India nuclear news and discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 03:03

NYTimes :: Oct 23, 2008 :: Appalachian Coal to Power India?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 03:11

India Shopping for Coal Mines in Appalachia

As Clifford Krauss pointed out last spring, the United States, in response to increasing global demand, has become a major exporter of coal for the first time in years, forcing domestic buyers to compete with others from countries like Germany and Japan.

Now it appears that India — a giant in coal production itself — is doing some window-shopping of its own in American mine towns, not just to secure exports, but to invest.

(And all this at a time when the globe is ostensibly embracing a migration away from fossil fuels and the reduction of C02 emissions.)

Following up on a tidbit published in India’s Business Standard last week, our New Delhi bureau chief, Somini Sengupta, confirms today that Santosh Bagrodia, India’s coal minister, and Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, the chairman of Coal India, were on a shopping trip in the Appalachians last week.

Ms. Sengupta wrote in an e-mail dispatch:

State-owned Coal India Ltd., part of a five-company consortium, is searching for coal mines in the United States, Canada, Australia and Indonesia to satisfy India’s sharply rising demand for coal to feed its power plants.

India already imports 50 million tons of coal every year, and its demand is projected to grow. Indian officials say buying coal mines is a better way to secure supply and at potentially better prices. ‘If we want to make foreign coal available in the country it should be through acquisitions,’ said Mr. Bhattacharya, chairman of Coal India, who accompanied the Indian Coal Minister on the trip to the United States to explore private financing for the projects.

Mr. Bhattacharya said he was prepared to invest more than $4 billion from his company for the acquisitions, which are still in their nascent stages. He said he was encouraged by falling prices of mines in the United States.
As a percentage of total production, foreign direct investment in coal production in the United States dropped precipitously in 2004, from 21 percent to 14 percent, when RAG (Germany), RWE (Germany), and Itochu (Japan) sold their interests, according to data released earlier this year by the Energy Information Administration.

The largest remaining foreign companies active in coal production in the United States, according to the E.I.A., are Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton (Australia) and Scottish Power.

Coal India, the largest producer in India, began signaling its interest in investing in foreign energy sources as far back as June.

“Of course, it’s a buyers market,” Mr. Bagrodia, told Ms. Sengupta. “Money is not a problem.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Nov 2008 03:18

NRao here is background of Mulford remarks

Deccan Chronicle, 15 nov., 2008

Saturday, November 15, 2008

India to sign N-liability pact

New Delhi, Nov. 14: To protect American corporate interests, and to thwart Russia’s attempts to grab a bigger chunk of the Indian nuclear industry pie, the United States on Friday suggested India to sign up a multilateral convention that will shield US companies by capping the liability on the operator of nuclear plants in the case of any accident.

"India has to complete two steps, sign the safeguards agreement with IAEA (international atomic energy agency) and the international convention on civil liability" before actual commerce can begin, visiting US nuclear regulatory commission chairman Dale Klein told reporters here at a function organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

The Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage and convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, which is being negotiated at the IAEA in Vienna, limits the liability on the operator of nuclear plants in the case of any accident.

"For private companies, this (convention) provides a level-playing field. For example, in Turkey where it had called for vendors to apply for operating a nuclear plant, there was no cap on liability. So only Russia had applied, which is not good for international cooperation," Klein said.

US Ambassador to India David Mulford, who addressed the industry gathering, said the US department of commerce and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) would be co-leading a trade mission to New Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mumbai from December 3 to 9.

The objective of the trade mission will be to promote US technology expertise and know-how in nuclear energy technology.

BTW, I watched a documentary on Bhopal Union Carbide poison gas leak. Accordnig to the documentray on DOC channel, the number of deaths (8000) after 20 years and the birth defects(~ 50000) are much mcuh larger thant initially estimated in the 1989 settlement . So how about Mulford settling those cases before he demands access for his chums. The ironic thing is the compounds that were leaking were not the standard products in the plant. Something besides MIC leaked that night based on autopsies and chem tank residues. A test will happen in Nevada to simulate what happened later this year as US is now worried as to what really happened.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 03:32

India has to complete two steps, sign the safeguards agreement with IAEA (international atomic energy agency) and the international convention on civil liability" before actual commerce can begin, visiting US nuclear regulatory commission chairman Dale Klein told reporters here at a function organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

The Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage and convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, which is being negotiated at the IAEA in Vienna, limits the liability on the operator of nuclear plants in the case of any accident.

"For private companies, this (convention) provides a level-playing field. For example, in Turkey where it had called for vendors to apply for operating a nuclear plant, there was no cap on liability. So only Russia had applied, which is not good for international cooperation," Klein said.

This is getting to be too much, IMHO. IF Russia and France can be self insured, what is the problem with US companies in the nuclear field? The cost of buying a reactor, normally, will cover some amount of insurance I would imagine (do not know for a fact).

This will actually be a step backward from a Russian and French PoV. Now they do not have to pay out as much as they are willing to today. So, leveling for who? In the case of Turkey, Turkey came out ahead as it should be.

What else do they want India to sign?

On second thought IAEA should bear that burden - have ALL countries shell out to insure against a disaster anywhere, IF IAEA is involved.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 03:45

in Turkey where it had called for vendors to apply for operating a nuclear plant

I have to wonder IF the US is going to impose their own standards on India or adhere to Indian standards.

I know of US architects that blamed Indian substandard building processes in the past - I am not saying that as a complain.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Nov 2008 04:01

Mulford is making sure UPA signs before it gets out. So full *onty. And UPA is busy fixing the opposition which has no idea what is happening.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 04:51

I did not think of that angle, you seem to be right. However, does not the DAE have a say in such matters? DAE has to sign the India specific protocol, but this insurance stuff with IAEA is new.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 15 Nov 2008 05:26

Maybe the insurance cap helps anyone wanting to do worldwide business in operating nuclear power plants.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Nov 2008 06:45

The French and Russian governments cover for their exporters - both seem to be govt based any ways. So, from that PoV - since US companies are not Govt owned - it makes sense.

What does not make sense is that there is a cap on payouts, no matter who is responsible for it.

It may actually rebound, IF say Indian companies bid and win in the US (Rye that is what you meant I guess). The cap will stand.

What I really do not like about this entire deal is that the US seems to be dictating here on out - which it should not. I understand that the US needs to be paid for the consultancy and arm twisting, but the insurance cap I feel exceeds normal expectations.

JMTs.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Nov 2008 08:35

BTW, I watched a documentary on Bhopal Union Carbide poison gas leak. Accordnig to the documentray on DOC channel, the number of deaths (8000) after 20 years and the birth defects(~ 50000) are much mcuh larger thant initially estimated in the 1989 settlement . So how about Mulford settling those cases before he demands access for his chums.

How about handing over this dude first :

"Warren Anderson (born 1921) was the chairman and chief executive: officer of Union Carbide during the Bhopal Disaster that took place in a plant belonging to an Indian subsidiary, Union Carbide India, Limited, in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

As the CEO of Union Carbide until his retirement in 1986, he was charged with manslaughter in the Bhopal case. Anderson had been arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on December 7, 1984. He fled by private jet, since refusing to return to India. He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on February 1, 1992, for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Nov 2008 15:12

India, Canada negotiating nuclear deal: PTI

Having backed India at the NSG for a waiver that ended its nuclear isolation, Canada is now negotiating a comprehensive atomic deal with the country which will allow New Delhi to develop civilian nuclear power plants.

Both sides had "informal" discussions in this regard last month and expect to schedule formal sessions soon, Canadian Foreign Office spokesperson Lisa Monette told PTI.

She said Canada signalled its support for India's re-engagement with the broader nuclear-energy community when it backed the Nuclear Suppliers Group's decision on a waiver to India.

"India is a responsible democracy that shares with Canada the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law," she said. "India has made substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which were reiterated in a political statement on September 5."

Monette said Canada and India have longstanding bilateral ties, built upon shared values of democracy and pluralism and strong people-to-people links.

In recent years, both countries have been working to enhance bilateral cooperation in a number of areas of mutual priority, she noted.

The 2005 Canada-India Joint Statement reaffirmed Canada and India's commitment to deepen their bilateral dialogue on key global issues and enhance their cooperation in areas of mutual priority, including regional security and counter-terrorism; science and technology; the environment; bilateral trade and investment; and people-to-people links, Monette said.

Any chance this deal could be done before President Obama moves into the White House?! I sincerely hope, there are no provisions in the Indo-Canadian Civilian Nuclear Deal of Return of Materials upon India doing nuclear testing, etc, or for that matter Termination of Agreement. Also Right of Reprocessing of spent fuel should be there as given.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Nov 2008 22:02

Nuclear deal would allow AECL to renew Indian business ties

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Nov 2008 23:22

Gerard wrote:Nuclear deal would allow AECL to renew Indian business ties

Some nuclear issues tussle in the comments section on the above story.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Nov 2008 23:27

Republic of Saturn from Canada writes:
What's the problem?

India got its nuke from Canada reactors anyway.

How true is this?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Nov 2008 23:43

The Plutonium used in the 1974 PNE was probably obtained from CIRUS (Canada India Research U.S.) reactor spent fuel. CIRUS was supplied by Canada in 1954 and used heavy water from the US. It is an NRX pool type reactor, not a CANDU PHWR unit.

PNEs are explicitly mentioned in the NPT

Each party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development.

Since a PNE is by definition peaceful, technically India did not violate any agreement with Canada by making Buddha smile. Where all the Pu produced since then has ended up is another matter. Canada is not asking and India is not telling. CIRUS is a sore point with Canada and will be dismantled so that the irritant to Canadian Uranium and CANDU reactor sales disappears.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Nov 2008 05:11

Iranians wary of ’change’ slogan

Mousavi said the U.S. had signed an agreement with India, despite India not a part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, or NPT, and having shown nuclear ambition. Mousavi said the United States had signed an agreement with India, despite India not being a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, or NPT, and having shown blatant, military nuclear ambitions. With China having signed an analogous treaty with Pakistan and no one in the West criticizing non-NPT Israel, Mousavi said, "The NPT only has one dimension, to be used against Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. The West just uses it to apply pressure to Iran."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2008 07:53

Canada suffered a lot by adhering to the non leagal sanctions on India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Nov 2008 19:29

The anti-India propaganda ended up tarnishing the Canadian nuclear industry itself

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Nov 2008 21:57

BHEL, Areva T&D to form JV for manufacturing nuclear reactors

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Nov 2008 02:06

CANDU’s vendor eyes Indian nuclear market

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Nov 2008 02:11

No time frame set for India-specific safeguards agreement

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Nov 2008 02:12

Russia to supply 4 more N-reactors

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Nov 2008 01:06

X-posted...

Nayak wrote:

http://frontierindia.net/indian-agni-mi ... ese-border

Indian Agni missiles deployed in tunnels on Chinese border
Written on November 18, 2008 – 9:19 am | by P. Chacko Joseph |

India has built atleast 2 tunnels in mountains for storage of Agni Intermediate Range Ballastic Missile (IRBM). It was revealed by Mr. Bharat Karnad, who released his book “India’s Nuclear Policy” in Mumbai yesterday. He said that India is building more such facilities. Such tunnels will help India’s second strike capability, as; the Chinese Thermo Nuclear weapons cannot vaporize mountains.

Mr. Karnad explaind that it has been done to offset the deployments of Chinese IRBM”s in Chinese occupied Tibet. Mr. Karnad also outlined some scenarios when India and China might actually fight a war and the nuclear weapons might be used. One of the foremost reasons could be the Chinese plans to build a dam and divert water from Yarlung Zangbo (Brahmaputra) to the Yellow river. He said that China has already proceeded by the civil works. In a second scenario, he said, the new generation Tibetians who are very motivated, would launch an armed struggle against Chinese Imperialist. Another important fact he said was that India and China are already engaged in a battle to secure natural resources, even as far as Ecuador.

Bharat Karnad said that the weakest point of the Nuclear Chain of command was the will of the government to launch retaliatory strike. He said this was told to him by a retired Indian Army General. While Bharat karnad was unsure of current governments will, he and other speakers were unanimous that eventually the decision will come.

I have difference of opinion with some of the points made by Mr. Karnad. He mentions that the MiG-23 was purchased by IAF when they were given choice of purchasing TU-22M. MiG-23 was purchased was a knee jerk reaction to purchase of F-16’s by Pakistan Air Force. But the general observation of the lack of foresight by the Indian Air Force to build up capabilities against Chinese is agreeable. He also mentioned that India had put the ICBM development in back burner because of lack of resources. My point of view is different. I assume that India is actually building ICBM capabilities in the DRDO’s Advanced Systems laboratory (ASL). ASL does not seem to have a publicly defined mandate. Mr. Karnad says that India is leasing Akulas and it will improve the second strike capability. I just wonder which Indian missile can be fired from it. Mr. Karnad also revealed that India is negotiating for purchase of TU-160 Black Jacks from Russia. He could be right; Russian Air Force did display Tu-160s with their capability to get their job done over Indian Ocean during Indo-Russian Naval Exercises (INDRA).

I would also like to add some vital comments by some good speakers present at the book launch. Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission made a point that, the Indian nuclear program was about weaponisation right from the start. He observed that, Nasser, Nehru and Tito, the three founders of Non- Alignment Movement (NAM) had agreed that if NAM has to be heard, it needs nuclear weapons. While Apsara reactor was established to get hands on Graphite machining and Cirrus was for extracting Plutonium. Dr. Iyengar was not at his verbal best on his opposition to India-US civil nuclear deal. Dr. Iyengar also recounted an incident that where he had asked the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for nuclear test. But Rajiv Gandhi responded by saying that he is putting a note to UN general assembly for disarmament.

Vice Admiral Madanjit Singh (Retd.) outlined the structure of the Indian nuclear command. He said that there was a National Commission (or Committee, I didn’t get that right. Then Executive Committee. These both are manned by civilians. Then the decision goes to another civil (DRDO and AEC) and military group who would translate the decisions into reality. Vice Admiral Madanjit also outlined the prospects of the Indian Nuclear submarine (ATV) building costs, costs of operation that includes the decision where would the ATV be berthed after it comes back from sea.

Ambassador Prakash Shah, IFS (Retd.) revealed that India signed Chemical Weapons ban (CWC) with the pre-condition that infamous Australia Group will be dissolved in future.

Dr. A.N. Prasad, former Director, BARC turned out to be the terrific speaker. He managed to come out with some pointed inferences, while I was wondering what he would speak since everybody else has spoken everything. He said that Thorium is the third stage but what about natural Uranium right now? He said that Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha had the vision to start extracting uranium right in 1960 with the uranium in Indian oreof just .07% (700 grams per ton). Those days, the world was operating 2-3% uranium content mines. Then he said that India lost focus and is now realizing the mistake of not continuing to build up on new mines and processing facility. He said that if the Indians would have concentrated on various ways of extracting uranium, we could have found alternative source like the Japanese have found a method of extracting uranium from sea water. One major point he brought out was that when the decision to build the nuclear submarine in 1970’s, the choice of the fuel was enriched uranium and not plutonium. India did not posses the facilities to enrich uranium but subsequently built it up.

There is wealth of info in this article even though its poorly written with reporter interjecting own views or other info. Gives a good understanding of what happened in the past and future trajectory.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Nov 2008 01:22

Russian Navy not to lease Nerpa nuke submarine to India

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 19 Nov 2008 01:23

True.

Also cross posting my comments on this report by Chacko.

Sorry to say that I am disappointed with very poorly edited piece. The first person statements inserted in midst of the news reporting is a jarring. There is no clarity if this piece is news reporting (in which case the reporter need to be doing reporting and not putting in his arguments/reposte to what people spoke at the event) or is it an article/commentary/rebuttal, in which case there is no problem statement identified that is being analyzed in the article.

prashanth wrote:
sum wrote:
So, we are following the "discredited" silo methodology?
No sir. You cannot compare mountain tunnels with silos. Silos can easily be nuked using precise missiles. But one cannot vaporise mountains with nukes.

Silo's on relatively flat land can be hit from IRBM/ICBM from all directions.

Missile tunnels on steep mountain sides can be best hit from only one side. Also the altitude sensors will have big inaccuracy in hand on steep mountain sides. So a complex of mountain sides tunnels can be built, such that some missiles will be always protected, unless enemy has ability to hit from 360 degrees (I.e. missile range between 20,000 and 35,000 km, or a combination of land and submarine launched BM, or Cruise missiles).

Recall Kargil war and IAF's ability to hit the targets down-slope versus bombing La-whore.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Nov 2008 01:25

And in response to you!

Arun, Despite the poor writing the article has wealth of details that help in understanding the way things were and will be. One instance is the tripatriate understanding on need for strategic weapons. Of those three, one state has been cut up, the second is neutered and India is last man standing. And explains the culture wars of the last fifty years. Also shows why Second Five Year plan became Science focussed. Next come to RG decisions and ouster after the 1988 disarmament plan via Bofors scandal and VP Singh's bhagl me churi. And so on...

Need to separate wheat from chaff or milk from water! I want more like that than none.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Nov 2008 03:46

Namibia's Rossing mine to lift uranium production

India... said last month that it would place orders for as much as 2 000 tons of uranium before the year-end to ensure supplies.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Nov 2008 01:06

India first to get third-generation nuclear power plant

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Nov 2008 01:12

So Bhakra again! In case members accuse me of bias, the Tarapur BWR was the first of its kind in those days too!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Nov 2008 00:58

Russia to provide credits to India, China

It may be possible that Moscow could provide credit for the construction of four more nuclear reactors, including two new third generation units of 1200 MWTe at Kudankulam nuclear power plant. An agreement to this effect is to be signed next month during President Dmitry Medvedev's New Delhi visit.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Nov 2008 06:38

In downturn, India looks for uranium bargain

Now they are cooking.

In every crisis, there’s opportunity. As India hopes to stitch up its first purchase of uranium from Kazakhstan in January, prices have fallen from a high of $138 (Rs 6,900) in 2007 to about $48 (Rs 2,400) per pound now. It’s time to buy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Nov 2008 21:17

Govt to invest Rs 800 crore for uranium deposit exploration: Kakodkar

Hyderabad, Nov 19: The Centre would invest about Rs 800 crore for exploration of uranium deposits in the country during the Eleventh Five-Year Plan period, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Wednesday.

Stating that early availability of uranium was important for reducing dependence on import of energy resources, he said apart from importing, the commission was looking at enhancing uranium production in the country.

Delivering the Yarladda Sreeramulu Endowment Lecture on "Atomic Energy in India: Emerging Scenario" here, the top scientist said the Kadapa basin in Andhra Pradesh, Mahadek basin in Meghalaya, North Delhi fold belt, Rajasthan and Haryana were the thrust areas identified for augmentation of uranium resources.

Besides broad-based strategies for wider access, there is a need for adoption of new technology, deployment of large investment and organisational restructuring for increasing uranium resources, he said.

"We also need to build a reservoir of new human resource, which can do engineering based on new sciences. We have to convert scientists into engineers and engineers into scientists to meet future challenges."

Kakodkar called for building stronger bridges between basic research and technology development.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Nov 2008 03:11

Toshiba, Hitachi Seek Atomic Cooperation With India as Ban Ends

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Nov 2008 17:00

Submarine deal with India still on, say Russian defence experts

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 23 Nov 2008 02:55

ramana wrote:NRao here is background of Mulford remarks
Saturday, November 15, 2008

India to sign N-liability pact

New Delhi, Nov. 14: To protect American corporate interests, and to thwart Russia’s attempts to grab a bigger chunk of the Indian nuclear industry pie, the United States on Friday suggested India to sign up a multilateral convention that will shield US companies by capping the liability on the operator of nuclear plants in the case of any accident.

"India has to complete two steps, sign the safeguards agreement with IAEA (international atomic energy agency) and the international convention on civil liability" before actual commerce can begin, visiting US nuclear regulatory commission chairman Dale Klein told reporters here at a function organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

The Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage and convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, which is being negotiated at the IAEA in Vienna, limits the liability on the operator of nuclear plants in the case of any accident.

Instead of signing this Liability Convention, why not offer liability protection on a case by case basis to GE etc. in return for help in rolling back the objectionable stuff in Hyde?

Let these companies deal with the US Congress! They know how to get these things done.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 23 Nov 2008 03:05

Submarine deal with India still on, say Russian defence experts

1) keep milking India of cash to finish/repair this submarine.
2) jack the price up after its done as in the case of the carrier.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Nov 2008 06:37

NRDC Nuclear Notebook: Indian Nuclear Forces, 2008
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/conten ... lltext.pdf

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 23 Nov 2008 09:31

To understand the indian nuclear program between the following two books which one is suggested.

India's Emerging Nuclear Posture--Between Recessed deterrent and ready Arsenal-----Ashley J Tellis

or

India's Nuclear Bomb-The Impact on global proliferation----George Perkovich

TIA

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Nov 2008 10:06

Neither. Both are propaganda to be read by borrowing from library. Not a penny in royalty should go to either author.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Nov 2008 18:06

Aussie miner thinks big

India Resources Ltd (IRL), an Australia-based mining company, is sniffing opportunities in gold, copper and uranium.