India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Sanatanan]

. . . .

RVP argues:

. . .

Clause 17 of the Bill permits the operator of the nuclear power plant to sue the equipment vendor for damages. This goes well beyond the provisions of IAEA’s model law. In particular, clause 17(b) of the Bill grants the Indian operator a ‘Right of Recourse’ against “wilful acts or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee”.

As per S. Varadarajan's Blog post -- I could not readily get the text of the Bill itself from the Internet -- Section 17(b) of the Bill also grants the operator of an Indian NPP the “right of recourse” against companies like GE and Westinghouse if an accident results “from the willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.”

Both "willful" and "gross" are inadequately defined and impossible to prove. So Clause 17 could be useless from an Indian accident claimant's perspective.

Furthermore, my understanding is that even such a claim, to be by the Indian Operator (only) is limited to the operator's own small liability of Rs. 500 crore.

Taking comfort in Clause 17 would not be correct, according to me.

[arnab]

. . . .

RVP argues:

. . .

Section 17(b) of the Bill also grants the operator of an Indian NPP the “right of recourse” against companies like GE and Westinghouse if an accident results “from the willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.”

Both "willful" and "gross" are inadequately defined and impossible to prove. So Clause 17 could be useless from an Indian accident claimant's perspective.

Furthermore, my understanding is that even such a claim, to be by the Indian Operator (only) is limited to the operator's own small liability of Rs. 500 crore.

Taking comfort in Clause 17 would not be correct, according to me.

Sure - but please also understand that even in the absence of the liability bill, if individuals (or GOI) sue the vendors - they would still need to prove that it was the negligence (gross or otherwise) of the vendor (and say not the operator - because the operator was not carrying out regular inspections / maintenance, which will be very hard to do, so same difference IMO). This bill puts the initial liability on the operator (The Vienna convention adopted by around 80 countries puts the 'sole' responsibility on the operator).
So the issue is - do we once again want to be tied to a single vendor situation (aka Russia) - Note even France requires a liability bill? or do we enact this bill?

[amit]

So the issue is - do we once again want to be tied to a single vendor situation (aka Russia) - Note even France requires a liability bill? or do we enact this bill?

Good point. It then boils down to what is desirable and what is achievable. What is not desirable is a single vendor situation.

Since we're all speculating, I think it would be an interesting exercise to work out that if, god forbid, there was a Chernobyl type disaster, which company/country would we be able to get the maximum compensation out of?

It boils down to the same question that has been asked time and again, and yet with no plausible response.

What's the basis of the assumptions:

a) That a Russian or French built plant would be more safe than an American one.

b) And if there's an accident in a Russian or French plant India would be able to extract more compensation from them in case we don't have a liability bill, than we could from a US operator if we do pass the bill and that results in the US companies setting up plants?

And are we serious if we are suggesting class action suits of the type seen in the US against the tobacco industry is possible in Russian courts against Atomstroyexport in case of an accident?

[Philip]

With the GOI backtracking over this bill and others equalluycontroversial,amidst fears of the Govts. slim majority being overturned,The huge hype that surounded the signing of the N-deal by Dubya and the good Doctor,appears to have evaporated.On is inceasingly finding both the "Pinkos" and the BJP joining ranks to defeat the govts. "backdoor bills".This bill however is the most controversial as after Bhopal,it rubs salt into the still radioactive and raw wounds of Bhopal,where the victims' agony has yet to be assuagd.IT underscores also the sheer indifference of the curent dispensation to the loss of life of even one Indian,who is valued perhaps lower than even cattle.

[Sanku]

Basic question -- IF the nuclear bill stated that the DAE (which is GoI by other name) would be forced to create a escrow pool of say 1 billion US $ per reactor to use for accidents and the suppliers of equipement would have to pool money in it?

Whats the big deal about not doing it this way?

It seems the threshold of whats desirable and whats achievable is both REALLY different for different folks.

[chetak]

With the GOI backtracking over this bill and others equalluycontroversial,amidst fears of the Govts. slim majority being overturned,The huge hype that surounded the signing of the N-deal by Dubya and the good Doctor,appears to have evaporated.On is inceasingly finding both the "Pinkos" and the BJP joining ranks to defeat the govts. "backdoor bills".This bill however is the most controversial as after Bhopal,it rubs salt into the still radioactive and raw wounds of Bhopal,where the victims' agony has yet to be assuagd.IT underscores also the sheer indifference of the curent dispensation to the loss of life of even one Indian,who is valued perhaps lower than even cattle.

I really would have thought that the kangress party would have better tactical planners and floor managers.

Which favored kangress moron came up with the Women's day present idea for the maharani?

In one swift shot, the opposition caught them pant's down on the nuclear as well as the finance bill. They couldn't have waited a few weeks to take up the women's reservation bill. Now they may cease to exist very soon and roll back the fuel hike as well!!

No think in their think tank?

[Sanku]

Or is it that nobody wanna admit openly that BARC does not have the capability to build reactors with 1000 MWe or above, which I strongly disagree..

Even if we do not, it is not clear to me at all what are the check and balances on suppliers of foreign equipment for quality control and like.

In case of poor design and operational issues due to those, who picks up the bill? We see a case with AJT where the issue of poor equipment supply are costing the IAF.

Here the same situation is going to be magnified to the order of 1000 -- I would think that the Parliament should actually be putting legislative and other structures and institutions in place which protect ourselves and the Indian nation from such issues.

But hey it appears that the focus is on looking out to those who want to make money by selling to us -- rather than being cautious about the interest of hardworking Indians who actually make the money to buy things with.

[amit]

Here we go again.

Re French reactors, please see Gerard's post:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 27#p839727

So no liability bill required for the French is more wistful thinking than otherwise.

But hey despite impassioned posts I don't see an answer to some straightforward questions that I posted. Would appreciate some gyaan so that my eyes open to see the light.

What's the basis of the assumptions:

a) That a Russian or French built plant would be more safe than an American one.

b) And if there's an accident in a Russian or French plant India would be able to extract more compensation from them in case we don't have a liability bill, than we could from a US operator if we do pass the bill and that results in the US companies setting up plants?

And are we serious if we are suggesting class action suits of the type seen in the US against the tobacco industry is possible in Russian courts against Atomstroyexport in case of an accident?

[amit]

Even if we do not, it is not clear to me at all what are the check and balances on suppliers of foreign equipment for quality control and like.

In case of poor design and operational issues due to those, who picks up the bill?

Very valid concern especially regarding quality control. But doesn't that assume that folks from the Indian side, in this case DAE experts, are babes in the woods and wouldn't be able to spot bad quality construction and equipment? Is the gora sahibs going to bring Battlestar Galatica technology to India that our local guys won't be able to spot quality issues during the pre commissioning and operational phase.

One other point I like to point out.

With the Union Carbide tragedy it is indeed good to be a bit paranoid. However, IMVHO there are two crucial differences between the Bhopal plant and any future nuclear electricity generation plants we may set up.

The first is that the Bhopal plant was built and operated by Union Carbide (yes I know by the local unit of the company but under direct management control of the US). And all anecdotal evidence suggest that the horrible gas leak occurred due to bad maintenance - after all the plant was operational for several years before the tragedy. However, future Indian nuclear plants may have foreign equipment suppliers but the running of the plant and I would presume maintenance would be in the Indian operators hand. This is not to suggest that then the equipment suppliers have no liability. What I want so say is that it can be expected the level of maintenance and fixing of problems which may occur would be more prompt and timely than what may have happened at the UC plant.

The second point is from the Indian side sufficient expertise exists and in fact we have fabricated and run our own plants. So it's not like the Pakis getting a plant from the Chinese and not knowing anything about how the damn thing operates. In short there will be more checks and balances to prevent disasters at future Indian nuclear plants than was presumably there at the UC plant.

Please note the above POV is vendor neutral.

[Sanku]

Even if we do not, it is not clear to me at all what are the check and balances on suppliers of foreign equipment for quality control and like.

In case of poor design and operational issues due to those, who picks up the bill?

Very valid concern especially regarding quality control. But doesn't that assume that folks from the Indian side, in this case DAE experts, are babes in the woods and wouldn't be able to spot bad quality construction and equipment?.

I am afraid you are making no sense at all; to me at least; for example -- I am not a babe in the wood driver; yet I buy car insurance.

What does the need to making a vendor accountable through long term and buffering for unforeseen issues and planning for contingencies have anything to do with the (lack of) expertise of DAE?

This has nothing to do with DAE in any case and is purely a political agenda/vision issue. Your response above is completely extraneous to the points I bought up as far as I can see.

[amit]

I am afraid you are making no sense at all; to me at least; for example -- I am not a babe in the wood driver; yet I buy car insurance.

I'm afraid you're correct, you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. A more proper analogy would have been, for example, Tata Motors buying braking systems from say Bosch. While it is certainly the responsibility of Bosch to see it supplies perfectly working systems to Tata Motors, it would be naive to say that the Tata Motors engineers/quality experts couldn't spot a fault in the Boch systems before they installed them in the Indica you drive. And if there's an accident, who are you going to first hold accountable?

What does the need to making a vendor accountable through long term and buffering for unforeseen issues and planning for contingencies have anything to do with the (lack of) expertise of DAE?

I'm all for holding the vendor accountable. May be it's just me, but I fail to see how in the case of the French and the Russians we are able to do that and not be able to do the same with the Americans. What's the basis of this confidence?

]This has nothing to do with DAE in any case and is purely a political agenda/vision issue. Your response above is completely extraneous to the points I bought up as far as I can see.

I'm sorry my friend, it has everything to do with DAE because at the end of the day they are the ones who would sit down and go clause by clause with the vendor about every piece of widget that's going to go into the nuclear power plant.

A final point: I would love it if we could get into a situation where, in the case of a nuclear accident the dollar equivalent of the entire market cap of the company which supplied the equipment was available to us as compensation. However, that's not likely to happen and in that case we need to plan for something that is realistic or we just lug the idea of 1000 MW nuclear power plants till such time we acquire the capability to build them ourselves.

[Gerard]

In that case, why do we need foreign reactors to begin with?

Because India has a severe shortage of electrical power. That shortage is hobbling the growth of its economy.

[amit]

EDIT.

[Sanku]

. While it is certainly the responsibility of Bosch to see it supplies perfectly working systems to Tata Motors, it would be naive to say that the Tata Motors engineers/quality experts couldn't spot a fault in the Boch systems before they installed them in the Indica you drive. And if there's an accident, who are you going to first hold accountable?

I would say that the above is still not a proper analogy -- for two reasons
1) Tata motors does not belong to me, I am a end consumer of Tata motors, in case of DAE I am a part owner, so the right analogy would be; if I was a share owner of Tata motors, and the company announced plans to source from vendor X; I would worry about what are the vendor contract details, as much as I am confident of the technical team at Tata motors.
2) Secondly, as a owner of Tata motors (partially) I would be interested in seeing what are the test metrics that the Engineering group has for Bosch products, also considering that in all cases it is not possible in real world to test all issues; if issues are discovered later with a faulty Bosch shipment which ends up being installed (consider Bosch sent a 100,000 of black boxes as spark plugs, which you could you test to see if they work correctly but could not ensure if all the 100,000 will indeed live for 1000 hours as promised before fitting them in) what are the methods of penalizing Bosch for the loss of that I have suffered due to their account?

Those issues are completely missing in the current bill or at least what we see and hear of it.

I'm all for holding the vendor accountable. May be it's just me, but I fail to see how in the case of the French and the Russians we are able to do that and not be able to do the same with the Americans. What's the basis of this confidence?

To take the example you have quoted; "brand image"; A Tata owner/executive may have confidence that Bosch will provide good support if things go really bad where as Bussxxxhhh forg and co will play fly by night.

Clearly US has a pathetic brand image in India for a variety of reasons.

However having said that, my complaint with the bill completely vendor neutral, its just that the interest that folks who normally bat for US interests (in my PoV, such as SV) have in making Indian public accept the bill compared to the relative lack of noise from other sources is indicative of a greater US need for such a thing.

]This has nothing to do with DAE in any case and is purely a political agenda/vision issue. Your response above is completely extraneous to the points I bought up as far as I can see.

I'm sorry my friend, it has everything to do with DAE because at the end of the day they are the ones who would sit down and go clause by clause with the vendor about every piece of widget that's going to go into the nuclear power plant.

DAE will operate in the space that the GoI will give them, just like choice of MRCA will impact IAF the most, but it does not mean that such a decision has their involvement.

These are purely vision/political cost/benefit analysis. This is not in domain of DAE who are the "doers" but in the domain of various ministries who decide what to do.

We will need a liability bill that is obvious, but the current one appears to be badly flawed, and if Soli Sorabjee is to be believed (and I usually think he always gets the legality right) the bill has issue with the basic constitution of India.

[Sanku]

Because India has a severe shortage of electrical power. That shortage is hobbling the growth of its economy.

Sometimes something as obvious as this can be buried under a mountain of rhetoric, especially for those who either have a generator at home and office or don't even stay in Desh.

Shortage of electrical power --> Liability bill

Is a huge jump of faith (not reason) --> the jury is still out on Nuclear energy; esp various technologies, cost/benefit etc etc.

Those questions are the ones which are being brushed under the carpet by GoI, just as the 123 realities were brushed under the carpet.

(Note I am aware that 123 is still not operational where as the NSG guidelines are; so if India ends up having a 123 in limbo; and 123 ends up being a ultimately chankian key to unlock NSG; I would -- as I said before -- bow to Shri Manmohan Singh, whom I would be very guilty of considering a mousy MMS)

[amit]

(Note I am aware that 123 is still not operational where as the NSG guidelines are; so if India ends up having a 123 in limbo; and 123 ends up being a ultimately chankian key to unlock NSG; I would -- as I said before -- bow to Shri Manmohan Singh, whom I would be very guilty of considering a mousy MMS)

Chankian and MMS???? You got to be kidding me.

Just look at what he's trying to pull with the liabilities bill?

[Gerard]

Is a huge jump of faith (not reason)

When you install multiple 1000+MWe reactors, the increase in your baseload capacity is not imaginary.

[negi]

So the issue is - do we once again want to be tied to a single vendor situation (aka Russia) - Note even France requires a liability bill? or do we enact this bill?

Good point. It then boils down to what is desirable and what is achievable. What is not desirable is a single vendor situation.

Multiple vendors situation is too obvious a compromise reached as part of the nuke deal . The good part about multiple vendors is the first phase of projects awarded to these parties will come online in a shorter span of time as compared to say AREVA or Atomexport building all the plants the argument about putting all eggs into one basket probably would have been valid had all reactor contracts been awarded to Unkil for it is the latter who has to prove its reliability as far as cooperation with India in nuclear trade is concerned.

[Gerard]

so we need not agree to buy nuclear reactor for the sake of getting these technologies from abroad.

Surely Indian reactor designers will benefit from access to the latest reactor technology from Russia, France, Japan, US, Canada?

[Raja Ram]

Urge people here to read the article by Adm Arun Kumar Singh (retd). It lays out the issue well and provides what is needed too.

[Sanatanan]

1) What are the positions with respect to applicability of liability and compensation in India, in the event of catastrophic event (God Forbid) with reference to an indigenous PHWR or FBR?

2) PHWRs and FBRs use, besides indigenously manufactured parts, imported components and systems as well. In such a case how will "polluter pays" principle be implemented, assuming that independent post-event analyses establish inadequacies in imported components / systems (and not an operational fault) as the cause(s) for the mishap

3) For indigenous components and systems at (2) above, how "deep" does the "polluter pays" principle go? Is it only at the organisational level (DAE/NPCIL/IGCAR/AERB/Manufacturer/Supplier/Construction Contractor/Consultant) or does it go even to the extent of the individual person or persons responsible, in such organisations, for the particular system / component? When enunciating the above principle, has the term "polluter" been defined by the Supreme Court?

Would be grateful for any gyan and/or links on these issues.

TIA

[Rudradev]

Because India has a severe shortage of electrical power. That shortage is hobbling the growth of its economy.

Sometimes something as obvious as this can be buried under a mountain of rhetoric, especially for those who either have a generator at home and office or don't even stay in Desh.

And sometimes arguments that need to be made can be silenced by deliberately provoking flamewars based on off-topic issues such as the economic status of BRF posters, or whether or not BRF posters are residents of India.

In common parlance, trolling... which is an excellent technique to ensure that disinformation couched in dumbed-down half-truths doesn't receive due scrutiny.

[Rudradev]

Going by the Restaurant Lifafa article, it seems that at the end the Liability will rest more or less, completely with the operator. In that case, it is the tax payer's money that will be used for the fund. In that case, why do we need foreign reactors to begin with? They don't provide any liability nor they are parting with any TOT, and at the end the Indian Tax Payer is being made responsible for liability of a Nuclear disaster, which is resulted from a Nuclear reactor that was built using the Tax Payer's money to begin with. Or is it that nobody wanna admit openly that BARC does not have the capability to build reactors with 1000 MWe or above, which I strongly disagree.
.

So again, the dumbed-down disinformation sought to be passed here underneath the deliberate trolling:

"we need foreign reactors, especially American reactors,
-even at the expense of not receiving any TOT,
-even at the risk of the builders not having any liability,
-even at the cost of Indian taxpayers' money being the sole source of funds to compensate Indian taxpayers who suffer from a disaster at a foreign-built reactor,
-even despite the fact that these reactors could arguably be built by the BARC if materials and fuel could be purchased from NSG nations

... because the shortage of electric power is hobbling the growth of the Indian economy".

No wonder some have sought to turn the discussion into an NRI-vs-Resident Indian flamewar. It would be hard to maintain so flimsy an argument otherwise.

[negi]

BARC's primary mandate is to carry out research it is not in the business of making 'reactors' only , moreover when we talk about civilian reactors being built at a scale India needs , it is all the more important to invite players who have working and proven designs already commissioned and online in some part of the globe . It will take time for India to start designing and building reactors which likes of Areva,GE or Atomexport are supposed to build , afterall it took time for us to design and build our AHWRs .

[negi]

I agree imported reactors are technically advanced and most probably a generation ahead of indian designs. But are they worth taking the risk, when they are being provided with liability immunity? That was the whole part of the argument.

Why throw baby along with bathwater ? Liability is something which needs to be negotiated and discussed but for that to happen people should first realize the fact that there is no alternative to import of foreign reactors . And folks don't you think with GE and Westinghouse signing pacts with L&T, BHEL and NPCIL things are gonna get complicated ?

I think we need to check out on liability coverage Areva or Westinghouse-Toshiba combine had to offer to Chinese for even in this case the foreign suppliers had MoU with the domestic players which involved ToT and sourcing of material from domestic suppliers.

[negi]

Nukavarapu Westinghouse owns all rights for design for first 4 units of AP1000 being built in PRC , AREVA too has not yet parted with their IPR over the older IInd generation designs and hence Chinese cannot export those (unless CPR1000 becomes a reality) . The pressure hulls , boilers and turbo machinery for the new reactors will be eventually locally produced but for the initial phase most of it is directly imported from OEMs , Chinese players will eventually follow the route of 'license manufacture' as they have already inked deals with Mitsubishi,Babcok-Hitachi KK and Toshiba in relevant areas.

All of the above is true for India's case too with likes of L&T and BHEL inking deals with the suppliers. The onus is on Indian players as to how fast can they absorb the technology and come up to speed with regards to having the required setup to produce the components in stipulated time , we already hear complaints about BHEL being unable to cater to demands of the domestic power sector with several contracts going to the Chinese players .

Its not about capability to design and manufacture only , we have to look at total installed capacity to roll out components in desired numbers as well.

[ramana]

"Koopaka manduka" syndrome. How does the frog know the outside world is like?

[svinayak]

Posted in the nukkad thread

[Amber G.]

"Koopaka manduka" syndrome. How does the frog know the outside world is like?

Exactly! Also
How does the vachak (writer of the sloka) know if that a given frog indeed does not know (or knows) the outside world?
Or restaurant analyzers know if a state owned/constructed restaurant is safer (or not safer) than Karachi Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets (which generally are unpopular to get destroyed every Friday or so )

That's why we come to BRF to find out.
As to "why take the risk"

I agree imported reactors are technically advanced and most probably a generation ahead of indian designs. But are they worth taking the risk, when they are being provided with liability immunity? That was the whole part of the argument.
.

Important part about any "technically advanced" reactors is (or at least ought to be) that they are SAFER, and one should be taking about "worth taking the risk" with respect to the reactors which are unsafe/ not well designed etc..(One of the MAIN criteria in generations of reactor design is safety). You may be (and likely) taking "not worth taking" risk with older generation reactors.

This is by NO means to say that blanketing reactors produced by xyz are safer than pqr .. equally assuming that "generation behind" reactors (or any other technology), or "state backed" ones are inherently safer than the one being provided with "liability immunity(whatever that means)..

With respect to "unlimited liability":

For technically oriented (and mathematically interested people) check out "St. Petersburg paradox" where "unlimited liability" type arguments in decision making would result in very unsound irrationality. I believe, checking out treatments by great mathematicians like Euler, and Laplace etc would give some insight. FWIW wiki introduces this as:

In economics, the St. Petersburg paradox is a paradox related to probability theory and decision theory. It is based on a particular (theoretical) lottery game (sometimes called St. Petersburg Lottery) that leads to a random variable with infinite [unlimited] expected value, i.e., infinite expected payoff, ..... is a classical situation where a naïve decision criterion (which takes only the expected value into account) would recommend a course of action that no (real) rational person would be willing to take. The paradox can be resolved when the decision model is refined ..., by taking into account the finite resources of the participants, or by noting that one simply cannot buy .... sellers would not produce a lottery whose expected loss to them were unacceptable).

Point here is, all aspects regarding safety should be considered, and points solely based on how many zeros are there in the liability is very naive. (I mean when was the last time you selected a restaurant by looking at how much will you get if you got sick and will you be able to sue the owner or the person who supplied the cement)

And yes, experts like BC should also be writing articles and people should also be debating other more serious things issues like Railway safety, or carcinogenic things in our rivers.

[archan]

Moderation note: When someone makes a remark on another BRFite's resident-non-resident status to score a point in the debate, you folks are requested to report that post immediately. I assure you that I will warn the user if I am the one to see the report. In this case it appears that it was amit who started this pointless discussion, so he will get one from me today.
Let us discuss Nuclear News with some maturity.

[Gerard]

So if NPCIL is paying for the reactors, why can't instead giving them money, give it to BARC to setup an indigenous reactors? In fact the cost will be much less.

Does BARC have the technology for 1000 MWe LWRs? How long will it take to develop this technology? One decade? Two? What about the commercial scale Uranium enrichment?
In the meantime, do people sit in the dark?

As regards cost, what is the cost per MW (over say a 20 year period) for the nuclear energy vs coal fired thermal plants? How much would unreasonable liability demands raise the cost of electricity?

[ramana]

He means the PHWRs that BARC already designs. The catch is they need heavy water but use natural uranium.

[Neshant]

That goon Warren Anderson of Union Carbide/DOW fame jumped his bail and fled Indian jail time on a plane waiting for him on the tarmac with the help of the US administration.

Rest assured US will help every crook escape should a Chernobyl occur. 64 million will be the price of a couple of high priced new york lawyers to file claims and the stuff will drag on for decades. More will be spent in lawyer fees in the US than will be gained in compensation.

[Gerard]

Didn't the Chernobyl reactor lack a containment structure? Wasn't it built by Russia (USSR)?
Which US reactor is built like that? The operators at Chernobyl shut down the safety systems for their test. Which US (or Indian) reactor operator behaves like that?

There are two Russian VVER units being built in Indian right now. Who is the Russian exec available for Indian jail in the event of an accident?

These reactors will all belong to NPCIL/DAE. They will be Indian owned and operated. They will be maintained by India. DAE is responsible for selecting which reactor designs will be bought. I assume the inherent safety features of each design will be of paramount concern.

[Gerard]

NPCIL, Areva finalising contracts for two reactors

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Areva, one of the biggest reactor manufacturers of France, are finalising contracts for two 1,650 MWe-European Pressurised Reactor plants at Jaitapur, Maharashtra, by the year-end, according to French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont.

[negi]

If we ignore the actual technicalities, how much difference would 300 MWe per reactor would make. BARC already has the expertise to build 700 MWe PHWR. Also, how much time it would need to develop expertise for a 1000 MWe PHWR? Even PHWR can run on imported uranium. So it is not dependent on scaling up of local uranium mines.

You seem to have completely missed the 'Mahayan' , one of the prime movers behind the nuke deal was India's urgent requirement for fuel , until 2008-09 most of our existing reactors were running at about half of installed capacity for want of fuel . You think the whole duniya pressed for the NSG waiver as a goodwill measure for India's good behavior ? Reactors for fuel is the most logical way forward to keep all parties satisfied .

But I believe that we can still go ahead and start building PHWRs of 700 MWe till BARC finalizes a 1000 MWe PHWR (Short Term - Less than 5 years) & LWR (Long term - more than 5 but less than 10 years) of indigenous design. BARC has already started working on 1000 MWe FBR which it plans to start construction by 2020 and commission it by 2025-26.

All these require a reliable fuel supply which would not have been possible keeping in mind our existing Uranium reserves (the newly discovered ones are not yet accessible thanks to paranoids) without NSG waiver and lastly can BARC and NPCIL alone build the reactors of installed capacity to match the likes of GE, Westinghouse,Atomstroyexport and Areva building plants across the country in parallel ?

[Gerard]

Indian farmers battle against nuclear plant

Campaigners from around India have now joined the resistance movement set up by farmers and fishermen. They have all decided to stage a protest march in Ratnagiri on 17 March to highlight what they say are safety issues overlooked by the plans, as well as compensation schemes in case of accidents.

[Gerard]

N-liability Bill not just for US, must for us too: France

French government officials have said here that the passage of this legislation was crucial for French company Areva’s plans for India as well. The state-controlled energy giant Areva had signed a protocol accord with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) in February last year for setting up two third-generation European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. There are plans to engage Aeva for four more plants. “It is absolutely necessary that India has the liability legislation in place for compensation in case of accidents. How can Areva or any other company go ahead without clear guidelines about compensation?” said a French government official.

[Amber G.]

A bit old but did not see it posted before. Sorry if already posted:
From IExpress:
Top scientists back n-liability Bill

[amit]

OK guys, I owe you all an apology and I accept my Desh comment was a bit overboard and abrasive. Mea culpa

However, just to set the record straight I happen to be an NRI myself and have been so for quite a considerable amount of time. So in any face off between Residents and Non-Residents I'd fall in the later category.

My intention was to point out that staying outside of India for a considerable period of time can result in a loss of touch with the ground situation in India. It's happened to me also and I suspect it can happen to others too, unknowingly. The power situation is bad in India, especially in small towns and if we want sustained 10 per cent growth that has to solved and solved fast.

I'll stop here as anything else would become OT for this thread.