India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2015 04:06

from what I understand having cleared the nuke deal, i read the fine print as it is in India's favor and USA has accepted our stand. (if I read Shyam Saran correct).. so, it does not matter it is MMS or Modi ji... what matters is the acceptance of Indic stand.

I think we are getting drifted to politics rather policy centric, if we mention MMS and INC achievements. well then, why didn't MMS get this done in his regime? Why did he not take bold initiatives? why was he following someone else for guidance when he had total control to engage Obama? What made him look so weak?

It is all the number games and power politics. but then, it can't override national security and Indic requirements.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Jan 2015 04:22

While solar is getting more efficient, I doubt it can provide the level of base load power that nuclear and coal can provide.

We have to industrialize and there is no way around coal. We have the 4th largest reserves.

The only benefit that this deal gives us is access to high grade uranium from abroad. Perhaps the PMO intends to build a strategic reserve on top of unlocking the reserves that we already have which are theoretically already enough to take us well past 150-200 years, especially with reprocessing.

I don't think the PMO will push import of reactors from the West past 20. The bulk will come from PHWR. We need to push past >1000MW/reactor. We need to pour money into lead, sodium, and MSR reactors and make it a national mission to build a Laser Ignition Facility along with non-helium 3 fusion reactors. This is the only way our civilization will survive on its own past 500-600 years.

The Anglo-Saxons want to cripple our deterrence and turn us into their Lieutenant like Japan and SoKo. It is imperative that we a plan to show them the finger by letting the Buddha smile again. Designs spanning 150-500 kt will need to validated along with tritium boosters especially for our future sea-borne deterrence.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Jan 2015 04:24

Tuvaluan: The case in point is Germany who swore off Nuclear Power for eternity (really?). Hope they develop tech to be not renege on their own promise to themselves.

US coal sequestration pilot project at Mattoon/Charleston, IL came a cropper due to lack of funds. A 100 miles north state highway 47 they have a (medium large small - I have no idea) wind farm. But these things are not catching on in the US mostly due to NIMBY factor.

Not sure what Germany is going to do to improve the fixed/variable costs of large scale alternate energy technology. France with > 70% of their power needs being taken care of nuclear are in a very good position among all the developed nations.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Jan 2015 04:32

SaiK wrote:from what I understand having cleared the nuke deal, i read the fine print as it is in India's favor and USA has accepted our stand. (if I read Shyam Saran correct).. so, it does not matter it is MMS or Modi ji... what matters is the acceptance of Indic stand.

I think we are getting drifted to politics rather policy centric, if we mention MMS and INC achievements. well then, why didn't MMS get this done in his regime? Why did he not take bold initiatives? why was he following someone else for guidance when he had total control to engage Obama? What made him look so weak?

It is all the number games and power politics. but then, it can't override national security and Indic requirements.

It was a combination of lobbying from certain elements within Sonia's administration, Oval office, the environmental ministry, and mining mafia which pushed for the deal. We spent too much political capital on this garbage. We didn't have a long term plan for unlocking resources under Indian soil and pouring money into new technology and building up the PHWR program. The deal in itself became a roadblock for Indo-US engagement. All Modi did was put it to sleep. Obama accepted because he knows India won't import more than 10 reactors from the US. Might as well get crumbs. Besides importing high grade uranium from abroad while slowly unlocking our domestic reserves, this deal is inconsequential to our long term national interests. I'm glad its over.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 Jan 2015 04:52

RoyG wrote:

While solar is getting more efficient, I doubt it can provide the level of base load power that nuclear and coal can provide.

Yes, AFAIK, it cannot, so wonder which snake oil salesman got the honorable minister to buy that BS about generating 100GW of power within a decade -- if this regime does not deliver that much power, they will be called on it.

matrimc, yes, the jokers in germany are now importing power from France which is of course generating them using nuclear power plants. And they still seem to be on a anti-nuclear power high horse, these germans.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Jan 2015 05:11

RoyG wrote:While solar is getting more efficient, I doubt it can provide the level of base load power that nuclear and coal can provide.

Hydro and Gas are part of the base load equations.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jan 2015 06:27

Manmohan sabotaged India’s Nuclear capability’

MADHAV NALAPAT New Delhi | 6th Sep 2014

The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh followed an unwritten policy of severely downsizing both the Fast Breeder Reactor (FBT) as well as the thorium-based technology programme, thereby making India dependent on foreign countries for advanced nuclear technology, key scientists claim on the condition of anonymity. The scientists say that by 2003, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) — which comes directly under the Prime Minister — was within four years of mastering the 1 Gigawatt nuclear power plant technology now being supplied by China to Pakistan.

However, "from 2005 onwards, the PM turned his attention towards signing a nuclear deal, which would make India one of the top three global markets for nuclear power companies in the US and Europe rather than a competitor of companies based in these locations" in the lucrative nuclear power technology market. At the same time, "no serious effort was made to clear the legal and other obstacles to mining extra quantities of uranium in Andhra Pradesh and the Northeast".

Instead, the (foreign-funded) NGOs behind the agitation against uranium mining "were given privileged access, including in the Ministry of Environment". According to them, "The attention given to the Fast Breeder Reactor and Thorium programmes were reduced still further by 2008, when discussions began with international companies about supply of reactors to India". If this had not been done, scientists say that by 2013 at the latest, India may have been able to develop the technology for 1 Gigawatt reactors, thereby creating an export market with a potential for sales of $4 billion initially. This advantage was handed over to China "because of the lack of interest and attention given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to indigenous nuclear technology". Incidentally, scientists warn that China is now on the cusp of mastering the technology of 2 Gigawatt reactors, while India is now forced to rely on overseas suppliers for 1 Gigawatt (or 1,000 Megawatt) nuclear power plants.

Now that Narendra Modi is Prime Minister, the scientists are hopeful of a return to the level of interest shown by Indira Gandhi towards the indigenous nuclear programme, in place of Manmohan Singh's policy of relying instead on foreign technology and manufacturers for developing such energy sources. A scientist claimed that in case the Indian private sector too partners the DAE, within the next five years, "India can become one of the top three nuclear power plant exporters globally and the top destination for space launches". He and his colleagues repeated that the Manmohan Singh government's "lack of interest in developing Indian resources and technology was clear from each of the small number of interactions which the PM had with the scientific establishment". Rather than "Make in India", the watchword was "Export to India".

Alarmingly, the scientists warned that rare earths as well as thorium deposits were being exported out of the country to unknown destinations, and named a clutch of Tamil Nadu-based companies as being the worst offenders. In one such instance, in 2007, a case got registered by the DAE against V.V. Minerals for quarrying and exporting sands rich in precious minerals from Tirunelveli. The company, together with Indian Port Terminals, Kilburn Chemicals and Transworld Garnet (all based in Tamil Nadu), has also been accused of exporting restricted minerals in the guise of sand mining in Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari. Although reports of such mining multiplied, "the central authorities took no cognizance". Finally, on 6 August 2013, the collector of Thoothukui district warned in writing that certain companies had illegally quarried as much as 239,712 MT of precious minerals from beaches in the state, only to get transferred for his pains. As a consequence, precious minerals such as garnet, rutile, ilmenite and monazite (which contains thorium) continue to get exported as ordinary sand, without any effort by the authorities to prevent such a denuding of India's indigenous stock of rare earths and precious minerals.

A scientist pointed out that in 2006, the Manmohan Singh government removed rare minerals such as rutile, zircon, garnet and ilmenite from the Atomic Minerals List, thereby giving the precious sand mafias operating in the country carte blanche to take away such minerals for export to unknown destinations. "This decision, which harmed the country's interests significantly, was carried out by the Department of Atomic Energy under pressure from the Prime Minister's Office", a scientist claimed. "Such a decision was in line with others degrading domestic capacities for the benefit of foreign entities", the scientist added.

It may be mentioned that a single company, V.V. Minerals, controls over 15 kilometres of beach area in three districts of Tamil Nadu, while also having control (through lease deeds) of several thousand acres of land rich in precious minerals.

Monazite is an important feedstock for thorium, cerium and lanthanum, and scientists say that the casual manner in which its (thinly disguised) export was treated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "has no parallel anywhere in the world". An intelligence analyst claimed that key executives of companies involved in illicit mining "frequented Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, and met up with ISI officials there". He claimed that the Pakistan nuclear establishment is building up a stock of thorium for its own research, all of which comes from minerals illegally exported from India. He warned that "ports on both the coasts are riddled with officers acting under the influence of the ISI, which has spent decades cultivating such individuals". Scientists say that there has been a "Decade of Neglect" under Manmohan Singh of the Fast Breeder and Thorium programmes, despite the fact that "when Manmohan Singh took charge as PM in 2004, India was the world leader" in both technologies. The scientists say that the country can "change from a dumping ground for foreign equipment into an exporter of even 1 Gigawatt reactors", once Manmohan Singh's legacy of neglect of domestic capacities in favour of foreign imports gets reversed.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 27 Jan 2015 06:33

^^^

chetak wrote:Manmohan sabotaged India’s Nuclear capability’

This has been posted before, if you want to see my comment, please look at:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1780541
Basically I think it one of the usual absolutely silly article by MADHAV NALAPAT , whose articles I seen before in Paki rags.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jan 2015 06:39

Amber G. wrote:^^^
chetak wrote:Manmohan sabotaged India’s Nuclear capability’

This has been posted before, if you want to see my comment, please look at:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1780541
Basically I think it one of the usual absolutely silly article by MADHAV NALAPAT , whose articles I seen before in Paki rags.

You are right.

This article has been dusted off and is once again doing the rounds probably because the congis are vociferously claiming credit for the nuke deal.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Jan 2015 07:48

MMS didn't really sellout our interests. He was just following the tune of Sonia and other interests abroad. He was not well informed and really put everything he had into the deal. It was a waste in my opinion. If we had just unlocked our own domestic coal and uranium reserves, started up parallel programs in lead and MS reactors and scaled up the PHWR design, we could have tested and then the Americans would've been coming to us for a deal. There was no need to go to them. Seriously, a lost decade in terms of validating critical thermonuke designs. Closing down Cirus especially after refurbishment pretty much tells us that the US was concerned more slowly crippling our fissile feed supply for weapons.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jan 2015 08:05

err.. MMS was simply unfit for PMO business/apologies ahead. He had no powers or self motivated leadership but instead relayed everything via madamji onlee. No leader can empower democratic institutions with these:
- not really an elected PM
- does not simply have a majority to take decisions
- being a scapegoat to orders

enough said.. everyone knows. so, let us focus on gaining the lost chapters now. let his have his retired life in peace. we have a big tolerance society against terrorism, and this is nothing.

we have now a new setup, and hope people in majority vote for Modi for next decade to recover. keep the pressure and development going.. uplift the people and empower the institutions. rest is elephant in motion.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Jan 2015 09:54

X Posted from the “Republic Day 2015 - News and Discussion” thread.

I am in complete agreement with the Congress Party on this one.

The Indian nation requires an explanation from our Prime Minister Modi on why this surprising omission of displaying the Agni Missile is a masterstroke and not kowtowing to the US:

Did government hold back on display of military might, wonders Congress leader Manish Tewari

For good order and to allay fears that this is a Congress Party manufactured story, Hindu article confirming that the Agni Missile was not displayed this Republic Day:

Agni missing as Obama witnesses Republic Day parade

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Jan 2015 12:15

arun wrote:X Posted from the “Republic Day 2015 - News and Discussion” thread.

I am in complete agreement with the Congress Party on this one.

The Indian nation requires an explanation from our Prime Minister Modi on why this surprising omission of displaying the Agni Missile is a masterstroke and not kowtowing to the US:

Did government hold back on display of military might, wonders Congress leader Manish Tewari

For good order and to allay fears that this is a Congress Party manufactured story, Hindu article confirming that the Agni Missile was not displayed this Republic Day:

Agni missing as Obama witnesses Republic Day parade

Perhaps it should have been apart of the show. It is a non-issue. What matters is policy.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 27 Jan 2015 21:45

What are the liabilities in case of a nuclear accident? Is it mainly the cost of the nuclear plant itself, the destruction of property around it or the human toll it takes?

What is the expected radius of damage in case of a nuclear accident, especially in clustered plants like Kalpakkam and others? What will be the human toll?

TIA

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 Jan 2015 22:34

What is the expected radius of damage in case of a nuclear accident, especially in clustered plants like Kalpakkam and others? What will be the human toll?

That's conditional on the type of accident, which is in turn contingent on the state of the plant -- the IAEA inspections should help if the local inspections don't do an adequate job, and if plants are running under good operating conditions the probability of serious accidents reduce.

The important thing is that this risk is worth taking given the serious energy shortage faced by the country.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 27 Jan 2015 23:03

Tuvaluan wrote:
What is the expected radius of damage in case of a nuclear accident, especially in clustered plants like Kalpakkam and others? What will be the human toll?
That's conditional on the type of accident, which is in turn contingent on the state of the plant -- the IAEA inspections should help if the local inspections don't do an adequate job, and if plants are running under good operating conditions the probability of serious accidents reduce.

The important thing is that this risk is worth taking given the serious energy shortage faced by the country.

What is the worst case? What is the most likely case? How far away from population centres can they realistically be located? Kalpakkam is about 70 km from Chennai, so the population would not be as dense as in a more urban setting.

I agree with you nuclear energy clearly is the clean source of energy we can develop on a mass scale, so not much of a choice there.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 Jan 2015 23:20

What is the worst case? What is the most likely case?

As in the case of all things involving probability, we can only talk of conditional probabilities based on specific preconditions. For example, earthquakes are not high probability events in the south, but an earthquake itself could cause different parts of a particular design to fail with different conditional probabilities (conditional on an earthquake). So for something like a fallout in chernobyl, which is known to have occurred due to operator error where operators known to conducting emergency tests pushed the system beyond known limits and caused a catastrophe, so if we talk about accidents due to plant operational procedures, then following IAEA safety norms etc., should minimize the probability -- I guess the basic point here is that operating such plants in India needs a different mindset that pays attention to detail and it is a continuous process to evolve procedures to avoid accidents etc.

http://atomicinsights.com/accident-at-c ... explosion/

There are no short answers like probability is X% for such an event etc. -- worst case casualties are of course pretty serious for such plants, so the real questions need to be about how good operational procedures are (not that any of these can be made public for security's sake) and whether they meet the approval of local and international plant inspectors, who will have all the details of operational parameters and conducting tests

How far away from population centres can they realistically be located? Kalpakkam is about 70 km from Chennai, so the population would not be as dense as in a more urban setting.

Obviously, you don't want them operating in urban centres, but given India's population density and the problems with land acquisition, the choices may be restricted currently. But with the new land ordinances, if they become law, would give government a better hand at choosing sites appropriately far from massively populated urban centers. The rules have to change to allow the government and experts to be able to decide the correct places for these plants without having them delayed forever, as has been the case -- we have to accept that a bunch of people are going to be angry about displacement no matter what area is chosen.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 28 Jan 2015 04:27

Nuclear experts hope Mithi Virdi, Kowada nuclear projects will gather momentum now

Experts hope with India and the US reaching an agreement on operationalising a civil nuclear deal between the two countries, work on the 6,600-Mw Mithi Virdi and 9,564-Mw Kowada nuclear power projects will be expedited.

In June 2012, state-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) had entered into an early-works deal with US-based Westinghouse to supply six AP1000 reactors of 1,100 Mw each for the Mithi Virdi project in Gujarat. In September 2013, NPCIL and Westinghouse signed a preliminary commercial contract, along with an agreement to carry out a two-year preliminary safety analysis for the project.

NPCIL is yet to sign a similar agreement with GE-Hitachi for six reactors of 1,594 Mw each for the Kowada project in Andhra Pradesh, though the site is ready and a preliminary environmental assessment is being carried out. Speaking to Business Standard, NPCIL executive director N Nagaich said, “Pre-project activities, including land acquisition, an environment clearance from the Union environment ministry, geo-technical examination, including studies of soil and sub-soil, and negotiations on the project proposals are in progress.” He added the fact that India and the US had signed a deal to operationalise the civil nuclear agreement was a huge positive.

S K Jain, former chairman and managing director of NPCIL, said most difficulties seemed to be have been ironed out, paving the way for setting up the Mithi Virdi and Kowada projects. “Simultaneously, India’s indigenous programme, especially the development of 14 reactors of 700 Mw each, will also get a boost. The move to set up an insurance pool will help address concerns raised by the Indian suppliers,” he said.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Jan 2015 05:14

arun wrote:X Posted from the “Republic Day 2015 - News and Discussion” thread.

I am in complete agreement with the Congress Party on this one....

Soft power: Women in military. culture, diversity etc are all far more powerful than tableaux of papier mache rockets. Frankly, the whole idea of tanks and static displays of submarines and such is passe.

You want R-Day to be more like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaIjYvIayj0

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 28 Jan 2015 22:28

Devirupa Mitra @DevirupaM · 31m 31 minutes ago

#JUSTIN: Foreign secretary Sujatha Singh has apparently resigned,clearing decks for appointmnt of S Jaishankar, who was to retire on Jan 31.

Hindustan Times @htTweets · 44m 44 minutes ago

#Breaking Indian ambassador to US S Jaishankar to be next foreign secretary

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 28 Jan 2015 22:32

He was one of the chief interlocutors during the US-India nuclear deal, so this would have him out of the USA and back in New Delhi. I guess he could no longer remain in the USA? Don't understand the reason for this sudden switch in the FM, if the above is not the reason.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 28 Jan 2015 22:41

deleted

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 28 Jan 2015 22:59

PMO won't push American imported reactors past a certain number to limit their influence in the nuclear sector. 14 PHWR of 700MW class is really the low key dynamite in the story.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Jan 2015 09:14

With 14 PHWR to be constructed, we will see a huge boost in our fissile fuel stock. With the US walking away with only 12 reactors in total, what harm would a test do later in Modi's term.

I have a feeling that the next one won't be in Pokhran. Construction of the site would be picked up in no time. We could modify the Dhanush and carry out an upper atmospheric test over the Indian ocean. I'm thinking 150-350KT would do the trick.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2015 10:52

S aurav Jha Understanding India's Nuclear Liability law

Suarav Jha wrote an excellent expose in Swarajya Magazine

Understanding India’s Nuclear Liability Law

The ‘nuclear breakthrough’ announced during the Obama visit is actually the culmination of a process that began soon after Modi’s own visit to the United States (US) last September. That is when (i.e September 2014) a bilateral ‘contact group’ was set up to hammer out issues related to operationalizing the India-US 123 civil nuclear agreement (IUCNA) signed in 2008. The Indian agenda was to get the Americans to finally agree on the ‘administrative arrangements’ needed to kick start bilateral cooperation under the aegis of IUCNA without conceding any intrusive inspection demands by the latter. The US in turn was looking for credible workaround offers from the Indians on the supplier liability aspects of India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CNLD) Act 2010 before they quit stalling on the administrative arrangements part by insisting on having the right to ‘track’ any US origin material or fuel being used by India’s nuclear establishments.

That is now past, with the US side having agreed to administrative arrangements similar to what India has with Canada i.e sans any tracking clause, as a thinly veiled quid pro quo for India’s offer to build a nuclear insurance pool that will provide cover to suppliers against third party liability at extra cost to India and effective dilution of the supposed deterrent benefit of bringing suppliers into the liability ambit. Moreover while this development in principle clears the way for the import of US origin nuclear technology, much remains to be done, not the least of which is an India-Japan civil nuclear deal before any such reactor actually gets built in India, affordably.

Section 104 (d)(5) of the 2006 US Congressional Hyde Act which was needed to pave the way for IUCNA requires the US President to ‘ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to maintain accountability with respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology sold, leased, exported, or re-exported to India’ . Till the recent breakthrough this was being used by the Americans to push for a ‘tracking’ clause as part of administrative arrangements. Obama has however now waived that requirement through Presidential decree thereby accepting India’s argument that its ‘Additional Protocol’ related arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) for inspections are intrusive enough and additional national tracking by America was both unnecessary and excessive.

{So he had to swallow the Hyde bound poison to which he was a participant in his Senate days!!!}

What is more interesting however is the fact that the US has accepted that India’s CNLD ‘is compliant with the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which is being pushed by the Americans globally to serve as a successor to current international liability regimes based on the Paris and Vienna conventions. CSC incidentally had been signed by India in 2010 itself pursuant to obligations under IUCNA but has not yet been ratified by it. Till recently, US suppliers were pointing out that CNLD does not exclusively channelize liability to the operator as is the central principle enshrined in CSC or any of its predecessors and that they are waiting for India to actually ratify CSC before doing business with it. Basically they were implying that India would not be able to ratify CSC without amending out the right to recourse from CNLD which extends liability to suppliers. India was instead pointing out that CSC allows signatories to make reservations to certain provisions in the treaty. Clause 17(b) of CNLD which allows the operator to have legal recourse to the supplier for up to 80 years after the plant commences operation if in the opinion of an Indian court the ‘nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services’ therefore did not come in the way of it being CSC compliant. Today this position seems to have been accepted by the Americans.

{In other words its a mfg liablity clause for 80 years. Standard design life of power reactors is 40 years. With life extension it could be more.}

So what has changed? Money obviously, or rather it could change hands from suppliers to Indian insurance companies and back again to suppliers from Indian consumers via operators through a higher cost of power, absent subsidies provided by the government. India is moving to set up a nuclear insurance pool which in addition to the usual mix of insurers, operators and governments will also include suppliers for third party liability cover unlike any other nuclear risk pooling mechanism in the world. As long as 17(b) exists both foreign and domestic suppliers will perceive that liability extends to them as well and therefore would need insurance cover if they were to participate in India’s nuclear program at all.

Now 17(b) by itself actually does not define any limit to the amount of recourse the operator could seek from a supplier, which according to suppliers basically opens them up to unlimited liability. Since unlimited liability is not something that anybody would be able to insure, in exercise of powers conferred under section 48 CNLD, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) published the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011 wherein Rule 24 delineated that claims by plant operators against component suppliers ‘shall in no case exceed the actual amount of compensation’ paid by utilities themselves which as per CNLD is limited to Rs 1500 crores at the moment. DAE has also undertaken a probabilistic safety analysis to identify a model that will assess probabilities of particular equipment or a set of system to fail in a manner that can lead to an accident. Based on the study there would be a rational basis for working out an actuarial approval to decide on the quantum of liability applicable to individual suppliers. This is intended specifically to reassure small suppliers who simply would not be in a position to take out insurance for anything but very modest amounts.

Foreign suppliers till recently were even sceptical of Rule 24 since it was a mere supplement to statutory law that seemed to suggest unlimited right of recourse for the operator vis a vis suppliers. However it is the Russians who bit the bullet the first, agreeing to the proposed Indian risk pooling mechanism that will include suppliers provided they were allowed to recover their insurance costs via a mark up on supplies for Kudankulam 3 & 4 as well as the 12 additional Russian origin reactors that are likely to be built in India as agreed upon during Putin’s talks with Modi last December.

Indeed, the Russian willingness to work under India’s liability framework has both shown America a way forward as well made it much more amenable to kickstarting nuclear cooperation under the deal, ergo the Obama-Modi breakthrough. However it remains to be seen if India’s proposed insurance pool will get reinsurance from foreign insurance companies or other global pools given that India has completely ruled out on-site inspections by insurers. Incidentally IUCNA also includes provisions for sharing of best practices between US and Indian nuclear risk pools. Nevertheless If foreign insurers stay away on account of not being able to undertake inspections it will actually be the Indian government which will provide re-insurance and this is something the Russians have been demanding.

In any case even with four government insurance companies pooling their resources, only Rs 750 crores of Rs 1500 crores can be insured by them since they can pledge only up to 3 per cent of their net worth as per global norms for this pool. Insurance for the remaining Rs 750 crores may have to be taken out by NPCIL, India’s only nuclear operator at the moment or financed via a sovereign guarantee extended by the Government of India. Guarantees probably are also being made to assuage foreign suppliers that Section 46 of CNLD stays limited to criminal liability and does not extend to unlimited civil liability via application of the law of torts. However such guarantees on Section 46 will probably have to backed up by an amendment to CNLD in the future.

{But India does not thave law of torts. The judges have given paltry damages in earlier cases}

Overall the chief impact of the American acceptance of CNLD is that the capital cost of any American origin reactor design being built in India will only rise and with it will rise the cost of delivered power. As it is American reactor suppliers are not really exclusively American. In fact Toshiba-Westinghouse is more Japanese given that Toshiba own 77 percent of Westinghouse. The other big American player GE-Hitachi is also 50 percent owned by Hitachi. Any move to build their reactors in India will require an India-Japan nuclear deal with its own set of administrative arrangements given that key components for these reactors require export clearances from Japan. Essentially Washington will lean on Tokyo for this since the latter has its own tracking clause demands which India will not accept.

More importantly without an India-Japan nuclear deal, a number of component manufacture joint ventures(JVs) between Indian majors and Western and Japanese suppliers that are lying moribund at the moment cannot be activated. These JVs are absolutely crucial to bringing down the overnight cost of say Toshiba-Westinghouse’s 1000 MWe AP-1000 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which according to some estimates may cost up to $ 5 billion dollars to build in India. Indeed the projected cost of delivered power from an Indian AP-1000 may be in the Rs 12 per kilowatt hour range at the moment.

Contrast this with China which has already indigenized almost the entire AP-1000 value chain including the reactor pressure vessel and is building them at a cost which is half that of what is being projected for India. China is now even beginning to market the CAP-1400 which is an up rated design based on the AP-1000 developed by it in partnership with Toshiba Westinghouse. Truth be told, China’s simple liability regime introduced way back in 1986 with no provision for supplier liability coupled with its mammoth nuclear build plans has allowed it to corner a very large share of the worldwide nuclear industry for light water reactors such as the AP-1000. China today is on course to deploy 60 Gigawatt-electric (GWe) of nuclear capacity by 2020 and double that by 2030. It is this gargantuan build plan which is giving it the confidence to declare peak emissions by 2030 as part of the recent climate change agreement with the US.

If India too has to commit to any such peak, it will have to move quicker to augment nuclear capacity. A nuclear push is the best way to reconcile ‘Make in India’ with larger climate change goals, and nuclear manufacturing itself can be a significant part of ‘Make in India’. Moreover if the liability work around offered to America does pave the way for early inclusion of India in the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (China’s reservations notwithstanding) as is being promised by Washington, India could well emerge as a major exporter of nuclear energy related equipment both domestically developed or produced under foreign collaboration. Modi certainly will have his sights set on that one.

No wonder I called Modi, the Hober Mallow of our age!!!!!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Jan 2015 11:13

^ Aye. Sri Ambedkar would have been the Salvor Hardin, then.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Jan 2015 11:20

This is all maya onlee. The thrust of our nuclear push will come from the PHWR in the short and medium term. We're only getting 12 reactors from the US, and that's if everything goes to plan with the Japanese. The US and India just needed to get this over with. It had dragged on for too long. The real test is when we detonate a few bombs.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Jan 2015 19:09

After the nuclear step, the big leap

After the nuclear step, the big leap

For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a more agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political sides considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to include strategy and commerce

It is a measure of how important the India-United States civil nuclear agreement was to the bilateral relationship that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that it constitutes the “centrepiece” of the strategic partnership between the two great democracies. However, the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to India this weekend was not about that “centrepiece” but about the entire mantle.

Tying up the loose ends of the Indian nuclear liability law was about completing unfinished business. It was also about regaining U.S. trust. After all, the George Bush administration helped legitimise India’s status as a nuclear weapons power and expected, in exchange, at least some of the business that would then get generated. The liability law that India then enacted was viewed as an act of bad faith. The trust that successive Prime Ministers, from P.V. Narasimha Rao onwards, injected into the relationship was wasted away by this one act of Indian doublespeak.

Political doublespeak

To return the relationship to where it was in 2008, when the U.S. secured the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for India’s nuclear programme, it was necessary to clear the air on the liability law. In short, the nuclear stuff that hogged the headlines all through the weekend was just the ribbon that had to be cut for Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi to then move on. Move on they did. The real outcome of the visit is captured in the statements on their bilateral Strategic Vision and the Declaration of Friendship.

What the entire nuclear deal episode captures, however, is the price we pay for our political doublespeak. As Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh would often say that a political party’s view on policy should not be judged by what it says when in Opposition, but by what it does when in government. So, even though it was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that took the “first steps” and the “next steps” towards a strategic partnership with the U.S., the same BJP opposed the India-U.S. civil nuclear energy agreement under the leadership of Lal Krishna Advani, when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Ironically, it is Sushma Swaraj who, in 2010, reportedly picked up the phone and called the CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, striking an alliance with the Left to demand changes to the original nuclear liability law, who has had to now help find a way out of the impasse she helped create.

But then, the Advani BJP’s objection to the nuclear deal was not based on genuine concerns about strategic autonomy and the future of the nuclear programme. When Dr. Singh managed to win over Mr. Vajpayee’s National Security Advisor, the late Brajesh Mishra, and the leadership of the Department of Atomic Energy, the Advani BJP’s game became clear. It was in fact seeking to oust the Manmohan Singh government, not really block the nuclear deal.

Back on track

Given that the BJP in office today is not the Advani BJP, but the Narendra Modi BJP and given that Mr. Modi was never an enthusiastic supporter of the Advani group’s ambition to seize power, he would have had no problem endorsing the deal that Dr. Singh struck and getting on with business. That is precisely what he has done. In six quick months he has cleared the cobwebs and revived what seemed to have become a moribund relationship during Dr. Singh’s second term.

The weakening of Dr. Singh’s prime ministership also coincided with domestic distractions for the U.S. President. The post-2008 economic crisis not only forced Mr. Obama to cosy up to China, but his Afghanistan strategy took him closer to Pakistan. India felt abandoned. It took the decisive victory of Mr. Modi, in May 2014, and a new reassessment of a post-Modi India by Mr. Obama, for the deal to be back on track.

Mr. Modi has understood the strategic significance of the nuclear deal; that it was not just about building nuclear power plants but, as he put it so eloquently on Saturday, the “centrepiece” of a strategic partnership. The wayward course of the nuclear deal only underscores the importance of strong domestic political leadership for success on the external front. A ‘strong’ Dr. Singh clinched the deal in 2008, a weakened one failed to deliver on it. A ‘strong’ successor has now completed the project.

The new ‘mantle’

The new ‘mantle’ is now defined by the joint statement issued by Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi, which has to be read within the wider framework of bilateral relations defined by the Declaration of Friendship and the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. While the media, quite understandably, remained focussed on the “centrepiece,” a new mantle has now been put in place defined by these Vision and Friendship statements.

The vision defining the new partnership captures the geopolitical view that the key to India’s rise as a global player is “inclusive economic development” at home. It is also in India’s interest, as well as that of the U.S., to establish a rules-based system of global economic governance and a rules-based security architecture.

Critics of the U.S.-India partnership, and there would be many in both countries, tend to assess the new understanding within the paradigm of outdated Cold War thinking. India-baiters in the U.S. would chastise Mr. Obama for giving India too much strategic space with no assurance of any alliance being offered in exchange. Critics of the U.S. in India will charge Mr. Modi with bartering away India’s strategic autonomy and its “independent foreign policy.”

Both would be wrong. The reality is that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi have come to terms with the reality of the new world order, in which they see their partnership as strengthening a global economic and security architecture that would benefit both. In that sense, the three documents issued by the two leaders in New Delhi offer a realistic assessment of the existing power equation between the two interlocutors, on the one hand, and between them and other major powers, like Russia and China, on the other.

Time for hard work

Going forward, the U.S. and India will work more closely together but will also be able to offer each other a wider margin for individual manoeuvre. Thus, for example, the U.S. may not be averse to India’s present level of engagement of Russia and China, just as India would be more understanding of U.S. relations with China and Pakistan. This new way of approaching the bilateral relationship within a larger global context would enable the two leaders to avoid the “zero-sum-game” trap in the regional context.

All this calls for a much more mature handling of Indian foreign policy and of India’s many strategic partnerships. Mr. Modi has demonstrated that he has the wit and wisdom to pull it off — being friendly with Vladimir Putin even as he hugs Barack Obama. But it is not an easy act to sustain, especially when difficult forks are reached and a choice has to be made one way or another. The art of diplomacy lies in avoiding such dilemmas.

For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a much more alert and agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political side, specially considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to a strategic and commercial dialogue.

This would require much greater inter-ministerial coordination at the bilateral, regional and global levels. India cannot continue with the contradiction of the past wherein one ministry would be seeking favours from a country while another ministry would be poking it in the eye or cocking a snook.

As Spiderman’s uncle tells him when he discovers the newly acquired powers of his young nephew, with great power comes great responsibility. One can extend that argument and suggest that in fact the quest for great power entails even greater responsibility. Once a nation has arrived at a new equilibrium of power, it can afford to make mistakes and get away. But the journey to that new status is fraught and the path is replete with slippery slopes.

Once the celebration of success of a summit gone well is over, the time for careful hard work and sustained leadership begins.

(Sanjaya Baru is Director for Geo-economics and Strategy, International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2015 19:26

I have a problem with acknowledged acolytes of former regimes giving advice to Modi or explaining his actions or lack thereof.

What were you doing when your regime held sway?

A honest answer to that question will defuse all pompous titles.

A bokwas article which at the core claims that MMS could have had the same deal but for the liability clause inserted by BJP. Its the liability clause which turned the US around when it realized India is not a pushover.

Don't forget the Presidential waiver on intrusive inspections that has come now. This was not there before.

Dr Baru needs to reflect if he wants to step in shoes of KS garu or remain a partisan.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2015 21:57

Tuvaluan wrote:
What is the expected radius of damage in case of a nuclear accident, especially in clustered plants like Kalpakkam and others? What will be the human toll?
That's conditional on the type of accident, which is in turn contingent on the state of the plant -- the IAEA inspections should help if the local inspections don't do an adequate job, and if plants are running under good operating conditions the probability of serious accidents reduce.

The important thing is that this risk is worth taking given the serious energy shortage faced by the country.

the important thing is not the risk, because you always cover risks in the design phase.. else you would not buy a risky reactor in the first place.

what is important is facilities to handle radiations.

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/ext_contamination.htm

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 29 Jan 2015 22:06

RoyG wrote:This is all maya onlee. The thrust of our nuclear push will come from the PHWR in the short and medium term. We're only getting 12 reactors from the US, and that's if everything goes to plan with the Japanese. The US and India just needed to get this over with. It had dragged on for too long. The real test is when we detonate a few bombs.

+1. By the way, despite all the pappi-jhappi during UPA-1, Unkil still ordered the attack on Mumbai. (The timing of the attack is the key to understanding it: *after* the tests of Agony Trishul, but *before* its induction; after GWB's term had ended, but before MMS's term had.) I fully believe that if a war had broken out, "Pakistan" would have had astonishing success in destroying DRDO/DAE/ISRO facilities.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 29 Jan 2015 22:07

SaiK wrote:

the important thing is not the risk, because you always cover risks in the design phase.. else you would not buy a risky reactor in the first place.

Nothing of that sort -- that is just not how reality works. Risks are a fact of life at all times -- the question is whether you know what they are and how you can deal with it. As the Chernobyl incident implies, the highest risk is in plant operation, which has to be at a high level of efficiency, maintenance, and process driven operation, including ensuring that there is no miscommunication or lack of communication that can increase the chances of accidents.

A "risky reactor" is underspecified to be useful. Even designs may cover one kind of risks but not another -- so the GE CEO can put his hand on his heart and claim that the GE-Westinghouse reactors will not cause calamities during earthquakes, but have they tested their reactors in a tropical climate, particularly all the electronics etc. that are more susceptible to temperature variations (just as an arbitrary example). So the question is whether all the risks associated with operating in India have been considered in the plant design, and if not, what you say is true about "risky reactor".

But there are plenty of risks even after the designs are made to be solid.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 02:58

Meanwhile - just some (big IMO) tidbit along Fusion Energy development from newspapers..

ITER (which India is a partner along with EU, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the USA. (EU is funding half of the cost while the remainder comes in equal parts from six of others), is getting lt's 87-ton High Voltage transformer classified as a "highly exceptional load" and important equipment delivered.

The transformer was procured by the US, manufactured in Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industry (part of USA's contribution to the project's steady state electrical network).

They say, things are on track.. by 2027 or so, Iter project aims to take nuclear fusion research to a new level --- largest ever Tokamak unit.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 Jan 2015 03:04

ITER is as big as boondoggles get. There is a FREE fusion reactor right up there, which provides more power than we can imagine trying to use, 24-7-365. Radiation-shielded. All nuclear waste recycled. Provides Combined Heat and Beamed Power.

Can ITER do any of these? Is fusion 'clean'? What about all the gigatons of shielding material that get irradiated by high-energy neutrons, gamma rays etc? How does one dispose of all that waste?

Hope India at least gets some expertise and IP in building lasers from the investment in ITER. If it's not space solar power, I am waiting for Ultasonic Nyookulear Fusion In a Beaker of Acetone.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 30 Jan 2015 03:14

The free fusion reactor is only available 8/7/365 and that too only in places like Dharmapuri district, TN with no clouds or rain..just nitpicking. Don't have any high hopes that ITER will develop some awesome technology to keep the world a clean and wonderful place for the next 10000 years with cheap nuclear fusion...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 03:32

UBji - Don't diss ITER right away... if things go well it may produce 500 MW of power (Don't know exactly how much power it will need to produce that 500 MW - but it may be a quite a bit

).. for 1000 Sec
(about 15 minutes

)...

Well it is still quite a lot compared to JET's peak of 16 MW for less than a second...

(Of course, it is not to generate power.. but to have fun doing research).. Fusion power in practical sense, using tokamak , may be a little far in the future.
(Edited typo)

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2015 03:40

AmberG,

What is a tomahawk in the context of fusion power. Do you mean a tokamak? A magnetic field bottle to confine plasma?

UB,

Solar power has its applications, but it will NEVER be a means to establish the base load of a major industrial power. The Germans are liars and buying newclear power from Czechs and Frenchies.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2015 04:41

The German electric grid is collapsing due to solar which is local. The grid needs power to sustain it.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2015 04:49

Mort Walker wrote:AmberG,

What is a tomahawk in the context of fusion power. Do you mean a tokamak? A magnetic field bottle to confine plasma?

Yes.. thanks. (Corrected in the original)

Meanwhile German Court will decide this year to decide whether or not the government's actions to phase out nuclear power post 2011 were legal or not:
Jan28 2015- German Court Says It Will Make Nuclear Phase Out Decision This Year

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Jan 2015 06:47

We need to begin research in Laser ignition, magnetic confinement fusion, etc and stop wasting our time with ITER. Mining helium-3 on the moon and then bring it back to earth is wasteful. PMO needs to appoint competent and visionary people who scout out the next best thing and really come up with a road map. We may not even need the 3 stage.