B'cos every patriotic Indian knows that if left is opposing the deal tooth and nail, then its bound to be good for India. As simple as that.Shankar wrote:with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
India passed 1,500 MW of total installed wind power capacity in 2001 and is the third largest wind power producer in the world after Europe and the United States. 240 MW of new wind generating capacity came on-line in India 2001, which became the best year since 1995.
"With the ever increasing threat of global warming, developing countries, countries in transition and the developed countries have to address the issue of Climate Change", says Rakesh Bakshi, Chairman RRB Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Conference Chairman. "We must accord greater recognization to environmentally friendly technologies especially those like Wind Power which are already mature;, established globally and have an excellent preformance track record of more than two decades. ut 20 years in India but from 1,The Potential for Wind Energy in India is around 45,000 MW. It is expected that 10 per cent of the proposed capacity addition in India of 100,000 MW in the next 10 years i.e. 10,000 MW would come from the Wind Energy Sector. From zero to 1,500 MW has taken us abo500 MW to 10,000 MW shall take us ten years. Wind Power has come of age and the next 20 years will see greater and enhanced deployment of Wind Electric Generators as a clean and green source of Power Generation both onshore and offshore", says Mr. Bakshi.
The US, the world's second largest market after Germany, installed nearly 1,700 MW in 2001 - more than double the previous record set in 1999. Total installed capacity increased by more than 60% to 4,261 MW by the end of last year. Utility-scale wind turbines are now operating in more than half of the 50 states.
"The United States is just beginning to tap its vast wind power potential," said Jamie Chapman, President of OEM Development Corporation and Conference Chairman. "We expect that wind will provide 6% of U.S. electricity by 2020. That's a figure that could be easily exceeded with strong and consistent support on the part of our federal and state governments."
"We are proud of the international cooperation we see at work in the American market," added Mr. Chapman. "European and Japanese companies work alongside the American industry on many bids and contracts. An Indian wind turbine manufacturer recently opened a branch in the U.S. This vibrant collaboration is yet another indication that the windpower industry is truly global."
Europe also exceeded most expectations with an increase in installed capacity of more than 35%. With 4,500 MW installed during 2001, total wind power capacity in Europe now surpasses 17,000 MW.
As of April 2007 the installed capacity of wind power in India was 7,113.6 MW, mainly spread across Tamil Nadu (3457.5 MW), Maharashtra (1484.9 MW), Karnataka (849.4 MW), Rajasthan (469.9 MW), Gujarat (667.1 MW), Andhra Pradesh (121.8 MW), Madhya Pradesh (57.8 MW), Kerala (2 MW), West Bengal (1.6 MW), Others (1.6 MW) Indian states.[1]
The growth of power generating capacity in India is today driven largely by increasing energy needs. The short gestation periods for installing wind turbines, and the increasing reliability and performance of wind energy machines has made the sector a favored choice for capacity addition.[2]
The worldwide installed capacity of wind power reached 74,223 MW by the end of 2006. Germany (20,621 MW), Spain (11,615 MW), and the USA (11,603 MW) are ahead of India in fourth position.[3]
Hydropower is recognized as a renewable source of energy, which is economic, non-polluting and environmentally benign. The history of hydropower generation in India is more than 100 years old. The first hydropower station in India was a small hydro power station of 130 KW commissioned in 1897 at Sidrapong near Darjeeling in West Bengal. Subsequently, many small hydro power stations were set up. With the advancement in technologies and increasing requirement of electricity, emphasize was shifted to large sized hydro power stations. In 1963, the hydropower had attained a share of 50.62% in the total installed capacity of power generation in India. While there has been a continuous increase in the installed capacity of hydropower stations, which now stands on 22,439 MW, the share of hydropower has been reduced to 25% currently. Ministry of Power in the Government of India is responsible for the development of large hydropower projects in India. In order to maintain the balance between hydropower and thermal power, Ministry of Power has announced a Policy for accelerated development of Hydro Power in the country. Development of small hydro at an accelerated pace is one of the tasks in the Policy.
An estimated potential of about 15,000 MW of small hydropower projects exists in India. Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources has created a database of potential sites of small hydro based on information from various States and on studies conducted by Central Electricity Authority. 4,096 potential sites with an aggregate capacity of 10,071 MW for projects up to 25 MW capacity have been identified. The database is being continuously updated.
OVER 4096 POTENTIAL SHP SITES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
AGGREGATING OVER 10,071 MW.
This is not counting our Northern regions (HP, Uttaranchal, J&K), Bhutan, Nepal and Burma, which would add to the total. IMO, the total potential for all of India and surrounding nations, is nothing less than a minimum of 150,000 MW of energy.The NE Region is blessed with a huge hydro potential in the country which is estimated at about 58971MW, out of which only less than 2% (two percent) (1095MW) has so far been harnessed. As per the report status of Hydro Electric Power Potential listed by CEA as on 31.10.2006 out of the total capacity of 58971MW only 4029 MW of this enormous capacity has been tapped which amounts to less than 7% (seven percent) , the remaining 93% (ninety three percent) is yet to be exploited and harnessed.
Shankar wrote:and some current data on wind power
As of April 2007 the installed capacity of wind power in India was 7,113.6 MW, mainly spread across Tamil Nadu (3457.5 MW), Maharashtra (1484.9 MW), Karnataka (849.4 MW), Rajasthan (469.9 MW), Gujarat (667.1 MW), Andhra Pradesh (121.8 MW), Madhya Pradesh (57.8 MW), Kerala (2 MW), West Bengal (1.6 MW), Others (1.6 MW) Indian states.[1]
The growth of power generating capacity in India is today driven largely by increasing energy needs. The short gestation periods for installing wind turbines, and the increasing reliability and performance of wind energy machines has made the sector a favored choice for capacity addition.[2]
The worldwide installed capacity of wind power reached 74,223 MW by the end of 2006. Germany (20,621 MW), Spain (11,615 MW), and the USA (11,603 MW) are ahead of India in fourth position.[3]
In the mid-90`s, when the European countries had saturated their windpower markets and were looking for better avenues, India (with some vested interested bureaucrats) offered the right conditions. So, our country practically laid a red carpet to welcome them by announcing customs exemption on several components, 100% accelarated depreciation, 10-year tax holiday on power sales, attractive power purchase agreement, wheeling and banking, etc. The state governments added their own incentives in form of sales tax exemption.
The net result was, with all these incentives, at zero generation, the internal rate of return (IRR) was as high as 7.5% (for Gujarat). Zero generation is possible when
(1) the place where the turbine is installed is not right or
(2) there is no turbine at all!!
When I was looking at the generation figures for the different installations at a station called Lamba (in Rajkot), there were more than half with zero units generated for the entire year, with March showing a magical 5 units or 4 or some such odd numbers. This is because, March is the financial year ending and the companies who have invested, to get the incentives have to show some generation. Further, what is shocking is, there were atleast about 25 to 35% of lease-financing companies that were listed in the investors. These are certainly not energy intensive companies who are looking for alternative energy sources to meet their requirements. These were companies that were interested in the incentives and not in power generation. Not surprising therefore that the installations (where such installations actually are standing) are not being managed at all.
researcher from TERI (who also was involved in this study) remarked that several of the "installations" are actually not there on the field!!! Now you know how the bureaucracy was getting part of their money??? The other part comes from the international (read European) companies that were more than greasing the palms.
Following my presentation in MNES, the Ministry of Finance announced Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) and what followed later was a complete collapse of the once thriving investment avenue. In fact a few companies that came up to support wind turbine industry also had to close their shops
This is OT but..Wind Power Potential in India- Hype or Reality
Aaaand, a lot of wind has been passed on this thread by certain EBs.sunilUpa wrote:All those claims on 'Potential' are nothing but lot of WIND
Who are now running around like - to quote Mr. Ronen Sen - "headless chickens", now that both the Right and the Left as well as the Scientific Community are being coopted onto this deal. With Shri Advani and the RSS in favor of a strategic partnership with the US, the chances of the NDA overturning this deal should they come to power in the future are close to zero - they would not want to upset their strategic partners 
. And now that the Left knows that the NDA is not going to overturn this deal even if they come to power, for the Left to bring this government down will be a pyrrhic victory. The deal will be signed and the Left cannot perform their Chinese master's bidding of driving a wedge in the growing India US relationship.India passed 1,500 MW of total installed wind power capacity in 2001 and is the third largest wind power producer in the world
U-Turn!
Quick March!
THALIDOMIDE TEST BAN TREATY (TTBT)
Who will deliver us from this evil?
Is there anyone left to ask questions?
It was not supposed to be like this
Thats exactly right. If the commies want something.. It is every Patriotic Indian's patriotic duty to take the opposite position.milindc wrote:B'cos every patriotic Indian knows that if left is opposing the deal tooth and nail, then its bound to be good for India. As simple as that.Shankar wrote:with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
Arundhati Roy, would be proud of thee.. Another High !enqyoob wrote:In Praise of the Immediate Need to Test Nuclear Weapons Above Ground
Excuse # 3992:
THALIDOMIDE TEST BAN TREATY (TTBT)
Bala,bala wrote:This is OT but..Wind Power Potential in India- Hype or Reality
.
General Disclaimer applies..NEW DELHI: The Left parties' informal veto on India's "strategic embrace" with the US notwithstanding, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee may travel to Washington towards the end of September for a round of political talks with the US leadership.
He is expected to lead the Indian delegation to participate in US president George Bush's climate change initiative, which has invited 11 "emerging economies" to look at effecting climate change programmes.
Mukherjee's schedule is yet to be finalised but it is understood that he may travel to Washington after representing India at the UN general assembly, as, for the second consecutive year, PM Manmohan Singh will skip the event.
But, it will be Mukherjee's talks with his counterpart Condoleezza Rice that will be important. There is also a possibility of a meeting with Bush as well, particularly since it's unlikely that Singh will make it either to the UN general assembly or take up Bush's invitation for a summit at Crawford, Texas.
Mukherjee will bring the US government up to speed on the domestic opposition to the deal. Most analysts also expect {ie. FUD starts here...}that the naysayers in Washington will have started drumming up support against the deal themselves. To avert a political crisis, the UPA government has had to take a step back on the deal, delaying IAEA talks by about a month. {ie. No progress, on the Fuel Guarantees front. }
This will necessarily delay the informal timeline on the deal that had been agreed between the two sides. Although Mukherjee indicated on Friday that talks with IAEA would continue, it is believed the government has acceded to the Left demand not to go to the IAEA at the moment. {Hence the run to Washington to ask if the Govt. has any option rather than take the face saver..}
Mukherjee is expected to reinforce the UPA commitment to the deal, though, if the government falls and is forced to go for elections, the deal will be put in the freezer. The general idea is that India wants the next stage of the deal - at the NSG - to be worked on so as to push it through at some speed before the US Congress goes into election mode by mid-2008.
While the official delegation will be led by the PM's scientific advisor R Chidambaram, Mukherjee is expected to provide the political content.
In the Bhopal gas case, Indian courts issued a warrant for the arrest of the head of Union Carbide on criminal charges. The Three Mile Island accident in the US further raised public apprehensions, and Chernobyl was the final straw. So, US companies today refuse to supply equipment, know-how or blueprints to a country unless it first enacts legislation limiting the liability of suppliers. Indeed, the UN nuclear industry wants all countries to sign a comprehensive convention channelling all liabilities of an accident to the operator of the plant, leaving the suppliers unscathed.
In the US itself the liability of the nuclear industry is capped, with the US government guaranteeing to pay damages over and above the cap. Similar laws have been enacted in Japan, Korea and even China. But for this, China would not have received so many bids for its new generation of nuclear plants.
However, India does not have any such law. At a meeting of the CII and US Chambers of Commerce in Washington in June, Mr Omer Brown, one of the top legal experts on nuclear liability who also represents the US nuclear industry, said that no American firm would supply even a blueprint, let alone equipment, until India provided nuclear liability protection.
A nuclear liability regime would ensure compensation to the public in the event of an accident, he explained. Such a regime would also channel all liabilities to the nuclear facility's operator (eliminating the need to prove fault or sue multiple parties), and would designate a single competent court to consolidate all claims and give a final, binding verdict. It would cap the liability of the industry, with the government paying damages above the cap.
So, Mr Karat, even if the US converts the 123 agreement into law, no US supplier will look at India until it passes a liability protection law. Since the Congress-led coalition lacks a majority in Parliament, it cannot pass any legislation without your support. By refusing to support legislation on liability protection, you can ensure that the 123 agreement is not operationalised.
With all due respect, it is quite the opposite of what you intend by raising this question. It only shows that the hard-nosed scientists (who, btw, did not *oppose* the deal but so much as tried to ensure it did not impinge on our strategic programmes etc.) are now *fully satisfied* that they don't need to worry. This is not as you suspect any conspiracy or stage management.Shankar,
with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
And with equal respect to India's top naysayers, this question that you pose as a cosmic level mystery is no mystery at all, in fact it is not even at the level of a child's puzzle. You would know why the scientists changed their attitude if you were following this debate all along....with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
"Very well put. Is it amazing.. the lefties and the commie sympathizers... come here crying. Its amazing their tenacity in spite of proof after proof. ...their thinking has proven to be an abject failure (The Soviet union and China vs all the capitalist countries). Their thinking being rob peter to pay paul... as long as they are not peter (Other peoples wealth distribution) Instead of wealth creation (every vegetable hawker aka capitalists in India is God's people...who believe that that they need to add value to earn their living). These commies and their passive supporters are singularly responsible for the 500 million Indians living in poverty. They alone bare the moral responsibility. They had total control the first 50 years and they FAILED miserably. There should be no quarters for these creatures. Even giving them the face saving actions are an anathema for me. They do not deserve such consideration any more than the NAZIs for their holocaust! They both ended up the same.. Infact the commies did lot more harm!Mohan Raju wrote:And with equal respect to India's top naysayers, this question that you pose as a cosmic level mystery is no mystery at all, in fact it is not even at the level of a child's puzzle. You would know why the scientists changed their attitude if you were following this debate all along....with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
In fact, your question embodies the following philsophy: "We were relying on the scientists to be permanently reliable Amerca-bashing Energizer Bunnies. They changed their positions. Why? Why?!!
- The initial opposition was because their concerns had been ignored by the MMS negotiating team's rash and reckless style. Those concerns were: explicit references to "no more weapons testing"; protection of the FBR program; India's rights to reprocess spent reactor fuel; the balance of rights/responsibilities as in 'safeguards in perpetuity' and 'fuel supply in perpetuity'.
- After the scientists' concerns were addressed by the PMO -- in fact, the scientists were included in the negotiating team -- the gaps/holes in the draft 123 were blocked. The scientists' concerns were satisfied, they were aware of the deal's benefits to India, so they started being pro-deal (i.e. pro the new modified 123 deal).
I am a bit unsure about retail opening though, unless accompanied by infrastrcutural improvements particularly in agriculture setcor.
well there are a whole bus load of reasons and history for the scientists to behave like that after all they had keep the tarapur running once us stopped the fuel supply or develop their own cryogenic engine after us forced russia to stop technology transfer and redo LCA software after GE kicked out the indian engineers -it is only reasonable for them to be apprehensive -in fact we all should be apprehensive going by the way US has treated all our scientific achievements till datePosted: 01 Sep 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
...with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
And with equal respect to India's top naysayers, this question that you pose as a cosmic level mystery is no mystery at all, in fact it is not even at the level of a child's puzzle. You would know why the scientists changed their attitude if you were following this debate all along.
* The initial opposition was because their concerns had been ignored by the MMS negotiating team's rash and reckless style. Those concerns were: explicit references to "no more weapons testing"; protection of the FBR program; India's rights to reprocess spent reactor fuel; the balance of rights/responsibilities as in 'safeguards in perpetuity' and 'fuel supply in perpetuity'.
- how does the no more weapons testing concern have been answered ,can you please explain as far as the 123 is concerned the moment we take the us domestic laws kick in which includes the hyde act and atomic energy act which makes the president halt all nuclear cooperation and initiate sanctions .Nothing have happened except some change in language and rewritting in more vague terms the implicit threat of what will happen if we test
As regards FBR it was outside the ambit of 123 right from the begining along with BARC as key components of our weapons programme so atleast on that front the scientists had no concern even on day one
* After the scientists' concerns were addressed by the PMO -- in fact, the scientists were included in the negotiating team -- the gaps/holes in the draft 123 were blocked. The scientists' concerns were satisfied, they were aware of the deal's benefits to India, so they started being pro-deal (i.e. pro the new modified 123 deal).
The scientists opposed the deal itself -if you care to read the back issues of all the news papers of those days -now they are voracious supporters that is the funny and mystry part of the whole situation
In fact, your question embodies the following philsophy: "We were relying on the scientists to be permanently reliable Amerca-bashing Energizer Bunnies. They changed their positions. Why? Why?!!
ew Delhi, July 28, IRNA
India-US-Nuke-Scientists
The top nuclear scientists of India opposed the US law for implementing the nuclear deal between the two countries.
For India's top scientists, the deal was against "national interest and makes the country subservient" to Washington.
The scientists feel that Washington's dealings with India in past "did not evoke confidence".
Former Atomic Energy Commission chairman M.R. Srinivasan felt the provisions of the US law were "intrusive and made one feel that Washington was treating India as a subservient entity, not as a sovereign, responsible nuclear power", Asian Age reported here today.
A.N. Prasad, former director of Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and India's representative in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that the "US has already shifted the goalposts and does not treat India as an equal partner in the deal."
His view was strongly shared by A. Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
According to them, the US was "unilaterally imposing conditions in the law that went far beyond the agreements of July 18 last year and March 2 this year, entered into between US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh."
Srinivasan said that the "objectionable" features in the US legislation were in the statement of policy that prescribed a moratorium on India conducting nuclear tests and forcing it enter into bilateral agreements on Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty and Missile Test Control Regime.
"Clearly this is something India did not bargain," Srinavasan observed.
Dr Srinivasan, who is a member of the AEC, observed that following certain stringent conditions being "imposed" India would be denied access to reprocessing and enrichment of fuel.
Dr Gopalakrishnan said it was "naive" on the part of media and Indian foreign policy establishment to "tomtom" about the "overwhelming" support for the legislation in the US Congress.
Dr Gopalakrishnan pointed out that the members of the Congress were only "overwhelmingly protecting their own national interests." Dr Gopalakrishnan said that the bill could be "damaging to India as there was a serious concern in the country over its provisions." He felt that while India "adhered to the aspects of the deal and decided to open the nuclear facilities for international safeguards there was no guarantee that the US would meet its obligations."
For him the result could be that "India would not get fuel supplies from any part of the world and Indian strategic programme could be weakened." Launching a scathing attack on the US, he said, "America has been calling the shots and has not been treating others with respect."
2160/1771
But more than 40 years ago, a number of US state department officials were keen that India carry out a nuclear test before communists China did.
This is revealed in a September 13, 1961 memo from a US state department official, George McGhee, to then secretary of state Dean Rusk. According to the memo, many state department officials seriously wanted to help India acquire a nuclear bomb. It quoted intelligence estimates which stated that China could detonate a nuclear device as early as 1962.
"Such a demonstration of Chinese nuclear power would likely contribute to a feeling that communism is the wave of the future and communist China will become too powerful as a country," it said.
To avert such a Chinese gain, McGhee proposed that it would be desirable if a friendly Asian power beat communist China to the punch by detonating a nuclear device first. "While we would like to limit the number of nuclear powers, so long as we lack the capability to do so, we ought to prefer that the first Asian one be India and not China," said the memo.
Of course, India could not have accumulated enough fissionable material at that time to produce a nuclear explosion. Aware of that, the memo appeared to suggest that the US explore whether American technical assistance could help induce India to conduct a nuclear explosion ahead of China.
But the plan was not accepted because of practical reasons, including former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's reluctance to acquire nuclear weapons.
"I am against nuclear tests at any time in any place," India's first prime minister has been quoted as saying.China eventually did conduct its test well ahead of India - in 1964, the year Nehru died.
Until almost the very end, the US state department continued to hope that Nehru could be somehow persuaded about the importance of carrying out a test.
According to the memo, Nehru could be told that if India carried out a nuclear test, it would forestall China using nuclear blackmail against India. Also, it would reduce China's ability to bully the neighbours of India.
But the plan was eventually dropped. Some years later, the initial phase of nuclear cooperation between India and the US began in Tarapur with the commissioning of the 160-MW boiling water reactors designated as Tarapur 1 and 2 in October 1969.
However, the US withdrew cooperation to this project after Buddha smiled - that is India detonated its first nuclear bomb at Pokhran on May 18, 1974.
What more does MMS (the negotiator and not politician) need to prove that he could have bargained for more?Despite economic reforms being delayed and held hostage again to coalition politics strong economic performance over the last four years has not been derailed.
Is it a mere co-incidance that our commies and China are softening their stands ? or Does uncle ,GOI and commies has a hand on this pre planned moves ??Raju wrote:China hints it's ready for nuclear talks with India
Saibal Dasgupta | TNN
Beijing: Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi on Friday hinted that Beijing was prepared to explore possibilities of cooperation with India on peaceful use of nuclear energy. The indication came during a meeting on Sino-Indian relations between Yang and a 11-member Eminent Persons Group from India in Beijing on Friday.
The Indian delegation was also a little surprised by the fact that Yang did not mention the controversial issue about India not signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Chinese government had earlier made much about this issue while objecting to New Delhi's nuclear deal with the United States. The Chinese media continues to harp on this issue on a regular basis.
"I think it is significant that he did not mention the NPT issue at all. He said China is eagerly looking forward to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Beijing." said C V Ranganathan, head of the Indian side of the EPG and a former ambassador to China. Singh is expected to visit Beijing in November although there are uncertainties over the fate of the government.
Yang said China was keen on developing cooperation with countries on the peaceful use of nuclear energy under the safeguards of IAEA. The mention of IAEA without referring to the NPT was significant, Ranganathan felt.
"I got the impression that China is positive about India and understands our independent foreign policy. THere is no commitment from the Chinese side that they will back our N-deal with the US in international forums. But they are keen to avoid misunderstandings with India and sort out the issues," Ranganathan said.
Excellent point!kshirin wrote: The Commies have been persitently doing China's work in slowing down reform and growth. I am a bit unsure about retail opening though, unless accompanied by infrastrcutural improvements particularly in agriculture setcor.
The link is screwed up. Here it is:Prabu wrote:Sonia nukes critics, praises PM for N-deal
