Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2008 22:59

One danger of the Left's brutus fulmen about the draft IAEA safeguard agreement is that when the real Addtional Protocol comes with poison pills they would be shunned as having cried wolf too often. Need to see if there is real wolf afterall.
So again the key is to look atthe message and not the messengers.

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 12 Jul 2008 00:25

Suppiah wrote: http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/11/stories ... 160100.htm

What days have come for Naxal Ram? He now has to dance in front of the mascot of the "communal paartie" to save the face of "red monkeys" as Thakrey recently cooed in Saamna. Look at the synchophancy in display

This is the assessment of Lal Krishna Advani, the formidable Leader of the Opposition and the man who will be the next Prime Minister should the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance trump the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance in the 15th general election, whenever it comes.

This from Chindu who was one of the lighting flame of secular bridge between 98-04. Quite interesting to see the calisthenics displayed here.

From BJP's calculation gaining 3 months by toppling this government pose a lot more harm than they gain. Let this UPA complete its term and then gun against in the elections. The best recourse for BJP is to walkout or abstain on July 22nd.

Asked how the BJP would go about “renegotiating” a done deal if it came to power, the opposition party’s top leader indicated that the track would be exploring the option of “having our own law, which insulates us from the consequences of the Hyde Act.”

Wouldn't that be equivalent to negotiating with oneself

To be fair BJP's job is tough. Its has to occupy opposition space. The only time when that space was relavent and is still relevant was when Hyde act was passed. That opposition has created enough negotiating space for GoI while dealing with IAEA. But now that IAEA agreement is out, BJP cannot be seen as making positive noises. It still has to do what NPAs are doing in U.S.

So the dilemma before BJP is how to best occupy the opposition space while still lending support to GoI to execute the deal. Their silence is not helpful, it only points to their cluelessness. But as elders said, when you don't know, then shutup.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 12 Jul 2008 01:37

The economy is heading to Paatalam, and fuel prices are heading to Houristan, the terrorists are winning in J&K and AP and Orissa and Northeast and Afghanistan, killing Indians with impunity, Nepal has fallen to the Chinese mass-murderers, and the Left and INC are doing their stupid dance. The BJP, instead of hammering them on their total unpreparedness to fight for India and push development, are allowing themselves to be cast as just a spineless and useless version of the obstructive commies.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2008 01:45

Now do you understand the power of Macaulayiteism: even Hindutva is a mfd process. All that is known about Hinduism is what the EI company folks gathered and printed and made us aware.

We need to have local thought process based on national aspirations. IOW UPA can be opposed on things other than this issue. Hence my caution a few posts ago.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 12 Jul 2008 01:56

Barack Obama states backing for Indo-US nuclear deal

MUMBAI: US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supports a civilian nuclear trade deal between India and the United States and would not push for changes to it, a news magazine quoted him as saying.

"I voted for the US-India nuclear agreement because India is a strong democracy and a natural strategic partner for the US in the 21st century," he told the Indian magazine, according to a transcript provided by the magazine on Friday.

His support may prove decisive if India fails to finalise the deal before the end of US President George W Bush's term. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh shook hands on the deal, which gives India access to US nuclear resources and technology for energy, in 2005.

Since then it has been stalled by opposition from the anti-U.S. communist allies of India's coalition government, and at moments almost given up for dead. The communists this week withdrew support for the government, which now faces a confidence vote despite moving to prop up its position in parliament with the help of a regional party whose leader backs the deal.

India must surmount other time-consuming hurdles before the end of the Bush administration, including approval from UN atomic watchdog governors and a 45-nation group that controls nuclear trade.

If India misses the effective deadline of the November US elections, it may seek to revive the deal under the next administration, although pessimists say it may have to agree to less favourable terms. But Obama said he was broadly happy with the current deal.

"The existing agreement effectively balanced a range of important issues, from our strategic relationship with India to our non-proliferation concerns to India's energy needs," he told the magazine, which will publish the interview on Saturday. "I am therefore reluctant to seek changes." He said the deal would help combat global warming by giving India an alternative to coal and that he hoped it would be finalised by the end of this year.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Jul 2008 01:57

ramana wrote:Now do you understand the power of Macaulayiteism: even Hindutva is a mfd process. All that is known about Hinduism is what the EI company folks gathered and printed and made us aware.

We need to have local thought process based on national aspirations. IOW UPA can be opposed on things other than this issue. Hence my caution a few posts ago.

I think LKA says exactly that in the Hindu (NRam) article above... I am really surprised why BJP is not getting enough media-bandwidth to get this message across..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2008 02:45

narayanan wrote:The economy is heading to Paatalam, and fuel prices are heading to Houristan, the terrorists are winning in J&K and AP and Orissa and Northeast and Afghanistan, killing Indians with impunity, Nepal has fallen to the Chinese mass-murderers, and the Left and INC are doing their stupid dance. The BJP, instead of hammering them on their total unpreparedness to fight for India and push development, are allowing themselves to be cast as just a spineless and useless version of the obstructive commies.

Typical Indian (political?) mentality. It is called, with pride, chai-biscut.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2008 02:49

On Obama, it is a very pleasant surprise to hear him say that at this juncture.

However, the next bend in this apth will come in around 2015, when India will have to start the construction of the leading edge reprocessing facility and will have to get the techs needed for it. Else India will not be prepared for loading her civilian FBRs.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 12 Jul 2008 03:09

I am amazed to read of Obama saying that. Like the BJP and the NYT and the CPM, he could have chosen the path of the Ayatollahs and taken cheap shots at the White House, but he didn't. That IS scary.

CONSPIRACY! BETRAYAL! Acharya, where r u? What explains this?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Jul 2008 03:15

BJP plays to defensive poll field

New Delhi, July 11: The BJP wants to nettle the UPA with pinpricks but has refrained from playing the numbers game to try and topple the government.

Instead it’s playing garden-party cricket. One general secretary summed up the mood: “If the catch comes, we will not drop it.”

What he left unsaid was that the party would neither bowl effectively nor set an attacking field.

So, spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad bowled gentle medium pace, saying the BJP expected the Prime Minister not to take the support of “MPs convicted of murder charges” to save his government.

Although he did not name the MPs, he was clearly referring to Suraj Bhan of the Lok Janshakti Party and Syed Shahabuddin and Pappu Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, who are serving sentences in various jails.

This attempt to whittle down the UPA’s strength by three votes comes after two days of verbal bouncers at the Left, which is trying to ensure the collapse of the government.

The strategy bolstered charges that the BJP did not want the government to fall over the nuclear deal, which could water down the impact of the price rise and Hindutva issues like terrorism, Ram Setu and the Amarnath row.

And sure enough, on a day the UPA scrambled to rustle up the numbers, many BJP leaders were dismissive of the trust vote, asking what difference it would make if the elections were delayed by a few months.

“We stand to gain if this government drags on like this. Inflation has continued to move upward, issues are tumbling out every day — like the Amarnath row — and the Left is doing everything to discredit the Congress,” a party official explained.

Senior BJP leaders admit in private that they don’t want to be clubbed with the Left and share the blame for pulling the government down over an international agreement.

“We will oppose this government; we will discredit the Congress leadership. But we don’t want a nuclear deal-centric election. This deal will certainly help the Congress somewhat blunt the anti-incumbency factor,” a party MP said.

Besides, party sources said, the pro-US lobby in the BJP was keen to see the deal carried through.

Ever since the Left withdrew support, the BJP leadership has been trying to argue that the real issues are price rise, terrorism and the “insult to the Hindu religion”. And even a lobby in the RSS is happy with the defensive field placing.
Top

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Jul 2008 03:16

Higher uranium yield hope in five years

Higher uranium yield hope in five years
G.S. MUDUR

New Delhi, July 11: India’s domestic uranium production could rise significantly within five years and ease the current scarcity forcing nuclear power reactors to operate at low capacity, government figures indicate.

Technical details of India’s uranium production provided by the government to the International Atomic Energy Agency reveal the extent of the gap between demand and supply of uranium for the 15 indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors.

India’s installed nuclear capacity of 4,120MW would demand on average about 600 tonnes of uranium. But production at the nation’s sole uranium ore processing mill at Jaduguda, Jharkhand, is slightly above 175 tonnes, according to the documents that provide information about capacities of existing as well as planned uranium mines and future processing plants.

The India-US nuclear deal will allow India to import uranium and alleviate the shortage which, according to sources in the Nuclear Power Corporation, has contributed to the low capacity factors of some nuclear power reactors.

India’s average capacity factor was 90 per cent in 2002-03, which dropped to 74 per cent in 2005-06. During 2007-08, according to figures from the Nuclear Power Corporation, the two 540MW reactors at Tarapur had capacity factors of 45 per cent and 56 per cent.

The Uranium Corporation of India mines uranium at Jaduguda, Bhatin, Narwapahar and Bagjata in the east Singhbhum region of Jharkhand, but all the ore from these mines is processed at Jaduguda.

Two other uranium mines at Turamdih and Banduhurang in Jharkhand are under expansion and the government hopes to have an ore-processing plant at Turamdih to add 190 tonnes of domestic uranium a year.

But additional mines and plants in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya are expected to add 687 tonnes to production capacity between 2010 and 2012.

By 2012, the uranium corporation hopes to get 130 tonnes from a plant at Seripally processing ore from Lambapur-Peddagattu (Andhra), 217 tonnes from a plant and mine at Tummalapalle (Andhra), and 340 tonnes from Meghalaya.

But a court petition and lack of approval from local communities have delayed some of these proposed projects.

If the uranium corporation can get past these hurdles, India could have a production capacity of about 1,045 tonnes of domestic uranium by 2012 — compared with under 200 tonnes today.

Some analysts believe India is also getting a significant proportion of its uranium from secondary sources — such as phosphate-bearing rock.

A technical paper titled India’s Worsening Uranium Shortage prepared for the US department of energy last year had estimated that nearly half of domestic uranium comes from such sources, but had cautioned that such sources are “close to exhaustion”.
Top

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Jul 2008 03:23

Rahul’s voice for PM’s deal

Rahul’s voice for PM’s deal
- Sonia takes care to thank Left
RADHIKA RAMASESHAN
Rahul Gandhi arrives for the Congress Working Committee meeting in New Delhi. (PTI)

New Delhi, July 11: Rahul Gandhi today stood up to be counted among those behind the Prime Minister, lauding Manmohan Singh’s “bold” stand on the nuclear deal and suggesting that it was worth sacrificing a government to uphold “national interest and principles”.

The once-reticent Prime Minister rose to the occasion, saying India was “in the process of making history” by signing the deal.

If the government fell because of the Prime Minister’s stand, Rahul said — hastening to add in the same breath “it will not go, of course” — it was “simply bad luck”.

“But in politics, it is more important to stand for national interest and principles,” the young MP told the Congress Working Committee (CWC) which met this evening at Sonia Gandhi’s house.

In the run-up to the showdown that eventually led the Left to withdraw support to the UPA, it was known that Rahul had thrown his weight behind the nuclear deal.

But this was the first time the Congress general secretary was making such a forceful defence of the Prime Minister’s efforts in front of party leaders. His choice of words — “national interest” — will be particularly galling for the BJP, which is in a dilemma on how to tackle an issue involving the party’s pet theme of patriotism.

Rahul said it was important to consider the positive effects of the deal that allowed India to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, pursue defence programmes and bring in the option of clean energy.

He added that all this was achieved without having to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). So, there was no need for the Congress to be defensive on the deal.

The Prime Minister described the deal as a “unique achievement”, and put forth disarming logic: several powerful countries are unhappy with the deal and at least three leading US newspapers have commented that India “got away without paying the price”.

If Manmohan and Rahul focused on the deal, Sonia Gandhi did not forget to thank the Left parties for their support so far. As Congress president and UPA chairperson, Sonia has to keep the compulsions of realpolitik in sight and keep the door ajar for a post-poll realignment.

Addressing a UPA meeting in the morning, Sonia said: “Without their (the Left’s) support, the UPA could not have been formed and a good deal of what we have achieved would not have been possible. Unfortunately, we could not carry them with us on the nuclear agreement despite our best efforts.”

Sonia also welcomed the Samajwadi Party’s support that will come in handy when the government moves the trust motion. The cabinet tonight requested the President to convene a special session of the Lok Sabha on July 21 and 22 for a trust vote.

The circumstances leading to the trust vote and its fallout figured at the CWC meet. Janardhan Dwivedi, the general secretary in charge of organisation, counter-balanced the “feel good” by pointing out that coalitions, whether it was with the Left in the past or with the Samajwadi Party in the future, tended to “harm” the Congress.

“Coalition governments have harmed the party,” he stated after insisting he should be allowed to speak first. “How should this problem be handled? If we have a coalition, we are told ‘don’t attack or criticise your ally’. This demoralises the party,” a source quoted Dwivedi as saying.

His second point was that while the deal was important, price rise and communalism merited more attention at the hustings and a meeting should be convened to debate these issues. Dwivedi was seconded by Digvijay Singh and Ajit Jogi, both former chief ministers of states going to polls in November.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jul 2008 03:27

narayanan wrote:I am amazed to read of Obama saying that. Like the BJP and the NYT and the CPM, he could have chosen the path of the Ayatollahs and taken cheap shots at the White House, but he didn't. That IS scary.

CONSPIRACY! BETRAYAL! Acharya, where r u? What explains this?

Yo, I hear you. You are calling for me. Follow the Monkey god and you will understand everything.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jul 2008 03:47

http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-b ... umn130.htm

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 12 Jul 2008 03:59

People remember with the merger of enterprise Obama with Royal blood Hillary, Obama has underwitten 23 million dollars of her debt.
Knowing that average American Indian annual income is in the higher bracket will make him coo sweet nothing soothing words to Indian journalists.
The short span of his campaign is all ready littered with flip flops.

Coming to this nuke deal, it is a super sub prime loan with also a bridge loan built into it with huge closing costs which we come to know in the coming years IMVHO.

Watch this space.
By the. Way great forum with galaxy of luminaries shining like milkyway!

Regards

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2008 04:34

Indo-US nuclear deal and Muslims

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2008 04:35

Rudd warms to nuclear India

AUSTRALIA would adopt a "constructive" attitude towards India's moves to acquire nuclear materials, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said after discussing the issue with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh, at the G8 summit in Japan.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2008 04:57

When uranium supply lowers capacity factor

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2008 05:33

Jan 2007 :: India’s Worsening Uranium Shortage

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2008 07:34

From the above article:

Both present and prospective uranium production is assessed here in terms of its source, starting with the
operating mines in the Singhbhum East District (Table 1). Ore from these mines is of low assay 0.03–0.06%
U3O8. Such values hardly constitute ore even at today’s inflated uranium price ($72/lb U3O8 January, 2007). By
comparison, Cameco’s Cigar Lake deposit has 1.2 million tons of ore that is 14% U3O8.

There is no way that India can move away from the thorium. It really does not matter what the US or anyone else thinks WRT proliferation. Bargaining thorium is not a topic.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Jul 2008 08:11

K Mehta wrote:Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore
04-July-2008
Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme:
Rationale and Perspectives
http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

Reading the power point presentation of Anil Kakodkar on Slide 6 he states capital cost of building PHWR at 1700$/KWE which he states is better then global average of 2000$/KWE. But that is in right ball park. It is another matter that Kakodkar fails to report the rather substantial capital cost of fuel fabrication (NFC) and Post usage spent fuel rod handing plant, required for that PHWR capital investment to be of any use.

What I found rather surprising was however his next slide where Kakodkar states that cost of making first Prototype FBR I.e. PFBR of 500MWe is a fraction of making PHWR of 700MWe at just Rs 69,840/KWe ($1662/KWe). [EDITED] a smaller capacity more difficult reactor costing less than a larger PHWR. Can anyone help explain the accounting method behind this claim? If this is true then heck why would one build PHWR that cost more to build and require Natural Unraium that India does not have? And why the need for AHWR when PFBR is so cheap?

From what I know FBR's not only cost much more than PHWR (IIRC 2 o 3 time more) but it also needs in parallel a plant to reprocess the spent fuel to sustain its core enrichment. Not to mention a much higher cost of ownership due to high operations and maintenance cost.

http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2006/cluster2 ... Energy.pdf

One of the primary disadvantages of FBR is high initial construction cost, despite great fuel efficiency. The Superphenix (SPX) FBR in France cost approximately $3.6 billion. It cost 9.1 billion Euro or about $11.6 billion to maintain from 1985 to 1996. This is considered very high compared to PWRs; each of the two 1250 MWe units at the South Texas Project cost about $2.75 billion to maintain each.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Jul 2008 08:36

NRao wrote:There is no way that India can move away from the thorium. It really does not matter what the US or anyone else thinks WRT proliferation. Bargaining thorium is not a topic.

Seems to me that 123 Deal is a non-starter unless India agrees to mothball its thorium breeding. Isn't that so?

But hey, maybe in the meantime we get to improve our manufacturing base, etc, so that one day in the event of foreign uranium cutoff and our immediate resumption of thorium breeding, our technology would be much more capable on efficient thorium breeding.

Just like Iran-Pak-India pipeline deal, suppose we redistribute our risk by extending our supply lines to other countries, in the sense that we agree to process nuclear waste from other countries, etc?
If we do that, then we can rope in more countries to share our risk burden, so that any cutoff of us can disrupt others downstream from us.

Is that feasible?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Jul 2008 09:07

Cross posting from IAEA draft document thread as it is relavent in this mainstream discussion:

Arun_S wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:What I want to know about is the quality of this 'strategic reserve'

We can keep this fuel reserve and use it in the event of a cutoff, although we will still have to allow inspections of it.

And once we return all imported fuel used in any reactor, then that facility is freed from any safeguard inspections.
Good question.

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
apprehensions on the question of fuel supplies to India’s nuclear reactors although the draft agreement clearly states that “an essential basis for India’s concurrence to accept Agency [IAEA] safeguards” is “international cooperation” in creating conditions that would allow India “to obtain access to the international [nuclear] fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continuous access to fuel supplies from companies in several nations” to support India’s effort to develop “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel …”

The party felt this would not ensure continuous supply.

Mr. Prasad wanted to know what “corrective measures” India could take if promises of fuel supply for the lifetime of a reactor were violated. The “corrective measures” have not been spelt out in the draft agreement, he said.
Corrective measures in hands of India after disruption of non-guerenteed fuel supply is .... nothing! Unless fuel for all reactors for their lifetime (typical 100 years) is procured and kept in India as and when construction of reactor start in India. But that also takes away the possibility of disruption in the first place.

Now Anil Kakodkar in his IISc presentation lays out a plan that envisages commissioning LWR for total capacity of 50GWe by 2020 (He states construction period is 5-6 years) so construction of the last LWR will start in 2014 (6 years from now). And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost. Plus the enrichment cost of $77 billion (@$90/SWU). So the minimum cost of avoiding the repeat of TAPS-1 is to buy all that fuel in next 6 years for a cost of $303 billion.

This assumes from Shri Kakodkar's presentation that India (nay all countries of earth) can build 40 nuclear plant of 1200MWe capacity in next 6 years to be producing 50GWe by 2020. {an astounding rate of building 6.6 nuclear plants each of 1,200 MWe, every year in India}. Frankly I think the power point slides of Kakodkar is selling vapourware to the gullible.

Going by the same power point slides the capital cost of erecting those plants by 2050 is:
1. LWR plants 50 GWe capacity: $100 Billion + $303 Billion for lifetime fuel reserve
2. FBR using LWR spent fuel, 330 GWe: $1.65 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,650 Billion)
3. FBR using indigenous 3 stage fuel cycle, 275 GWe: $1.03 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,030 Billion)
Total capital cost over 42 years : $3.08 Trillion ($3,081 Billion)
Cost per year (assuming even averaging): $73 billion/Year for next 42 years.

Excuse me, what was the investment capital inflow in India last few years?
Or for that sake investment capital inflow in China last few years?

Am I the only one who feels being lost in the mirage?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 12 Jul 2008 09:37

Arun_S wrote:
K Mehta wrote:Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore
04-July-2008
Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme:
Rationale and Perspectives
http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm
Reading the power point presentation of Anil Kakodkar on Slide 6 he states capital cost of building PHWR at 1700$/KWE which he states is better then global average of 2000$/KWE. But that is in right ball park. It is another matter that Kakodkar fails to report the rather substantial capital cost of fuel fabrication (NFC) and Post usage spent fuel rod handing plant, required for that PHWR capital investment to be of any use.

What I found rather surprising was however his next slide where Kakodkar states that cost of making first Prototype FBR I.e. PFBR of 500MWe is a fraction of making PHWR of 700MWe at just Rs 69,840/KWe ($1662/KWe). This IMO is pure magic and walking on water, a smaller capacity more difficult reactor costing less than a larger PHWR. Can anyone help explain the accounting method behind this claim? If this is true then heck why would one build PHWR that cost more to build and require Natural Unraium that India does not have? And why the need for AHWR when PFBR is so cheap?

From what I know FBR's not only cost much more than PHWR (IIRC 2 o 3 time more) but it also needs in parallel a plant to reprocess the spent fuel to sustain its core enrichment. Not to mention a much higher cost of ownership due to high operations and maintenance cost.

http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2006/cluster2 ... Energy.pdf
One of the primary disadvantages of FBR is high initial construction cost, despite great fuel efficiency. The Superphenix (SPX) FBR in France cost approximately $3.6 billion. It cost 9.1 billion Euro or about $11.6 billion to maintain from 1985 to 1996. This is considered very high compared to PWRs; each of the two 1250 MWe units at the South Texas Project cost about $2.75 billion to maintain each.

Why are you going so far to UC Davis, when their are links available by simple googling from Indian sources which show what the cost of Tarapur units 3&4 and of 540MWe each and the 500MWe FBR is:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2207/ ... 104500.htm

Jain said the initial estimate for both units was around Rs.8,000 crores. This dropped to Rs.6.500 crores and then to Rs.6,000 crores

With a installed capacity of 1080MWe and at an exchange rate of Rs 43 per USD this works out to $1292/KWe.

http://www.meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2005/06/07op02.htm

Work on the 500 MW FBR, costing Rs 3,492 crores, is in full swing at Kalpakkam

With a capacity of 500MWe and the same exchange rate it works out to $1833/KWe. Maybe Mr. Kakodkar believes that if the first PBFR with all the learning involved in it cost $1833/KWe, that subsequent units will come down in price by some amount.

In any event, the FBR will command a premium over the cost of Tarapur 3&4 of 26% over Mr. Kakodkar's figure and 42% over the estimated capital cost of the FBR currently under construction. So to call it cheaper than PHWR is dishonest.

Just because figures are different in the west does not mean that one has to be so derogatory of Indian scientists to call their genuine achievements "walking on water".

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 12 Jul 2008 10:16

Arun_S wrote:Cross posting from IAEA draft document thread as it is relavent in this mainstream discussion:

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost. Plus the enrichment cost of $77 billion (@$90/SWU). So the minimum cost of avoiding the repeat of TAPS-1 is to buy all that fuel in next 6 years for a cost of $303 billion.

Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Jul 2008 10:57

ldev wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Cross posting from IAEA draft document thread as it is relavent in this mainstream discussion:

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.

Ldev: In the above you are insinuating that the post and calculations in it ware not mine but were provided by BJP. That is patently a lie and libel. Let me put it on record that I have no BJP affiliation nor any connection with the BJP party lowbies or high ups.

I demand an apology for your insinuation and libel.

As for rechecking yes I rechecked my spreadsheet and stand by the $303 Billion number. If you think they are wrong pls do care to correct those figures and show why they are wrong?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 12 Jul 2008 11:07

ldev wrote:In any event, the FBR will command a premium over the cost of Tarapur 3&4 of 26% over Mr. Kakodkar's figure and 42% over the estimated capital cost of the FBR currently under construction. So to call it cheaper than PHWR is dishonest.

Sir I am a simple person. I am merely showing mirror to Shri Kakodkar by comparing the two numbers from 2 pages of his own power point presentation. If there is any dishonesty in those numbers they are coming from his own presentation and the accusation of dishonesty thus lies elsewhere.

Who am I to challenge Kakodkar's own numbers in his own own presentation? I am just dwelling on the mantra that he preaching in his power point slides.

I am not even a nuclear physicist just like Shri Kakodkar! {He engineer, I engineer}

but I love to puncher a balloon when I see one.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 12 Jul 2008 11:12

The Prime Minister described the deal as a “unique achievement”, and put forth disarming logic: several powerful countries are unhappy with the deal and at least three leading US newspapers have commented that India “got away without paying the price”.

Unfortunately, MMS is demonstrating his naivete when he gets taken in by these psy-ops.

1. who are these "several powerful countries"?

There are 5 or 6 NSG countries who have something to offer India either in terms of reactors or Uranium.

All the others know in their hearts that but for this so-called "consensus" flim-flam in NSG (which itself is a voluntary association of nations not underpinned by any treaty, and can be dissolved tomorrow -- as the US has helpfully pointed out), they would have no locus standi to even discuss nuclear issues with India, let alone demand anything on this front.

The key 5-6 countries know that this whole process -- solely designed to keep the charade of upholding terminally damaged non-proliferation regimes -- cannot become too much of a pain for India, otherwise India will "end its nuclear isolation" without US help.

Of course, India has no desire to weaken these regimes. But in the final analysis, it is too much to ask any country to sacrifice the welfare of its people for the sake of upholding regimes which have been willfully damaged - when deemed necessary in their national interest - by the very countries who created them.

2. since when did MMS start believing that major US newspapers are not part of the US establishment and don't indulge in psy-ops?

Here is an example of psy-ops that lasted exactly 4 days (because Obama needs Indian goodwill in the run-up to November):

July 8, 2008:

McCain/Obama may link N-deal to CTBT: Talbott
“The winner of the election might, in some fashion, link full implementation of the deal to Indian acceptance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration has staunchly opposed,” Talbott says.

July 12, 2008:

Barack Obama states backing for Indo-US nuclear deal
"The existing agreement effectively balanced a range of important issues, from our strategic relationship with India to our non-proliferation concerns to India's energy needs," [Obama] told the magazine, which will publish the interview on Saturday. "I am therefore reluctant to seek changes."

amit · Post by **amit** » 12 Jul 2008 15:09

Karat talking to ‘all’ parties, Basu waves red flag: why vote with BJP?

At a late-night meeting at his Kolkata residence today, Basu once again told Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his Industries Minister Nirupam Sen — both are in the CPM Politburo — that the party had strongly “made its point” against the nuclear deal by withdrawing support to the UPA Government. There was no need, therefore, he said, to take the blame of pulling it down. Significantly, he added that the he wanted the party’s top leadership to consider if “it would be proper to vote with the BJP against the UPA government.”

On July 5, Politburo members, including Karat had called on Basu where he had raised similar points but then Karat announced that the party would vote against the government. “Our stand, irrespective of what others do, is that the Left will vote against the government for its betrayal of national interests,” he told party mouthpiece People’s Democracy. Not just that. Speaking today, he said: “I am in touch with all parties that can take a stand against the deal.”

Some time ago I had written that Jyoti Basu was a more pragmatic leader. I guess this shows that.

It's obvious that if the BJP and the CPI(M) both vote for the no-confidence motion, then the loser will be the CPI(M) and not the BJP. I guess Karat, in his blind hatred against the US of A is even willing to sacrifice the CPI(M) credibility before the next elections.
How will the CPI(M) claim to be against the BJP (fight against communal forces yada yada) after voting together with the BJP to bring down the government, which it had propped up for four years?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 12 Jul 2008 16:11

buy all that fuel in next 6 years for a cost of $303 billion.

Cool!The "cost to first power" of Space Solar Power is estimated at ONLY $300B*, so that is cheaper.
*: In 1803 dollars
Down With US-India Arms Deal!

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 12 Jul 2008 16:31

Is there going to be split in CPIM? they may be heading for a split on the basis of Nuclear issue!! as Basu and Bengali coms seem to speak against the move to work with BJP to vote against the government. I do not know whether people vote against secretly against CPIM leaders?

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/334647.html

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 12 Jul 2008 17:21

Breaking News

Commie LS speaker somnath agrees to resign after karat forced geriatric basu to talk to somnath.

Somnath who had previously said that since he is not an "active" CPM member he need not resign, finally fell in line after supreme leader of jholawallas asked him to resign for sake of communist unity.

Jholawallas are sad that one of their leaders has been forced to resign due to american imperalism and due to splittist and communal forces.

BTW another sekolar party aptly named Indian Union Muslim League(IUML) had said that will continue supporting the UPA to keep away the communal forces from power.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 12 Jul 2008 19:29

Umrao Das and others on Obama

The only reason the Bush administration was tolerable was because it was good to India, otherwise it was busy burning up our beautiful planet, and my only hesitation with Obama was the apprehension he would oppose the deal. Now that he has clearly stated his position, should we not be happy? BR foresaw it, with one alert poster spotting the condolence message on Sam Manekshaw issued by Obama, but do I detect shades of lingering uneasiness coupled with reverse racism in our unwilingness to accept a good thing when it happens? Just look at how our internal situation is being manipulated to scuttle the deal. We need all the help we can get.
However if the timeframe for conlcuding the deal is now unrealistic, we can come up with our own solutions to our energy problems, if we continue to show this kind of political determination to deal with our problems.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 12 Jul 2008 20:21

US think-tank warns against hasty decision on nuclear deal

A leading think-tank here has advised Nuclear Suppliers Group and the American Congress not to make a hasty decision on the Indo-US nuclear deal, given the "dangerous" ramifications of the agreement for non-proliferation efforts.

"These are not trivial issues," said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Centre.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 12 Jul 2008 20:33

Concern about President Obama is not so much himself, but his power base in Illinois and Michigan. 90% Paki, IMHO. Look at the staff, look at the frequent statements that come out accidentally. And then beyond that, the Democrat power base is increasingly more Left than the CPIM.

So you have your pick: People who think indiapakistan is in Africa, but generally don't care otherwise as long as they and their buddies are making $$$B, or ppl who think they should Rob The Rich and Feed the Poor, and "Bakistan is a Boor Country". Remember Cynthia McKinney? Still around. Excellent prospect for National Security Advisor under Pres. Obama.

This is why I found Sen. Obama's statement very surprising. I think that was a 2-second excerpt. Listen carefully for the "as long as" part of his endorsement of the deal.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Jul 2008 20:55

Sir I am a simple person. I am merely showing mirror to Shri Kakodkar by comparing the two numbers from 2 pages of his own power point presentation. If there is any dishonesty in those numbers they are coming from his own presentation and the accusation of dishonesty thus lies elsewhere.

Arunji, no disrespect, but really, your posts have done more than “merely showing mirror" or “just comparing two numbers”. In your own words, you have said that those slides are like “vapourware [being sold] to the gullible", making you feel that you are being “lost in mirage” … not to mention other colorful terms like “walking on water” etc..

Just to take a random “conclusion” from your post:

because his [Kakodkar’s] toolbox has only one tool (viz a hammer of nuclear power), and all problems look like nail to him; and he goes out to fix the world with his nuclear hammer.

Unless you can show how you found out how many tools K has in his tool box, or what is the source of your claim that "all problems looks like nail to him", I would think some will say, when you can even predict the root cause (“He has only one tool”) and even predict that “all problems looks like nail to him” you are doing more than just “comparing two numbers".

Don’t you think, your figures, if they are valid, could stand on their own merit without all that editorial comments? JMT etc..

pls do care to correct those figures and show why they are wrong?

I have not looked at all your figures, (to be honest, to me, they do not pass ‘credibility test’') But, since you ask, one comment here: you take one “typical figure” (100 years) and then put a figure “226.5 billion”. You get 4 significant figure, out of one data which you call “typical” (note that you did not put it as 100.0 years, so one would guess the precision in your number is only 1-2 significant digits) and then proceed to get a figure which is 4 significant figure. Also, am I missing something, or you have not put the figures about income from those investments to figure-out true cost etc)

No, I am not nit-picking here, to any scientist, to put it mildly. this is not a trivial matter. Perhaps, if you can clearly put the numbers (and sources where you are getting these numbers – and thus giving some idea about precision and confidence level of each data) and then show where Kakodkar’s numbers are clearly off the mark, you may have more takers who are going to take your numbers seriously.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jul 2008 21:03

My opposition to the deal is not from military or nuclear supplies angle. I am pretty trustful of our men behind those inks drafting a nice deal draft that would protect us or get out of it on our call.

I am concerned at this a-khan capitalistic setup, that can bribe, cheat and lie to any living being on the planet to show their balance sheet and ceo-manship is paid the highest ever one can think off. Basically, point is, our future civilian reactors for 3rd stage plan will never take shape, and will become history.. we would be discussing failures, and attribute again on the scifi community, and finally blaming AK to peter, et al.

In the deal, there should not be any hidden between the texts on see any scratch on MMS or Sonia's back that has these khan nails done a bit deeper by offering softies., as our socialistic men can not match them in the scratching game.

Its about protection.. its even happening even in the khan land protecting Boeing against Airbus tanker deals. We need to protect our future thorium based reactors.

If AK guarantees this will happen, things are win win win.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 12 Jul 2008 21:25

Left ‘sees through’ text

Statesman News Service, Kolkata, July 12, 2008

NEW DELHI, July 11: The Left parties today said the text of the safeguards agreement with the IAEA that was made public by the government yesterday confirmed all their doubts about the Indo-US nuclear deal.
They said, contrary to government claims, the agreement did not provide for uninterrupted fuel supply, right to build strategic reserves, or clearly spelt-out corrective steps in case the fuel supplies were stopped.
The CPI-M general secretary, Mr Prakash Karat, told reporters after a Left parties meeting that there was nothing India-specific about the agreement, and it contradicted the assurances given by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh.
If India tried to interpret the “corrective” steps mentioned in the Preamble of the Agreement, it could risk inviting action against it by the Security Council, in the same way as Iran did, he said.

Mr Karat said now it was clear why the government did not share the agreement draft with the Left parties. The draft, now put up on the ministry of external affairs website, confirmed the Left’s doubts and did not answer any of their concerns.

Reiterating the Left’s resolve to mobilise all forces against the safeguards agreement, the CPI-M leader said it “does not address the fundamental problems in the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. As a result of operationalising the Indo-US nuclear deal, India will place its costly imported reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards and risk their permanent shutdown in case it fails to toe the US line on foreign policy issues”. A key question was that once India put its reactors under the safeguards agreement, could the fuel supply be interrupted, and in case of disruption, what steps India could take, Mr Karat said.

While the government claimed India could take corrective steps, “there are no concrete corrective measures in the main enforceable body of the agreement, only a vague mention of corrective measures in the preamble”, he added.
As against the vagueness of the “corrective measures,” Mr Karat said, what was spelt out clearly was that India could withdraw its facilities from safeguards only if it was either jointly agreed between India and IAEA, and if these facilities were no longer usable for any nuclear activity. The final arbiter with regard to any interpretation of the agreement and dispute settlement was the Board of Governors of IAEA, he pointed out.

The Board’s decision was final and if India was held to be non-compliant, even though it was not so by its own interpretation, it could be referred to the Security Council for action, including sanctions.

“India will not have any special rights in its safeguarded facilities and this directly contradicts the assurances given by the PM to Parliament. Nuclear weapon states, as defined in the NPT, have the right to take any facility out of safeguards, a right India will not have for the reactors it is offering to IAEA for safeguards,” the Left leader said.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Jul 2008 21:34

it could be referred to the Security Council for action, including sanctions.

RESOLUTION 1172 (1998)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3890th meeting on 6 June 1998

The Security Council,
...
Mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United
Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security
...
7.
Calls upon India and Pakistan immediately to stop their nuclear weapon
development programmes, to refrain from weaponization or from the deployment of
nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of
delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile material for
nuclear weapons, to confirm their policies not to export equipment, materials or
technology that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction or missiles
capable of delivering them and to undertake appropriate commitments in that
regard;
8.
Encourages all States to prevent the export of equipment, materials or
technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for
nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
and welcomes national policies adopted and declared in this respect;

In 1998 India exploded nuclear weapons, breaking the international post-CTBT moratorium.
The UNSC could not even pass this resolution under chapter 7.

We are to believe that it will pass a chapter 7 resolution based on a complaint from an IAEA bean counter? For what? A piece of missing equipment? Some missing Pu? Why? Because India might make bombs with it? India is already making bombs. In violation of a UNSC resolution. India chooses to ignore it because India can.

Resolution 1172 has NOT been revoked. The IAEA BOG will be ignoring it when it considers the safeguards agreement.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 12 Jul 2008 21:37

[quote= AMIT

How will the CPI(M) claim to be against the BJP (fight against communal forces yada yada) after voting together with the BJP to bring down the government, which it had propped up for four years?[/quote]

This above statement is NOT correct ! It is true that Left has supported the GOVT for 4 years. It is also true that the left has with drawn the support against the nuke deal and for going against the CMP, which it agreed to in the first place! Then, it is no surprise that they will vote against the Govt , irrespective of who is voting along with them !!