Tariff advisory committee (TAC).

There are other examples as well where the Insurance is not statutory yet the cost of Insurance is included in the price of the contract it self.

In case of the Nuke Plant, during the construction phase, the Erection All Risk insurance will be applicable. The premium is also published by the (TAC).

During my stint with my last organisation. In view of the then Impending Nuke liability bill. We had received a request from, the General Insuarnce Council of India in conjunction with the Indian Re-insurer GIC Re, a way of accommodating the Nuke liability and the resultant nuclear risk. As the Nuke risk is a general exclusion in nearly every policy of Insurance. Sadly I left the organisation shortly thereafter, along the Industry it self so cannot give you an update regarding progress of premium pricing along with the way of accomodating the nuke risk.

Regards

[Sanku]

Only on paper but for first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguards
Indian Express

What a horribly misleading Headline, totally WRONG, nearly gave me a heart attack.

Phew....

[Satya_anveshi]

India denies putting N-reactors under safeguards

India on Saturday said it voted for a proposal to create a fuel bank by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but asserted that in doing so, it has not put all its nuclear reactors under safeguards. "There is no question of India agreeing to put all its n-reactors under safeguards," said Vishnu Prakash, spokesperson of the external affairs ministry.

[Muppalla]

Only on paper but for first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguards
Indian Express

What a horribly misleading Headline, totally WRONG, nearly gave me a heart attack.

Phew....

Rest assured, India is not such a weak seller yet. The checks and balances are still there though the iron fence has rust at some places.

[shukla]

Indo-French connection goes nuclear
Times of India

[Sanatanan]

From The Hindu, 06 Dec 2010:
India racing to buy an untried reactor?

. . . .

EDF documents reveal that the architect engineer at Flamanville3 tried to find safer cladding material. However, these attempts have so far not been successful.

Says Professor Thomas: “The EPR will eventually be certified in the U.K. and the U.S., but not for two maybe three years. Until that point there could be significant design changes and the additional requirements of the regulators could further increase the cost. If the regulator asks for an additional safety system, for example, that could increase the price of the plant. If I was India, I would wait to see when that happened.”

[Amber G.]

From The Hindu, 06 Dec 2010:
India racing to buy an untried reactor?

. . . .

EDF documents reveal that the architect engineer at Flamanville3 tried to find safer cladding material. However, these attempts have so far not been successful.

Says Professor Thomas: “The EPR will...

In the piece from the link above:

Professor Thomas, a specialist on nuclear energy at Greenwich University's School of Business

he is a professor in the department of International Business and Economics and his title is "Professor of Energy Studies"...

BTW. The University of Greenwich is not rated in top 100 in any list...UK only) (eg see (http://www.ukeas.com.tw/rankings.htm) It has no "specialist on nuclear energy" in title as it has no department of "nuclear energy" (or "physics" for that matter ) (Its math dept is combined with math-statistics!)..

Wish Mr. Vaiju Naravane did a little checking , got some facts straight versus anointing Prof Thomas as his sole expert on "nuclear energy" etc ...interviewed other Indian (and International) technical experts to put a more informative article (eg why they (some experts) see it (this type of nuclear reactor) "would be best suited to its(India's) needs" and why it is "marketed as the safest and strongest reactor in the world capable of withstanding hits from a full-size passenger airplane")

Also what a curious use of word ..."untried", of course, any design which includes more safety requirements (eg withstand being hit by a plane etc ... ) or anything innovative will be untried at some point.

[vera_k]

Well, it is true that the EPR is unproven and may not turn out to be economical. But there are precious few options at this point, since no one (not even the Russians) have demonstrated the ability to get a new generation reactor up on time and on budget.

[SSridhar]

In IAEA fuel plan, India sees role as supplier
Excerpts

Indian support for a multi-million dollar International Atomic Energy Agency plan to create a ‘fuel bank' of low enriched uranium for use by countries with a small or start-up civil nuclear energy programme is intended to signal its willingness to be a supplier nation.

The fuel bank plan was adopted last week by the IAEA governing body, of which India is a member, by 28-0 with six abstentions. India voted for the resolution, which is intended to provide fuel to countries accepting full scope safeguards — international inspections — on all their nuclear activities. This means India, along with the five “official” nuclear weapons states as defined by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, will be ineligible to draw on the bank. So will Pakistan and Israel and, presumably, North Korea, until it reverses its withdrawal from the NPT.

Explaining India's support for the plan, its delegate told the Board of Governors that “as a country with advanced nuclear technology, India would like to participate as a supplier state in such initiatives.” He said: “As a country with well established high-level capabilities over the entire fuel cycle and a sizeable pool of highly qualified and trained manpower, India is prepared to supplement international efforts for sustainable growth of nuclear energy while addressing proliferation concerns.”

In particular, India believed that there was a considerable potential in the use of thorium-based fuels for light-water reactors (which conventionally use LEU) that would allow both the “proliferation-resistant use of fissile material” as well as higher energy output, he said.