India Nuclear News And Discussion

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Mar 2010 03:31

^ Yes boss makes sense (at least to me).

Lastly one final query with regards to the topic of 'reprocessing' , there was a lot of ruckus raised around the issue of 'RIGHT' to reprocess fuel and TRANSFER of ENR technology (btw what is this ? ) . I see that the former is now settled as GOTUS and GOI have reached on a compromise i.e. '2' such reprocessing facilities can be set up in India under IAEA but what about the 'ENR tech' (was it just noise) ?

Fwiw to revisit the ENR part

http://www.hindu.com/nic/krepon-black-article.pdf

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Mar 2010 03:46

The right to reprocess is quite different from supply of reprocessing technology.
What the US has granted is reprocessing rights, not technology (same situation with the Russian VVER reactors now being completed). It is up to India to build the reprocessing plants.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Mar 2010 04:00

From INFCIRC/211 (the India/Canada safeguards agreement for RAPS 1+2)

Nuclear material produced by the use during the aforesaid five-year period of such
heavy water, and all subsequent generations of nuclear material produced in or by
the use of such nuclear material, shall be subject to the implementation by the
Agency of the safeguards provisions of this Agreement

Note that because imported heavy water was used, under IAEA pursuit and perpetuity rules, the fissile material (of Indian origin) was also safeguarded. The same situation would apply to any Fast Breeders that use safeguarded fuel.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Mar 2010 04:53

negi wrote:Lastly one final query with regards to the topic of 'reprocessing' , there was a lot of ruckus raised around the issue of 'RIGHT' to reprocess fuel and TRANSFER of ENR technology (btw what is this ? ) . I see that the former is now settled as GOTUS and GOI have reached on a compromise i.e. '2' such reprocessing facilities can be set up in India under IAEA but what about the 'ENR tech' (was it just noise) ?

Havent read the text of the Reprocessing agreement (is it even online?)

Wapo Says (take it with bucket of salt, they are known for psyops http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01744.html

Sources in the Indian and American nuclear power industries said that India has secured significant concessions in the agreement. They asked not to be named because it is not been made public.

The ruckus was as follows.

1. Unkil said that on a "case by case" basis, he will consider granting permission to reprocess. India wanted a "blanket approval" for reprocessing and if for any case, reprocessing rights are not granted, that should be stated upfront. This was to prevent tarapore-like situation where spent fuel rods are still doing "snan" in a swimming pool. This was a non-negotiable Indian demand. (I think that the current agreement provides for this. Though I am not sure if Tarapore fuel can be reprocessed since it was purchased using a different agreement. Also US is refusing to take the spent rods back, so we are stuck with radioactive rods in our backyard.)

2. India wanted the reprocessing plant under IAEA inspectors and not US inspectors. This was also a non-negotiable Indian demand (Wapo says this was granted by the agreement)

3. Unkil said that there can be only one reprocessing plant. SDREs said that they wanted to build as many as they wanted, because they dont "want to transport fuel through populated areas" which would be a safety and security risk. (Wapo says this was granted by the agreement)

4. Right to import technology for ENR. This was a sticky issue. US is prevented, by domestic laws, to export technology related to reprocessing. At the same time, Unkil was trying to set up GNEP whereby reprocessing technology will be denied to a few nations, will be with a few nations (suppliers) and fuel has to be sent to supplier nations for reprocessing. India (a) wanted to reprocess (b) wanted access to reprocessing technologies. This is the most sticky and complicated demand/negotiating point. Dont know what the SDREs managed.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 30 Mar 2010 05:24

India Closer to Implementing Nuclear Pact With U.S.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... SecondNews

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Mar 2010 05:28

Anujan saar I was interested to know about ENR (reprocessing & enrichment ) transfer part as I was curious as to why would India need it in the first place unless the imported one is a generation or two advanced or even different from what we have at reprocessing plant in Kalapakkam or even RMP (Ratehalli) (enrichment facility) .

The other reason for 'alleged' Indian interest in foreign ENR tech could be to guard the IP around the indigenous ENR technology from IAEA .

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Mar 2010 07:02

Negi-ji

A Background: The deal is as follows. ENR has the "E" part (enrichment) and "R" part (reprocessing). Let us leave the "E" part as of now. Power can be produced from 3 sources, ALWR/PHWR, Fast Breeder, AHWR. India operates CANDU type PHWR.

With existing U in India, the power generation potential is 10 GWe using ALWR says Kakodkar and with FBR it is 500 GWe. With thorium based AHWR it is pretty much limitless. So the SDREs are trying to move to FBR-AHWR cycle.

Before the 123 negotiations, India said that she plans to install ~6 GWe of Indigenous PHWR (8 reactors of 700 MWe each) 8 GWe of ALWR (8 reactors of 1000 MWe each) 2 GWe of Fast Breeder reactor (the first 500 MWe PFBR is nearing completion, it will be 3 more 500 MWe) by 2020. Note that MMS guvrmand has dressed up the 8 GWe of ALWR by 2020 as 60 GWe by 2020 "if we think big" -- but lets not go there.

Note that existing installed capacity is 4 GWe of PHWR and 50 MWt of FBTR.

So if we scale up our installed capacity by 2020 as planned, it requires *MASSIVE* amount of reprocessing. India has demonstrated reprocesing in a small scale and some success in reprocessing technology ( See here http://www.hindu.com/2005/06/12/stories ... 451200.htm ). But I suspect that to do it in the scale as planned, we might need to import ENR technology. Without scaling up ENR at a rate comparable to our installed capacity of FBR and PHWR, they wont be viable and also would hinder our 3 stage program!

The takleef that west has is that all this means massive amounts of PU floating around which makes it a "proliferation risk". On top of that I suspect that they want a monopoly on ENR-based closed fuel cycle when price of U shoots up. (read Kakodkar's reply to the question** "France, the U.S. and the U.K. have not persisted with their breeder reactors programme. Are we entering an area others have backed out from?" in http://www.igcar.ernet.in/press_releases/press11.htm ). So G8 had singled out India and said that it would ban sales of ENR to India on July 2009.

So I dont know what the current agreement with Unkil promises

**See the last question and its answer

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 30 Mar 2010 08:22

My heart goes out to the US

If this agreement is implemented, it would imply that India is permitted (ever so kindly, by the US) to reprocess "U.S.-obligated" spent fuel to extract Pu, but US entities themselves cannot reprocess their own spent fuel!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Mar 2010 08:52

The takleef that west has is that all this means massive amounts of PU floating around which makes it a "proliferation risk".

NOPE.

The three stage is being marketed as a top-of-the-line non-proliferation technology.

Gerardji,

Safeguard still means counting atoms - in triplicate, that too using used carbon-copy paper. India keeps the original. The second goes to a folder in New Delhi. The third goes to IAEA. Always the the third goes to IAEA, since that has the most used carbon-copy.

The real problem: lack of enough inspectors to fill out these forms in triplicate.

Fun.

On your comment about "right to" vs. "supplying" - does IAEA already have access to India Reproc techs?

but US entities themselves cannot reprocess their own spent fuel!

There is a very good chance that they are moving in the direction of outsourcing that to India (at a cheap rate of course)!!!!! AND, India carries ALL the risks.

I really do not like this deal as it stands.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Mar 2010 15:22

NRao wrote:I really do not like this deal as it stands.

Lost you, sorry. Why? It appears good, in fact too good to be true, off hand?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 30 Mar 2010 15:38

Sanku wrote:
NRao wrote:I really do not like this deal as it stands.
It appears good, in fact too good to be true, off hand?

That is probably the exact reason (Murphy's Law) why NRao ji does not like the deal, the SDRE's seem to be taking up too much risk with too little liability for insurance payouts from the vendor's side in case of an accident. I guess we're coming around in circles here, like in so many other threads.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Mar 2010 16:30

Sanku wrote:
NRao wrote:I really do not like this deal as it stands.
Lost you, sorry. Why? It appears good, in fact too good to be true, off hand?

Perhaps I need to get my comb out to wade through the actual agreement, but I would have preferred India getting the right as well as the technology.

1) Having talked with two buddies, one who works on reproc at Hanford (the other at Aragonne Labs in Chicago), it is my understanding that that what comes out of a reactor does vary from vendor to vendor. Thus the need to get the techs to reproc. Else India will need a list of what comes out and develop techs to resolve reproc. I am told there is no one-solution-fits-all.
2) Which is why (I am told) that the rest of the world is in the dark about Indian reproc capabilities.

Now, my extrapolation: IF India does not get the techs for reproc then they would have to build out their own techs to resolve reproc (one for each vendor - assuming RU and FR will not part with techs for reproc - have they?). IF this is true then reproc being under IAEA the rest of the world will get to know Indian capabilities, which will then provide - via extrapolation perhaps - Indian techs on the reactor front. This is concern # 1.

Concern # 2: The US (Bush and now Obama) have been paranoid about non-proliferation (and with Pakis as non-NATO whatever, they should) which is what has led to this GNEP effort, where there are suppliers and consumers of nuclear techs + more importantly fuel. This model requires a bunch of countries to monopolize (contractually) to supply (and no points for guessing which are these countries) and the rest to be consumers AND then some among the consumers to be reproc countries. MY gut feel is that the US will part with the techs provided India becomes a voluntary reproc country - IMHO a dumping ground where the output of virtually all reactors worldwide will be sent for reproc. No more Yukka Mountains, etc, etc, etc. Granted India will be one of "many" such countries, but with this 123 deal I suspect they are trying to make India the first one in that model.

Now, I have not read up on what France and Russia have agreed to. IF it is the same - right to process, but no techs than my human antenna would start to twitch. FOR Russia AND France have subscribed to GNEP. And, of course they do benefit financially from that model as (sole) suppliers.

Note that Indian three stage is a GNEP buster, for the three-stage (my read of "per AK") is a better model for non-P. Also, India has always had this micro reactor concept (one for each village type stuff). IF that comes to fruition then India can plunk micro reactors all over the place - one in the Prez Palace in Kabul, one in the bathroom of each of the kings of the ME.

Does it make sense? Or am I Kiyaniing? (Kiyaniing: The art of talking nonsense that makes sense only to the Democrats in DC.)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Mar 2010 16:58

Many thanks.

Makes a lot of sense NRao. Yes the tech should have come. Equal partner participation.

Lets hope things are held up in terms of actual implementation till that also happens.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Mar 2010 22:22

MY gut feel is that the US will part with the techs provided India becomes a voluntary reproc country - IMHO a dumping ground where the output of virtually all reactors worldwide will be sent for reproc. No more Yukka Mountains, etc, etc, etc. Granted India will be one of "many" such countries, but with this 123 deal I suspect they are trying to make India the first one in that model.

That is many moons away. Look at it at a very basic level. Why does India need the right to reprocess? Reprocessing in this case would also be defined as fuel fabrication because it is one big cycle.

1. The most important reason is to kickstart the 3rd stage of its domestic program by building up a large enough source of uranium/plutonium based primer fuels for the thorium in the AHWRs.

2. The output from the FBRs is not going to be enough for the above for a very very long time. One can quantify it by looking at the FBRs input output numbers.

3. The spent fuel from every class of reactors is different. I dont think you really need technology for that the way you traditionally define technology. Other than France the reprocessing "technology" in other countries is shuttered down because of low uranium prices as well as plutonium from warheads in the last two decades.

Did India need the reprocessing agreement right now? From a logistical standpoint not really. But the only way it could have got it was by linking it to the Civil liaibilities bill. I think that behind the scenes India has played hardball very adroitly. No civil liabilites bill without the reprocessing agreement. And without the liabilities bill no US company can set up reactors in India.

Yucca mountain replacement is probabaly two decades away if at all.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Mar 2010 22:59

Well a cursory glance at the fuel cycles for AP1000, ESBWR and EPR reactors indicates we are looking at a fuel cycle of about 12-24 months (18 for AP1000) for the VVER-1000 it is 3 years (i.e. 1/3rd of the core every year) so even in a best case scenario we are talking about importing fuel at least for the first few fuel load cycles for each of these plants.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Mar 2010 00:09

Nuclear liability Bill an internal issue: France

France's approach contrasts with that of the U.S. companies, which are wary of initiating talks till the Bill is passed in Parliament.

“It will be [a] very important protection for American companies who are seeking to do more business in the civil nuclear area in India,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake had said in a recent interview.

Speaking on the occasion of France's renewed thrust to seek investments from European and emerging countries, including India, Mr. Bonnafont described the progress of the Bill as an “internal” issue.

He said negotiations for setting up reprocessing facilities to further utilise the spent fuel were “proceeding well.”

“It is up to India to conduct its internal debates the way it has to be conducted. So I have absolutely no comments on the process which is going on in Parliament and with government in that respect.”

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Mar 2010 03:16

Obama focused on ties with India, Af-Pak

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2010 05:39

NRao wrote:On your comment about "right to" vs. "supplying" - does IAEA already have access to India Reproc techs?

Yes. Under campaign safeguards the IAEA inspectors have been inside the Tarapur reprocessing facility whenever spent fuel from safeguarded reactors (RAPS1+2) has been inside. This has been going on for decades.

The latest agreement with the IAEA wrt the nuke deal includes campaign safeguards...

(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) below, the Agency shall restrict its safeguards procedures to the area in which irradiated fuel is stored, until such time as all or any part of such fuel is transferred out of the storage area into other parts of the plant. Safeguards procedures shall cease to apply to the storage area or plant when either contains no safeguarded nuclear material;

As regards counting atoms... some atoms are considered lost

(b) Where possible, safeguarded nuclear material shall be measured and sampled separately from unsafeguarded material, and at as early a stage as possible. Where separate measurement, sampling or processing are not possible, the whole of the material being processed in that campaign shall be subject to the safeguards procedures set out in Part III.D of this Agreement. At the conclusion of the processing the nuclear material that is thereafter to be safeguarded shall be selected by agreement between India and the Agency from the whole output of the plant resulting from that campaign, due account being taken of any processing losses accepted by the Agency.…

As regards IAEA pursuit, losses in a non-NPT signatory state that openly produces nuclear weapons cannot be compared to a NNWS NPT signatory like Japan. A few kg lost in India makes no real difference to the potential arsenal. A few kg in Japan means a possible hidden illegal arsenal. One would expect the IAEA efforts to take this difference into account (note that a good part of the IAEA inspections budget is used for Japanese inspections).
In any event, India has the option to transfer unsafeguarded Pu to the safeguarded Pu stockpile, making up any 'unacceptable losses'. There will be no IAEA pursuit anywhere in India.

IIRC, India can even remove Pu from the safeguarded stockpile if it later places an equal amount of unsafeguarded Pu under safeguards. This is something only a NWS can do.

Note how difficult counting is

http://www.nci.org/nci-plu.htm

Compounding the proliferation risks of reactor-grade plutonium is the inability of the IAEA promptly to detect losses of weapons quantities of plutonium from large processing facilities. The IAEA faces substantial uncertainties in measuring plutonium, which tends to stick to the surfaces of plant equipment and is difficult and hazardous to clean out. There are also limitations to the agency's surveillance and containment measures.

The difficulty of safeguarding plutonium was recently illustrated at a pilot-scale plutonium fuel fabrication plant in Japan, where the IAEA has required the operator to clean out the plant and produce nearly 70 kilograms of plutonium that is reported to be stuck in the processing equipment---a procedure expected to take two years to complete

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 Mar 2010 05:44

The text of the agreement document is here: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-eng ... 11968.html

I have quoted interesting parts

* It is understood that the phrase “the Facility” throughout these Arrangements and Procedures is intended to refer to two new national reprocessing facilities established by the Government of India to reprocess U.S.-obligated nuclear material and any other safeguarded nuclear material and dedicated to the reprocessing

* Recognizing the critical importance of a decision to seek suspension, such a decision shall only be taken at the highest level of Government.

* Suspension of the Arrangements and Procedures means suspension of reprocessing of U.S.-obligated nuclear material at the Facility.

There is no agreement for transfer of ENR technology to India.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Mar 2010 05:50

^ Hmm.. me thinks the said '2' reprocessing facilities will be set up in AP and Gujarat where US sourced reactors will be set up while as per the news report in Hindu it seems India might set up a dedicated reprocessing facility for the French reactors in/around Jaitapur as we already have one in Kudankulam for the VVER-1000 units .
To quote the French ambassador

He said negotiations for setting up reprocessing facilities to further utilise the spent fuel were “proceeding well.”

Is it safe to infer that French might provide assistance in setting up the reprocessing facilities for the spent fuel from reactors constructed by AREVA ?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2010 06:03

Recall what Ayatollah Gary Milhollin said about on IAEA inspections in India.

Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. The other eight reactors, which will be barred from inspection, will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Thus, the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making. In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2010 06:19

negi wrote:Is it safe to infer that French might provide assistance in setting up the reprocessing facilities for the spent fuel from reactors constructed by AREVA ?

Give South access to civil nuclear technology: France

Marking a departure from the stand taken by the U.S.-U.K. alliance of restricting enrichment and reprocessing technologies to new entrants in nuclear power, Mr. Sarkozy rejected such an approach as it would be a “violation of the legitimate right to develop energy for peaceful purposes''.

Sarkozy Has Panacea Against Poverty

Sarkozy also said the international community would as well have to address the reprocessing and recycling of recovered fuel materials. France is opposed to the views of some countries that feel that reprocessing should be limited to a small number of countries.

However, broader access to reprocessing would require giving stronger powers to the IAEA. France had found reprocessing the best way to deal with high-level radioactive nuclear waste and would cooperate with many countries to help with the use of reprocessing, Sarkozy said.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 31 Mar 2010 06:23

Chellaney's take-

http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/c ... =196803719

KEY FEATURES:

►The actual implementation of the agreement is years away, even though U.S.-origin spent fuel has been accumulating in India for nearly 40 years at the U.S.-built Tarapur nuclear power station near Mumbai. India will not be able to reprocess that spent fuel until it has built at least one new dedicated reprocessing facility — a process that will take a number of years. Article 1(3) specifies that the U.S. consent relates to “two new national reprocessing facilities established by the Government of India.” Only in those new facilities, approved by the IAEA, can India reprocess the discharged fuel under international inspection. Any additional reprocessing facility can be added only with prior U.S. agreement.

►The United States has retained the right to unilaterally suspend the grant of reprocessing consent to India. This is an extension of its right, incorporated in the 123 bilateral agreement, to unilaterally suspend or terminate fuel supply or all civil nuclear cooperation with India. In fact, that is exactly what the United States did in the mid-1970s under its previous 123 agreement with India dating back to 1963. As a result of that action, the twin-reactor Tarapur plant was left high and dry. In the newest 123 agreement, the U.S. has retained the legal right to unilaterally terminate cooperation but has provided political assurances to India that such a right will be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. A similar approach is mirrored in the reprocessing accord.

Under Article 7 of the reprocessing accord, the reprocessing consent can be suspended on grounds of “national security” or a “serious threat to the physical protection of the facility or of the nuclear material at the facility,” and if the party determines “that suspension is an unavoidable measure.” So the U.S. right to suspend reprocessing consent in unfettered. Still, the agreement’s Article 7 and the accompanying Agreed Minute record political assurances to India that such a right shall be exercised only in special circumstances and after careful thought. But such assurances can hold little value when the legal right to suspend reprocessing consent is explicitly recorded in the text.

►Another feature of the agreement is that it amplifies India’s reprocessing obligations with the IAEA, including to provide facility-design information in advance and to allow unhindered international monitoring and verification (Article 2). But in addition, the accompanying Agreed Minute obligates India to permit U.S. “consultations visits” to each dedicated reprocessing facility. Every “visiting team of not more than 10 persons” will be permitted on-site access “at a time and duration mutually agreed by the parties.”

It is thus apparent that the U.S. has got what it wanted. For example, the State Department had earlier notified Congress in writing that “the proposed arrangements and procedures with India will provide for withdrawal of reprocessing consent” by the U.S. That is exactly what the text of the accord provides. Also by providing for U.S. “consultations visits,” the accord effectively permits IAEA-plus inspections.

That means the U.S. Congress is unlikely to exercise the right to reject the reprocessing accord through a joint resolution of disapproval passed by both chambers — a high bar in any case.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 31 Mar 2010 17:03

Reprocessing rights are OK, but without ENR technology ! This proves the critics of the deal are right

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2010 17:37

India has had reprocessing technology - PUREX - for many decades

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Mar 2010 18:53

For entertainment onlee.

Nuclear Liability Bill will compromise on right to life & health: Karat

The CPM on Wednesday said it would stick to its stand of opposing the Nuclear Liability Bill, which if passed by the Parliament, will compromise on the citizens' right to life and health.

CPM general secretary Prakash Karat told reporters that earlier too his party had opposed the introduction of the Nuclear Liability Bill. "But in case the government tries to bring it again, we would oppose it both in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as it compromises on the citizens' right to life and health".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2010 02:24

Nuclear deal is recognition of our impeccable credentials: Anand Sharma

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2010 02:27

Indo-US talks on clean energy

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2010 00:56

Book Review
NUCLEAR STRATEGY — India's March Towards Credible Deterrence: Manpreet Sethi; KW Publishers,

Sethi dwells, first, on the trends in prevailing nuclear thinking and discourse and, then, on the core elements of nuclear deterrence including doctrine, command and control, survivability, ballistic missile defence (BMD) and the challenges of fissile material control. In the third and last section, he takes the reader through India's post-2008 nuclear energy imperatives and concludes by making out a persuasive case for global nuclear disarmament.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2010 01:04

NUCLEAR STRATEGY — India's March Towards Credible Deterrence: Manpreet Sethi; KW Publishers

Doesn't match with

In the third and last section, he takes the reader through India's post-2008 nuclear energy imperatives and concludes by making out a persuasive case for global nuclear disarmament.

Because his arguements will be used to ask India to disarm first.

So its a useless book for seminar purposes.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 02 Apr 2010 12:22

Op-Ed in Express Buzz, April 02, 2010. A good read.

A scientifically naïve bill

In terms of the number of persons affected and the loss incurred by them, the aftermath of a nuclear accident could be quite different and larger than many of the man-made disasters that we come across such as a Railway or Aircraft -- or even the Bhopal -- accident. This raises some questions in my mind as to how the provisions of the proposed Bill will actually be implemented, for example:

Protagonists aver that the Bill will "ensure that the victim gets speedy compensation". Will the total compensation (Rs 300 Crores) be "speedily" distributed at a uniform rate to all the affected persons in the disaster area? Or will there be an effort made to assess whether any of the claimants have suffered more due to the accident than the others and hence effect the compensation proportional to the loss?

Will a person who is not normally a resident of the disaster struck area, but happens to be there at the time of the accident and has thus suffered (in other words, a member of the floating-population) be also compensated? {"Bring your ration card if you want to get compensation!". One can imagine that post accident, issuing ration cards and other similar proof-of-address papers might become much sought after and rewarding jobs!}.

If the total quantum (Rs 300 Crores) has been exhausted in effecting "speedy compensation" will late comers to the claim (even when they are with in the 10-year limit), be turned back?

Admittedly, questions such as the above arise probably because I am not quite familiar with the procedures involved in dealing with compensation claims. I do wonder, whether any individual person received any monetary compensation due the Chernobyl accident.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2010 22:22

India committed to nuclear liability bill, says US

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2010 01:28

Design flaws in Westinghouse reactor may delay India contract

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 03 Apr 2010 15:11

After the propaganda about nonavailability of Nat U ore for mining in India, it is now the turn of the coal lobby!

Thermal projects may hit roadblock
Deccan Herald, 03 April, 2010

The country’s ambitious thermal power generation targets over the next few years to meet the acute shortages as well as the rapidly growing demand may hit an environmental roadblock.

The reason: the coal deposits may be there in abundance but it may not be possible to mine the fuel. Almost one-third of the country’s top grade coal reserve would not be available for mining as these areas are now considered to be ecologically too fragile to allow mining.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2010 17:41

There isn't enough land to set up a car plant or build a reactor and you expect a coal mine?
Think of the poor tribals who will lose their sacred mountain, or valley, or whatever.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Apr 2010 18:32

Jairam Ramesh is already playing a dubious role in promoting the global warming scam. Let's hope he doesn't try to cripple the power generation industry.

Fact is that coal and hydro are the only economical ways to generate power. Expect the Arundhatis to come out against coal mines and dams.

The hidden agenda is to promote poverty, stifle economic growth.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2010 00:35

Links for the supply chain

Britain's Sheffield Forgemasters and India's Bharat Forge will join JSW as global ultra-heavy suppliers around 2014 while India's Larsen & Toubro may also join the market.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 04 Apr 2010 12:33

Being seen time and again. "Imported" does not necessarily mean "on time".

Kudankulam nuclear power project delayed

Chennai, April 4 (IANS) The delay in the arrival of components for the upcoming 2,000 MW nuclear reactor at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu has led to the postponement of the commissioning of the first unit of the project by a few months, an official said.

. . .

'Nearly 30 percent components on the piping side are yet to come from Russia, as far as our portion of the contract is concerned. We are not informed as to when they would arrive,' BHEL executive director P.R. Shriram told reporters Saturday.

The target for the commissioning of the unit has been delayed frequently. As per the original plan, the first unit was to commence in December 2007. Then the date was fixed for mid-2010. And now the revised date is September this year.

. . .

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 04 Apr 2010 17:19

Sanatanan wrote:After the propaganda about nonavailability of Nat U ore for mining in India, it is now the turn of the coal lobby!

Thermal projects may hit roadblock
Deccan Herald, 03 April, 2010

The country’s ambitious thermal power generation targets over the next few years to meet the acute shortages as well as the rapidly growing demand may hit an environmental roadblock.

The reason: the coal deposits may be there in abundance but it may not be possible to mine the fuel. Almost one-third of the country’s top grade coal reserve would not be available for mining as these areas are now considered to be ecologically too fragile to allow mining.

Please see two user comments !!

- QUOTE
" On: 03 Apr 2010 10:38 am , By: Siva G

If JR stops clearance it is because of "concern for Environment", If Jarkand does it, that is "notorious" - whatkind of double standard in reporting?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On: 03 Apr 2010 04:35 am , By: Senthil Arun

Be careful.This minister Jairam Ganesh has never spelled out openly what are the criteria for protecting the environment. If he is the over-enthusiastic type, then he could very well be a useless stumbling block and a hindrance for all development because he may want to save an owl there and a pigeon here by banning power projects and other essential things. The country cannot afford to have over-zealous ministers imposing his personal missions on the country.

-------------------------------------------------------" UN QUOTE

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2010 19:01

Sanatanan wrote:Being seen time and again. "Imported" does not necessarily mean "on time".

But no liability bill needed for Russian reactors.

I wonder if the contracts specify a penalty for delays in construction?