India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

[Suraj]

Acharya and mayurav: Please, no more of your dialogue here. Take it offline. Thanks.

[putnanja]

Australia ready to support India’s case

Australia ready to support India’s case

P. S. Suryanarayana

Understands deal’s significance for India and U.S.

Ready to listen to any suggestions made in NSG, IAEA

SINGAPORE: Australia has indicated its willingness to support India’s case in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, subject to a “careful, detailed consideration” of the issues at stake. Canberra has “not made a decision” at this stage.

According to Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, the move to consider India’s case “won’t lead to a change of policy [that] ... we only export uranium to those nation-states who are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

In a media interaction, after holding talks with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Perth on Thursday, Mr. Smith said: “India, of course, is not a party [to the NPT]. But we have always made it clear that we regard the so-called 123 Agreement, the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, as [being] separate from that.”

Australia was now “looking at the [U.S.-India] arrangement with a positive and constructive frame of mind.” And, “we don’t regard, in any way our longstanding [Labour] party policy position on non-exportation of uranium as, in any way, standing between us and joining a consensus to support the arrangement,” he said.
Manmohan briefed

In remarks made public by the U.S. on Friday, Mr. Smith said Australia “understand[s] the significance that the arrangement has to both India and the United States.” This was already conveyed by him to External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee when he was recently in Canberra and to Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma on the sidelines of a regional security conference in Singapore earlier this week. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was also briefed on these lines by his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd during the recent G-8 outreach meetings in Japan.
Strategic importance

Taking note of the “strategic importance” of the issues as viewed by India and the U.S., Australia would now “take a very careful look at the arrangement itself [and] also listen to any suggestions that we find [being] made in the forums of the NSG and the IAEA.”

[Gerard]

a ban on the sale of enrichment and reprocessing equipment.

The NSG should then have no objection if India sells its own enrichment and reprocessing technology to other states. Leaving this out of the NSG waiver should imply that the agreement itself places no limits on Indian proliferation of said equipment. India cannot be expected to follow guidelines that target India itself.

As LBJ said... better the camel inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in..

[putnanja]

China keeps India on tenterhooks

NSG Waiver
China keeps India on tenterhooks
Anita Katyal and Ashok Tuteja
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 25
The Indian diplomatic establishment is on tenterhooks as it has yet to receive any definite message from China on its support for the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement.

On the contrary, if diplomacy is all about subtle messages and signals, then New Delhi has reasons to worry. While key world leaders have called to congratulate Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on winning the trust vote in Parliament, there has been no word from Beijing.

Among those who greeted the PM included US President George Bush, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Pakistan PM Yousaf Raza Gilani.

China’s silence is worrying as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board is meeting in Vienna on August 1 to consider the India-specific nuclear safeguards agreement. Once the IAEA clears the agreement, India will approach the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to seek a “clean waiver” to enable India to undertake nuclear commerce.

Although New Delhi is quite optimistic that Beijing will eventually support India, it will be anxiously monitoring the August 1 meeting of the IAEA board to see how China plays its cards. India expects to get majority support at this meeting but is not sure if the matter will be put to vote.

“In case it is, it will be interesting to see how China votes,” remarked a senior UPA minister, adding that the forthcoming meeting will be the first occasion when Beijing will have to spell out its stand on the Indo-US nuke deal. It will have a bearing on its position in the subsequent meeting of the NSG, which works on the basis of consensus. One discordant note and the deal is off.

Aware of China’s crucial role, New Delhi is straining every nerve to get Beijing on board. As part of these efforts minister of state in the Prime Minister’s Office Prithiviraj Chavan will be in Beijing next Tuesday to deliver a personal letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Chinese president Hu Jintao to canvass support for India at the NSG. Chavan will be carrying similar letters for the heads of state of Itlay, Spain and Portugal also.

Once it won the trust vote, the UPA government promptly launched a diplomatic offensive to hardsell the deal to the IAEA and NSG countries. Union ministers Anand Sharma and Kapil Sibal along with foreign secretary, national security advisor M.K. Narayanan and PM’s pointsman on the nuke Shyam Saran have been assigned to cover all the NSG countries.

New Delhi is depending on the US, which has given a firm assurance that it will take up India’s case both at the IAEA and the NSG meetings. Washington is hopeful that the NSG meeting will take place within 10 days of IAEA’s approval of the safeguards agreement.

Meanwhile, external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, in an interview to a television channel, today said India was hopeful of getting China’s support at the NSG.

“The Prime Minister had discussed (the issue) with President Hu Jintao. We also had some discussion with my colleague Yang Jiechi on different occasions,” Mukherjee said.

[Rangudu]

If the NSG draft has any mention of "no test" then India should and will walk away. Plus it will cause an irreparable dent in Indo-US ties.

[Rangudu]

Yet, in an interview to The Asian Age on April 9, Shyam Saran, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy, said it was “unrealistic” for India to expect the NSG not to insist on a no-testing condition. This statement has since been seized upon by the Americans as evidence that India might be flexible on its demand for a clean exemption.

I'm disappointed in Siddharth Varadarajan's piece. Despite his skepticism of the deal, I had always thought of the gentleman as a man of facts.

What Shyam Saran said on the April 9 Asian Age interview is this:

As far as testing is concerned, we have ensured that our commitment is only to continuing our voluntary moratorium. If in the light of changes in our security environment, our political leadership decides to undertake further tests, we will not be violating any international commitment or legal undertaking. There will perhaps be consequences just as there were after the May 1998 tests.

and

While the NSG may not impose adherence to the CTBT as a conditionality in giving us exemption, it is unrealistic to expect the group to convey any assurance that there will be no consequences for India if it decides to test.

In other words, Mr.Saran has said the same thing we have all believed to be true - namely, India understands that there will be consequences arising from a unilateral nuclear test. However, India will NOT accept a de-jure mention of testing in either bilateral agreements or in treaties.

[putnanja]

Rangudu, If you look at the next line following the quoted parts, he says this:

In its May 20, 2008 report, the CRS quoted Mr. Saran’s statement to speculate that “New Delhi may be willing to accept some conditions” on the NSG exemption front after all.

I think he didn't do enough due diligence in going through Saran's statement again. I think he based his statement based on CRS' report and didn't go back and verify whether Saran actually told it or not.

[BijuShet]

If the NSG draft has any mention of "no test" then India should and will walk away. Plus it will cause an irreparable dent in Indo-US ties.

Reading your post above on Shyam Saran's statement, it appears that the GoI position is clear that it accepts that there will be consequences to testing but will not accept any such wording in the NSG document. My issue with what you write is that GoI after having spent so much energy of the parliament in pushing for this deal as being good for the nation will have a hard time walking away without anything tangible. How will they spin their refusal to sign the NSG document on a non-testing clause when all along they have been singing praises of the good aspects of power generation for the masses from this deal. The strategic nature of this deal was never seriously put forth to the masses. They may not comprehend the importance of testing as in their minds, we have tested twice and we are a nuclear weapons nation already so what is this need to test again and again and lose out on the benefits of cheap power. I am curious to know your take on this.

[Rangudu]

The CRS report was written by Paul Kerr, who was an associate at Daryl Kimball's "Arms Control Association." Before he joined the CRS, Kerr never hid his dislike for the deal. I'm not surprised that this type of blatant misquoting is being done.

Anyway, I'll be totally shocked and appalled if ANY de-jure mention of testing is part of the NSG waiver.

Bijeshet, GoI's position is made clear by the PM's assurances to the country about the redlines. I have no doubt that GoI will NOT hesitate to walk away from a tainted NSG waiver.

[putnanja]

I have no doubt that GoI will NOT walk away from a tainted NSG waiver.

R, shouldn't that be "walk away from a tainted NSG waiver" ? GoI will go in for only clean NSG waiver, not for a tainted one.

[Prem]

Kangress is too smart to not to commit suicide by accepting any tainted waiver from NSG . Onlee a clean waiver fulfills the ojectives of this whole Nuke deal exercise. Tainted waiver will be usster waste of time on scale of Khoda Pahar , Nikli Choohia oor woh be Mari Hui.
Clean waiver = clear direction for geo-politics of next 30-40 years .World cannot afford anymore of India practicing NAM , sitting aloof and not taking any side.

[ShauryaT]

If the NSG draft has any mention of "no test" then India should and will walk away. Plus it will cause an irreparable dent in Indo-US ties.

R- There is no way that there will be such an unconditional exemption. So far the script has complied with the requirements of Hyde in the 123 and the IAEA draft. The NSG will be no different.

Look out for language that in effect says the NSG WILL stop trade if there is a test. I am willing to take bets on this.

[Prem]

In the mean time , an Eminent Thinker of South Asia assesing the damage to Demo Cracy

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=126248

Nuking democracy to win votes

Saturday, July 26, 2008
Praful Bidwai

India’s United Progressive Alliance won the Parliament confidence motion, but lost credibility by securing support through bribery. It has inflicted great damage upon democracy by weakening the people’s trust in its integrity and fair play.

This harm will prove greater and more enduring than any gains from the UPA’s victory. During the week leading up to the vote—one of the worst periods of cynical manipulation in India’s politics—every fear that the democratic process would be corrupted, defiled and subverted came true. MPs were offered ministerial berths, election tickets, new states/autonomous districts and, above all, cash.

The most nauseating episode was the display, 40 minutes before the voting was due, of Rs10 million in banknotes by three BJP MPs, who claimed they were given it by Amar Singh, the general secretary of the Samajwadi Party (SP), to secure their abstentions. This was unprecedented for India’s Parliament.

[ShauryaT]

Bijeshet, GoI's position is made clear by the PM's assurances to the country about the redlines. I have no doubt that GoI will NOT hesitate to walk away from a tainted NSG waiver.

When the Prime Minister of the nation has back tracked from what was said in Parliament and much more said outside of it, and the trend lines on whose script is being complied with are clear, we still have hopes of PM's assurances?

[rajrang]

The instant the opposition to the nuclear deal has been clearly defeated in India, the U.S. has started arming Pak:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Paki ... 281493.cms

They would not have announced this until last week for fear of strengthening the anti-nuclear and anti-US constituencies within India.

Expect more arms sales announcements to Pak from the U.S., West over the next few months.

[CRamS]

If the NSG draft has any mention of "no test" then India should and will walk away. Plus it will cause an irreparable dent in Indo-US ties.

R- There is no way that there will be such an unconditional exemption. So far the script has complied with the requirements of Hyde in the 123 and the IAEA draft. The NSG will be no different.

Look out for language that in effect says the NSG WILL stop trade if there is a test. I am willing to take bets on this.

I doubt it. The language will either be clean or most likely ambiguous which MMS and his spin miesters can spin as 'clean'.

[ShauryaT]

R- There is no way that there will be such an unconditional exemption. So far the script has complied with the requirements of Hyde in the 123 and the IAEA draft. The NSG will be no different.

Look out for language that in effect says the NSG WILL stop trade if there is a test. I am willing to take bets on this.

I doubt it. The language will either be clean or most likely ambiguous which MMS and his spin miesters can spin as 'clean'.

Does not take a PHd to read and understand. But yes, for most of DDM that will be too much to ask for and hence the spin will continue.

[pradeepe]

NRaoji,

Are you claiming that we are denuking via this deal ? Is this an acceptable outcome according to you ? I too feel this deal is CRE. Then why is there very little noise about a sellout ? Do APJAK and AK agree with this denuking agenda ?

With all fairness to MMS, the de-nuking of India started post Pokran-II when Jassu bhai bent down on his knees and begged "My friend Strobe" for forgiveness. Thus, to begin with, India was lethargic at best in pursuing a nuke deterrant. Of course, then came MMS, installed as CEO of India, who has no interest in such matters in the first place, and US sensing an opportunity went for the kill through this deal. Thus, this deal only accelerates and instutionalizes the lackadaisacal nuke path that India was on in the first place. Furthermore, immediatly after MMS's 'victory', US greeted its 'strategic partner', India, with a huge cache of F-Sola gift to TSP terrorists so they don't loose heart in their terror campaign against India. Thus, US intentions are very clear, not only CRE of India, but lest India even attempt to get uppity in the future, it has made sure TSP & its terrorist apparatus dis-abuse India of any such notions.

No one is denuking India. Sorry.

IMVHO, this is a very poor read of the Indian psyche. You make it sound like we are faltering badly carrying the bum load, and just waiting to be releived of it. That is not the way India operates. Its slow and deliberate, but once it has made up its mind to take a particular route, there's no looking back. And yes, more often than not, it doesnt move fast enough to satisy the jingo's. Have some confidence saar.

Being rigid and defiant for every breeze that comes our way only causes us to expend ourselves.

[Neshant]

> No one is denuking India. Sorry.

Its being done in a round about way.

No country can build a deterrent based on one failed H bomb test. This 'deal' is an attempt to cap it at that.

[Sanjay M]

First of all, there's no guarantee that nuclear power will be the most economical form of power in the future. It seems likely that solar and wind are making progress towards becoming the most cost-competitive. After all, there is no distribution grid required for these energy alternatives, and they are renewable. And in clamorous quarrelling India, that makes all the difference. Just like so many of the disputes over river waters, likewise there would be disputes over distribution/allocation of any other precious resource, like electricity. Buying rooftop solar panels or rooftop wind-turbines would put the power directly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the babus and their bribes-get-you-ahead-in-line culture.

So I'm looking forwards to India getting all the other non-nuclear high-tech dual-use technologies from this 123 Deal.
Those things likely can't be pulled back in the event Hyde Act comes into force.

So suppose we just get a few nuclear plants, and end up mainly deriving power from other sources. Then Hyde Act can't stop us from testing, nor can anything else.

If 123 Deal can get other non-nuclear technologies into our hands faster, then it could be worth it.

[Suraj]

As a break from the "they're all out to CRE us" discussions, an interesting picture from Time, of what is apparently part of the PFBR:
Nuclear Disco Ball

A nearly 200-ton reactor safety vessel is erected at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, India. The reactor will begin commercial production of nuclear power by 2011.

[shiv]

What choices does India have with regard to new sources of electric power from proven technology in the period 2010 to 2020?

The question I am asking specifically relates to a proven power source whose construction may start (with no "research" or development needed) by 2010 and be completed by 2015 or 2020.

With respect - I would prefer a few written words here to Google or other links to read for myself. What I have read for myself tells me that nuke power is among the best. So I am basically asking those who disagree not to give me links - but post a few opinions on why some other choice is better for India. Wind farms, tidal power, solar power, more hydel power etc require suitable geographic areas and any hint as to where and how will be appreciated.

[pradeepe]

Again, IMHO, why does it have to be one or the other. Every source including gobar will be pursued and used.

[pradeepe]

>
Its being done in a round about way.

I wont deny that attempts aren't being or wont be made. Thats the nature of the beast. What I believe is that it ain't happening. We stand a much greater risk of being paralyzed into inaction just because its a big bad world out there. With that attitude, forget dealing with the west, one cant even do business in India. If in the process of doing business you let yourself be screwed, you will be screwed. Simple.

[prashanth]

Again, IMHO, why does it have to be one or the other. Every source including gobar will be pursued and used.

Well said.
While it is difficult to predict the outcome of the deal, there are some things India can do to cut costs. For example, the govt might consider banning incandescent bulbs and heavily subsidize CFLs. This might cost, but the reduced power consumption means less nuclear reactors are built, (which are expensive). Also the investment for CFLs can entirely be in India. Better than importing reactors and fuel and get heads shaved.

[Sanatanan]

China keeps India on tenterhooks

This article may be relevant. (Emphasis of phrases, in the text of the article, mine)

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Beijing Harps on US ‘containment’ Theory

D.S.Rajan, C3S Paper No.191 dated July 24, 2008

While the Party and State- controlled media in China have so far confined themselves to giving a factual account of the trust vote in New Delhi on the nuclear deal with the US, an authoritative and well-connected strategic affairs journal in Chinese language, has chosen to come out with a prompt independent comment on the subject. Appearing at a time when there are expectations of Beijing’s support to India’s case in the Nuclear suppliers Group (NSG), what has been said in the comment assumes significance.

The commentary, under the caption “ India extends hand, the US is to hold”, written by “Zhan Lue” (“Strategy” in English), ostensibly by a high level party cadre, has remarked (China Institute of International Strategic Studies, Beijing, Chinese language Online Edition, 23 July 2008) that the deal which was being considered almost dead due to the opposition coming from the ‘anti-American’ communist groups supporting the ‘Centrist government’, could be rescued by Prime Minister Singh through his act of ‘adventure and courage’; he could replace the erstwhile support of the communist groups with that of ‘regional small parties'. With the Prime Minister winning the trust vote in the Indian Parliament on 22 July 2008, a question, which remains, is whether the deal can now successfully go through the political process in the US. The write-up admitted that several legal questions may confront the deal in the US, but at the same time felt that the US Congress should be able to find time to express support for the deal, as overall it suits Washington’s interests.

“Zhan Lue” has further observed that New Delhi’s nuclear explosion in 1974 resulted in a stop to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation; but the time has changed now. The writer listed the following as constituents of the President Bush’s logic behind the US nuclear deal with India:

The advantages of the US-India Strategic Partnership outweigh the risks which were perceived as per Washington’s old policy towards New Delhi,

Availability of clean nuclear energy to India through the deal, can contribute to India’s capacity to reduce green house gas emissions.

Unlike Pakistan, India’s nuclear weapon programme has not led to any proliferation

Most important factor is that India is a democratic nation with common values and common interests with the US – contain china and resist Islamic terrorism.

Worth paying attention is that India’s recycling of nuclear material will come under more and more international supervision as a result of the deal.

The Chinese strategist has nevertheless visualized worries to the US. Firstly, the deal can erode into the US aggressive open stand that if India is to carry out further nuclear tests, it will cut nuclear supplies to India. Next, Washington may have to worry about India’s economic relations and military contact with Iran. Lastly, New Delhi’s traditional habit of displaying a ‘non-alignment’ attitude towards American interests may also be of concern to Washington. On the other hand, the US could also feel ‘hopeful’, as to get closer to Washington, the Indian Prime Minister has successfully discarded the communists, triggering relaxation in the conditions concerning the deal. Zhan Lue has added that a refusal by the US Congress to endorse the deal, can not only lead to New Delhi’s dissatisfaction, but also to India’s approach to France and Russia for procuring 25000 MW of nuclear power, taking advantage of the permission to it accruing from the IAEA and NSG for buying nuclear material and technology. In the conclusion of the analyst, the ball is to move into the court of the US Congress.

Implications

What looks significant is the reappearance, after some gap, of Chinese media criticisms on the US intentions to contain China through its nuclear deal with India. In the past, publications in China had accused the US of adopting a ‘double standard’ in signing the deal; a message was given on one occasion that Beijing might like to conclude similar pacts with friendly nations. An analysis (People’s Daily, 30 August 2007) criticized India by name with the remark that the desire of Washington is to enclose India into the camp of its global partners and that fits exactly with India’s wishes.

In contrast, Beijing’s apparent signals at diplomatic levels have been circumspect on the deal. The cautious statements of the PRC Foreign Ministry officials welcoming civil nuclear cooperation between nations keeping in view the non-proliferation interests, have given rise to Indian optimism on China supporting India’s case in the NSG. China’s offer to India for civil nuclear cooperation, made for the first time, has by implication been positively interpreted by Indian officials. During recent India-China leadership meetings, signs have been available to suggest Beijing’s stance favourable to India.

One has to take a composite view of the seemingly contradictory perspectives of Chinese strategists and the government on the Indo-US nuclear deal. In reality, however, they are two components of the same Chinese policy – one to suit strategic interests and the other based on tactical factors. Under the former, the US is looked upon by China, as a potential threat and China would like to keep India outside the US influence. Tactically, China needs friendship with the US and India in the present stage to guarantee its “peaceful development’. Beijing’s support to New Delhi in the NSG, if it comes, needs to be seen in such tactical context. But China is expected to maintain a careful watch on whether the deal can lead to strengthening of India’s nuclear weapon programme at a level capable of competing with China or threatening its ally Pakistan. What stand Beijing will adopt to the reported objections of Pakistan on approval of the Indian nuclear safeguards agreement in the IAEA, particularly based on its perceived arms race in the region, is likely to generate great interest in India.

(The writer, Mr D.S.Rajan, is the Director, Chennai Centre for China Studies,India. Email: dsrajan@gmail.com)

Copyright©2007 c3sindia.org. All Rights Reserved.

[rajrang]

What choices does India have with regard to new sources of electric power from proven technology in the period 2010 to 2020?

The question I am asking specifically relates to a proven power source whose construction may start (with no "research" or development needed) by 2010 and be completed by 2015 or 2020.

With respect - I would prefer a few written words here to Google or other links to read for myself. What I have read for myself tells me that nuke power is among the best. So I am basically asking those who disagree not to give me links - but post a few opinions on why some other choice is better for India. Wind farms, tidal power, solar power, more hydel power etc require suitable geographic areas and any hint as to where and how will be appreciated.

I am giving conservative figures:

The current installed hydro power in India is around 30 GW. The hydro potential of India is around - 80 GW giving a balance of 50 GW unused as yet.

Add to the above another 30 GW from Bhutan and 40+ GW from Nepal.

Thus India has 120 GW (50+30+40) hydro and 50 GW of wind energy, 30 GW of solar.

All this add up to 200 GW. The current installed electric power in India is around 150 GW.

In the 2010 to 2015 or 2020 time frame, the above (hydro+ wind + solar) could add 200 GW - taking India's total to 350 GW by 2020.

However, beyond that point, India will depend on imported energy (nuclear, hydrocarbon etc.).

[Raja Ram]

I am already recognised as an anti-deal who became pro-deal. So what I am going to say may surprise some here.

While it is a fact that I welcome the deal, I have some issues with taking what the PM said or rathered tabled in the parliament as a binding assurance that protects national soverign options.

Ramanaji has said that it is as imutable as law. I did some looking into this. The only other occassion where a PM's assurance has been quoted to maintain status quo is the language bill, which declared Hindi as the official language of the Government and national rashtrabasha. The then PM Nehru gave a solemn assurance to the house that as long as the southern states and others who opposed the bill (the bill was passed with a casting vote by the speaker) wanted English would be retained and further there will be no imposition of Hindi. It has held the peace so far. It still does not have the sanctity of law and there is always a demand to convert the assurance into a binding law from some of the regional parties.

If we are take constitutional view, the PM's assurance is not binding. Only bills passed by the houses and assented by President becomes Law and binds the GOI. Given the fact that the PM assured the house through clearly enunciated "red lines" which was promptly violated by the Hyde Act, an assurance of the PM has limited validity.

A clear unambigous law or amendment to Atomic Energy Act has to be made that clearly preserves Indian rights against the effect of intrusive Hyde Act or any other such agreements and clearly obsolves India of obligations of any treaty is a must. Only then can this deal be considered as acceptable.

So far, there is nothing in the agreements that India will sign upto that restricts India from exercising any of its soverign options. It does not mean that all is fine. The Hyde Act has provisions that will definitely restrict the US and in fact ensure that practical efforts are made by the USG to take actions and pursue a CRE agenda with regard to India. What gentle readers here must understand that Hyde Act or no Hyde Act, the USG and the west will do this. They must also realise that they have been doing this with respect to India for a few decades now. And they have failed to restrict India in any way.

It is in a way a recognition of their inability to contain India, that there is a deal on the table my friends. India knows this and has accepted the resulting offer of a way out with its eyes open. There is nothing wrong in that. As long as we do not lose sight of our vision.

Once it became certain that there is no restriction for India to pursue the 3 stage nuclear vision, or there is a limit to strategic capacity or capability, the scientific establishment has come around to support this deal. What is on offer if India accepts this "way out" is a partnership and cooperation with other global powers on nuclear and other such global arrangements. India will do well to be part of these global networks as an equal and full partner.

But it does not mean that the CRE agenda is being given up. The US and the west will still persist, probe, induce, threaten and entice in various ways. It is upto India to protect itself well as it partakes as a global partner in such endeavors. That is why it needs to ensure with an Act of Parliament that the twin immutable principles of maintaining national soverignity and national security options are fundamental and nothing that we sign upto can be at the cost of that.

The current PM's record of keeping his assurances to parliament is suspect. It cannot do. I would like to quote Gandhiji on this "It (PM's assurance) is like a post date cheque on a crashing bank. I wouldn't touch it with a pair of tongs". We need to ensure poorna swaraj with a poorna paramanu swaraj act.

Just another ramble for what it is worth. BTW the only thing I am pro is Pro India. Like the rest of you.

[NRao]

What choices does India have with regard to new sources of electric power from proven technology in the period 2010 to 2020?

There is a very, very cheap "choice", which India will never take and most will agree but will never act: take care of losses in transmission and theft.

It is a real choice, one that is far more than doable, one which needs no new technologies, no investment in R&D, no environmental side effects.

But the chances of it happening are smaller than mining for Uranium.

And, the benefits of it are better than than the benefits of 123.

The testing option is open with this option.

Sadly we do not even think of it as an option.

[Vipul]

IIRC, the Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra Boards have made impressive achievements in reducing T&D Losses.

[NRao]

What gentle readers here must understand that Hyde Act or no Hyde Act, the USG and the west will do this. They must also realise that they have been doing this with respect to India for a few decades now. And they have failed to restrict India in any way.

That is/was true because the Indian economy then was chugging along at some 1-3% and was of no consequence on the world stage.

Now that eco growth matter, both sides have a dog in the fight. India needs a 9%+ growth and the West needs Indian markets to keep moving (please check WSJ of past two days). As disheartening it was to see Indian negotiations with 123, it is perhaps (a little early to tell) equally heartening to see India taking a stand at the WTO (to the extent that Bush literally called MMS on Thu to ask to compromise).

The failure in the past to make India budge was more because India had nothing to loose by holding to a stand. India cannot do that any longer without a penalty. On the flip side IF India wants she can make the West?China pay for their stand too. Big If tho' I think the past really cannot any longer be used as an indicator in the future. The dynamics have changed too much.

IIRC, the Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra Boards have made impressive achievements in reducing T&D Losses

That is indeed good news. Any figures to track?

[Vipul]

Andhra Pradesh has the lowest T&D losses in the country.

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/25/stor ... 950800.htm

Maharstra Board saved 6,000 crs just by reducing the T&D losses.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 667120.cms

[NRao]

Andhra Pradesh has the lowest T&D losses in the country.

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/25/stor ... 950800.htm

Maharstra Board saved 6,000 crs just by reducing the T&D losses.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 667120.cms

. Shortage aleady on the mend!! That is nice to see .... assuming "theft" is worthless consumption ..... not a loss of energy.

Thx.

Now if we can get a "GWe" to tie these up it would be nice.

[CRamS]

First of all, there's no guarantee that nuclear power will be the most economical form of power in the future. It seems likely that solar and wind are making progress towards becoming the most cost-competitive. After all, there is no distribution grid required for these energy alternatives, and they are renewable. And in clamorous quarrelling India, that makes all the difference. Just like so many of the disputes over river waters, likewise there would be disputes over distribution/allocation of any other precious resource, like electricity. Buying rooftop solar panels or rooftop wind-turbines would put the power directly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the babus and their bribes-get-you-ahead-in-line culture.

Sounds good in theory, but the jury is still out. For a start, both wind and solar are interruptible sources, which means these systems can only augment power off the grid. Also, storage is needed to store wind/solar power when grid power is cheap (night time for example). Finally, associated control systems to make all this work. We are not there yet.

[sraj]

Asked whether it was not rather late in the day to be receiving a copy of the proposed changes to the NSG guidelines, a senior official said India had been saying right from the outset that it would accept only a “clean, clear and unconditional” exemption. “There is nothing to negotiate. The last thing we wanted was to get stuck whittling down a huge list of conditions to something smaller. Instead, we are saying, ‘You know what we want, and that’s a text which is unconditional’,” the official added.

Our friendly Ambassador Mulford is back to his games!
We'll wrap up pact by early September, says Mulford

On whether India would get an "unconditional waiver" at the NSG, Mulford said without elaborating: "Unconditional is not the right word.

We expect a clean exemption that is not laden with details that are not part of the 123 Agreement.".

ok, folks: we have it from the horse's mouth (GoI, not Mulford ) -- only a "clean, clear and unconditional" waiver will suffice. Let's see if it happens! only a few more weeks to go.

btw, I do believe that we have not closed off our exit options by going to the IAEA Board (the safeguards text ensures it never enters into force if we don't want it to), and we will walk away from this whole deal (many different ways to do it) if the US plays any more games at the IAEA and NSG.

Let's not get fooled by all this stuff about sundry European nations wanting this or that; if the US cannot get all its partners in line, it has no business leading this negotiation.

[NRao]

ok, folks: we have it from the horse's mouth (GoI, not Mulford ) -- only a "clean, clear and unconditional" waiver will suffice. Let's see if it happens! only a few more weeks to go.

btw, I do believe that we have not closed off our exit options by going to the IAEA Board (the safeguards text ensures it never enters into force if we don't want it to), and we will walk away from this whole deal (many different ways to do it) if the US plays any more games at the IAEA and NSG.

Let's not get fooled by all this stuff about sundry European nations wanting this or that; if the US cannot get all its partners in line, it has no business leading this negotiation

The US and EU pretty much have the same goals ..... different words. The US will define what is "clean", not this GoI for sure. This GoI has back tracked from J18 and there is no reason to believe that they will not continue under the guise of needing uranium to feed a 9% economy, real as the need is.

Well, we now await, hoepfully, brand new, shiny stainless steel, nuclear grade, bolts and nuts to arrive at Mumbai loading docks and Mulford there to flag them off in India.

On solar/wind, India is more than capable - technically. Not other wise.

BTW, here is a NRI that has lead the research in solar field!!

[ramana]

From TOI, 26 july 2008

Three countries are yet to get on board for nuke deal
Seema Guha
Sunday, July 27, 2008 04:04 IST
Print Email Comment Bookmark Text size Text size
Digg it
Add to del.icio.us
Google bookmarks
Yahoo! bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Add to Reddit

Ireland, Switzerland, Austria strong on non-proliferation

NEW DELHI: Only three countries are not supportive of India in the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is to ratify the safety protocol signed by the nuclear watchdog with New Delhi.

Ireland, Switzerland and Austria are strong on non proliferation and are members of both the IAEA board and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, where the US will be pushing for a “clean exemption” for India, as David Mulford, US ambassador to India said earlier this week.

India had sent Shyam Saran, special envoy for the nuclear deal at the PMO to Ireland to explain New Delhi’s position. He returned on Friday, and said that there is a tremendous goodwill for India, and that the government is positive. Does that indicate a shift in Ireland’s position? Hard to say. The proof will come only at the IAEA board. Ireland is a votary of a strict NSG regime which controls worldwide nuclear trade.
Pakistan, a member of the board of governors, but not the NSG, has already shown its hand by writing to both the IAEA and NSG members against special status to India. If the more important players like Ireland, Switzerland and Austria support Pakistan’s move and call for a vote, the going at the NSG may be tougher than expected.
China is keeping its options open through the general view is that it will not play the spoilers game unless the mood in the NSG is anti-India. Both Washington and New Delhi are pushing for a quick simple nod from the board on August 1. The danger is a division in the board will encourage the non proliferation lobby at the NSG. As the NSG works through consensus, the waiver may take much longer than expected.

GOI should say they will start looking at Swiss bank accounts of local peole and at Nazi war records of post WWII Europe.

[NRao]

Pakistan, Ireland sceptical of India-specific pact ahead of IAEA meet

Hmmm...

Just conducted an unscientific survey and found out that Pakistan, a country that has not just proliferated but also hosts known, quantifiable terrorist groups, is being supported by countries that believe in non-proliferation!!!!



Ireland, Swiss and of course the re-inventors of NPT the Land of Oz (LO) may support Pakistan and call for a vote in the IAEA? Sounds cheesy, with many holes.

[CRamS]

BTW, here is a NRI that has lead the research in solar field!!

Also This NRI whom I knew well when I was at GA Tech.

[enqyoob]

Wasn't it Switzerland that proliferated nuke technology to Xerox Khan?