India US Relations

[Chinmoy]

US Equips Indian Navy With”Live Video Feed” To Track & Destroy Chinese Submarines

https://eurasiantimes.com/us-indian-navy-chinese-submarines/

 

[Defenceanalyst91]

India 'joins' Nato — well, almost

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/india-joins-nato-well-almost/articleshow_ucweb/65715401.cms

Same Bjp while in opposition tried to bring down Manmohan Singh govt for "123" nuclear agreement with USA, accused Manmohan Singh government as USA's puppet.

 

[Chinmoy]

India 'joins' Nato — well, almost

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/india-joins-nato-well-almost/articleshow_ucweb/65715401.cms

Same Bjp while in opposition tried to bring down Manmohan Singh govt for "123" nuclear agreement with USA, accused Manmohan Singh government as USA's puppet.

Why BJP was against the agreement could be seen here.

India has sold its nuclear soul to the US

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/27brahma.htm?zcc=rl

 

[Immanuel]

This means, more P-8I, C-130Js, Chinooks, Apaches (with more US content) eventually this paves way for the F-35-I. I doubt IAF will leave the PAKFA requirement unfilled.

 

[spikey360]

An unnatural and unnecessary 'alliance'…......…

 

[Immanuel]

An unnatural and unnecessary 'alliance'…......…

How so? If anything the yearly engagements with the US among the 3 services has been more than an other country. There has been a significant amount of Intel sharing between India and US for more than a decade. The relationship has been slow to evolve but strategically the US and India are more closely aligned than ever.

 

[spikey360]

How so? If anything the yearly engagements with the US among the 3 services has been more than an other country. There has been a significant amount of Intel sharing between India and US for more than a decade. The relationship has been slow to evolve but strategically the US and India are more closely aligned than ever.

What has been the end result of all this cooperation? What edge does all that pseudo activity give us?
Have we gone across LOC to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Have the Chinese stopped nibbling us? Do we have a deal with the Americans on F22 like we could have had with Russians if the IAF did not gun down the FGFA deal? Do we get cheaper oil from Saudis? Have they stopped funding anti national fronts like AAP? How many terrorists living in Pakistan have all those deals helped in nabbing them?
Enlighten us on one strategic action we have taken as a direct result of our bonhomie with the yanks?

 

[binayak95]

What has been the end result of all this cooperation? What edge does all that pseudo activity give us?
Have we gone across LOC to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Have the Chinese stopped nibbling us? Do we have a deal with the Americans on F22 like we could have had with Russians if the IAF did not gun down the FGFA deal? Do we get cheaper oil from Saudis? Have they stopped funding anti national fronts like AAP? How many terrorists living in Pakistan have all those deals helped in nabbing them?
Enlighten us on one strategic action we have taken as a direct result of our bonhomie with the yanks?

Someone's salty.

One direct result? India was given access to direct nuclear trade with all the major suppliers and membership of MTCR.

 

[Immanuel]

What has been the end result of all this cooperation? What edge does all that pseudo activity give us?
Have we gone across LOC to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Have the Chinese stopped nibbling us? Do we have a deal with the Americans on F22 like we could have had with Russians if the IAF did not gun down the FGFA deal? Do we get cheaper oil from Saudis? Have they stopped funding anti national fronts like AAP? How many terrorists living in Pakistan have all those deals helped in nabbing them?
Enlighten us on one strategic action we have taken as a direct result of our bonhomie with the yanks?

Do we really need to reclaim POK? Makes no sense. That's an area with too many unwashed abduls. We have enough of those on our side. Best thing is to make LOC final and settled border and call it a day. Just because we are strategic partners with US doesn't mean they dictate what we do. China will nibble and it's for us to nibble back in our own way. China is today surrounded by virtual enemies and our fostering of closer ties with US, Japan, Aussies, Vietnam etc. gives them heartburn. The FGFA deal didn't happen because the terms weren't good enough and the project lacks clarity. Why do we need help nabbing anybody? Do you really think RAW can't terminate any of the really wanted unwashed abduls? Do you think people like Dawood, Hafiz etc. aren't on virtually constant observation? RAW, MI and others know exactly where these people are. If the politicians had some spine these people would have long rotten meat.

First we say we need sovereignty and then why do we need to rely on US or anyone else? While politically the India and US have been slow to align, there have been a strong natural alignment going on militarily between the US and India for nearly 15 years. Trust is built slowly I suppose. Besides, if COMSACA isn't helpful, we can pull out in 10 years or reneg new terms. For now, COMSACA will benefit us and the US. Keep in mind with COMSACA, we can get access to live feeds of all intel being collected by US from a wide set of sensors, platforms over a wide geographical area.

 

[Jackd]

PoK is a very important location geo-politically. It is the only area of India which borders Afghanistan and in turn gives us access to vast natural resources of Central Asia as well easy connectivity to the whole of Europe and Russia. Stating that PoK is not needed is being ignorant of the advantage it offers. It is like saying you don't need one of your body parts and such kind of thinking should not be allowed to foster as such kind of mindset will only strengthen the position of Pakistan, because they can just show to the world that Indians don't really care much about Pok.
Also, there is a huge potential for tourism and hydroelectric power.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Someone's salty.

One direct result? India was given access to direct nuclear trade with all the major suppliers and membership of MTCR.

You are a USA stooge, a traitor at best.

The real intention behind NSG waiver was to ensure Indian nuclear plants are under IAEA to prevent nuclear weapons. India has abundant coal reserves as well as large Uranium reserves, amounting to 2% of the world. India did not need international Uranium supply at the expense of nuclear bombs. It would have been reaosnable if the existing nuclear plants were excluded from IAEA and only new plants were put in IAEA. Putting existing PHWR plant under IAEA amounts to treachery, not help

India already had uranium supply from Russia and JV for missiles like Brahmos with Russia. None of the NSG waiver or MTCR helped in any manner.

 

[Jackd]

India has 22 nuclear plants: eight of them with an aggregate capacity of 2,400 MW are fueled by domestic uranium, the remaining 14 reactors with an aggregate capacity of 4,380 MW under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards use imported uranium.


Why the government is importing: The government admits that the extraction and processing cost of uranium in India is very high as compared to other countries. Other uranium-rich areas are yet to be explored in the lack of supporting infrastructure and poor logistics. Lack of technology, adverse socio-economic conditions, environmental aspects, are other factors contributing to the slackened process of mining of some of the deposits in Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Telangana.

As for coal: India's coal quality is shit. Due to high demand and poor average quality, India is forced to import high quality coal to meet the requirements of steel plants. India's coal imports have risen from 49.79 million metric tons (0.05488 billion short tons) in 2007-08 to 190.95 million metric tons (0.21049 billion short tons) in 2016-17. We have Gondwana coal which is of low calorific value and high ash content. The carbon content is low in India's coal, and toxic trace element concentrations are negligible. The natural fuel value of Indian coal is poor. On average, the Indian power plants using India's coal supply consume about 0.7 kg of coal to generate a kWh, whereas United States thermal power plants consume about 0.45 kg of coal per kWh.

A study done by Centre for Science and Environment, a leading NGO : The study claimed the average efficiency of the plants, it assessed, was 32.8 per cent, one of the lowest among major coal-based power producing countries. It claimed that average CO2 emission was 1.08 kg per kWh, 14 per cent higher than that of China.
Now, don't question the NGO itself and call them urban naxals, there is nothing wrong with this NGO.

As for MTCR, the group is not limited to restricting sale of missiles with a range more than 300km. You can now : 1. Buy armed UAV's ( missile control regime that restricts exports of missiles and delivery vehicles capable of carrying 500-kilogram payloads for more than 300 kilometers) which we weren't allowed earlier and that is why we applied for it's membership.
2. It shows that India is committed to observing non-proliferation of technology with respect of missiles, especially those which are capable of nuclear weapon delivery over a certain range. This will enhance our bid for NSG.
3. This will ease of scrutiny over our intentions when it comes to future weapons deal with other countries as the MTCR members know we will abide by the rules.
4. Also, enhances our soft power as they will know that India is a responsible country.
5. Lastly, I see no harm arising from our membership of MTCR.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

India has 22 nuclear plants: eight of them with an aggregate capacity of 2,400 MW are fueled by domestic uranium, the remaining 14 reactors with an aggregate capacity of 4,380 MW under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards use imported uranium

The problem here is that the 14 reactors are also important to india. Of the 14 reactors, about 10 are capable of producing plutonium for nuclear bombs as they are PHWR reactors and specialised for plutonium production.

Why the government is importing: The government admits that the extraction and processing cost of uranium in India is very high as compared to other countries. Other uranium-rich areas are yet to be explored in the lack of supporting infrastructure and poor logistics. Lack of technology, adverse socio-economic conditions, environmental aspects, are other factors contributing to the slackened process of mining of some of the deposits in Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Telangana.

150 ton of Natural Uranium can produce 1GW of power for 1 year in PHWR reactor. 1GW per year in KWH units is:

1,000,000 x 24 x 365 = 8.75 billion KWH units. The cost of Uranium is $50 per kg which becomes $50,000 per ton. For 150 ton, the cost becomes $7.5 million. So, cost of Uranium per unit power produced is Rupees 70 x (7.5/8750) = 0.06. So, the cost of Uranium per unit of electricity is 6 paisa. Do you even think it matter that cost of extraction of Uranium increases by 50% to 10 paisa per unit?


All excuses give by govt are nothing but treasonous excuses of congress to sabotage and nothing else. India has 2 lakh ton of Uranium (2.4 lakh ton of Uranium oxide). Inability to extract 1000 ton is nothing but treason. India can easily extract over 2000-3000 tons per annum if efforts are put.

As for coal: India's coal quality is shit. Due to high demand and poor average quality, India is forced to import high quality coal to meet the requirements of steel plants. India's coal imports have risen from 49.79 million metric tons (0.05488 billion short tons) in 2007-08 to 190.95 million metric tons (0.21049 billion short tons) in 2016-17. We have Gondwana coal which is of low calorific value and high ash content. The carbon content is low in India's coal, and toxic trace element concentrations are negligible. The natural fuel value of Indian coal is poor. On average, the Indian power plants using India's coal supply consume about 0.7 kg of coal to generate a kWh, whereas United States thermal power plants consume about 0.45 kg of coal per kWh.

There are problems with your calculations. Here is the issue:

Indian coal is bituminous and has high ash cotent of 35% and medium moisture content of 5%. So, total of 40% of Indian coal is non usable and rest 60% is bituminous quality. In USA coal, it is anthracite with about 25% ash+moisture. This means that each ton of coal of USA has 15% more coal than each ton of Indian coal. In addition, USA is having anthracite coal. So, the efficiency of USA coal plant is higher and produce 60% more electricity per kg of coal. Indian coal needs 0.75kg per unit while anthracite of USA needs 0.45-0.5 kg per unit.

Indian coal is not useless but just less efificient per ton. But it is not as bad as lignite coal and also available in India. Just high ash content is not an excuse to not use coal. It only slightly increases transport cost but changes nothing else.

A study done by Centre for Science and Environment, a leading NGO : The study claimed the average efficiency of the plants, it assessed, was 32.8 per cent, one of the lowest among major coal -based power producing countries. It claimed that average CO2 emission was 1.08 kg per kWh, 14 per cent higher than that of China.
Now, don't question the NGO itself and call them urban naxals, there is nothing wrong with this NGO

Attached is a study that says, carbon dioxide emission of Indian coal is about 0.95kg per unit. This is same as China. The only reason for increased coal per unit power is due to high ash content. There is no other problem.


PS: Indian nuclear plants were meant for plutonium production, not for power generation. If you want nuclear power generation, then you must construct new plants, not divert the plutonium generation to power.

These are the reactors of India:

Of these, only Kaiga, Madras and the two 540MWe reactors of Tarapur are not under IAEA. The other reactors are under IAEA safeguards. There is no problem with keeping 2 x Kundankulam reactors, the 2 x BWR of Tarapur under IAEA as they can't produce plutonium. But India needs the reactors of Rajasthan, Narora and Kakrapur for plutonium generation.

The yellow highlighted ones are not plutonium producing reactors and hence OK to be under IAEA. The red highlighted ones are plutonium producing reactors which must not be under IAEA but are under IAEA. The non highlighted ones are not in IAEA. My problem is with the red ones being under IAEA which should have been ideally producing plutonium for bombs

Those who put the red ones under IAEA are traitors

 

[Jackd]

There are problems with your calculations. Here is the issue:

Indian coal is bituminous and has high ash cotent of 35% and medium moisture content of 5%. So, total of 40% of Indian coal is non usable and rest 60% is bituminous quality. In USA coal, it is anthracite with about 25% ash+moisture. This means that each ton of coal of USA has 15% more coal than each ton of Indian coal. In addition, USA is having anthracite coal. So, the efficiency of USA coal plant is higher and produce 60% more electricity per kg of coal. Indian coal needs 0.75kg per unit while anthracite of USA needs 0.45-0.5 kg per unit.

Indian coal is not useless but just less efificient per ton. But it is not as bad as lignite coal and also available in India. Just high ash content is not an excuse to not use coal. It only slightly increases transport cost but changes nothing else.

Nothing wrong with these calculations as you are quoting from the same source. Never said it is useless, it is just inefficient and polluting as hell, perhaps, you don't really care about the environment.

The government envisaged setting up of nuclear power plants for the sake of power generation. Quoting from Wikipedia: On 23 March 1948, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Atomic Energy Bill in the Indian Parliament,[19] and it was subsequently passed as the Indian Atomic Energy Act. Modeled on the British Atomic Energy Act 1946, the Act granted sweeping powers to the central government over nuclear science and research, including surveying for atomic minerals, the development of such mineral resources on an industrial scale, conducting research regarding the scientific and technical problems connected with developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the training and education of the necessary personnel and the fostering of fundamental research in the nuclear sciences in Indian laboratories, institutes and universities.
Around the same time, the Government of West Bengal sanctioned the construction of a nuclear physics institute under the University of Calcutta; the cornerstone was laid in May 1948, and the institute was inaugurated on 11 January 1950 by Irène Joliot-Curie.

In September 1955, the question of building a commercial nuclear power station was raised in Parliament.[40] Shortly after the world's first commercial nuclear power plant came online at Obninsk in the Soviet Union, the Soviets invited a number of Indian experts to visit it; the United States concurrently offered training in atomic energy to Indian technical and scientific personnel. In August 1957, members of the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce in Ahmedabad (then in Bombay State) requested an atomic power station for their city, by which time the Indian government was actively considering the construction of at least "one or more large Atomic Power Stations to generate electricity." By November 1958, the Atomic Energy Commission had recommended construction of two nuclear power stations, each consisting of two units and able to generate 500 MW of power, for a total generating capacity of 1000 MW; the government decided that a minimum of 250 MW of electricity generated from nuclear reactors would be incorporated into the Third Five Year Plan (1961-1966).

Another piece of info about our coal plants:
Shy of public scrutiny

Participation BY the coal-based thermal power sector in the Green Rating Project (GRP) was low, partly because a number of plants run by Central government-owned companies refused to participate. NTPC, the leading player, was the chief culprit with none of its six plants in the sample agreeing to provide data. The generation-related information was sought under the RTI Act from the six NTPC plants, but all declined the request citing confidentiality and competition-sensitive data. The Central Electricity Authority, the government regulator, asks all power plants to submit key generation-related data. NTPC has refused to allow even the regulator to publish efficiency data related to it. GRP did gather information from the regulatory bodies and local community and media. It found the NTPC plants to be heavily polluting and facing numerous complaints. Source: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/coal-toll-48581 They are quoting the CSE audit.

Can't see the attachment but you quoted your source, I quoted a respectable one.

The government has made a wise decision(in 2008) and if you call them traitors then call the present government traitors too as they haven't changed the status quo. Even, Pakistan has some of its nuclear power plants under IAEA safeguards (even for the 2 supplied by China). Being under safeguards in not detrimental.

 

[Jackd]

News of 2014 :
Narendra Modi government signals continuity in implementing the India-U.S. nuclear deal
Signalling the continuity of policy, the new government has ratified the Additional Protocol, a commitment given under India-U.S. nuclear deal by the previous dispensation to grant greater ease to International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor India’s civilian atomic programme.

The Additional Protocol was ratified last week and this has been conveyed to the Vienna-based IAEA, the global watchdog of nuclear activities, sources told PTI in New Delhi.

The IAEA had in March 2009 approved an additional protocol to India’s safeguards agreement consequent to a pact reached with the agency the previous year to place its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.

That agreement had paved the way for the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to grant India-specific waiver for it to have commercial relations with other countries in the civilian atomic field.

The waiver was necessary as India, despite being a nuclear-armed state, is not a signatory to the NPT.

The ratification is a signal by the Narendra Modi government to the world, particularly the U.S., that it is serious in continuing to implement the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

The Additional Protocol, signed between India and the IAEA on March 15, 2009, involves a high degree of scrutiny of nuclear facilities, including its reactors and fuel cycle sites by the inspectors of the atomic energy body. India has already listed 20 of its sites as agreed between the two.

These includes six facilities in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Hyderabad, unit 1 and 2 and two more facilities in Tarapur in Maharashtra , units 1-6 of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station.

The move will help in facilitating multiple entries for the IAEA inspectors for conducting necessary inspections. Even the data transmitting that happens can be done with remote transmitting. Information about the nuclear exports would also be given to the IAEA so that cross verification could be done in an easier way.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

News of 2014 :
Narendra Modi government signals continuity in implementing the India-U.S. nuclear deal
Signalling the continuity of policy, the new government has ratified the Additional Protocol, a commitment given under India-U.S. nuclear deal by the previous dispensation to grant greater ease to International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor India’s civilian atomic programme.

The Additional Protocol was ratified last week and this has been conveyed to the Vienna-based IAEA, the global watchdog of nuclear activities, sources told PTI in New Delhi.

The IAEA had in March 2009 approved an additional protocol to India’s safeguards agreement consequent to a pact reached with the agency the previous year to place its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.

That agreement had paved the way for the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to grant India-specific waiver for it to have commercial relations with other countries in the civilian atomic field.

The waiver was necessary as India, despite being a nuclear-armed state, is not a signatory to the NPT.

The ratification is a signal by the Narendra Modi government to the world, particularly the U.S., that it is serious in continuing to implement the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

The Additional Protocol, signed between India and the IAEA on March 15, 2009, involves a high degree of scrutiny of nuclear facilities, including its reactors and fuel cycle sites by the inspectors of the atomic energy body. India has already listed 20 of its sites as agreed between the two.

These includes six facilities in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Hyderabad, unit 1 and 2 and two more facilities in Tarapur in Maharashtra , units 1-6 of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station.

The move will help in facilitating multiple entries for the IAEA inspectors for conducting necessary inspections. Even the data transmitting that happens can be done with remote transmitting. Information about the nuclear exports would also be given to the IAEA so that cross verification could be done in an easier way.

The continuity of UPA agreement was not as direct as the presstitute news says. Modi has demanded that India must be expeditiously given good amount of Uranium from wester countries like Australia, Canada, France etc in return for continuing. Instead of abrogating the agreement, Modi has sanctioned building of several more reactors which will instead replace the original PHWR reactors lost to IAEA. Also, enrichment for submarines and hydrogen bombs have started too.

Nothing wrong with these calculations as you are quoting from the same source. Never said it is useless, it is just inefficient and polluting as hell, perhaps, you don't really care about the environment.

There is nothing anyone can do about pollution. Development is always by extracting natural resources. So, there is always environmental cost for development. Nuclear power is meaningless and can't substitute coal energy. The amount of Uranium is very limited and can't overcome the coal plant.

The government has made a wise decision(in 2008) and if you call them traitors then call the present government traitors too as they haven't changed the status quo. Even, Pakistan has some of its nuclear power plants under IAEA safeguards (even for the 2 supplied by China). Being under safeguards in not detrimental.

Continuing status quo is because the damage is done. Modi just used the situation to extract large deals while not compromising Indian security. Going back on the deal would not undo the damage. But taking maximum use of the situation was prudent.

There were several problems with Modi:

• The Uranium mining infrastructure was poor due to UPA scuttling projects
• The existing 2400MW reactors could handle then production of Uranium. By increasing the speed of recycle, more Uranium can be made use while increasing plutonium production
• Requirement for Uranium for nuclear submarines and enrichment for higher powered hydrogen bombs needed Uranium
• Production of new reactors is possible with Indian technology and could easily replace the reactors lost for IAEA while the deal could be milked to it maximum potential by getting tens of thousands of ton Uranium

Overall, under Modi, the handicap of surrendering the reactors are being undone by building new ones and increasing the speed of fuel cycle. Had UPA too constructed new reactors and extorted tens of thousands of tons of Uranium, they would not be called traitors.

 

[Jackd]

The continuity of UPA agreement was not as direct as the presstitute news says. Modi has demanded that India must be expeditiously given good amount of Uranium from wester countries like Australia, Canada, France etc in return for continuing. Instead of abrogating the agreement, Modi has sanctioned building of several more reactors which will instead replace the original PHWR reactors lost to IAEA. Also, enrichment for submarines and hydrogen bombs have started too

You have no source for the above news, so first provide the source and then make claims. We are not making hydrogen bombs, I repeat, we are not making hydrogen bombs currently.
You are talking about reactors being 'lost' to IAEA but one important thing that you don't know is that only India's civilian nuclear reactors are under IAEA safeguards and not the military ones. Also, the deal signed by UPA was good as the distinction between civilian and military reactors was achieved. The people you are calling pressitutes are not idiots like you are and they haven't made any false claims with regards to the nuclear program, since the information is limited, they only use what they get from IAEA, DEA and the current agreements/ratifications.

You spout nonsense all the time and all your 'opinions' are bloody conspiracy theories at best (Like that 10L planes bit).
Do you even know that to import Uranium, India had to accept IAEA safeguards and there was and will never be a way around it.

There is nothing anyone can do about pollution. Development is always by extracting natural resources. So, there is always environmental cost for development. Nuclear power is meaningless and can't substitute coal energy. The amount of Uranium is very limited and can't overcome the coal plant.

Then your pessimistic and uninformed viewpoint just destroys the backbone and objective of varies treaties and agreements like Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015 etc. which were signed to combat one of the biggest threat to mankind. The whole point of National Solar mission, nuclear power generation, Wind energy augmentation, hydroelectric power generation, target of 175GW of installed renewable capacity etc. is moot and why the hell is government, scratch that, the whole world concerned about climate change and its impact. Why does the government sets pollution norms and why do they monitor pollution as well why do they allocate 20,000 cr to clean Ganga if there is 'nothing' you can do about pollution? Inform yourself and stop making castles in the air.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

You are talking about reactors being 'lost' to IAEA but one important thing that you don't know is that only India's civilian nuclear reactors are under IAEA safeguards and not the military ones

We want every reactor to be military ones to maximise plutonium production. I have been emphasising this everytime. There is no difference between a PHWR reactor in military use and civilian use as both end up producing plutonium. What difference does it make if kakrapur reactor produced plutonium and was used in bombs? Why is it necessary that a reactor can't produce electricity and plutonium at the same time?

Stop blabbering nonsense everytime.

You spout nonsense all the time and all your 'opinions' are bloody conspiracy theories at best (Like that 10L planes bit).
Do you even know that to import Uranium, India had to accept IAEA safeguards and there was and will never be a way around it.

How are practical answers opinions? My answers are factual regardless of what officials say. My words hold consistent principles and reasoning. I am saying repeatedly that India has 2 lakh tons of Uranium and can extract 1000tons a year if needed. There is no need to import Uranium for upto at least 4-5GW of power. So, the submission of Karapur, narora and Rawatbata plant is nothing but treason.

India needs imports only for Kundankulam, BWR of tarapur etc as these are not PHWR designs.

Then your pessimistic and uninformed viewpoint just destroys the backbone and objective of varies treaties and agreements like Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015 etc. which were signed to combat one of the biggest threat to mankind.

You bloody fool, the climate change is fake propaganda to cover up oil depletion and threat of economic collapse by oil end. If you think carbon emission is the real problem, answer this question:

The carbon dioxide in atmosphere increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over last 100 years which according to climate change theory caused increase of 1 celsius temperature. So, according to this logic, 0.01% increase of Co2 increases temperature by 1 celsius. So, what change might happen if earth's atmosphere had 1% CO2? WIll it go to 100 celsius? Is this even logical? Many experiments have bee done with greenhouse for CO2 but none have shown any such drastic temperature increase for such miniscule increase of CO2.

The whole point of National Solar mission, nuclear power generation, Wind energy augmentation, hydroelectric power generation, target of 175GW of installed renewable capacity etc. is moot and why the hell is government, scratch that, the whole world concerned about climate change and its impact

This is needed to adjust for fossil fuel free world, not climate change. Once fossile fuels run out, we still eed energy and that is why we need renewables, not to reduce CO2

Why does the government sets pollution norms and why do they monitor pollution as well why do they allocate 20,000 cr to clean Ganga if there is 'nothing' you can do about pollution?

Your ideas must never be a deduction on what others are doing but on factual situations. Cleaning Ganga will not decrease CO2 levels. Pollution is affecting health and that is serious. Climate change is about CO2 only, not about health or pollution. Pollution, not carbon dioxide, is a threat to life but not climate.

 

[Jackd]

Two things: 1. Get your head out of the place where the sun doesn't shine.
2. Quit your bullshit and like I said stop making castles in the air.
I am done with your nonsense.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Two things: 1. Get your head out of the place where the sun doesn't shine.
2. Quit your bullshit and like I said stop making castles in the air.
I am done with your nonsense.

You are a nonsense. That is the problem. If you made sense, you would be answering my questions or rebutting, not running away.

When you can't understand, just brand that as bullshit