India Nuclear News And Discussion

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 28 Apr 2011 02:20

Shyamd/Ramana,

Is the "message" to GoI as a whole ? If so, will GoI have the will not to be "deterred" by the "message" ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2011 02:36

People can give messages or not as they like. They will do what they have to do or not.
its all propagandu of acting tough and 'deterring".
The fact that such an article was written shows there is a breakdown in PRC. The PLA in POK, and in Tibet all show they are desparate. They thought PLA in POK will safguard TSP. Must not be enough. Hence this new threat. The biggest proliferator is worried about India testing!

What it means is their sources (could be anybody) tell them the "weaponisable" configuration is weaponised. Hence all this hungama.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 28 Apr 2011 03:09

Ramanaji

By "weaponisable config.", you mean the TN (or corrected version of it) ? we have weaponised fission wpns for quite some time.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 06:49

vera_k wrote:An alternative to nuclear power

Natural gas, the lesser evil among fossil fuels, is an attractive choice.

Vera-ji, It is, only one issue...there is very little of it avaialble even to fire incremental demand for power in China/India, forget replacing legacy coal...Sudh M is a repsected analyst, but she is being (deliberately?) vague when she talks about gas being used "excluseively" for power etc...We have this unseemly fracas going on as we speak about RIL's gas supplies to pvt sector players in preference to PSU power and fertiliser companies..there are competing demands for gas, and suplies globally are not sufficient even for current demand....And even more susceptible to politics than oil (remember Iran reneging on the gas contract with India? Or Russia's annual lovefest on the issue with Ukraine/West Europe?)..

GuruPrabhu wrote:^^^ That is a fine approach. I would suggest that the risk to be evaluated is the impact of a slowdown of the 3-phase program. The evaluation should be done for a 40-50 year time frame.

GP-ji, its a red herring...the issue about "people" is important with a capital I...No amount of economic utilitarian logic (which our uber nationalists are singularly incapable of even evuluating, but thats a diffrent question!) can overturn the vagaries of the political economy...And it is the latter that needs to be addressed, right at the bud...

I would give very high marks to the UPA-II dipensation for its handling of the Fukushima aftermath...they played it by the book..

1. For public confidence and optcs, a safety review was ordered of all plants.
2. NPCIL, DAE came out with all their heavy guns firing on the technical aspects of safety - with no less than Srikumar (this person!) Bannerjee articulating the points at length...
3. They refused to buckle down on Jaitapur...At all levels the govt said it WILL go through...The enfant terrible minister, Jairam Ramesh was asked to personally convey the message publicly when there were noises about him demurring..
4. The new "independent" regulator is being setup - takes some of the bite out of legit naysayers like Dr Gopalkrishnan..
5. The PM himself went on record saying nuke power is important and we will continue furthering the same - so 123-type agreements with Kaakhistan and Japan being finalised, post Fukushima..

It has been a masterly performance by all accounts...The only guys left tilting at the windmills are loonies from the Left and the Right, who have managed to come together on a platform looking like Sancho Panza ver 21st century! Unfortunately in the process they managed to kill a couple of people in arson...20 years later, history will judge MMS very very favourably on his legacy both in economics as well as in India's nuclear politics....

I wish the govt showed similar surefootedness in handling some of the other issues as well

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 28 Apr 2011 07:07

somnath wrote:Vera-ji, It is, only one issue...there is very little of it avaialble even to fire incremental demand for power in China/India, forget replacing legacy coal...Sudh M is a repsected analyst, but she is being (deliberately?) (

Very True. This is a useful document to peruse. It compares the policies of 6 countries' attempts to achieve a closed nuclear fuel cycle system (China, India, Russia, France, Japan and S Korea).

Chapter 2 lists the available alternative energy sources for each of these countries.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 39_web.pdf

To compare China and India from the paper (note this is a 2010 document so post Fukishima impacts on the timeline have to be factored in. But the pathway is clear):

China plans to increase its nuclear capacity significantly from about 7 GWe to 60 GWe by
2030 installing mainly PWR of different sizes. Starting around 2020, fast breeder reactors are
planned to be added and these will become the dominant type of nuclear reactors by the end
of the 21st century. The cores of the fast reactors are designed with moderate breeding rates
~1.1 to 1.2 at the beginning and could be replaced later by core designs with high breeding
rates such as ~ 1.5.

India plans to build primarily PHWR and PWR to satisfy the predicted large increase of
capacity of nuclear power from 3 GWe to about 30 GWe by 2020. Starting in 2010 a fleet of
fast breeder reactors with – similar to China – a moderate breeding ratio of ~ 1.1 to 1.2 at the
beginning is planned to be installed, and later changed to core designs with a high breeding
ratio of ~ 1.5. Finally, advanced PHWR – using an advanced thorium fuel cycle – are foreseen
to be installed leading to a total nuclear capacity of 275 GWe by 2050.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 28 Apr 2011 07:13

somnath wrote:Vera-ji, It is, only one issue...there is very little of it avaialble even to fire incremental demand for power in China/India, forget replacing legacy coal...

Natural gas is plentiful and cheap, although to be fair to GoI planners, some of this reversal is rather recent. IMO, the logical thing would be to feed the hunger for electricity over the next 15 years with natural gas, as the lead time to set up generation capacities is fairly short.

Natural gas elbows its way to center stage

A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of natural gas found that 80 years' worth of global natural gas consumption could be developed profitably with a gas price of $4 or below.

Plans for nuclear plants and wind farms were made under the assumption that gas prices would average $7 to $9. At that level, electricity prices would be high enough to make wind and nuclear power look affordable. Now many of these projects suddenly look too expensive.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Apr 2011 07:15

Sure once again we have uber pseudo-secularists talking about utilitarian logic - which only uber pseudo-secularists are capable of "evaluating" and by the dogma of their self-appointed high pontiff no one else can dare to "evaluate"! I guess that is a shield to cover lack of knowledge about what "utilitarian logic" means!

Actually, the real political affiliation of uber pseudo-secularists comes out when they stand up in ovation for the GOI "not giving in" to demands that go against their "pure-monetary" profits, financial growth onlee dogma. Nuclear power has been found to be an important component of energy supply and hence growth [or by a grand precedence of Qattrocchi types perhaps a more direct "personal growth"] that will generate financial flows from which perhaps uber-pseudo-secularists get "cuts" professionally. So it is in their interest to applaud and put pressure on GOI if possible that GOI does not "buckle".

It is ingenuous to see that all of a sudden "people" become important - for the cynical "political economic" reasons [which again is a term recently learned and hence not really understood but used anyway

] that the "people" may make it politically difficult for the lucrative financial-flows to flow into uber-pseudo-secularist pockets! [that bit of people's reaction is unfortunately about "politics" and not to do with "political economy" - but what to do, once a jargon-ist - always a jargon-ist!].

Actually as long as pseudo-secularists can ensure their own continuity - there should be no problem with future evaluation of MMS ji! Just as JLN is still being applauded by self-appointed hagiographers, even faults painted by clever turn of phrases into glorious deeds - MMSji will be assured of glory too!

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Apr 2011 07:22

Of the Half dozen massive NG finds that were made off our East coast, only the Reliance D6 field has been developed. The PSU's are sitting on their haunches over their fields and criticizing Reliance.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 07:24

vera_k wrote:Natural gas is plentiful and cheap, although to be fair to GoI planners, some of this reversal is rather recent. IMO, the logical thing would be to feed the hunger for electricity over the next 15 years with natural gas, as the lead time to set up generation capacities is fairly short

Well, neither that plentiful nor all that cheap..though there is quite a bit of action hapening on shale gas...For one, if it was available that easily, then China (and India) wouldnt be building coal plants at such frenetic pace, they would be building gas-fired plants..Two, a lot of the gas being generated is going simply to meet part of the "incremental" demand for power, and not replacing legacy...

three, there are practical issues with gas...Gas is mostly traded on a "take or pay" long term contracts...So the customer has to pay for the gas contracted even if it has no use for it..Which means that the prime atrtactiveness of gas as a "flexi-load" power source is mitigated somewhat...this is because typically, the buyer cannot sell-off the contracted gas to a third party all that easily (simple, if you have a pipeline linking up, say, NTPC to the D6 well, the latter cannot suddenly sell that gas to a customer in Kerala as the HBJ pipeline doesnt reach Kerala)...Which is why India has been very price-finicky about getting into long term gas contracts - remember the haggling with Rasgas?

Finally, gas has competing usage - in fertilisers, chemical etc...Given the known supply, the govt has to balance out the interests of all...

Of the Half dozen massive NG finds that were made off our East coast, only the Reliance D6 field has been developed. The PSU's are sitting on their haunches over their fields and criticizing Reliance.

Theo-ji, that isnt the point of the fracas..RIL has committed supplies to a clutch of customers in the power and fertiliser domains, mostly PSUs...those contracts have been finalised at a specific price...Apparetnly, now it is acting cute and diverting supplies to other pvt companies (Essar I think) @ a higher price...Which is why the original contracted customers are up in arms...Its a tricky area of legality, but what is clear is that there isnt enough of nat gas to go around...

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Apr 2011 09:13

Folks,
way too many posts are being reported in this thread - all by the same 2-3 people against each other. Telling you... one of these days some mod will get tired of it and ban those 2-3 usual suspects. Then you can "discuss" your points over email or something!
We are ignoring many flame baits and responses. Can't say we will continue to do so forever..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Apr 2011 13:02

If India is going to test again, one can think of a few types they would want to test.
1. TN to high yields.
2. Sub launched low radiation nuke.
3. FBF

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 13:22

What has secularism (pseudo or otherwise) got to do with the issue on this thread?

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 13:49

Tanaji wrote:What has secularism (pseudo or otherwise) got to do with the issue on this thread?

Tanaji,

I personally don't agree to this liberal use of the term "nationalist" when referring to those who oppose the nuclear power generation. That's because that would brand someone like Purefool Bidwai as a "nationalist". However, I suspect that's more used as terminology for some folks on BRF who have a lot of stuff hanging from their sleeves rather for the world at large outside BRF.

However, if the counter to that (unnecessary) usage is to brand pro-nuclear power generation folks as pseudo- secularists, then that's one hell of a indication of a foot in the mouth disease because it instantly legitimizes the usage of the term "nationalist" when referring to anti nuclear power folks.

But in a way some folks may realize that and yet go down that path.

That's because then the discussion doesn't remain confined to serious, logical commentary which includes counting neutrons (the effect on our 3-stage program), cost per kwH of power generation from various sources or even the very interesting concept of Linear No Threshold theory (please see my cross post higher up on this page), etc.

Rather the discussion then boils down to a lowest common denominator discussion which is much easier to do and harangue about.

That's because then the discussion veers this way: pro nuclear power generation = "pseudo-secularists" = pro-MMS = pro-Congress = pro-Sonia = pro-EJ cabal = pro-US = (can add a few more)etc.

So much easier to argue, na?

Tell me, you are pro-nuclear power generation in India. Does that make you pro MMS? Going down that path would brand you as being such, me thinks!

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 13:53

Gagan wrote:If India is going to test again, one can think of a few types they would want to test.
1. TN to high yields.
2. Sub launched low radiation nuke.
3. FBF

Some little birdie constantly sings that 2017 is the last year of restraint.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 13:58

^^^Continuing with the superb communication effort that the establishment is doing on the issue, NPCIL with clarifications on some of the commonly raised bogeys on Jitapur..

http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/news_29dec2010.pdf

There is a distinct sense of professionalism in the whole effort, normally not seen with the govt...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 13:59

amit wrote: Some little birdie constantly sings that 2017 is the last year of restraint.

If anything, "restraint" will be guided by progress in signing large contracts AND membership of the NSG..Once a couple of contracts for NPPs are signed, and we are securely on board in NSG - everything becomes fair game!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Apr 2011 14:16

ramdas wrote:Shyamd/Ramana,

Is the "message" to GoI as a whole ? If so, will GoI have the will not to be "deterred" by the "message" ?

Ramanaji has it spot on. I'll just add: At the end of the day, we know that people are watching closely with sattelites, intel etc , so the article is just part of the mind games going on - they are saying " don't try nothing, we know what u r upto".

So when it comes, it'll be a surprise to everyone. There are otherways out of testing with help of our allies anyway.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 14:25

somnath wrote:
amit wrote: Some little birdie constantly sings that 2017 is the last year of restraint.
If anything, "restraint" will be guided by progress in signing large contracts AND membership of the NSG..Once a couple of contracts for NPPs are signed, and we are securely on board in NSG - everything becomes fair game!

True, plus the much derided GDP $ factor will also come into play. You just have to look at China over the past few years to see what you can get away with, if the number for GDP$ is high enough. Very plebeian way of looking at things I know but sadly that's a fact of life.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 14:31

amit wrote: True, plus the much derided GDP $ factor will also come into play. You just have to look at China over the past few years to see what you can get away with, if the number for GDP$ is high enough. Very plebeian way of looking at things I know but sadly that's a fact of life.

Trade, my dear friend, trade! Even more than GDP..As we keep ordering those NPPs from France and US, with 10-20 year execution frames - we build inceasingly unbreakable consensus against any further 1974-style sanctions!

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 14:35

somnath wrote:Trade, my dear friend, trade!

Of course trade!

I just wanted to keep it zimble by pointing to a easily quantifiable number. China's GDP$ number would mean diddly squat if it wasn't directly co-related to trade and money making potential for Sher Khan and its various munnas.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2011 14:38

Having NPPs dependent on foreign suppliers does not make India stronger against sanctions but weaker. Much more weaker.

For other energy imports, the cost of input being large, a denial of supply hurts both the supplier and user.

In case of constraints on Nuclear material the pain felt by supplier will be minuscule since the monetary part of transaction is minimal.

However Indian NPPs for which Indian govt has already poured in huge amount of monies upfront will be crippled and will not be generating electricity.

Therefore any one can put massive pain to India with minimum costs to themselves with Nuclear sanctions.

This is NOT a matter of PoVs.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 14:42

Sanku wrote:This is NOT a matter of PoVs.

Of course it is a matter of POVs (some of them myopic). Stopping supplies of uranium is a breaking of contract. And that immediately kicks out IAEA inspections. Also it paves the way to reprocess and do whatever with the maal already in the country. And also opens opportunities to induce one against the other with financial inducements. Or even used Khazak maal in Sher Khan reactors or French maal.

That's why Sher Khan and everyone else will do a risk:benefit analysis before slapping sanctions. To believe otherwise is being just simplistic.

India in 2017++ will be a different kettle of fish from 1998, particularly with civilian nuclear trade going on in full swing.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2011 14:46

India has not reprocessed in 30 years the material from Tarapur, and we expect that that India will kick out IAEA inspectors because country A (not IAEA) puts sanctions?

The sanctions existed on us despite presence of Uranium sources which were not signatories to NSG.

The sanctions work on balance of power, NOT on written contracts. -- and Import from sanction prone system REDUCES the power balance

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 14:53

amit wrote:Of course it is a matter of POVs (some of them myopic). Stopping supplies of uranium is a breaking of contract. And that immediately kicks out IAEA inspections. Also it paves the way to reprocess and do whatever with the maal already in the country. And also opens opportunities to induce one against the other with financial inducements. Or even used Khazak maal in Sher Khan reactors or French maal

The bigger point is different! If the US imposes sanctions and cuts off Uranium suppplies (mind you, we dont import any currently), we go to Russia, or France, or Kazakhstan for the supplies! Unlike 1974, there is no way the global nuke trade can be blanked out to us, without a global consensus...Which is the beauty of the nuke deal..Which i why the NPAs are so hopping mad..

Second, even the US will think twice...If they have one reactor with fuel contracts in operation, they will likely have one more under construction - 1 5 billion dollar affair...When coming to impose sanctions, what would GE tell the State dept if it had a 5 billion dollar contract in jeopardy?

But this is really chump change..the big deal is the insurance in numbers - there will be dozens of countries trading with us, an no one country can pull the plug

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2011 15:06

We dont need NSG for Nuke trade with Russia et al, it was anyway happening. Russia will at best be able to provide Uranium for Russian vessels.

These are facts as already seen in the past. There is no reason to debate it.

I just wanted to make sure that the incorrect statement of "trade will ensure no sanctions" is countered.

====================

Trade does nothing for the weak party, everything is "Balance of power" without balance of power trade can still happen, on not very nice terms.

So to secure India think in terms of Balance of power. Trade is subservient to balance of power, trade does not decide balance of power. Balance of power decides terms of trade.

And we know what dependence & imports do to balance of power.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 15:12

Sanku,

We've discussed all this to death during the Civilan nuclear deal. Just shouting with bolded fonts doesn't make all this factual.

You can make all the "corrections" to "incorrect statements" that you may want to. I have don't have patience to go into a discussion with a poster like you.

Suffice to say, you should read up some political/international trade economics/Geopolitical discourses before making statements like:

Trade is subservient to balance of power, trade does not decide balance of power. Balance of power decides terms of trade.

They provide for good entertainment value but after sometime they just derail threads.

PS: It's good that all this is coming out on the 100th page of this thread and would hopefully not be allowed to intrude into the next iteration of this thread.

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 15:18

somnath wrote:The bigger point is different! If the US imposes sanctions and cuts off Uranium suppplies (mind you, we dont import any currently), we go to Russia, or France, or Kazakhstan for the supplies! Unlike 1974, there is no way the global nuke trade can be blanked out to us, without a global consensus...Which is the beauty of the nuke deal..Which i why the NPAs are so hopping mad..

Second, even the US will think twice...If they have one reactor with fuel contracts in operation, they will likely have one more under construction - 1 5 billion dollar affair...When coming to impose sanctions, what would GE tell the State dept if it had a 5 billion dollar contract in jeopardy?

But this is really chump change..the big deal is the insurance in numbers - there will be dozens of countries trading with us, an no one country can pull the plug

Agree with you fully on that. As was the consensus during the great debate on the Nook deal, once the NSG and nuclear trade doors are open, it's impossible to close them because allure of business (and to a large extent greed) ensures the doors are impossible to close.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 15:23

We dont need NSG for Nuke trade with Russia et al, it was anyway happening.

Eh, didnt the Russians say that the VVER deal was the last and there would be no more unless we got a NSG waiver?

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 15:32

Tanaji wrote:
We dont need NSG for Nuke trade with Russia et al, it was anyway happening.
Eh, didnt the Russians say that the VVER deal was the last and there would be no more unless we got a NSG waiver?

Why let small details like this get in the way of a grand vision?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Apr 2011 15:50

Tanaji wrote:
We dont need NSG for Nuke trade with Russia et al, it was anyway happening.
Eh, didnt the Russians say that the VVER deal was the last and there would be no more unless we got a NSG waiver?

Well as you know, I consider the entire LWR import philosophy slightly dubious and hence from my PoV this would not be a bad thing if it actually happened.

So in that sense no particular issue right.

However having said the above, say we need to have ADDITIONAL Nuclear NPPs from Russia, would that come in the way? In terms of real politic not. This would be a issue that would need to be worked out, however given that in the past Russia had made some excuse or the other and carried out the trade anyway, there is no reason to assume the same can not be done again.

If we see the China-Pakistan trade they happily give the NSG/IAEA a bye-bye and go ahead. So what does that tell us about the utility of NSG or IAEA.

That NSG will reflect the will of the powerful party -- if we need NSG clearance it means we are not powerful and no amount of fanciful hoping that trade would correct it would mean anything. If we are strong then NSG can do diddly squat and we can trade anyway.

So bottom line? It is strength that counts -- and strength is not achieved by
1) Imports
2) Signing accords which put you under further controls, signing treaties as a lesser.

So the entire hope is misplaced.

Nuclear strength would be achieved by
1) Three cycle
2) Cutting deals independent of IAEA on terms which are equal.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Apr 2011 16:12

Guys, I'm really amazed at your energy (no pun intended) with this thing... You can compete with the best of the chai-biskooters out there in Dilli. Now we can imagine how an actual chai-biskoot session for those across the table must feel like. Add somnath into the mix and that's it, they'll put up their hands and give us any bloody deal in no time.

Please don't generate any more reports for admins to deal with. Frankly, half the time I can't even follow them, let alone decide what to do with them!!! I'm sure other admins will wearily agree...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Apr 2011 16:54

Interesting observations and predictions by the "faithful" about the future of nuclear power in India.

(1) the "uber-p-sec" stuff will come in response whenever "uber-nationalists" are freely handed out aspersions and quoted completely without any context. Logical, and contextual responses have been tried towards serious discussion - almost always drawing snide personal aspersions dished out with liberal doses of extreme arrogance. Probes reveal lack of knowledge in many aspects just as all of us other "commons" have in various fields - so naturally persistent comments about "uber-nationalists" will invite response in kind.

(2) I have personally clearly indicated before in my posts that I am not against nuke-power, nor against weaponization. I stated a while ago that in fact in an internal discussion at some level within "p-sec" I belonged to a small minority which supported the nuke-deal and had a serious difference with the "bosses". "Officially" I am still counted with the p-secs and because of my position on the nukes considered "centrist"

. It should be clear from my posts what my assessment of the role of MMSji or the forces behind him are, but that does not detract from the strategic importance of nuke-power.

(3) by the way making comments one way or the other about relations between "trade" and "balance of power" is risky. There are claimed "empirical" studies that support "trade" dominates "balance of power" and there are claimed "empirical" studies that support "balance of power" dominates "trade". I think posters are choosing the direction that they feel is convenient for their particular position and ignoring the other. That is fine, but ridiculing the "opposite" direction is undesirable. More looking up and any real study of "political/international trade economics/Geopolitical discourses" will show that opinion and "findings" are almost equally divided with people finding support for both directions of dominance.

It might be crucial for the "pure monetary profits/capital flows/financial growth onlee" position to negate the possibility of "balance of power" dominating "terms of trade" - but the reality might be a tad bit more complex. Both processes seem to work simultaneously. Some obvious counterexamples arise but will derail the thread.

(3) but the real issues about nuclear-power that are relevant are perhaps being bypassed. It does depend on POV. The problem is that when we discuss energy security, we do not state "energy security" for whom. The discussion appears to club the whole nation into a single entity and "security" is defined for that whole abstract entity. But the devil lies in the micro. When we go there, we need to discuss consumption patterns within the country.

I could be wrong, but I think the rough distribution in electricity terms - which is where nuke-power is primarily relevant - is 40-40-20, with 40% consumed by industry, 40% by agriculture, and 20% remainder including residential. Industry has been overcharged for a long time which has led to independent captive generation, and recently some states have tried to implement procedures for reducing cross-subsidies. Agriculture is of course a big mess - with subsidies, and thefts and loss.

Indirectly all of the commons are dependent on these two big chunks of consumption, true. But the problem is that this connection is not always transparent and directly visible to the public. If we note the crucial aspect of most resistance movements against industrialization - which is seen as an important consumer of power - is that those who lose land, or fear getting affected by "radiation" etc are primarily doing it from a very economic concern - that of loss of livelihood. People in general, do not see benefits accruing to them of increasing power generation capacities - unless they belong to urban elite or professionals like most on BRF (some of whom scoff and look down upon country bumpkins anyway!). Similarly, most small or marginal farmers do not see much benefits from increasing capacities - because in many cases the much touted electrification programmes have left them in debt or in economic lurch.

Increased power generation appears to be more efficiently cornered by "large" economic muscles - big-capitalists, or big-farmers. I think studies exist on several states about the recent spate of electricity-reforms and how that has actually reduced access to electricity of the "poor", and in some cases reduced the rate of electrification for the "poor".

In such a scenario, the fear about nuclear fall-out, will activate the "poor" more - because they fear loss of livelihood, while no gain from increased power generation which they see as feeding the big-cities, big-industries, rich-farmers and large-landholders. It is this very economic concern that is not really being addressed.

There is no point complaining that political forces will use such perceptions to mobilize people for their own political agenda. Isn't it how the founders of the current dispensation also came to power?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 17:15

JE Menon wrote:Add somnath into the mix and that's it, they'll put up their hands and give us any bloody deal in no time.

???whats this supposed to mean?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Apr 2011 17:34

Meant as a nice comment in the spirit of camaraderie boss, owing to your awesome data collection and argumentation skills for any point you choose to debate. It's a good thing. As in: send in the cavalry.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Apr 2011 17:56

brihaspati wrote:I could be wrong, but I think the rough distribution in electricity terms - which is where nuke-power is primarily relevant - is 40-40-20, with 40% consumed by industry, 40% by agriculture, and 20% remainder including residential.

Look at Figure 4 for data from 2004:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/bose.htm

By the way, this is for electricity, not energy. If you look at energy consumption, transportation sector takes out a big chunk.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Apr 2011 18:02

Guruprabhu-ji, we have some more glorious (and wrong) assumptions being made in support of vague hypotheses that say, well nothing...

1. energy consumption pattern in india - 40:40:20 - industry: agri: residential...Well, the reality is agri is a small, and diminshing segment of the mix - in line with its contribution to GDP in some ways...

Latest electricity consumption patterns...
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2009-10/cha ... tab125.pdf

2. Agri contributes to theft and losses..Reality is bulk of Theft&Dacoity (T&D) losses are due to corruption and mismanagement, poor farmers have no leverage in that....

Yes, if you take "energy", well the numbers will get WAY more skewed..

Add-in some generalities about "livelihood losses" on land acquisition - and presto, what do you get? Not much...

Unlike the issue with land acquisition generically, the issue with nuclear is very different..Its about the "Greens" agenda of spreading the fear of "unknown knowns" enmeshed with the whole "West is evil/conspiratorial- lets not deal with it" theme that is a favoured line both with the right and the left..

India needs power, no questions - farmers with subsidised power have access to poorer quality of power than everyone else...The real question is, can we afford to junk nuclear as an option?

amit · Post by **amit** » 28 Apr 2011 18:34

^^^^^
Can we afford to junk nuclear from our energy mix?

That is indeed the crux of the issue which various essays above fails to address.

Sorry to say but apart from Theo everybody else has been waffling on this issue and so we are seeing various kinds of argumentative gymnastics being performed.

For eg supporting BC when he rants about lack of competitive bidding and then suggesting dumping the deal and depending only on a special monopolistic relationship with Russia for nuclear reactors! And the example touted is Pak dependence on China! Some posts here look as if they are straight out of Ripleys Believe it or Not!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Apr 2011 18:38

GuruPrabhu wrote:
brihaspati wrote:I could be wrong, but I think the rough distribution in electricity terms - which is where nuke-power is primarily relevant - is 40-40-20, with 40% consumed by industry, 40% by agriculture, and 20% remainder including residential.
Look at Figure 4 for data from 2004:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/bose.htm

By the way, this is for electricity, not energy. If you look at energy consumption, transportation sector takes out a big chunk.

Don't know whether it was good of you to cite this paper.

A survey of 2860 people living on the periphery of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in central India showed the following:

An extraordinary rise in congenital deformities
A significantly higher incidence of spontaneous abortions and still births
An increase in chronic diseases especially amongst the young
More cancer patients and cancer deaths in villages near the plant
A difference of more than 11 years in the average age of people who had died from one year to the next

Additionally, a recent study conducted around the Kalpakam nuclear plant revealed that a temperature rise of the sea due to radioactivity had affected fishing. The fisherman in Kalpakkam had been able to catch only dead fish and many fisheries were facing immense losses. Local fisherman protested, voicing their concerns about the radioactive levels in the sea water as well the irrigation, drinking water and the general health of the environment and the people near the nuclear plant (Hallam 1999).

Further,

Minor accidents have been commonplace in Indian nuclear reactors. However, in the last few years there have been a series of near misses at three different plants around the country (Udaykumar 2002). In one particular incident, there was a flood due to heavy monsoons at the Tarapur nuclear station. Now, everyone is scared of another Chernobyl disaster.

In a country like India where more than 50% of the GDP comes from agriculture, environmental issues are also a top concern. The problem of safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel has not been resolved even by highly technologically-advanced countries (Udaykumar 2002). Media reports and news of fervent public opposition to dangers of nuclear power plants that have led to limitations on the activity of plants in USA, Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden and Russia has had its influence on Indian environmental activists. Many suggest that India should learn from the experience in these countries and opt for energy alternatives that do not pose a threat to agriculture, environment and the health of the people (Udaykumar 2002).

By the dogma of "data-driven" pontiffs, does not this article pander to "green" terrorists pushing "unknowable unknowns fear"? Of course none of the above supposedly adverse "unknowable unknown" fears raised in the article should have any direct "costs", and GOI should not back down before such terror tactics.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Apr 2011 18:49

brihaspati wrote:Don't know whether it was good of you to cite this paper.

I read a lot of papers on nuclear issues -- I don't agree with all of them.

I linked that paper only because it had a pertinent pie chart. I thought that you may appreciate it -- my bad. You are just another one of those who argue using LOLs.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Apr 2011 18:50

In such a scenario, the fear about nuclear fall-out, will activate the "poor" more - because they fear loss of livelihood, while no gain from increased power generation which they see as feeding the big-cities, big-industries, rich-farmers and large-landholders

Not true no? India has a massive power deficit, and the impact of this deficit is felt more adversely by farmers. When there is demand, due to lack of available power, electricity boards resort to load shedding. Guess, who gets to bear the brunt of this load shedding? It is the small towns and villages. My grandma's village used to get 8 hours of load shedding every day, meanwhile the nearby town of Thane and outskirts had a couple of hours at maximum. So for you to say, an increase in power generation will result in no gain for the "poor" is simply not true. They in fact, stand to gain the most in terms of available power.

It is this very economic concern that is not really being addressed.

Really, doesnt this apply to every single project in India? Why single out nuclear for it? Why not compare the amount of land acquired, the people displaced etc. by the real estate sector, the automotive sector, the IT/SEZ parks etc and compare it with the amount acquired for a NPP? Singling out NPP as the cause of economic disparity and bemoaning that they dont do enough to address the concern is a bit harsh no? Why wasnt this concern expressed when the likes of DLF built up their land banks?