Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 18 Jul 2008 00:46

How about then showing the middle finger to the inspectors...
"If we dont get the fuel we signed up for, then you are welcome to visit the Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar when you come to India, just don't be found anywhere near our reactors."

its not that easy, once you sign International treaty. See how much Iran has to suffer for breaking the treaty. See the fate of Saddam.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 18 Jul 2008 01:23

My comments on the following news item: UPA should consider besides JMM, TRS (Telangana) too with an assurance as Communis who opposed Telangana are no more with UPA.

UPA inches ahead, but it's too close to call
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UPA_ ... 247091.cms
NEW DELHI: Congress and BJP were engaged in fierce hand-to-hand combat for ramping up numbers for the trust vote as a meeting of NDA chief ministers decided on Thursday to rev up efforts to dislodge the government and Congress hit back by targetting rebel BJP MPs and sought to scupper saffron efforts to tie up a deal with JMM chief Shibu Soren.

NDA chief ministers, who met at BJP leader L K Advani's residence, were in a combative mood with Bihar CM Nitish Kumar setting the tone by calling for an "early exit" of the government which had lost "saakh aur dhaak (credibility and respect)" and was ripe for assault, marking an escalation of the poaching game.

If the NDA CMs, especially Kumar, Gujarat's Narendra Modi and Karnataka's S Yediyurappa, are working on how to lure away MPs from the pro-deal column, Congress worked through the day to neutralise BJP's pitch for Soren and his cohorts by upping their offer to the JMM leader.

The tribal leader is now being sought to be assuaged with promises of one Cabinet berth and at least one minister of state slot at the Centre.

The sudden outbreak of generosity is rooted in hard realism. The canny JMM leader, known as 'Guruji', is a critical element in the July 22 trust vote and has been aggressively pursued by BJP through an influential intermediary and with the carrot of chief minister's post in Jharkhand. These overtures have been made in spite of BJP having a strong chance of taking power in the state.

The six who may decide UPA's fate

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Jul 2008 01:30

Amber G. wrote:Hi Arun_S.. Any comments on my query (Sorry if I missed your response).
Basically:
1. How did you get 4 significant figures (while simply multiplying numbers of less precession) .. As it was mention before, and I am sure you will agree, that in scientific world that kind of calculation is laughable.

2. What is the relevance for 100 years for fuel supply (I can understand, if that number is taken for, say, civil engineering for construction of a reactor etc)? No one, IMO, would make a model where, one is using current technology reactors with current type of fuel being used in 100 years from now. (Other fuel plants (even Narayanan's Gobar Gas plant no one IMO would consider a 100 years fuel supply in their equation?

Thanks in advance.

(I ask because, if I remember correctly, you were still "standing by" those numbers. - correct me if I am wrong or if you have put some revised figures..)

Here are the figures for your quick reference: (4 significant figures are in bold)
And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost[

IMV the query on its own was not worth my time in answering, but since you asked again let me state the following:

1.) I am only a lay observer and for lay discussion on cost perhaps 2 digit precision will be enough to convey the point.
2.) Pls refer to the detailed calculation I posted earlier in previous thread.
3.) The basic starting parameter numbers are 4 digit precision or better in my spreadsheet, but because not all BRFites don't have meticulous scientists temper that you subscribe to, and for easy reading of common reader I had not provided 4 precision numbers for initial source parameters. I transcribed important parameters & results from the spreadsheet for that post, choosing to state at higher precision parameters that are important, or lower precision for ease of reading .
4.) There was also a naughty factor to tease and encourage scientific precision minded people to do their own research to get to full 4 digit precision and prove the assertion of lay posters like me wrong on the 4th digit error. In fact I would love to be proven wrong on a single digit error on the 4 digit precision. I encourage and cajole all BRFites to do little more reading and research on the subject, that knowledge IMHO will support right decision for Bharat.

I wish my scientific precision driven friends good luck on 4 digit precision data hunting research, to prove wrong the 1.513 million tonnes figure.

That is my first & final response for what it may be worth on 4 digit precision question; this is unfortunately low in my priority for further discussion.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 18 Jul 2008 01:54

joshvajohn wrote:My comments on the following news item: UPA should consider besides JMM, TRS (Telangana) too with an assurance as Communis who opposed Telangana are no more with UPA.

UPA inches ahead, but it's too close to call
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UPA_ ... 247091.cms
The sudden outbreak of generosity is rooted in hard realism. The canny JMM leader, known as 'Guruji', is a critical element in the July 22 trust vote and has been aggressively pursued by BJP through an influential intermediary and with the carrot of chief minister's post in Jharkhand. These overtures have been made in spite of BJP having a strong chance of taking power in the state.

This, if true, is silly of BJP. This UPA Govt's term is now less than a year before elections are due in the normal course. If, to topple this Govt. 10 months ahead of its time, they make a deal to give CM-ship of Jharkhand to Shibu Soren, then I think they are making a very bad deal.

Far better to let this UPA Govt serve its full-term, after it has been bruised by its fight with its erstwhile ally, the Left Front, and then take your case to the people in the elections and try to come to power both at the Center and in Jharkhand.

Looks like the silly season in Indian politics is on in full swing. The 'no-confidence vote' in the parliament now has no relation to the nuke deal. It is purely a fight of egos, personal agendas, and moneybags now.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 18 Jul 2008 01:55

Why should a third party come and ask for apology

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2008 02:32

This IMO is pure magic and walking on water

A shocking statement no doubt, and I have no intention of throwing cold water on what is a fine blaze, but...

It is a little-known fact that days after I joined the eye-eye-tee in the Age of Dinosaurs, my kind and gentle Seniors a.k.a. Saraswati Hostel Taliban, abducted me and demanded that I prove to them that I could walk on water. This was after they demanded that I prove to them that I could
a) climb a tree and catch a crow (a story for another day, that), and
b) light a beedi in a cross-wind of Magnitude 1.3 on the Beaufort scale, given only 3 matchsticks and a matchbox and helped by dire threats.

They gave me one bottle of water and helpfully suggested that the concrete floor of the roller-skating rink would support the weight of the bottle if I placed my feet carefully.

I assure you, I passed the test, and so surely, so must Dr. Kakodkar and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi have done.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Jul 2008 02:43

Kakkaji wrote: This, if true, is silly of BJP. This UPA Govt's term is now less than a year before elections are due in the normal course. If, to topple this Govt. 10 months ahead of its time, they make a deal to give CM-ship of Jharkhand to Shibu Soren, then I think they are making a very bad deal.

Far better to let this UPA Govt serve its full-term, after it has been bruised by its fight with its erstwhile ally, the Left Front, and then take your case to the people in the elections and try to come to power both at the Center and in Jharkhand.

Kakkaji-garu,

Or perhaps it is NDA's chance to demonstrate indian-public that INC is incapable of providing a stable govt. remember, that was one of the key slogans that INC uses? Agreed, it has lessar value in these days of coalation govts.. but it will definitely add value to NDA's claim to offer a stable govt.

Combined with inflation and potential china/pak issues at hand, it may be a good idea for BJP to come in power early so they will have a better chance of reducing the impact or solving these problems in the next five years... assuming this is what BJP is after

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 18 Jul 2008 03:39

We don’t mind voting with BJP on nuke deal: CPM

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... PM/336858/

My comments: WOW!

What a great politiking in Maha Bharat!!! It is like saying We don't mind supporting BJP to form the next Government. Great conversions! among CPM. There are good possibilities in the next election BJP-CPM combined rule in India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 03:53

Raju, Looks like 2012 is moved ahead by 4 years.

JJ, there is more to come in this re-engineered world. Wiat till you hear them all,.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 18 Jul 2008 04:16

joshvajohn wrote:My comments: WOW! What a great politiking in Maha Bharat!!!

Our Commie comrades have sought consultations to figure out the bigger threat to their idealogy: "Communalism" or "Imperialism". Let us see what Chairman Mao speaking from Renminbi tells them....

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jul 2008 04:29

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 18 Jul 2008 05:27

Sorry, for quoting the whole quote here, but I think, it is important for record and continuity.

Arun_S wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Hi Arun_S.. Any comments on my query (Sorry if I missed your response).
Basically:
1. How did you get 4 significant figures (while simply multiplying numbers of less precession) .. As it was mention before, and I am sure you will agree, that in scientific world that kind of calculation is laughable.

2. What is the relevance for 100 years for fuel supply (I can understand, if that number is taken for, say, civil engineering for construction of a reactor etc)? No one, IMO, would make a model where, one is using current technology reactors with current type of fuel being used in 100 years from now. (Other fuel plants (even Narayanan's Gobar Gas plant no one IMO would consider a 100 years fuel supply in their equation?

Thanks in advance.

(I ask because, if I remember correctly, you were still "standing by" those numbers. - correct me if I am wrong or if you have put some revised figures..)

Here are the figures for your quick reference: (4 significant figures are in bold)
IMV the query on its own was not worth my time in answering, but since you asked again let me state the following:

1.) I am only a lay observer and for lay discussion on cost perhaps 2 digit precision will be enough to convey the point.
2.) Pls refer to the detailed calculation I posted earlier in previous thread.
3.) The basic starting parameter numbers are 4 digit precision or better in my spreadsheet, but because not all BRFites don't have meticulous scientists temper that you subscribe to, and for easy reading of common reader I had not provided 4 precision numbers for initial source parameters. I transcribed important parameters & results from the spreadsheet for that post, choosing to state at higher precision parameters that are important, or lower precision for ease of reading .
4.) There was also a naughty factor to tease and encourage scientific precision minded people to do their own research to get to full 4 digit precision and prove the assertion of lay posters like me wrong on the 4th digit error. In fact I would love to be proven wrong on a single digit error on the 4 digit precision. I encourage and cajole all BRFites to do little more reading and research on the subject, that knowledge IMHO will support right decision for Bharat.

I wish my scientific precision driven friends good luck on 4 digit precision data hunting research, to prove wrong the 1.513 million tonnes figure.

That is my first & final response for what it may be worth on 4 digit precision question; this is unfortunately low in my priority for further discussion.

Arun_S – Thanks for taking time to answer my query which “on its own was not worth [your] time”. I appreciate it. As you say it is low in your “ priority for further discussion” , (and I sure can understand we all having many priorities), so I appreciate it more, and would be brief.

You ignored my second question, completely and missed the crux of the first query.
As you said, “you are a lay person”, so let me put my Physics Professor’s hat for lay people (I have taught non-physics majors too) and see if that helps. I will be as clear as possible.

First Query 2 - “why 100 years”. , Physics is mathematics with purpose, not mathematics without thought. If a given problem, say, is about mass of a rooster’s eggs , one does not go blindly calculating “4/3 Pi rcubeed times rho” but realizes that rooster does not lay an egg. I wasn’t questioning “computation” of the figures you got, but rather, what “thought” led you to consider “100 years” when you were considering the fuel supply.

(BTW, for those, who are going to tell me that an egg is not a sphere, but rather an ellipsoid will be missing the point too.

)

For query 1 “Inconsistency in significant digits” – Believe me, I am not nit-picking. A first-year physics (or Engineering student for that matter) will get pretty close to zero if (s)he does not understand the difference in 68 and, say 68.00, Nothing to do with “don't have meticulous scientists temper” .. its simple and accepted way to present data and computation. The figure you got, is, to put how professors often tell their students: “ it, is worse than “wrong”, it is absurd.

One can say a typical donut weighs 2 oz sensibly but calling it “typical donut weighs 56.6990463 gm “ would show scientific ignorance. That’s why one sees, say mass of electron specified in multiple digits, while length of a “typical” gold fish is not. Putting it simply, getting a figure like “226.5 “ is absurd (much worse than wrong) when one of the figure you use there is 68 (and not 68.00) ( edited and add "not" before 68.00)

BTW, for most, “Once in a blue moon” is not the same thing as 1.16699016 × 10-8 hertz (even though if you type “once in a blue moon” in google you do get 1.16699016 × 10-8 hertz  )

Hope this helps.

PS - I really don’t know what to make when on one hand you state “..In fact I would love to be proven wrong on a single digit error on the 4 digit precision. I encourage and cajole all BRFites to…” and on the other hand, IMO make it clear that you seem to be annoyed at my questions, and apparently caused what was described by Narayanan as “bullying others by putting one’s admin-hat” etc . when Ldev did precisely the same.

Regards. And thanks again.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Jul 2008 05:38

Narayanan, it was not maharishi Mahesh yogi who talked about walking on water but It was Hata Yogi LS Rao who said so and proved Archamedis principles.

Mahesh Yogi Transcended such Road less travelled travails.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2008 05:56

My deepest apologies to the Maharishi's memory. My own memory has no significant digits.

(new BRF culture: APOLOGIZE.) I'll just get a head start.

Have u done ur required daily dosage of apologizing today?

I remember the front-page photo of the appropriate Yogi standing neck deep in water at the (premature) end of his demonstration.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Jul 2008 06:42

Whats mamory got to do with it?

"Good people seldom seek apologies only bad take advantage of it"

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 18 Jul 2008 08:34

I wasn’t questioning “computation” of the figures you got, but rather, what “thought” led you to consider “100 years” when you were considering the fuel supply.

To be fair to Arun_S, he did indeed give his reasons for choosing 100 years in an earlier thread.
To be fair to you, it is your choice to equate it with a rooster's egg. All Ok?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 18 Jul 2008 08:46

To be fair to Arun_S, he did indeed give his reasons for choosing 100 years in an earlier thread.
To be fair to you, it is your choice to equate it with a rooster's egg. All Ok?

Thanks for the question.

Yes, that is precisely the point. His reason was something like "life of a reactor" . One can take 100 years, for life of a reactor, for say civil engineering purpose. But it just does not make any sense to consider the price of 100 years fuel as starting point.
... and that's what I asked explicitly .. what was his rational behind choosing 100 year number, and he chose not to answer that part.

As mentioned before, no one really expects, that one would be feeding U in the present form and reactor technologies would not significantly change.

Besides, 1.5 Million tons is at present about 15 years total supply of U- Can one really think and be asked to be credible, to use something in a model which will hog the 15 years worth of world's supply.

That's why roosters analogy was apt.. that model will not "lay any egg" so to speak.

Besides, no disrespect was intended for rooster/egg analogy... Just a reminder before one starts doing all those calculation, make a quick check, if things are valid/reasonable.

thanks

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2008 11:03

Nuclear Deal is dead for the moment. UPA just doesn't have the numbers.

UPA
INC:152; SP:35; RLD:24; DMK:15; NCP:11; PMK:5; LJSP:4; MDMK(Rebels):2; IUML:1; PDP:1; SDF:1; RPI:1; BNP:1; NLP:1; IND(SK Bwiswmuthiary):1;
= 255
RLD is going with BSP => abstain
JMM is going with BJP => abstain
NC is going to abstain
TC is going to abstain
JD(S) is going to abstain
TRS(Narendra) is going to abstain
Maran(DMK) is going to abstain

AIMIM is unclear
MNF is unclear
2 Independents is unclear

Opposition
NDA:169; Left Front(incl. JD(S):1; KC:1; IND:1):62; UNPA(incl. IND:1):8; BSP:17; SP(Rebels):4; INC(Rebels):1; MDMK:2; NPF:1; IND(Nagpal):1; TRS:2;
= 267 Assured

The Government will fall 256 to 267 with 18 Absentations.

Unless the Government can force around 15-20 MPs from the Opposition to abstain, which is a tough task.

The next election is going to be fought on price rise and nuclear deal.

Too bad it had to come to this.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2008 11:19

RajeshA wrote: The next election is going to be fought on price rise and nuclear deal.

Yes and the NDA is going to win the next election and after a few years it will go for its own "version" of the Nuclear deal with the US - which will off course take care of our strategic option and assure us 100 years of fuel supply.

It would be interesting to see which way the Left Front goes then? Imean once you vote with BJP on the same issue, how do vote against it later (deal, present form bad, so vote out government)? Karat will have do a lot of contortions on this one I must say!

And off course it would be very, very interesting to follow the debate on BRF on the future "deal". Maybe the present threads should be archived for reference purposes!

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 18 Jul 2008 11:32

RajeshA wrote:Nuclear Deal is dead for the moment. UPA just doesn't have the numbers.

Not according to the bookies.

Satta rates: UPA win: 40p, defeat: Rs 2

18 Jul 2008, 0145 hrs IST, S Balakrishnan,TNN

MUMBAI: With the countdown to July 22 having begun, Mumbai and other cities are witnessing hectic betting activity. According to sources, the odds are 40 paise for the UPA managing to retain power. This means that for every wager of Re 1, the bettor will get Rs 1.40 if the government wins the trust vote. The odds on the government falling are Rs 2.

With matka operators forced to down shutters and no worthwhile cricket matches to lay bets on, the political drama in New Delhi is generating tremendous betting activity. "The situation has become more interesting with corporate bigwigs entering the scene," a senior inspector of police said.

Big-time bookies like Sunil Dubai, Sobhan Kalachowkie, Jayanti Malad, Subhash Indore, Laxmi Thana and DJ Andheri are busy accepting bets not only from within India, but also from West Asia and other regions. According to estimates, bets worth Rs 250 crore have already been placed.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2008 11:47

Philip wrote:The great curative properties of nuclear power is being touted as a panacea for all our power ailments (like snake-oil),by the good doctor,who did very little during his term as Finance Minsiter in this regard! Has George Bush secretly promised him the support for the Nobel Peace Prize,for service to non-proliferation,by effectively destroying India's nuclear deterrent? All the claims by experts on both sides of the debate say that only 7% at the maximum,can nuclear power produce for India's total requirement,that too at a phenomenal price.Where is the extra power going to therefore come from?No one has answered this question satisfactorily.While all the major nations are racing to produce power through a variety of means,including offshore wind farms and are heavily investing billions into solar enengy research,how many are actually building new nuclear plants? Therefore,this great magic bullet of nuclear power is in fact a load of bull.It is really meant to make money for foreign nuclear companies and more importantly,castrate India's strategic deterrent through the Hyde act.Once we sign,we will allow the invasion of hostile nuclear agents right into all our nuclear plants,where they can steal our indigenous technology,monitor covertly our weaponisation and progress in N-weapons technology,whilst simultaneosuly threatening us with dire retrtibution if we contemplate future nuclear testing or ICBM development.Snake-oil Singh and Sonia are selling us down the Ganges in style and manner that even Clive and John Company would doff their hats to in awe.The Empire has struck back thanks to our desi version of Benedict Arnold and the host of emulators of Jai Chand.

PS:I disagree with the peaceniks who wish us to strip before the rest of the nuclear weapon world does.If we are all going to the nuclear nudist camp,we must start removing our clothes one-by-one simultaneously!

Philip ji,

Nice to see the candor in your post. So are you against Nuclear power totally?

That's fair enough.

But it would help if you could give concerete instances of nations foresaking nuclear power and going for alternative sources like solar, wind, tidal and god knows what. (I know some Pakistani "professors" have done papers on how to tap Djinn power - surely you are not considering that as well?)

My understanding is that most nations are looking at all available sources of energy and are relooking at the nuclear option because with the rising oil and coal prices (and environmental issues), it is now making economic sense to put in the extra money that is required to set up nuclear power plants. That's one of the many reasons why uranium prices are shooting through the roof. IMO.

And I'm a bit confused, do we make bombs in our civilian nuclear power plants? Or do we plan to make future bombs in power plants that we may import from abroad, if the deal is passed? I must have missed this point. I ask this question to understand how evil IAEA inspectors can steal our indigenous "technology" and our bomb making expertise from civilian nuclear power plants - the only place they will be allowed entry if the deal goes through.

And two questions.

How is "Snake-oil" Singh different from "Constable" Singh? (Unless offcourse the idea is to give a more evil connotation rather than the bumbling, foolish image which Constable conjures).

Also how is "Has George Bush secretly promised him the support for the Nobel Peace Prize..." different from "MMS has a World Bank job waiting for him once he's finished as PM of India"?

You know something Philip ji, I'm sure you are older and much more accomplished than me. However, there's one thing that I picked up at an early age and it has stood me in good stead. And that is when someone resorts to hyperbole and abuse instead of cold reasoning and logic then that's a sure sign of a lack of coherent and solid arguments as well as facts.

Cheers!

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 18 Jul 2008 12:12

amit wrote:
Philip wrote:Also how is "Has George Bush secretly promised him the support for the Nobel Peace Prize..." different from "MMS has a World Bank job waiting for him once he's finished as PM of India"?

You know something Philip ji, I'm sure you are older and much more accomplished than me. However, there's one thing that I picked up at an early age and it has stood me in good stead. And that is when someone resorts to hyperbole and abuse instead of cold reasoning and logic then that's a sure sign of a lack of coherent and solid arguments as well as facts.

Cheers!

I always find it a tad strange that how a lot of folks sitting abroad (where presumably they would be far more susceptible to threats or inducements to propagate a certain point of view) natter on about bribes to be paid to a 75 year old bloke who really has nothing left to prove. SG is sitting on one of the biggest gravy bucket in the World from which MMS can probably dip at will, but no he actually wants a WB job

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2008 12:23

arnab wrote:
amit wrote: I always find it a tad strange that how a lot of folks sitting abroad (where presumably they would be far more susceptible to threats or inducements to propagate a certain point of view) natter on about bribes to be paid to a 75 year old bloke who really has nothing left to prove.

Not to mention questioning the integrity of scientists and Indian government employees who have given a lifetime's service to the country.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Jul 2008 12:24

I got a tubelight moment

The IAEA itself is not involved in the concept of "perpetuity". It is involved only in "continuity". No wonder that word does not come in the draft.

It is the business of the entieties that sell stuff to India to worry about the use/misuse of the stuff. IAEAs job is to monitor and certify that. So, perpetuity, is any is the worry of the supplier. IAEA will only certify that certain facility had been under continuous monitoring for a given period of time. That is all there is.

Now, we got to make agreements with the individual suppliers before we buy stuff. The 123 is the one with USA. There will be an ABC with australia. Each will specify a scope of the IAEA safeguard regime. So, USA can demand perpetual application of the safeguards, while russia may not.

Or, the NSG as a group may make blanket agreement bound by all the members. That agreement may have perpetual or not.

What you can do with the continued safeguards will depend upon the wording of those latter agreements, not on the IAEA agreements itself.

So, if no one sells us stuff, there is no need to impement the agreement with IAEA.

If the 123 agreement with USA says we will place ALL the facilities under perpetual safeguards, and the agreement is in good standing, we are stuck with it. But if we have escape clauses, we might be able to use them.

I think what is going to happen is, there WILL be perpetual safeguards, as long as a facility uses imported maal. I don't think there will be a clause saying that once you use an imported fuel rod in a reactor, that will be under safeguards forever.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Jul 2008 12:39

After all these years of watching the discussion here, and things going to a head, let me make a list here.

Things that make me LOL:

1. Military Reactors can't be connected to the power grid.
2. We won't be able to make weapons from the civil reactors./Our weapons program will be stopped.
3. USA will steal our technology.
4. The PM and the people behind the deal are stupid/bribed.
5. Alternate energy sources are good enough. No nuclear power!!
6. Hoard 100 years worth of fuel.

Things that make me take a deep look at it:

1. Our nuclear deterrent is not credible/will not be credible.
2. We may be able to get a better deal.
3. We may be too late already to work on the energy security thingie.
4. We may end up being blackmailed when we want to work on the nuclear deterrent.

Things that make me concerned:

1. We will be prevented from testing weapons
2. US may hog the scene with restrictive agreements.

That is all there is. the rest is politics, vested interests, egos, and pure unadultrated BULLSHIT!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Jul 2008 12:56

Dileep wrote:
1. Our nuclear deterrent is not credible/will not be credible.
2. We may be able to get a better deal.
1. We will be prevented from testing weapons

Only these three matter

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Jul 2008 13:18

Well, if you say so boss!

Its all in the priorities, really.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2008 13:21

Dileep wrote:After all these years of watching the discussion here, and things going to a head, let me make a list here.
>
>
>
That is all there is. the rest is politics, vested interests, egos, and pure unadultrated BULLSHIT!

Dileep boss,

Very good summation. Just one small question.

Point No2 in the things that make you LOL is:

We won't be able to make weapons from the civil reactors./Our weapons program will be stopped.

While Point No1 in the things that make you concerned is:

We will be prevented from testing weapons

I'm sure there's a fine differenciation in these two categories. Can you please clarify a bit on what the differences are?

PS: The points that make you

also makes me go

. Unfortunately these same points also make many other people go:

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Jul 2008 14:53

I LOL on "2. We won't be able to make weapons from the civil reactors./Our weapons program will be stopped." because that is ridiculous. We have enough capability in the mil sector to build our weapons. We have no need to tap the civil reactors. And I believe that except the rabid NPA, no one sees in any advantage of capping the program.

I am concerned on the "We will be prevented from testing weapons" because it is a matter of H&D. Testing has so many other uses than actually proving a technical design.

The difference is, former is about the capability and capacity to build things, and the latter is about showing them off.

Now, to cut it finer, let me list some of the points I am convinced on.

1. the deterrence equation of the world has changed. The concept of MAD, massive retaliation etc are as old as the Napoleonic tactics for infantry. The world is so intertwined now, that hitting anyone would hurt everyone. I LOL on the concept like "china can afford to loose a city". No one, even Musharraf, Dear Leader, or Robert Mugabe can afford that.

2. No one, except the rabid NPAs are "worried" about our weapons program. Yes, they wish we didn't have one, but no one really thinks that it could be stopped.

3. A lot of the talk are fig leaves for H&D. When things become serious, money talks.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2008 15:09

Dileep wrote:I LOL on "2. We won't be able to make weapons from the civil reactors./Our weapons program will be stopped." because that is ridiculous. We have enough capability in the mil sector to build our weapons. We have no need to tap the civil reactors. And I believe that except the rabid NPA, no one sees in any advantage of capping the program.

I am concerned on the "We will be prevented from testing weapons" because it is a matter of H&D. Testing has so many other uses than actually proving a technical design.

The difference is, former is about the capability and capacity to build things, and the latter is about showing them off.

Now, to cut it finer, let me list some of the points I am convinced on.

1. the deterrence equation of the world has changed. The concept of MAD, massive retaliation etc are as old as the Napoleonic tactics for infantry. The world is so intertwined now, that hitting anyone would hurt everyone. I LOL on the concept like "china can afford to loose a city". No one, even Musharraf, Dear Leader, or Robert Mugabe can afford that.

2. No one, except the rabid NPAs are "worried" about our weapons program. Yes, they wish we didn't have one, but no one really thinks that it could be stopped.

3. A lot of the talk are fig leaves for H&D. When things become serious, money talks.

Thanks for the reply Dileep. I fully understand where you are coming from.

My only issue to the whole debate is that if India does decide to test at a future date it will not be due to some H&D issue.

It will be due to some compelling reason.

Maybe China and the US will resume testing and so we will use that opportunity to resume testing. Or it could be due to a massive deterioration in the geopolitical situation caused by some - God forbid - dirty nuclear attack. It could be because - again God forbid - the Taleban gaining control of Pak's nuclear bombs.

Whatever the cause I don't think the "economic" cost of testing - at the precise point of time such a decision is taken - will be uppermost in the minds of India's leadership whatever three name acronym it may represent.

And so all this talk about the nuclear deal chaining us to a no-test regime is just hot air in my IMVHO.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2008 15:44

I was absent during much of the time of the 'bjp affair' and was therefore unable to explain/defend my stand or actions on time.
Unfortunately some members saw fit to view my actions as admin high handedness and went on to declare a jihad on me citing arrogance, bias, temper and god knows what !

I have even been accused of goondagardi, abuse of mod privileges and something(s) else which is/are unmentionable, to say nothing of immaturity !!

Well, what can I say ,

!!

Arun had asked ldev a question but ldev's answer didn't specifically address that particular question.
All I did was to rephrase the point of contention (politely I think !) so that ldev could understand clearly what was being asked and answer accordingly.

In fact, this phrase from ldev :

...I did not refer to Arun_S and the BJP interchangeably....

was all I was looking for. (and expected, I might add. I didn't think that ldev had intentionally
worded the sentences to malign Arun )

On charges of strong opinion and similar things, I may add that I had absolutely no formed opinion on the matter, absolutely none at all.

Members who thought/still think otherwise are being requested to reread my posts and check if those correspond with the points above.

Now, the most important part of my observations :
regarding the expletives thrown at me, which were ostenibly deduced from my posts, the sheer absurdity was magnificent and even incredible !!
I can only congratulate the member(s) concerned on their astounding creativity and humbly request them (as a lowly literature lover) to direct their attention to penning nonsense rhymes instead of hanging out in "new killer pubs". We haven't had this good talent since lewis caroll !!

regards,
Rahul. (Extremely sorry for this OT post !)

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 18 Jul 2008 16:17

Adding Up!
For a nation to win over those whose interest
JMM to support UPA Govt in confidence vote: Report
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... rt/337360/

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Jul 2008 16:44

EDITED

shetty · Post by **shetty** » 18 Jul 2008 17:10

An unorthodox look at the nuclear deal

Probably one of the best article I have read so far. Posting in full to make it easier to read.

An unorthodox look at the nuclear deal
18 Jul 2008, 1551 hrs IST, Bhasker Roy

From the very beginning, the Indo-US nuclear deal has been embroiled in controversies, charges and counter-charges, debates over the issues of national security and provocations directly or indirectly from interested power centers abroad.

The India-US joint statement on the deal and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement to Parliament in 2005 was certainly not clear enough for the people to comprehend clearly how much was being given away and what was being received in return. Questions were raised not only among the retired community of nuclear scientists in India, but also among those serving.

Trying to get around the opacity surrounding the deal from July 2005, many questions arose.

While the government in India kept things under a wrap, the Americans began leaking elements of the agreement to their hardline non-proliferation lobby which was determined to ensure by some means that India was forced to roll back its nuclear weapons and missile programmes.

Although India enjoys an internationally impeccable record on proliferation, leaks to the US media from the Bush administration insinuated that Indian scientists have been helping Iran in its weapons programme. There were one or two Indian nuclear scientists who had earlier been with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who, after retirement, had taken up consultancy assignments with Iran's nuclear establishment. There was nothing secret about their activities. They were experts on “safety” of nuclear plants, not enrichment facilities. The nuclear industry is a very wide spectrum of specialised sectors and one does not overlap with the other.

The efforts of the non-proliferation lobby failed. This lobby, which played a major role in the Democratic administration of President Clinton condemning the 1998 nuclear tests, had their supporters in the Republican Bush administration, too. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) headed by Dr. David Albright, a former UN Inspector in Iraq, played no small role in trying to depict India as a proliferator and accusing it of illegally acquiring nuclear weapons technology from abroad.

The position adopted by the US non-proliferation lobby under the Clinton administration following the Pokhran-II nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998 need to be seen against their position on Pakistan-China and Pakistan-North Korea nuclear and missile technology proliferations.

For years, the American administration at the highest level refused to make a determination of the China-Pakistan proliferation channel, including Chinese supply of M-11 nuclear capable missiles in 1990-92. The US intelligence, the CIA, had the smoking gun evidence on the M-11 missiles transferred to Pakistan and kept at the Sargoda airbase, but President George Bush Sr. ignored the evidence.

Skipping to a more recent frame, there was very little criticism and protests from the Washington anti-proliferation group led by people like Einhorn, when Libya decided to come clean on its nuclear programme and handed over all connected documents and items to the USA. This was the unraveling of the infamous nuclear proliferation network headed by Pakistani scientist A Q Khan. Khan had been very close to Chinese and North Korean nuclear and missile establishments. The surrendered Libyan documents included manuals in Chinese script. The blame was put squarely on one individual, Dr.Khan. And Dr. Khan, a hero of Pakistan, remains without any international access to question him.

No questions really asked by the US lobby
Following India's May, 1998 nuclear tests the Clinton administration and China joined hands to try and force India to roll back its nuclear programme. During his visit to China that year President Clinton handed over the ombudsmanship of South Asia to China. This was published by China's official news agency, Xinhua. But the American media accompanying Clinton knew nothing about it.

Following the Indian nuclear tests, Pakistan followed with tests at the end of May. The demand from China was that India destroy its nuclear capabilities first and Pakistan would follow only after that, since India tested first. The Chinese and the American lobby concealed the fact that Pakistan had the bomb five years before India fabricated its own. The first Pakistani bomb was tested in China's Lop Nor nuclear testing site.

All this is known. Then why the anti-India charade?
Indian scientists and analysts have not forgotten US actions following the 1998 nuclear tests. Indian scientists and engineers working in the USA under bilateral agreements were bundled out of the country over night. Indian scientists were also blacklisted from visiting the US even for international conferences.

In the initial stages of the nuclear deal negotiations the signals from the USA were anything but assuring. Statements from US officials competent to comment on the deal declared that the deal was aimed to defang India's nuclear weapons programmes. This, combined with whatever came out on the civil-military separation plan, suggested that the Indian programme was quietly being strangulated to death through this deal.

It is not news that every US administration has had its fair share of anti-elements who stood on shaky high moral grounds to condemn India, and looked away from blatant proliferation by Pakistan and China.

An Indian apprehension was what would be the fate of India's three-stage programme using thorium. This process would require enriched uranium to start with to produce plutonium, and electrical power. India has one of the largest deposits of thorium in the world. And the Indian Thorium technology is also the most advanced in the world. The IAEA and the concerned countries are well aware of this achievement. Once India's thorium programme is under way, and there is no reason why it should not by 2014, the cut off year for separation, India could shake off external pressures. There is enough natural uranium available in the country and more deposits may be discovered, to get the thorium route through. What is required is increase in the budget to get things going, instead of cutting the AEC budget.

The legalities and IAEA draft
The Hyde Act enacted by the US Congress to guide the US policy towards India covering the deal contains strong elements of not only intrusive US coverage of India's nuclear programme, but also forces India to toe Washington's foreign policy. For example, how can the US President determine how much natural uranium India mines every year unless India signs a subservient agreement with the USA to provide such information? Or, will the US intelligence efforts in India be primed to such levels to collect all information on the Indian nuclear programme? There are other such articles in the technical areas that have the potential to demolish India's indigenous minimum nuclear deterrent programme.

On the political side, the Hyde act tries to bind India to US foreign policy, especially on Iran. This aims to reduce India to a US puppet, and subjugates India's foreign policy to the subservience of Washington. It was not so long ago that the US exerted substantial pressure on the NDA government led by Prime Minister Vajpayee to send troops to Iraq. New Delhi did not comply, but only after some heated debates inside the government.

A look at the 123 Agreement with the USA on the nuclear deal, and read with the draft safeguard agreement with the IAEA released on July 8 after initialing, suggests certain important parameters have changed for the better.

It may dismay many that neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA draft agreement and additional protocol says explicitly that India is a “de jure” nuclear state. But both the “123” Agreement and the IAEA draft give enough indications that India is a de facto nuclear power. Both texts stick closely to the premise the issue is civilian nuclear cooperation on energy only. Both make it clear they are not concerned what India does with its indigenously acquired nuclear technology and material, and stretches it to the extent the two agreements are not concerned beyond the purview of the 123 Agreement. Neither text discusses India's weapons programme. The IAEA text acknowledges India as a state with advanced nuclear technology.

The IAEA text also notes India's rights to build strategic fuel reserves for its civilian nuclear reactors for their lifetime. If there is breakdown in supplies, the IAEA will assist to the best of its ability. Finally, if nothing works, it is up to India to take steps, according to its sovereign rights.

This has wide interpretations. In such agreements, when a situation is reached action is taken. Safeguards in perpetuity are not god's own words. All agreements have two sides i.e. reciprocal actions. Safeguard in perpetuity is directly linked to supply of fuel in perpetuity.

Another aspect of the IAEA draft is that while all foreign acquired components and material under the agreement will automatically go under safeguards, for indigenously built facilities, it is up to India to decide. Also, it would be for India to decide which of its indigenously built nuclear power plants would be listed in the IAEA for safeguards. It is to be noted the IAEA draft agreement appendices for the purpose of listing, are blank. There are more negotiations with IAEA which the USA will take up for special protocol.

Returning to the Hyde Act which is US national law, it is supposed to supercede all other agreements and joint statements. But according to the Geneva Convention on Agreements, agreements between two sovereign nations stand by themselves. But it is also known that the US has increasingly demonstrated its scant respect for international laws and agreements. The Hyde Act is a problem India has to live with. But it necessarily is not the sword of Damocles. And India is no pushover as it proved its resilience and strength following the US sanctions post Pokhran-II. It is interest that guides policies.

Both the 123 Agreement and the IAEA draft refer to national laws of each country as operative elements in the deal. This is a critical aspect and needs to be acted upon by India. The Indian government much enact its own laws through Parliament to protect its indigenous nuclear assets, without loss of time. The Act must be retroactive to ensure that no external laws have any influence on national assets or national policies. The Atomic Energy Act needs to be revisited to attend to new developments.

The politics
Unfortunately, the nuclear deal has shown up the dirty underbelly of Indian politics. Almost every political party big, small or tiny wants bounties in a manner which has nothing to do with the merits of the deal itself. To support the beleaguered Congress on the confidence vote on July 22 in Parliament on this specific issue one party is demanding a separate state, another wants to settle scores on corporate loyalty; and a third on the protection of its state's fishermen. A grand old man eyes the Prime Ministerial chair. The interest of the country almost does not figure anywhere. Such is the sorry state of affairs.

There is another much more serious aspect: the external dimensions and its compatibility with some political sections inside the country. The national conscience must ask the question: if the deal is so bad for India, why is there so much opposition from abroad especially from the centers that have been traditionally inimical to India's growth and development, and aspirations to become a world power commensurate with its natural endowments?

One of the most emphatic opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal came from China. Beijing has argued variously both officially and through its propaganda institutions, that Pakistan should be given the same access to nuclear technology as India through a similar 123 Agreement, and that giving access to India will disturb the power balance in South Asia and lead to an arms race.

China is acutely aware that the 123 Agreement will not only add to India's energy security but also help retrieve it from the nuclear apartheid hole. China has also complained the US was helping India to join the nuclear weapons club through the back door. It is also aware that once the deal goes through, doors to technology that were closed to India following Pokhran-I in 1974 and Pokhran-II in 1998, would open up gradually. There is not only US technology but technology from other advanced countries of the world which could assist India's development in the civilian areas.

It may not be out of place to mention that while Chinese propaganda periodically depicts the US as an imperialist country, in its bilateral relationship with the US it officially discards any ideological or political label. After all, it signed a 123 Agreement with USA last year as a nuclear weapons state.

The Left Front in India has steadfastly opposed the deal on the grounds that India was entering into a deal with the “US imperialists” and bartering away its independent foreign policy. The CPM has hardly ever seriously come out with the demerits of the nuclear deal, except quoting from some retired scientists.

It is to be noted with serious concern that the Left Front, especially the CPM central leadership, has been loath at criticising China's anti-India policies and diplomacy, including the Chinese official attack on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh. Not a word has come out from the Left Front on China's repeated violations of the 1993 and 1996 Confidence Building Measures (CBM) agreements between India and China on the borders.

What is the Left Front up to, especially a few leaders of the CPM at the central level? Their position on the nuclear deal is bereft of any national sovereignty reasons. The bottom line of their position, wittingly or unwittingly, is the same as Chinese opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal!

Prognosis
There is still a long way to go for the Indo-US nuclear deal to be culminated. The IAEA Board vote has to be overcome. Since a majority vote clears the IAEA agreement, India is reasonably safe to go through. But the NSG clearance is another issue. It is a consensus decision. Even one dissenting member of this 45-member group can kill the entire process. China is unlikely to be a lone member to oppose the deal, especially since Russia, France, UK and especially the US are in favour. If it can club together a European opposition group, that would be a different matter.

But the whole issue can be attacked politically through quiet diplomatic interactions. If the government loses the Parliament vote on July 22, NSG members could be influenced by interested parties that since the majority in India is opposed to the deal there is no need to endorse it in the NSG.

The ball is now in the court of the Indian political parties. They must respond to differentiate between their narrow political interests and that of national interest. India is on the steps of becoming a big power. The nuclear deal is much larger than “imperialism” or even civilian nuclear energy. It is an imprimatur for a proud and resurgent India.

The ingredients of the nuclear deal have traveled a long way since July 17, 2005. Many adjustments have taken place. In this avatar of the deal, the BJP can take credit since it started the negotiations. The CPM, on the other hand, can choose to walk on the same road as their position during the independence movement and the 1962 India-China border war.

Having said the foregoing, a serious note of caution is not unwarranted. The Americans are not saints. With its strong urge to control the world, getting into an “ally trap” would be a windfall for them, and a disaster for India. An eye must always be kept on the negative aspects of the Hyde Act, and work accordingly in the interest of the nation, independent of all pressures.

Guard against China, which is disturbed at India getting the deal under the current conditions. Be alert to Chinese penetration of the Indian intelligentsia and politics. They already appear to have penetrated to an extent.

Ensure greater bilateral coordination with the G-8 members, but do not discard non-alignment and nurture the developing relations with the others. Simultaneously, concentrate urgently on “development” and “security” concurrently. This should be the core of India's foreign policy.

(Bhasker Roy is a foreign policy expert)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jul 2008 17:19

neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA draft agreement and additional protocol

Is the text of the additional protocol available now?

Najunamar · Post by **Najunamar** » 18 Jul 2008 18:08

Amber G. wrote:Sorry, for quoting the whole quote here, but I think, it is important for record and continuity.
Arun_S wrote:

Amber Jee, You do have a Scientist's temper but perhaps not Scientific temper which is perhaps what you intended to convey here (Lurker mode on)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2008 18:58

Amit, I have not said that I'm opposed to nuclear power,far be from it.I'm a staunch advocate of Dr.Homi Bhabha's masterplan making us self sufficient going the thorium/FBR way ourselves.I said that all the experts indicate to us that only 7% of our power needs can be generated from nuclear power even after this deal.I keep asking,where's the rest coming from and have still not got a satisfactory answer.The PM would've done us all a favour as taxpayers if he had unveiled a roadmap/masterplan for our energy production for the future.Months ago I posted a former Cabinet Sec.'s views on the subject and his facts and figures about the various power options,transmission loss and inability of the grid to carry more power,because of its poor condition and neglect.If these losses were trimmed,it would mean a quantum increase in power availability.

Countries abroad are all investing billions in alternative energy sources,solar,wind,tidal and are also going back to coal (conversion of coal into oil/petro products,known from the time of WW2.Details at the end of the post).We have massive reserves of coal.have we paid any attention to it at all? N-power is also going to come at massive costs and the hidden cost of N-waste,security and dangers associated with N-power demand that we adopt a holistic approach and also accelerate other options.Germany doen't depend upon N-power at all,while France is totally dependent upon it.massive offshore windfarms are being established by Britain and other European countries.So far,in India,only Tamilnadu has come out in favour of it.The new technology of making waferthin sheets of solar collectors is revolutionising the solar power industry.

However,my greatest grouse about the N-deal is that firstly,India will be still a "second-class" nuclear nation in western eyes and by this deal permanently remain there,when frankly we do not require anyone's permission toeither weaponise or develop our own N-power technology.It binds us through these international agreements.See how Iran is being harrassed and even threatened with attack because of its international obligations? We will be an an inferior nuclear power to China,which can do as it pleases,even when it comes to nuclear proliferation,whereas,we will not be allowed to let our scientists in our weapon plants even visit the power plants,all open 24/7 365 days of the year to the IAEA! We are literally dropping our pants and taking a knife and cutting off our nuclear manhood ourselves!

In this sordid tale of the N-deal,our PM has been woefully dishonest with the nation,has hidden many facts from parliament,the supreme voice and decision making institution of the nation and now ,is desperately indulging in the most blatant donkey trading to stay alive (next post).Totally sickening.

Excerpt:http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosola ... now-cheap/

Nanosolar's Breakthrough - Solar Now Cheaper than CoalShareThis Jessica Hunt Their mission: to deliver cost-efficient solar electricity. The Nanosolar company was founded in 2002 and is working to build the world's largest solar cell factory in California and the world's largest panel-assembly factory in Germany. They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.

These coatings are as thin as a layer of paint and can transfer sunlight to power at amazing efficiency. Although the underlying technology has been around for years, Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets. The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S.

Excerpt:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06229/714268-28.stm

South Africa has a way to make oil from coal
Thursday, August 17, 2006
By Patrick Barta, The Wall Street Journal
SECUNDA, South Africa -- Every day, conveyor belts haul about 120,000 metric tons of coal into an industrial complex here two hours east of Johannesburg.

The facility -- resembling a nuclear power plant, with concrete silos looming over nearby potato farms -- superheats the coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It adds steam and oxygen, cranks up the pressure, and pushes the coal through a series of chemical reactions.

Then it spits out something extraordinary: 160,000 barrels of oil a day.

For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical.

The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology.

Now, oil prices are above $70 a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom.

China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities -- including some with Sasol's help -- over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse.

In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production.

Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security."

In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants.

Sasol has found a particularly receptive audience in Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, who says he carries a lump of coal and a vial of liquefied coal with him at all times. He is lobbying coal companies and others to build coal-to-liquid plants across his state, which has some of the biggest coal reserves in the U.S.

Current estimates indicate the world has just 41 years of known oil reserves and 65 years of natural-gas supplies. It has enough coal reserves to last an estimated 155 years, with some of the largest reserves in the two biggest oil-consuming countries, the U.S. and China.

Excerpt:The EU Commission believes that coal-fuelled power plants will remain "the workhorse of electricity generation worldwide" for some time to come. In a May 2006 speech, Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said technological developments meant the outlook for coal was "more positive today than it has been for many years". However, he added that coal use must be accompanied by reduced CO2 emissions. "We would like to challenge researchers, industrialists and Member States to demonstrate how coal can contribute to sustainable, secure and competitive energy for Europe," Piebalgs said. The Commission is funding research into clean coal technologies and carbon capture and storage under the EU's seventh research framework programme (FP7). The aim is to bring down the cost of CCS technology to less than €20 per tonne, with capture rates above 90%.

Excerpt: http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... rgyoutlook

One third of the world’s electricity can be supplied by wind; 113 billion tonnes of CO2 saved by 2050

The global market for wind power has been expanding faster than any other source of renewable energy. From just 4,800 MW in 1995 the world total has multiplied more than twelve-fold to reach over 59,000 MW at the end of 2005.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2008 19:03

India’s Government accused of buying votes
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 353930.ece

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister, caused a stir when he met Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man and a powerful potential ally
Jeremy Page in Delhi

The Indian Government, on the brink of a crucial no-confidence motion that is regarded as a turning point in the world’s biggest democracy, has been accused of buying votes on an epic scale.

In the run-up to Tuesday’s vote, Delhi has been gripped by a frenzy of mud-slinging, back-slapping and deal-making as the Congress Party and its main rivals try to make up the numbers. An MP said this week that the Government was offering to pay as much as 250 million rupees (£3 million) for each vote in parliament.

The Government secured three votes yesterday by naming an airport in Lucknow after the father of Ajit Singh, the leader of a small regional party. It is even planning to free six jailed MPs for the vote, five of whom are allies and four of whom are convicted murderers.

Zipping between politicians’ bungalows in a chauffeur-driven car, with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance, Mani Charenamei had never felt so powerful — or so popular.

Related Links
Harm done by nuclear pact eclipses benefits

As a Member of Parliament for Outer Manipur, in India’s remote northeast, he usually struggles to get a hearing from senior Delhi politicians.

Suddenly, however, everyone who is anyone wants to be his friend. As an independent MP, Mr Charenamei finds himself at the heart of a process that highlights the colour, complexity and corruption of Indian politics. “They’ve all approached me and I’ve told them what I want,” he told The Times. “I won’t decide how to vote until the night before.”

The vote was triggered when the Communist parties that gave the ruling coalition its majority withdrew their support. The spat came after the Government, dominated by the Congress Party, decided to proceed with a nuclear deal with America that would allow India to import US nuclear fuel and technology, thus cementing a new strategic relationship after the frosty Cold War years.

However, there is more than the deal at stake. If the Government loses, there will be a snap election as early as November, which could bring the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) back to power. “It will be a turning point either way,” said Prem Shankar Jha, a political columnist and former editor of the Hindustan Times, “but it’s impossible to predict.”

Mindful that the BJP lost a confidence motion by one vote in 1999, leading parties are going to amazing lengths to swing the result. The Congress Party has put aside years of acrimony and formed an alliance with the Samajwadi Party, led by a former wrestler and ally of Phoolan Devi, the late “Bandit Queen”.

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister, caused another stir on Monday when he met Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man and a powerful potential ally.

The Communists, meanwhile, have discarded their commitment to secularism and joined hands with the BJP — their sworn enemy until last week. They have also allied with Mayawati Kumari, the “queen of the untouchables”, who is head of the Bahujan Samaj Party and one of India’s richest politicians with a declared fortune of £6.8 million.

“One thing is for sure, no party is bothered about moral or ethical standards,” said Kuldip Nayar, a political analyst and former High Commissioner to Britain. “Everybody’s trying to get as many votes as possible by hook or by crook.”

The recent manoeuvring leaves the Government with about 260 votes in the 543-seat parliament, and its opponents with about the same. So the battle is now on for the remaining two dozen independents and members of smaller parties — all of whom want their pound of flesh.

Some, like Mr Charenamei, want policy changes: he is pushing for Manipur’s boundaries to be redrawn. Others want Cabinet posts — such as Shibu Soren, a former Coal Minister, who was convicted of murder in 2006 only to be acquitted last year. Most, however, are simply after money. A. B. Bardhan, the head of the Communist Party of India, alleged that the Government was offering to buy votes for 250 million rupees apiece.

Akshay Pratap Singh, a Samajwadi Party MP, said that he had been offered 300 million rupees to vote against the Government. “There are many like me who have been approached but no one has the spirit to come out in the open and put before the public what is happening in these dark corridors of power,” he said.

“This is the first time that the rot at the core of the Indian system is exhibiting itself on a foreign policy issue,” Mr Jha said. “The world does not know what a sham democracy we have. Now they will find out.”

How they stand

For the Government

Congress Party 153 seats
Samajwadi Party 39 seats
Rashtriya Janata Dal Party 24 seats
Other allies about 44 seats

Against

Bharatiya Janata Party 130 seats
Communist parties 59 seats
Bahujan Samaj Party 17 seats
Other allies about 54 seats

Undecided

Independents 6 seats
Small parties 17 seats

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2008 20:06

Philip, That SA plant is based on the old German process called Fischer-Torpsch procees to convert coal to oil. It has updates to the old process. The apartheid regime had put that plant inot place as a hedge against oil emabargo. It is very energy intensive and in days of cheap oil was not viable. Looks like its OK now. The Nazis sued a few plants like this to make aviation fuel for their airforce. All those USAAF bombing runs were to get them.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jul 2008 20:37

This op-ed piece calling for the annhilation of Iran's nascent nuke facilities and suggesting that Israel (and possibly US) is pretty much on the brink of doing so, belongs in many threads. But for those who have any doubt whatsoever that through this deal, Unkil, with the wilful collaboration of some India's current ruling elite starting at the highest levels, Unkil and his lackeys can do to India what is planned for Iran, see some of choicest quotes:

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program.

Should it come to taking out India's nukes at the slightest recalcitracne of us SDREs towards stifling inspection regimes, there will be enough 'Indian' leaders and 'Indian' elites (pure fools, ARoys etc) who will also hope that a US strike on India's facilities will be 'successful'. Then this

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

And there will be 'some Indians' ("Hindu extremists") who will resist, but there will also be 'most Indians' too who would want a US strike on India to be successful. The list either real or manufactured by US dork media will be endless; heck even Kashmir Muslims will suddenly be proclaimed part of India if their support anti-India street howls with some CIA/ISI implants holding 'nuke free South Asia' are needed to cite much better off India would be if its nukes were taken out.

As Phillip said, India signing this deal is like taking its pants off and wilfully chopping its nuclear manhood off as the west aids, abets, and rejoices in this gory act of India's nuclear castration.