[MaserQ]

Bottom line is, we have an insatiable need for energy and it is growing by the day. We had to join the NSG at some point. Let the political parties fight over the fine print.

As long as we dont give America a free hand in matters, this is a victory for the Indian people.

[MontyKING]

Indian diplomacy has evolved and become very strong. If there is any fine print I think we are strong enough to deal with that also. Strong can deal with the strong. So India needs to get there (being strong), from a developing nation to a developed nation.

APJ Abdul Kalam :

Our nuclear scientists are working very hard to generate thorium-based nuclear reactors for power generation. They have a 10-year period to achieve their goal but I would like them to work in mission mode and finish it as soon as possible.

By 2020 we need about 4,00,000 megawatt of power. Today, we are generating 1,30,000 megawatt of power. We have huge expectations from nuclear power. Thorium-based nuclear reactors definitely give clean energy. So which means India has the capacity to build itself. Then only can we say 'no first use, no moratorium'.


Kalam hails NSG waiver, says nobody can stop us

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by sbasak

Why USA & its allies are willing to sign on this treaty if everything is in India's favor?

AFAIK, the full details of the treaty are not disclosed to public. The US can inspect our civil nuclear plants whenever they want though India claims its defense reactors will still be closed from prying eyes of the USA.

Only time can tell if the treaty was good or bad.

I think the important thing here is to focus on the big picture, not nitpick on this and that clause.
The big picture is NSG has accepted to do nuclear trade with India (this also means India can export nuclear tech/equipment in the future - remember, we are working on Thorium technology where India is the world leader, but it will take some more years). NSG was the group created specifically in response to Pokhran 1 done by India. We stuck to our guns for 35+ years, built up our weapons capability and indigenous nuclear tech, now, we have forced (with American help for which you should not grudge them a few billion $ of business) to totally negate the reason for its founding (force India and other like counties to sign NPT as non-nuclear weapons state).
So bottomline is :
* India did not sign NPT or CTBT (our position since Pokhran 1)
* NSG persuaded to open nuclear civil cooperation with India
* Apart from US, countries like France and russia will do nuclear trade with India - so there is a balancing of commercial interests. France has the best nuclear power technology in the world (they generate the max % of nuclear power)

The nuclear deal (and the 123 agreement still has to be ratified by US congress) is a great landmark for India. There is no doubt its the right path forward regardless of fineprint.

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by aerohit

With Love, A letter From America -

Thank You India,

We effectively destroyed your Iran Pipeline project - because Iran/Iraq oil/gas belongs to USA only. This nuclear deal will create jobs in America and help American companies to make profit.

Technology Transfer will not happen, so whenever India needs "customer support" India will have to pay America to fix anything that is broken and be the puppet - to prevent any chernobyl to happen.

Actually, we really want to reduce your population, because too much oil/food demand is coming from India and we dont like that. Americans need to drive SUVs and maintain their standard of living - so what else can be a better way to reduce rising Indian oil demand and population? Nuclear Disaster!

This is because, we, as Americans undertand that, you can barely maintain your roads or sewers, or keep your streets clean, let alone maintain Nuclear plants in a large scale....



Oh, what about the nuclear waste? No problem yaar, we can throw it in river Ganga. Chalta Hai

So, what's new in all this. All the oil and gas we import, don't we pay other countries perpetually and bleed through the nose ? Are you telling me the nuclear power related imports is going to make a bigger import bill than oil - is it ok to pay Iran and Saudi Arabia for low-tech imports like crude for hundred's of billions of dollars ?

Do you know how much is the environmental impact of a Thermal power plant and how much damage it causes the environment ? Do you know that India also has a shortage of good quality ash-free coal ? Even for new thermal power stations, we have to start looking at importing coal from outside ?
That the ash and sludge from TPS is dumped into Yamuna and which flows into Ganga in the national captial for which Supreme court has pulled up and severaly reprimanded the authorities.

France generates over 80% of its electric power generation through nuclear means. So, they are dumping all of this nuclear waste in the Seine river or ?

Rhetoric is not what is needed now, concrete action is. And don't belittle the capability of India to do as she choses - in 20 years, this capability will be many times stronger and we will hold our own. If one does not think so, there is a confidence problem IMHO. If Musharaf could do what he pleased violating US dictates and his own promises, what makes India a puppet in US hands ? Nothing, zilch, nada - India is strong and will be stronger and we must do what is needed without making noise and hoopla.

BTW, we will still have the IPI pipeline if the Pakistan security angle can be worked out. People are worried about nuclear fuel supply being stopped when (and IF) we test, what about Taliban, ISI and other crooks just disrupting the pipeline and cutting of fuel supply ? What happens if we have a future war with Pakistan ? Oh, great, we have 20% of our gas supply coming through our friendly neighbour ?

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by lancer_rit

Do you know how much is the environmental impact of a Thermal power plant and how much damage it causes the environment ? Do you know that India also has a shortage of good quality ash-free coal ? Even for new thermal power stations, we have to start looking at importing coal from outside ?
That the ash and sludge from TPS is dumped into Yamuna and which flows into Ganga in the national captial for which Supreme court has pulled up and severaly reprimanded the authorities.

France generates over 80% of its electric power generation through nuclear means. So, they are dumping all of this nuclear waste in the Seine river or ?

Two sides to every story they say.
Rediff has a couple of very scathing articles on the issue:
This deal may cause India to collapse

The one above starts off with a lot of hyperbole. Skim that and get to the facts near the end. Data suggests that the path to energy security is not just the nuclear way. Its not a toss-up between nuclear and thermal. There are other areas also that, if given their due attention, will reap huge energy benefits for the country. Two of them are: solar energy and prevention of electricity theft.

Another one is:
India's ever-shifting nuclear goalpost

According to this article, India's access to civil reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies and equipment will be restricted to only multinational or US-supervised facilities. So... what about our current civil nuclear facilities? wont they continue operating way below capacity because even though fuel is there, these plants dont have the technology to process the waste?


But, on the other hand, India had to make a start somewhere! This is the first step towards actually becoming a member of NSG perhaps! Wont it be ironical that India has been accepted as a member of the very group that was formed in response to its nuclear tests 34 years back?

[Rotorhead]

One reason why US and its allies were backing so much on india is that US stands to make billions of dollors on the technology and reactor imports by india. Offsetting the growing demand of traditional fuel by india so that US can continue to support their ever existant requirement for traditional fuel.

Or could it be that they want a local asian economy to keep check of the rising clout of chinese economy which could threaten the american domination. ..hmm so many theories..does anybody else think there could be other sinister ideas behind these deals. It's hard to digest the fact that US gave in so quickly without india having to aggree to any conditions

[maddy42]

Well lets not get into the sinister motive behind everything(Though i would love to).
So keeping it clean let me tell you some info which i know
!) Nuke energy is expensive compared to thermal and hydro(the latter sources have other problems which are social in nature)
2) We dont have nuke fuel to run our plants at the moment and even anything which a nuke plant has to procure has to be made by the plant themself due to the sanctions being imposed on our country.
3) nuke energy forms like 3% of our requirement and by doubling capacity also we are dealing with a small stack of power requirement.

Why cant we look at alternative source of energy.
1) wind energy
2) tidal(we got the a really long coastline)
3) Solar energy or atleast funds be released for research on solar cells.
4) biothermal energy which actually can help people in the rural areas

Looking at the positives of this deal is yes we will be closer to US and etc etc but is it worth it?

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Two sides to every story they say.
Rediff has a couple of very scathing articles on the issue:
This deal may cause India to collapse

The one above starts off with a lot of hyperbole. Skim that and get to the facts near the end. Data suggests that the path to energy security is not just the nuclear way. Its not a toss-up between nuclear and thermal. There are other areas also that, if given their due attention, will reap huge energy benefits for the country. Two of them are: solar energy and prevention of electricity theft.

Another one is:
India's ever-shifting nuclear goalpost

According to this article, India's access to civil reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies and equipment will be restricted to only multinational or US-supervised facilities. So... what about our current civil nuclear facilities? wont they continue operating way below capacity because even though fuel is there, these plants dont have the technology to process the waste?

Well, if one believed everything rediff writes, there would be apocalypse. Sorry, but I personally discount a lot of what rediff puts out (though I do read a good bit of it). We need Thermal, Hydel and Nuclear power. All of these have big environmental impacts and other risks. Wind or Solar are fringe contributors which should be advanced where possible.
France, Japan, China are all building up more nuclear capacity. It seems that the nation which suffered nuclear holocaust, is fine with exploiting nuclear power - but we have the doubting thomases in Indian media and political parties ? Please see
Nuclear power in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There would be restrictions on what we can and cannot do. We will decide which 14 nuclear power plants (present or setup in future till 2014) will come under IAEA safeguards. These reactors will get foreign fuel and therefore, not be under utilized.
Nothing comes for free but the impact of Thermal power plant waste usually is well higher than nuclear waste which is rather limited in its area of impact (where it can have serious issues, and we do need to have better mechanisms to handle it). The deal will give access to such technologies. 10 years later, we advance the copied technology and claim indigenous research based waste handling and can apply it to any nuclear power plant within or without IAEA safeguards.
BTW, the indigenous setup Nuclear plants all have some amount of leaking radioactivity - but we can't develop technology w/o experimenting and also taking some initial pain!

Originally Posted by amitoj

But, on the other hand, India had to make a start somewhere! This is the first step towards actually becoming a member of NSG perhaps! Wont it be ironical that India has been accepted as a member of the very group that was formed in response to its nuclear tests 34 years back?

Precisely the point. We held out for 30+ years and didnot submit to the blackmail. Please read one of my posts above about how difficult it is for NSG to reverse the very basis of why they were formed - to isolate India and a few other countries (which came on similar footing later) by including India in civil nuclear cooperation. Also, technology access will help many other fields not related to nuclear field (like space etc) due to dual-use kind of possibilities restricting it.

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by maddy42

Well lets not get into the sinister motive behind everything(Though i would love to).
So keeping it clean let me tell you some info which i know
!) Nuke energy is expensive compared to thermal and hydro(the latter sources have other problems which are social in nature)
2) We dont have nuke fuel to run our plants at the moment and even anything which a nuke plant has to procure has to be made by the plant themself due to the sanctions being imposed on our country.
3) nuke energy forms like 3% of our requirement and by doubling capacity also we are dealing with a small stack of power requirement.

France uses 80%+ of nuclear energy, Japan 30%+, USA(20%+), Russia (15%+ With plans to double by 2020 the %). Surely, these are not piddling %ages or abolsute MW of power generation.
Cost is relative and depends on many factors - technology, scale, efficiency, cost of resources etc. 10 years from now, coal prices will go up when demand is much more and reserves are getting exhauseted, will unit cost of Thermal power remain what it is today ? If oil is $100+ today wrt $20+ 5 years back, are alternate fuels not economically viable now ?
So, would you rather, we only have Hydel (potential limited by water resources and large scale population impact, and huge environmental and earthquake risks) and Thermal based power (150k MW -> 400k MW by next 10-15 years) ? The exporters of coal, oil would be able to blackmail India into anything if they wished to if that be the case.

Originally Posted by maddy42

Why cant we look at alternative source of energy.
1) wind energy
2) tidal(we got the a really long coastline)
3) Solar energy or atleast funds be released for research on solar cells.
4) biothermal energy which actually can help people in the rural areas

Looking at the positives of this deal is yes we will be closer to US and etc etc but is it worth it?

By all means, explore all possibilities. But one has to be realistic on what can contribute how much and in which timeframe, or ?
1) -> Which country has more than 20% of power generation by wind power ? (Only Denmark comes close and its is a tiny country). Wind power also varies based on speed of winds, so it cannot be the only source - otherwise, be prepared for load shedding whenever wind speeds are lower.
2) -> Tidal needs to be explored. But no country has generated any large scale MWs of power yet, so its a research area that India may wish to work on
3) -> Needs the sun and is variable just like wind power, and also on geography. Battery cell efficiency being very low, even solar power is more expensive than most other mechanisms. Also, fit for research and development
4) -> Sure, but is not a source which will give us 50k MW

So, none of the above can be alternatives replacing Nuclear or Thermal power.
Cheers,

[aerohit]

Remember, this nuclear deal will only give less than 5% of indias energy needs.

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - In India the nuclear stampede begins

Now that the political deals are almost over with US Senate passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the business deals can begin. To meet the revised targets of nuclear-power generation, India will have to build at least 30 more reactors of 1,000 megawatts each and spend more than US$40 billion in the international market.

The US estimates that overall business worth more than $100 billion can be generated if the Indian nuclear deal goes through, with companies such as France's Areva SA, Electricite de France and the United States' General Electric and Westinghouse Electric Co also benefiting immensely.

[aerohit]

1. Shift of dependencies: Oil & Gas is a form of energy that is used worldwide in everything from agriculture to electricity generation. Oil is controlled by a cartel called OPEC. For nuclear energy creation, you need Uranium, India does not have enough Uranium resources so India needs this deal for access to Uranium. Now, that would mean being dependent on another cartel - the NSG - Nuclear Supplier’s Group. Will this provide energy self independence?


2. Why rely on another nation?: Do you know that another fission material that can be used for generation of Nuclear Energy is thorium, India has 24% of the world proven thorium reserves in the world. India is conducting cutting edge research on how to use thorium in producing nuclear energy. This research will lose its importance and significance when you are going to be getting the Uranium from somewhere else. Now, why should you spend strategic forex reserves outside of the country to benefit another nation. If India needs nuclear energy so much (India does need alternative forms of energy as India will be short of 412 gigawatts by 2050 and the need to import 1.6 billion tonnes of coal will be needed to fulfill this energy) then India can increase the allocation in the budget to thorium research and increase the strategic importance.


3. Only Minor benefits in the short term: India currently produces 4000 MWe of nuclear energy after this deal, it will rise to 20,000 MWe in a DECADE, yes in a DECADE. So, it is not a short term solution to the energy crisis in India. Also, construction of a nuclear reactor is a time consuming process.


4. Water usage in nuclear energy production: Nuclear energy, though considered one of the cleanest forms of energy, you require a lot more water - which is another resource that is depleting worldwide - for production and storage.


5. Strategically swallowing a bullet: Let’s get to strategic issues, as per the Hyde act as amended by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US (Bills: H.R. 5682 and S. 3709, a comparison of the two can be found here) and passed in the final version clearly dictates the following if you go through the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006:

• i. India’s ties with Iran. As per Section 105 (8) of H.R. 5682 as passed by the Senate (with text of S. 3709 as engrossed amendment), Requires India’s full & active participation in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions (source). So, this puts us in a bind w.r.t to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which will provide us with much needed cheap gas. Because, if construction begins in 2009, the gas can be supplied starting September 2012 (source). According to Jorge Hirsch - a physics professor at the University of Chicago, who initiated a letter to George Bush Jr., to prevent the US from adopting a hawkish stance towards Iran which will inevitably lead to use of Nuclear weapons against Iran - feels that unlike Russia and China, “India could indeed be bought off by US incentives like the nuclear deal, because its shortsighted leaders don’t recognize that they are committing national suicide by entering into this nuclear deal with the US.” (emphasis mine).

• ii. In an event of a nuclear test by India, the US President will have the right to end the deal on the spot and demand return of the materials supplied and guess who wanted this clause in the bill - Senator Barrack Obama of Illinois and the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for the President of United States of America. From the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006, this is what Barrack Obama said:

Mr. OBAMA. On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies? (emphasis mine)

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 agreement would still have to meet the requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear
explosive device the United States shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated. (emphasis mine)
Read it again, this is the Democratic Presumptive Nominee for the post of the President of the United States of America asking very clearly whether the US has the right to end this deal and ask for return of supplies if India does a nuclear test. Based on his question, what do you think he would do if he was the President and India does a nuclear test. Do not forget as of today he has a 50% chance of being the US president considering that only he and McCain are realistic candidates to be the President.

6. Lag in gaining benefits from this deal: India will have to wait for some years before it can actually get to use the Nuclear energy, I believe a reasonable time frame will be 5-10 years - considering that it involves going to so many governmental organizations, the NSG, the IAEA, the time it takes to construct additional nuclear reactors. Now, meanwhile our dependency will not reduce on Oil and Gas. Iran who has been a longtime friend of India. India and Iran have long cordial relations. India and Iran are talking with regards to a gas pipeline from Iran to India. The act of signing the deal means that India will have to forego this deal, read point 5(i). Period.


7. Economic costs: Commercially, the cost of producing Nuclear energy will be high considering the capital cost of setting up the Nuclear reactor, understand that you cannot produce electricity till the reactor is completely up which means the cost of production can vary anywhere between US$ 2,950/kWe to to a Moody’s Investors Service (read para 9 in the link) conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe. According to a BusinessWeek report, “…,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,…”. However, they also added, “Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt.” For further information go to the wikipedia entry on economics of nuclear energy). There are a few costs no one is willing to factor in. Who will pay for the costs of ensuring compliance and the safeguards and all other reporting elements that are critical to the functioning of the deal after signing it. It is common sense that it will cost more.


8.Alternative energy creation: India has a stated goal of achieving energy independence by 2012, don’t see that happening with this deal for reasons explained above. India introduced the Jatropha incentives to encourage production of bio diesel using Jatropha seeds. Jatropha can grow in the wastelands. GoI has already identified 400,000 sq.km. of land where Jatropha can be grown. A much more prudent and truly long term solution to India’s energy crisis than the Nuclear deal, as India is a big consumer of diesel especially in rural areas.


9. Safety considerations: The world has already seen the impact of two major nuclear accidents, the famous Chernobyl disaster in former Soviet Union and current Ukraine and the Three Mile Island disaster in the US. Just as the Richter scale is used to measure the magnitude of Earthquakes, there is the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). Chernobyl was rated 7, a non nuclear event that can be rated 7 is the Bhopal disaster in India and Third Mile was rated 5. Now, India’s nuclear reactors are close to two major cities in India - Mumbai (Tarapore) and Chennai (Kalpakkam), as the Chernobyl disaster The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5,000 square kilometres. Imagine the damage it will cost if something goes wrong. Thank God, nothing has gone wrong so far, but still it should be an important consideration. India has not framed a Nuclear liability framework, what if something goes wrong, who will bear the brunt of clean up work, the economic cost and other such issues. We have not learnt our lessons from the Bhopal disaster as the clean up work continues to be stuck. Yet, the Government is silent on this issue.

Now, Dr. Manmohan Singh, may go right ahead and sign this deal, because he is hell bent on this deal as he views this as his personal stake being on the line plus this is the legacy he wants to leave behind, as he has nothing much to show as being the Prime Minister, except maybe be known as the most compromised Prime Minister.


Also, he has chosen a very good time - there is about 6 months left for the next General elections in February 2009, and even if his Government falls, it would take the Election Commission atleast 6 months to prepare itself for elections. As an economist he knows that India’s inflation problem - which will be a key poll issue cannot be solved in the 6 months timeframe without compromising serious growth, hence he has sensed his opportunity and decided to push for it regardless of the Left’s threat to withdraw support.
As I have outlined, overall it is not in our interests to go ahead with the deal and if the PM does sign the deal, the legacy he would leave behind will not be of securing India, a place as a Nuclear Weapon State but it will be of selling India’s nuclear independence.

[lancer_rit]

@aerohit, you are welcome to your opinion. However, nothing in what you posted convinces me that we should not go nuclear, that we should not end nuclear isolation and apartheid that discriminates against India. That we should not be accepted "defacto" nuclear weapons power, and that we don't need to think of energy needs beyond next 3-4 years!
I have already posted much on why this is the right way forward, so don't need to have much to add.
Just wanted to say, depending on two cartels instead of one gives one more leverage - or you would only want to be completely blacked out if India depends on one ?
Thorium based technology is the way to go but it will require 10-15 years and we will learn about the nuclear experience in the meanwhile with large scale nuclear power generation and the full eco-system based on Uranium. Tomorrow, when we are leaders in thorium technology, we would want to export and earn back many of those billions and not be an untouchable!

Cheers

[spadival]

Originally Posted by aerohit

So, this puts us in a bind w.r.t to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which will provide us with much needed cheap gas. Because, if construction begins in 2009, the gas can be supplied starting September 2012 (source).

Whoever thinks that Pakistan would let a pipeline through its territory to supply "cheap" gas to India, is living a pipe dream (pun intended) !!

Hell.. We are yet to get back what belongs to us ( Among other things, A certain Mr Dawood needs to be in an Indian jail instead of a posh Karachi bungalow protected by ISI) .

A few years ago, my flight to a European city took a lengthy detour in order to avoid Paki airspace, burning precious fuel. Dunno whats the situation now!!

To me, US or some random Banana republic country is far more reliable than Pakistan. And that is an understatement !!

[amitoj]

I think that overall, this nuclear deal is good for India, but i refuse to accept the various claims by the media, bureaucrats and politicians that this is THE best thing to happen to us and that there are no strings attached.

Of course India cant conduct any nuclear tests now (its not explicitly menioned in the deal but implicitly its very much there). But then again, India doesnt really need to conduct any more tests! We are not getting the technology for reprocessing right now, but with this deal, atleast there is a possibility that one day we will.

We might become dependent on NSG for the supply, just like we are dependent to some extent on OPEC. This extra "dependency" can also be seen as risk distribution.

Only issue is that the quest for alternative sources of energy, like thorium reactors and solar energy, should not suffer because of this deal.

[aerohit]

As i said earlier, India can barely maintain their roads, sewers and gutters, let alone maintain nuclear plants in a large scale.......

Nuclear is not something you want to give to a society that is least bothered about safety - their own and of others.

It is a joke to steal Uranium in India
This is announced sep 11 2008 - > BBC NEWS | South Asia | India arrests for 'uranium theft'

The arrests are at an embarrassing time for India, just days after the Nuclear Suppliers Group ended a ban on civilian nuclear trade with the country.

Mr Khakrang said they were looking for the son of an employee of the Atomic Minerals Division - , which looks after the country's uranium mines - who is alleged to have stolen the packet from Domiosiat.


"The young man is still absconding,"