India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Amber G.]

FWIW .. the people who are doubting PWR technology/expertise/understanding in Indian
scientists ((as the Hindu article suggests), IMO, just really do not keep up with what's happening in the real world. IMO, in a decade (if not sooner) DAE is likely to launch its own versions of (Gen III+ etc..) commercial PWR's ..(there is lot of good work going on - and some good designs are on the paper etc..)
...wrt to EPR, I for one have full confidence in India to evaluate it and make the right decision(s) (and would like to trust/listen to our own scientists rather than experts like Prof Thomas).

FYI wrt EPR's - in February 2009 MOU was signed to setup two (1650 MWe) reactors at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. At present, AFAIK there are four others are in construction mode (Finland, France and 2 in China)..True.. that construction delays/cost overruns.. (Finland - construction started in around 2005 and still few years to go).

[vic]

Are we ramping up construction of indigenous PHWRs??

[Amber G.]

yes but This (EPR discussion etc) is related to PWR ..(Yes, no H - that is, as in light-water ) technology.. PHWR design is quite familiar to India.. designs finalized years ago ... two at Kakrapar have begun construction etc..
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fi ... 11107.html
(construction for two more at Rawatbhatta , if I am not mistaken is, scheduled to start in early 2011.see note *.).(And yes, from all what we hear..India is getting into lot of new tech/research as PWR's are concerned.)

Note (*) Added later: from the link given above:

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.

[SSridhar]

India-France sign nuclear power deal

Areva SA, one of France’s main nuclear power companies, will build two European pressurized reactors of 1,650 megawatts each at Jaitapur in Maharashtra.

The agreement, valued at about $9.3 billion, was signed in the presence of Mr. Sarkozy and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The deal marked the first two of 20 nuclear reactors the country wants to build to meet its soaring energy demand.

[ramana]

Amit, When commercial power reactors were developed the idea was they would have life of 40 years. However with refurbhisment and reduction of waste disposal options the plants will be operated longer. I think eventually all plants will go for long life with mid-life upgrades to control systems etc.. The reason why is the materials(steel etc) are not degrading as fast as it was earlier assumed in the 70s.

[Sanatanan]

Article by A. Gopalakrishnan, (Former Chairman, AERB) in Indian Express, 03 Dec 2010:
Reject French reactors for Jaitapur

Apart from the issues raised in the article above, I feel:

Pre-deciding plant sites (Jaitapur for Areva, Kudankulam for Russia, xyz for GE, abc for Westinghouse, lmn for Japan, pqr for S.Korea, etc) and negotiating contacts with these suppliers individually would amount to placing orders for supply of npps without call of tenders. As was done for Tarapur 1 & 2, the right approach for imported npps would be, to issue tender specifications that ensure a level playing field, call for global tenders (if required separately for each site), and techno-commercially evaluate the tenders in a transparent manner. This would comply with the purchase procedures generally followed by GOI, particularly for large value contracts. If adequate justifications are given, then, it is even conceivable that the final contract for a given site may be awarded to a bidder who is not the lowest; but people of our country would then know the quoted price range for the npp, and they would be able to get an idea of the cost the nation is paying for the "fringe benefits" (such as promise of membership to NSG, UNSC, fuel supply to overcome drummed-up shortage of Uranium, may be even help in supply of military hardware etc - a short list just to illustrate some of the publicised advantages of importing npps). The evaluation of cost of an EPR constructed in India, based on Areva's contract with China, may not be enough justification.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Sanku would love this guy runs away ducking for cover

[amit]

Amit, When commercial power reactors were developed the idea was they would have life of 40 years. However with refurbhisment and reduction of waste disposal options the plants will be operated longer. I think eventually all plants will go for long life with mid-life upgrades to control systems etc.. The reason why is the materials(steel etc) are not degrading as fast as it was earlier assumed in the 70s.

Ramana,

I understand the point and at a personal level, I'm all for getting the maximum possible benefit from these foreign suppliers. We've been outcast for a long time. Let them pay for a buy-in now.

But at the end of the day insurance is a dollars and cents thing and 80 years is a long time, especially for small local companies which may have a turn over of less than US$500 million.

However, let's see how this issue is either resolved or sidestepped.

[amit]

^^^

Sanku would love this guy runs away ducking for cover

Boss,

Don't scoff at that article. The entire anti-industry, anti-progress lobby has been geared up to foil the building of the nuclear plants. At every single area identified for the plants protests have been manufactured and expect more.

And useful idiots are in plentiful supply who would love to be in the limelight to write some trash pieces. The tragedy is, they probably believe in the trash they write or argue at various forums.

On a larger scale if you look at it, almost every single big industrial project - which could provide employment (both direct and indirect) to more than a million people - have been held up but some stupid land agitations most of which are manufactured. Just look at the steel plants like Posco or what happened in Singur with the Tata project.

The danger is the useful idiots, they can cause more unwitting harm than known career disruptors like Arundhati Roy.

[RajeshA]

Mostly these agitations are by Maoists and Maoist-affiliated groups. All friends of China. Why would China want India to be industrialized?

[Sanku]

^^^

Sanku would love this guy runs away ducking for cover

I saw that!! :wag: :wag:

[Amber G.]

From Saurav Jha:
Indo-French nuclear ties go beyond Jaitapur

President Nicholas Sarkozy’s visit seems to have hastened the process for French nuclear major Areva’s efforts to supply two 1650 mw European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) to India.

[shukla]

Russia asks India to clarify N-liability law

[vic]

I think that India should take the help of France and South Korea to set up manufacturing units for components that had to come from Japan.

Also India should try to draw South Korea in its strategic setup!

[SSridhar]

News Flash: India & Russia discuss additional reactors for Kudankulam.

[Austin]

Russia, India to develop new generation reactors

Russia and India have agreed to cooperate in developing new generation reactors for nuclear power plants, head of the Rosatom state-controlled nuclear corporation Sergei Kiriyenko said on Tuesday.

This is part of a nuclear cooperation agreement that was signed earlier in the day in the presence of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is on a two-day official visit to India, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"This refers to cooperation in developing... fast neutron reactors," Kiriyenko said, adding that both countries have made much progress in the area.

Another reactor type uses thorium fuel, he said.

"Because India has the world's largest thorium deposits, this is a possible area for developing fast neutron reactors," Kiriyenko said.

[ashokpachori]

I think that India should take the help of France and South Korea to set up manufacturing units for components that had to come from Japan.

Also India should try to draw South Korea in its strategic setup!

Aptly said...
Japan has the monopoly!

Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor.

If there are 50 to 100 reactors or more to be built, there will be a real shortage and real delays in deliveries

``You need metal on the ground right now to make 2015,'' said Ray Ganthner, senior vice president of new plant deployment at Areva NP Inc. in Lynchburg, Virginia.

As many as 237 reactors may be built globally by 2030, an average of more than 10 a year, according to the World Nuclear Association in London.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... VMzCTMz3ms

Japan is now faced with a second momentous decision. It is a key node in the global supply chain for nuclear reactor components, especially those used in American and French reactors. Before Japan can export any such components to India, the two states must reach a bilateral agreement specifying the rules of the road. Japan has recently started to negotiate such a deal with India, under yet more pressure from the United States as well as France

To assuage skeptics at home--as well as his own conscience--Katsuya Okada, who at the time was foreign minister, announced that any agreement must give Japan the right to halt cooperation should India conduct another nuclear test. This condition is, however, not nearly strong enough because it provides no disincentive for India to test after it has acquired all of the Japanese components that it needs. Indeed, Okada's tentative approach seems to reflect the bureaucracy's assumption that Japan is entering negotiations with a weak hand.

They are wrong. Japan has considerable leverage.

Japan has special expertise in manufacturing large and complicated components for both reactor vessels and steam generators (which convert steam into electricity). Indeed, three out of the four modern American and French reactors contain at least one component that can be manufactured in Japan and nowhere else. If India wants to buy any of them, it needs an agreement with Japan.

Of course, Japan's monopoly of supply is unlikely to last forever. But, the very fact that France and United States have been pushing Japan to conclude an agreement is strong evidence that they believe there is no alternative supplier on the horizon.

President Barack Obama strongly supported cutting off fuel to India in the event it tested. Indeed, thanks to his efforts, domestic legislation states that it is U.S. policy to prevent India from building up large reserves of reactor fuel in advance of a test to insulate itself against a cut-off.

http://carnegieendowment.org/publicatio ... w&id=41668

[Pranav]

President Barack Obama strongly supported cutting off fuel to India in the event it tested. Indeed, thanks to his efforts, domestic legislation states that it is U.S. policy to prevent India from building up large reserves of reactor fuel in advance of a test to insulate itself against a cut-off.

http://carnegieendowment.org/publicatio ... w&id=41668

True, but Obama cannot stop India from building up reserves through import from third countries.

Namibian Uranium Output Rose in Second Quarter on Demand From China, India
By Chamwe Kaira - Sep 30, 2010 9:03 PM GMT+0530
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-3 ... ate1-.html

[ashokpachori]

President Barack Obama strongly supported cutting off fuel to India in the event it tested. Indeed, thanks to his efforts, domestic legislation states that it is U.S. policy to prevent India from building up large reserves of reactor fuel in advance of a test to insulate itself against a cut-off.

http://carnegieendowment.org/publicatio ... w&id=41668

True, but Obama cannot stop India from building up reserves through import from third countries.


Paramount concern is that of future*test* and subsequent return of equipment that have been signed that way.

[Pranav]

True, but Obama cannot stop India from building up reserves through import from third countries.


Paramount concern is that of future*test* and subsequent return of equipment that have been signed that way.

The post I was responding to was making a point about Fuel reserves, not return of equipment. Fuel reserve should be built up by import from third countries.

As regards nuclear equipment, we should avoid importing it from the US. Russia or France are better sources. Also, indigenous capability also exists (note ongoing construction of prototype fast breeder reactor).

If there is a tacit agreement to provide some kind of payback to US elites who helped with the NSG waiver, then that can be done through shell companies, registered outside the US, which will thus not be subject to US laws.

[amit]

Liability clause holds up two N-reactors from Russia

NEW DELHI: India and Russia on Tuesday failed to finalise an agreement for building two more reactors at Kudankulam because of the latter's concern about the Indian civil nuclear liability law, which seeks to hold suppliers liable for nuclear mishaps.

According to sources, Russia wants an explanation of how the tricky supplier liability clause would be implemented in the event of a nuclear accident.

Though the Russians tried hard not to sound critical of India's new nuclear liability law, sources said their concern was the reason why the discussion on the two new agreements didn't yield a deal.

So the Russians have joined the US and France in raising objections to the liability clause.

[abhischekcc]

You have to hand it to the Indian bureaucracy for practising chai biskoot strategy at its best

First they dangled the promise of 'unlimited Indian demand for power' in front of the salivating western nuke firm CEOs and politicians. Then after getting them to open up their technology regimes (as best as they could) they yanked the promise back

[Sanku]

First they dangled the promise of 'unlimited Indian demand for power' in front of the salivating western nuke firm CEOs and politicians. Then after getting them to open up their technology regimes (as best as they could) they yanked the promise back

Oh no, no nothing like that its only that some states (Orrisa, Bengal and one more) are not cooperating since they claim that they cant aquire land for 3 sites. Popular resistance you see.


And of course we were being told what by lemon sellers? 200 plants in 20 years? Which downhilled skiied to 20 plants by 2050.



I would eat my hat (non existent one of course ) if they can get 5 up and running by 2050.

[Pranav]

You have to hand it to the Indian bureaucracy for practising chai biskoot strategy at its best

First they dangled the promise of 'unlimited Indian demand for power' in front of the salivating western nuke firm CEOs and politicians. Then after getting them to open up their technology regimes (as best as they could) they yanked the promise back

But we ought to give at least some payback, imho, for the NSG waiver. Route it through shell companies or whatever to get around domestic laws. Otherwise the elites that batted for us will not be around when we need them again.

[Pratyush]

French dressing

At the end of his recent visit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, along with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a joint statement reaffirming their "shared endeavour to strengthen democracy, transparency and accountability". However, apart from promoting these "shared values", Sarkozy was looking to win business deals for France. The biggest such deal involved nuclear reactors for Jaitapur, a town on the Konkan coast at Ratnagiri in Maharashtra.

If this deal goes through, Jaitapur could become the site of the world's largest nuclear complex. The French firm, Areva, is proposing to set up six European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), each of which is supposed to provide 1,650 MW of power. This is more than one-third of India's total installed nuclear capacity of 4,780 MW.

However, the residents of the area are unimpressed. On December 4, several thousand people came together to protest at the project site. The Maharashtra government reacted by arresting about 1,500 people — a significant fraction of the population of the surrounding villages. This was not the first time that the locals had expressed their opposition. At the public hearing for the environmental impact assessment in May, the overwhelming majority of those present opposed the project. Nevertheless, Jairam Ramesh, heading the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), went ahead and fast-tracked the project's environmental clearance.

The locals are worried that the nuclear plants will destroy the neighbouring fisheries and have a deleterious impact on farmers. The MoEF agreed tacitly: "The nuclear power complex raises many questions on the carrying capacity of the ecologically sensitive region in which it is located," Ramesh noted. However, instead of attempting to find answers, the minister merely instructed the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) to follow certain "conditions and safeguards".

The environment ministry often grants such 'conditional clearances'. Unfortunately — as the environmental group, Kalpavriksh, pointed out in a recent study titled Calling the bluff — its record of later ensuring compliance with these conditions is dubious. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ministry is serious this time around. For example, it has given the NPCIL 12 months to come up with a "comprehensive biodiversity conservation plan" but has not even set up a review mechanism to ensure that this plan meets the needs of the local population.

The most serious concern of the local residents has to do with safety. However, Ramesh refused to engage with this, simply stating that he was "not the competent authority to pass judgement" on the matter. The Jaitapur plant, like any other nuclear reactor, is capable of suffering a catastrophic accident. In fact, both Areva and the locals are worried about this eventuality. This is why Sarkozy insisted that India should amend its liability norms to follow the Vienna convention where the nuclear supplier is completely indemnified from the consequences of any mishap. (Do we have any indication from Areva that the reactor is unsafe. )

It is clear from the government's actions during the passage of the liability Bill that it concurs with Sarkozy. To get around India's new liability law, which allows the operator of the nuclear plant a "right of recourse" against the manufacturer, the government might sign a contract renouncing its right to seek damages from Areva. Since this would subvert the spirit of the Indian law, the Jaitapur contract must be opened to public scrutiny.

Moreover, the locals do not have this option of indemnity; they will bear the brunt of any accident. So, the least that the government can do is to be transparent on the question of safety. In India, contrary to international practice, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, which vets reactor designs, does not place its assessments in the public domain. This must be corrected, and given that this issue affects the lives of the neighbouring residents, the government should proceed with the project only if they are satisfied that it is safe.

The MoEF also argued that this project was "the first practical outcome" of India's civilian nuclear agreement. If so, this is a remarkably poor outcome. Not a single EPR is in operation anywhere in the world. Areva commenced construction on its first EPR in Olkiluoto in Finland with much fanfare in 2005. This reactor is now three years behind schedule and heavily over budget, while its partners are busy battling over who is to bear the additional cost. The next EPR at Flamanville in France has also been plagued by cost increases. Areva has not yet cleared the regulatory process in Britain and the US and, in both countries, regulators have flagged safety issues.

In India, Areva is quoting a price of $9.3 billion for two reactors and fuel for 25 years. Excluding the cost of fuel, this works out to less than $4 billion per reactor. Given that the reactors in France and Finland will be almost twice as expensive, this is just a recipe for another Enron. (Is this an example of madarssa math ot lahori logic. That a reactor which is cheaper to buy then the comparable reactor in Europe will result in more expensive electricity?)

If the government does go ahead with the project, in spite of these concerns, it should at least sign a 'turnkey' contract with Areva, and make it responsible for any cost overruns. Most importantly, on questions of safety, environmental impact, cost and liability, it would be nice for the people of Jaitapur to see some "democracy, transparency and accountability".

Suvrat Raju is a physicist at the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad. MV Ramana is a physicist at Princeton University, US. The views expressed by the authors are personal.

This the second major OP ed targeting this particular reactor at this site. Are the frech being targeted for bringing advanced design or is the Power plant is being targeted because it is the first one post the Nuke deal?

[amit]

^^^^^^^

This line which you bolded:

In fact, both Areva and the locals are worried about this eventuality. This is why Sarkozy insisted that India should amend its liability norms to follow the Vienna convention where the nuclear supplier is completely indemnified from the consequences of any mishap.{utter bullcrap}

And the fact that MV Ramana is a co author should give you a good idea of what kind of hatchet job this article is.

[amit]

Then after getting them to open up their technology regimes (as best as they could) they yanked the promise back

Boss how does opening up their technology regimes help if no plants are built? Do you think the Goras can't also do a rollback?

[Pratyush]

Amit,

The question I have why is this guy specificaly going after the French. Or is he an equal oppotunity offender who in general is opposed to every thing related to Nukes for India.

[amit]

Amit,

The question I have why is this guy specificaly going after the French. Or is he an equal oppotunity offender who in general is opposed to every thing related to Nukes for India.

MV Ramana and his ilk are equal opportunity NPA Ayotollahs. Need we say more?

If you want to follow up please do a google on him. Lot of articles which would give you a good insight on his thought process. Has been discussed to death in these parts.

[abhishek_sharma]

Political Divide Undermines Obama’s Nuclear Goals

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us/po ... ssess.html

The new arms control treaty with Russia, whose ratification now seems assured, was initially envisioned as a speed bump on President Obama’s nuclear agenda, a modest reduction in nuclear forces that would enable him to tackle much harder issues on the way to his dream of eventually eliminating nuclear weapons altogether.

It turned out to be a mountain

So it was telling when John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who led the advocacy in the Senate for New Start, gave a curt answer for a question about the test ban treaty: “There’s just been no talk about that right now, none whatsoever.”

[ashokpachori]

If there is a tacit agreement to provide some kind of payback to US elites who helped with the NSG waiver, then that can be done through shell companies, registered outside the US, which will thus not be subject to US laws.

These big reactor equipments can not be hidden, and there are strict rules for their exports. Besides, you have IEAE inspection hawks to worry about. These big ticket reactor items through shell companies is not feasible.

In this trade, everything is accountable. And there are no more AQ Khans in the market, North Korea is International pariah under UN sanction.

Shell companies? forget about it.

[Philip]

What about CIA nuclear peddlars?

[Gerard]

Obama's India visit: The nuclear outcome

[vera_k]

Jaitapur nuke plant will be a social disaster: TISS report

Some of the findings suggest that a large part of land to be acquired for the project is being used for agriculture, horticulture and grazing purposes, and that the government has subverted facts by labelling it barren land.

“Farmers and horticulturists have spent lakhs of rupees to make the land cultivable over years and even the government has supported them. This includes Alfonso mangoes and cashews. Now, when the time has come for them to reap their investments, they are afraid of losing their land as the government now claims it is barren land,” says the report. It adds that even the fisherfolk of the region are against the project.

“Their fear that the fishes will migrate to deeper waters due to release of hot water from the reactors is not unjustified. Apart from fishing, other allied activities will also be adversely affected,” says the report, which was prepared after interviewing villagers.

Guess this plant should be moved to deficit states like Orissa or Bihar. Maharashtra can anyways get power from Gujarat.

[GuruPrabhu]

Guess this plant should be moved to deficit states like Orissa or Bihar. Maharashtra can anyways get power from Gujarat.

Yes, Bihar coastline is free of controversy.

[abhishek_sharma]

N-liability law: Meeting suppliers midway, Govt may fix time and cost

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/N-lia ... ost/729677

[abhishek_sharma]

N-plants: India, Russia to counter China in South Asia

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/N-pla ... sia/729704

India and Russia have decided to work together in the field of nuclear commerce. The two countries will help set up smaller nuclear power plants in South Asian countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka , sources said. This, according to South Block sources, is a key outcome of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to India.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Interesting idea, if the anti Lanka feeling in Tamil nadu and anti India feeling in BD can be countered then this has the potential of rollong back the inroad made by the PRC in Indian near abroad.

[amit]

N-liability law: Meeting suppliers midway, Govt may fix time and cost

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/N-lia ... ost/729677

Excerpts from this article should be posted IMO. Abhishek I hope you don't mind.

Almost all negotiations for new reactors — be it with the US, France or Russia — have been largely grappling with this problem. Both foreign and Indian suppliers are seeking greater clarity on the practical implications of Clause 17 (b) in this newly passed legislation.

Having put it in the law to reflect the “sentiments” emerging from the Bhopal gas tragedy case, this clause has complicated commercial negotiations. Some 60 per cent of the equipment — maybe even more — at a nuclear reactor site would be from Indian companies and, hence, it is not just a problem of foreign companies. {This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. And some of these Indian companies are very small outfits who don't have the capitalization need to take out the necessary insurance} On the other hand, foreign suppliers are arguing why they should be responsible for a reactor incident say 20 years after its delivery, by when the operator would have recovered the cost of purchase and would presumably be making profits.

While the government has made it clear that there is no question of a change in legislation now, sources said senior officials want to find a solution that satisfies both sides. By quantifying both the time and cost of liability, there is an assurance to the supplier that NPCIL’s right to recourse is not valid for the entire lifetime of a reactor.

A “reasonable” time-frame and cost quantum would then become a function of the contract. Depending on the equipment, the contract with the supplier will reflect this. {IMO this appears to be a fair solution}

An official explained that firstly, there are multiple suppliers NPCIL, for instance, would be responsible for the transportation, assembly of the reactor and then its operations. In doing these tasks, besides setting up the reactor site, several other suppliers would come into the picture along the chain. All these contracts would have to reflect the supplier liability issue as it is mandated by law.

As an official explained, there are many “barriers” at a reactor site to prevent an incident. If an incident were to happen, it can be assumed that all these barriers failed. However, the NPCIL would be in a legal quandary as, technically, the blame would fall on the last barrier — and only a supplier or a particular set of suppliers would be held responsible.

[Pratyush]

N-liability law: Meeting suppliers midway, Govt may fix time and cost

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/N-lia ... ost/729677

Excerpts from this article should be posted IMO. Abhishek I hope you don't mind.

Having put it in the law to reflect the “sentiments” emerging from the Bhopal gas tragedy case, this clause has complicated commercial negotiations. Some 60 per cent of the equipment — maybe even more — at a nuclear reactor site would be from Indian companies and, hence, it is not just a problem of foreign companies. {This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. And some of these Indian companies are very small outfits who don't have the capitalization need to take out the necessary insurance} On the other hand, foreign suppliers are arguing why they should be responsible for a reactor incident say 20 years after its delivery, by when the operator would have recovered the cost of purchase and would presumably be making profits.

Amit,

I have fail to understand why this is a concern to the supplier when he can transfer the additional cost incurred by him for getting the nuke liability Insurance to the user of the equipment at the implementation stage.

JMT