Nuclear Power in India

[youngindian]

US eyes two Indian nuclear parks

PM likely to visit US in September




S Rajagopalan
First Published : 27 Jun 2009 07:53:32 AM IST
Last Updated : 27 Jun 2009 09:45:05 AM IST

WASHINGTON: The United States expects
New Delhi to announce the locations of two nuclear parks for American companies next month when Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to India as secretary of state.

“We hope to have two sites that would be announced, where American companies can go in and provide new reactors, which would be a major source of new business opportunities for American companies,” assistant secretary of state for south and central Asia Robert Blake told a Congressional panel. He sought to clear the air about slow implementation of the civil nuclear deal, asserting: “We’re making a great deal of progress. We’re most of the way there now.” “India, as you know, just signed their additional protocol, and now they’ve got to file with the IAEA the list of their safeguarded facilities,” Blake said. “And then we’re also hoping to see action on nuclear liability legislation that would reduce liability for American companies and allow them to invest in India.” Blake termed Clinton’s upcoming India trip ‘a major visit for us’. Clinton, now recuperating after a surgery for the right elbow that she fractured last week in a fall, is slated to visit New Delhi in the latter part of July, but the dates for the visit are still to be announced.

Earlier, Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson, who had played an active part in the Congressional passage of the nuclear deal during the Bush administration, had quizzed: “And so, what is the status of the civilian nuclear agreement with India?” Blake, in his opening remarks to a subcommittee hearing of the House foreign affairs committee, said the implementation of the civil nuclear deal has established a new level of trust between India and the US, setting the stage for the next level in which the two countries can become global partners while also focusing on India’s still huge development needs.

He said that President Barack Obama and Clinton have both expressed ‘a deep commitment to building stronger ties with India, a commitment based on mutual respect and mutual interests’, with Clinton affirming: “We see India as one of a few key partners worldwide who will help us shape the 21st century.” On the Indo-Pak front, the US points person for South Asia stuck to the line that Washington will ‘continue to support dialogue between Indian and Pakistani leaders’, while ‘the timing, scope, and content of any such dialogue are strictly matters for Pakistani and Indian leaders to decide’.

“India and Pakistan face common challenges, and we will support continuing dialogue to find joint solutions to counter terrorism and to promote regional stability,” he said.

In reply to a lawmaker’s question, Blake said Pakistan has deployed some troops away from the Indian border.

“I think more needs to be done in that respect, but we’re encouraged by the progress that has been made so far,” he said.

 

[nitesh]

India may announce two nuclear sites during Clinton trip: Blake

 

[youngindian]

India, Kazakhstan working on inter-governmental nuke energy cooperation pact

July 1st, 2009

New Delhi, July 1 (ANI): India and Kazakhstan are actively working to finalize the inter-governmental agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, revealed Kazakhstan’s Ambassador to India, Dr. Kairat Umarov, during an interaction with select media on Tuesday evening.

Dr. Umarov said bilateral relations between both countries were progressing very well, and this was reflected when both
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev expressed their satisfaction over the enhancement of ties on the sidelines of the recently held Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia.

He said that both leaders have directed their respective foreign ministers to work on a road map for promotion of a strategic partnership, with a timeline for implementing joint projects, especially in key sectors like nuclear energy, thermal power, oil and gas, petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Umarov also revealed that there has been significant progress in hydrocarbons cooperation following a January 24, 2009 Heads of Agreement between KazMunaiGas National Gas Company and the ONGC. Since then, he said that the seventh meeting of the Kazakhstan-India Inter-Governmental Commission had been held in Astana in March during which all issues relating to the signing of an oil contract had been resolved by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministers of the two countries - Sauat Mynbayev and Murli Deora. The two companies were now working on concluding the contract, the envoy said.

He said that President Nursultan Nazarbayev has invited and offered Indian oil and gas companies to establish the first petrochemical plant in Kazakhstan, and in this regard, delegations of the ONGC, IOC and GAIL have visited Kazakhstan.

As far as bilateral pharmaceutical cooperation was concerned, Ambassador Umarov said Indian companies such as Hindustan Antibiotics would be visiting Kazakhstan from July 14 to 17 to hold talks on modalities for the setting up of a pharmaceutical plant in Almaty.

He said that bilateral trade turnover currently stands at USD 367.0 million, and 87.9 percent increase over 2007 turnover figures.

President Nazarbayev, he said, has aggressively pitched for increased foreign direct investment (FDI), especially for infrastructural and innovative projects, and believed Indian investors had a great opportunity to establish and cement their businesses in Kazakhstan, which has been listed among the 20 investor friendly countries by the World Bank.

Dr. Umarov also dwelled on Kazakhstan’s non-proliferation efforts, saying that it was the first country to voluntarily give up its nuclear arsenal, which in 1989, was the fourth largest in the world.

Revealing that he had actively participated in non-proliferation movements at that time, Dr. Umarov said that a genuine nation-wide effort had seen Kazakhstan putting a complete stop to nuclear tests, and added that Kazakhstan has an impressive record in non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.

He specifically dwelt on Kazakhstan’s efforts in considering a proposal to set up a nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the Vienna-headquartered International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its initiative to push for a new global treaty that it would ensure comprehensive “vertical and horizontal” non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This treaty is due to come up for discussion at the NPT Review Conference in 2010, he added.

He said that President Nazarbayev has called on the UN to declare August 29 as the “International Day of Nuclear Weapons Renunciation”.

As far as the reconstruction of war-ravaged Afghanistan was concerned, Dr. Umarov said that Kazakhstan allocated three million dollars in 2007-08, has provided over flight rights for resupply missions to Afghanistan and permitted land transit for non-military supplies. (ANI)


India, Kazakhstan working on inter-governmental nuke energy cooperation pact

 

[youngindian]

Strategic Part of India's Civilian Nuclear Plans

Wednesday 01 July 2009

We are beginning by briefly revisiting Kaiga, the site of a nuclear complex in India's southern State of India, close to the country's west coast. It was also the venue of a mysterious death. The event was covered in these columns (Death of an Indian Nuclear Scientist, June 24, 2009). We are not returning here because we have more clues to the truth about the tragedy. Not yet.

Kaiga, meanwhile, has figured in reports of another kind. On June 26, "a top nuclear scientist," presumably of this atomic power station, let the media know that the place was "being pushed as the location for US companies to set up new reactors."

Around the same time, the US Congress was reportedly told that the Barack Obama administration expected India to offer two locations for US nuclear firms to install reactors when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits India. She is likely to do so in the second half of July, and New Delhi has to decide soon on its proposal.

There are indications that the decision may not be influenced solely and strictly by considerations of "civilian nuclear energy cooperation" - the avowed objective of the US-India nuclear deal that has opened the door for legitimized nuclear commerce to the largest South Asian nation.

Talking of the questions raised over the mystery death of scientist Lokanathan Mahalingam, we noted the ones provoked in particular by the non-civilian aspect of Kaiga's nuclear reactors. The complex, in operation under the Nuclear Power Corporation of India for over nine years now, has four of the eight reactors officially acknowledged as strategic and placed outside the purview of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

The scientist, who told the media on condition of anonymity about the Kaiga move, said that a governmental committee had "zoomed in" on about a dozen possible sites for new nuclear power plants. He left very little doubt that the strong push for Kaiga as a venue for US nuclear ventures was coming from India.

Does the proposal have anything to do with New Delhi's keenness to ensure that IAEA inspections of the new reactors are as non-intrusive as possible? The assumption is hardly far-fetched, considering the freely aired hope that such collaborations will culminate in India's eventual admission into the "nuclear club," members of which have neither intrusive inspections nor any sanctions to fear.

As for the size of collaborations envisaged, the Indian government was recently reported to have told Washington of readiness for a deal worth $150 billion for US nuclear reactors (with a total capacity of 10,000 MWe), equipment and materials. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy Shyam Saran had also made the mouth-watering promise that the US companies would "benefit for decades" by bagging a huge chunk of Indian military hardware orders as well.

Other collaborations are under active consideration as well. Negotiations are known to have made much progress with four global players in the field: General Electric-Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse, Areva of France, and Atomstroyeksport of Russia. Six to eight reactors, of 1,000-1,650 MW, are to be installed at each of the dozen nuclear parks to be set up in different States across the country, with a preference for the already calamity-prone coastal regions.

India's corporates cannot contain their glee and can hardly wait for the goodies on the way. In April 2009, the Confederation of Industry (CII) housed a conference in Mumbai on "Opportunities and challenges for nuclear power in India." Addressing the conference, Anil Kokadkar, chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), said: "International nuclear power firms are now eyeing partnerships and collaborations with Indian companies."

But he added that the Indian companies should "exercise due diligence and read the fine print before signing deals with foreign nuclear power firms," He also stressed that "such agreements should not limit their (the Indian firms') ability to supply equipment for other segments of the nuclear market."

The Indian big business and nuclear establishment (including its bomb lobby), however, are blithely optimistic about what they consider the inevitable outcome of the coming series of collaborations. As they see it, it is the logic of outsourcing that is making the multinational corporations opt for these collaborations. The logic of the collaborations, in turn, will make India a de facto member of the "nuclear club," despite provisions of the discriminatory Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Presenting the argument, columnist Swaminathan Aiyar writes: "The multinationals of France, US and Japan want to manufacture nuclear equipment in India to meet not just Indian but global demand. Once India becomes part of the global supply chain, it will become effectively sanctions-proof. As a supplier of global equipment, it will be in a position to impose sanctions on others, not just be at the receiving end."

Playing the ominous oracle, he pronounces: "That's why the biggest hawks in our nuclear establishment, who badly want nuclear testing in the distant future, can relax on the issue of sanctions. De facto, India will become a member of the privileged P 5 when it becomes part of the global supply chain of nuclear equipment in the next 10 years."

This is a prospect that the peace movement in India and the region has to face. The June issue of the journal of India's Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), Peace Now, in its editorial, recalls that the US-India nuclear deal did not figure as an issue in the country's recent general election (with the far-right opposition dropping even its feigned opposition to it). The editorial warns: "That would, however, not stop the ruling party claiming popular endorsement for the deal and the further process to follow - i.e. installation of new nuclear power plants - is likely to be stepped considerably up."

"The only possible hiccup." says the CNDP, "is paucity of investible funds given the serious downturn in global economy. But that may not be too great a hurdle."

Paucity of funds has not stopped the nuclear militarists of this poor country so far. It certainly won't be a hurdle when they expect the new reactors to seat them at the world's high nuclear table.

t r u t h o u t | Strategic Part of India's Civilian Nuclear Plans

 

[youngindian]

ANALYSIS - Row over nuclear fuel bank awaits new IAEA chief

Thu, Jul 2 09:28 AM

Whoever becomes head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog later this year will have to tackle a deep political divide over a nuclear fuel supply plan aimed at keeping the world safe from the spread of atomic weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) holds a vote on Thursday to try to pick a successor to director-general Mohamed ElBaradei, who will retire in November without realising his vision of a safe nuclear fuel supply for all.

The issue will test his successor's diplomatic mettle but who that will be is also up in the air, with industrialised and developed nations at odds over the best candidate.

On the backburner for decades, the fuel bank has been given a strong boost U.S. President Barack Obama, and got further impetus from Iran's expanding enrichment programme which the West suspects is aimed at yielding atom bombs.

The IAEA forecasts that demand for nuclear energy, most visible so far in countries across the conflict-ridden Middle East, will almost double over the next generation as nations seek an alternative to high-polluting and finite fossil fuels.

But the uranium used in nuclear power plants can also be enriched to high levels to form the fissile core of atom bombs -- something the West fears Iran could be pursuing but Tehran denies, saying its programme is intended only for electricity.

"This is an issue which will increasingly demand the attention of the (IAEA) director-general -- to manage the expansion of nuclear power in ways that provide for confidence," said Mark Fitzpatrick, senior non-proliferation fellow at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

ElBaradei, backed by uranium producer Russia, has been trying to propel the plan forward but was blocked at a June IAEA board meeting by developing states, who fear it could limit their right to establishing their own atomic energy programmes. Some 60 countries want to develop projects according to the IAEA.

Keen to build his legacy after 12 high-profile years at the agency helm, ElBaradei has promoted "multinationalising" the fuel cycle through an IAEA-supervised bank which would provide low-enriched uranium from industrialised nations' stocks if recipients can show an impeccable non-proliferation record.

Countries would be able to tap the bank if their fuel supply is cut off for political reasons.

"There is a difficult line -- who is this aimed at? With countries like Iran, how do you manage the criteria so you don't reward bad behaviour but at the same time supply to countries you fear are engaging in that behaviour?" an EU diplomat said.

"That's quite a delicate balance."



INDIA LEADS RESISTANCE

India, which along with China is set to become one of the world's biggest users of atomic power, has led objections to the fuel bank solution, rejecting ElBaradei's request to flesh out the plan for approval in September.

Developing nations warned against "any attempts (meant) to discourage the pursuit of any peaceful nuclear technology on the grounds of its alleged 'sensitivity'", in a statement to the IAEA board of governors meeting on June 18.

Developing nations comprise about half the IAEA board, which makes key decisions by diplomatic consensus. Despite the setback, diplomats said, the plan will remain on the table.

"Many countries recognise that the extra energy security that would be afforded by fuel assurances may make nuclear power more feasible," a senior Western diplomat said.

ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has argued that all new and existing enrichment and reprocessing facilities should eventually come under multilateral control -- but has recognised just how politically sensitive this idea could be.

"Make no mistake -- any mechanism that smacks of inequality or dependency will never get off the ground," he told the U.N. General Assembly in October.

There are two main draft plans for the fuel bank, which would be the first step towards full multilateral ownership.

An IAEA proposal says $150 million in donations pledged for the initiative could buy 60-80 tonnes of low-enriched uranium that would be offered to member states at market prices. Russia has offered to host an 120-tonne LEU reserve to supply the IAEA.

The debate over the plan highlights a divide on the IAEA board between countries with nuclear power, who stress the agency's anti-proliferation watchdog role, and developing nations who focus on the IAEA mandate to promote peaceful uses of the atom -- the 52-year-old agency's original purpose.

But the IAEA sees fostering peaceful applications of nuclear energy as inseparable from its higher-profile mandate to stop the illicit spread of nuclear weapons capability.

"Whoever is the next director-general will have to realise that the IAEA's role is not just as the policeman of nuclear material but as the facilitator for making the best use of it in a sustainable manner," IAEA nuclear power expert Ian Facer said.

(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich)


ANALYSIS - Row over nuclear fuel bank awaits new IAEA chief - Yahoo! India News

 

[I-G]

Sweden offers India civilian nuclear technology

Sweden offers India civilian nuclear technology

New Delhi (IANS): Sweden, a member of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, is offering New Delhi its niche expertise in nuclear waste management and security as it eyes India's $40 billion civilian nuclear energy market.

"Sweden has considerable expertise in nuclear waste management and areas relating to nuclear security. We are exploring opportunities of partnering with India in this area," Sweden's Ambassador to India Lars-Olof Lindgren told IANS in an interview here.


The envoy said a delegation of Swedish companies operating in the area of nuclear technology and safety management came to India this April on an exploratory trip. They held talks with officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and also met India's nuclear points man Anil Kakodkar, chief of the Atomic Energy Commission.

The delegation comprised Swedish atomic companies such as Sandpit, Swenson, SKB International Consulting AB, Studbook, ES-consult and Rel con Candlepower AB.

Another Swedish delegation will be coming to India soon to explore opportunities in the nuclear energy area, the envoy said, adding that nuclear technology solutions is a promising area of future cooperation between the two countries.

Swedish companies are also in touch with Indian private companies such as Larsen and Toubro and Bharat Forge which are interested in the production of nuclear power, currently the monopoly of the government in India.

The envoy sought to dispel the impression that Sweden, like other Scandinavian countries, was reluctant to support a consensus for India in the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group - the global cartel that controls global trade in nuclear equipment and materials.

"We consider India as a responsible nuclear power and understand its need for energy and nuclear development. Sweden was never questioning a change in the NSG guidelines," the envoy underlined.

He also outlined possibilities of cooperation in renewable solar and wind energy and clean energy technologies in which Sweden is a pacesetter.

Sweden depends on nuclear power for nearly 50 percent of its energy needs. In a radical departure from its established policy, the Swedish government scrapped a three-decade ban on building new nuclear reactors in February this year, saying it needed to avoid producing more greenhouse gases.

The Swedish government is now planning to replace old reactors with new reactors, the envoy said.

The Indian nuclear power market is estimated to touch $40 billion or Rs.20,000 crore by 2020. Atomic companies from the US, Russia, France and Kazakhstan, the four countries with which India has signed bilateral nuclear pacts, are vying to get a share of the nuclear pie. British companies specializing in nuclear safety and research have also opened contacts with India.

The Hindu News Update Service

 

[Pintu]

The news of concern:

The Hindu : Front Page : G8 blocks ‘full’ nuclear trade with India

Regards

 

[Singh]

The news of concern:

The Hindu : Front Page : G8 blocks ‘full’ nuclear trade with India

Regards

Reproducing this very important article alongwith another relevant article from the same author.

G8 blocks ‘full’ nuclear trade with India​

Siddharth Varadarajan

Adopts rules making fuel cycle transfers conditional on NPT

New Delhi: Less than a year after the Nuclear Suppliers Group waived its export rules to allow the sale of nuclear equipment, fuel and technology to India, the United States has persuaded the G8 to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including India.

The move, which effectively negates the promise of “full” civil nuclear cooperation lying at the heart of the 2005 India-U.S. nuclear agreement, took the Indian establishment by surprise with officials unaware that the G8 was even adopting such a measure at L’Aquila, Italy. That this was done at a summit in which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was an invited guest is likely to add insult to injury when the full implications of the latest decision fully sink in.

The ban, buried deep within a separate G8 statement on non-proliferation, commits the eight countries to implement on a “national basis” the “useful and constructive proposals” on ways of strengthening controls on ENR items and technology “contained in the NSG’s ‘clean text’ developed at the 20 November 2008 Consultative Group meeting.”
Minimum criteria

Though the “clean text” is not a public document, a senior diplomat from a G8 country confirmed to The Hindu that the eight countries had agreed to certain minimum criteria — including adherence to the main instruments of nonproliferation — as a condition for the sale of equipment and technology destined for safeguarded ENR activities in a recipient country.

In the run-up to the final NSG plenary on India last September, Washington sought to get New Delhi to agree that the nuclear cartel’s rule waiver would not cover ENR transfers. But with the Indian side sticking to its guns, the NSG finally agreed to a clean exemption allowing nuclear exports of all kinds, including sensitive fuel-cycle-related items and technologies, provided they were under safeguards.

Under pressure from the Bush administration, the NSG subsequently debated new ENR rules last November but failed to evolve a consensus because of opposition from countries like Brazil, Canada and Spain to restrictions that would go beyond what the NPT itself provided for.

With consensus proving elusive during the recent June meeting of the 45-nation club, the Obama administration decided to decouple the question of ENR sales to India from the NSG process — something the latest G8 agreement on interim implementation of a national-level ban effectively does.

India’s ability to purchase nuclear fuel and reactors from the G8 or NSG countries will be unaffected by the latest ban. Unless, of course, the new decision becomes the trigger for attempts to further dilute or qualify the core bargain contained in the ‘India exception’ last year.

The Hindu : Front Page : G8 blocks ‘full’ nuclear trade with India



--------------------------------------------------------------------

G8 ban is sign India’s nuclear quest is not over ​

Siddharth Varadarajan

Reversal raises questions about effectiveness of Indian diplomacy

New Delhi: In diplomacy, as in football, smart players know the consequences of losing sight of the ball. The blink of an eye is all it takes to miss a goal or lose a hard-won advantage.

2008 was a signal year for Indian diplomacy when a set of international restrictions that had starved the country’s nuclear industry of fuel and equipment for two decades was lifted on terms less restrictive than what Washington — which initiated the drive to make an exception for India — had been prepared to grant New Delhi.

In the months that followed the successful campaign to lift trading restrictions on India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, however, a complacent establishment decided to rest on its laurels and forgot about the obstacles and dangers still remaining. And then, seemingly out of the blue, came the first American attempt at clawback: on Thursday, the G8 agreed to adopt new rules prohibiting the sale of ENR components and technology to countries like India which have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Much to the consternation of U.S. legislators, last year’s NSG exemption placed American nuclear vendors at a disadvantage by making imports from the U.S. far less attractive than comparable purchases from elsewhere, especially Russia and France. The 123 agreement, which governs bilateral commerce between the U.S. and India, allowed for the sale of reactors and fuel to India but these came saddled with a risky ‘right of return’ clause in the event that Washington terminated cooperation. At India’s insistence, enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items were not excluded but their sale was made conditional on a subsequent agreement that both sides knew would never see the light of day. Reprocessing of spent fuel was allowed but only in a new, permanently safeguarded facility and that too, under yet-to-be-negotiated arrangements and procedures.

By comparison, the NSG’s exemption made no provision for ‘right of return’ and allowed U.S. competitors to make ENR transfers so long as they were satisfied these would not be misused by India. The spent fuel could also be reprocessed in existing Indian facilities provided the reprocessing was done under safeguards. Net-net, this made non-U.S. reactors more attractive.

Somewhere along the line, the Indians assumed the game was over. The whistle blown at L’Aquila is a reminder that the U.S. has plenty of extra time in hand.

Of course, the tell-tale signs were all around: in the U.S. State Department’s answers to pointed queries from Congress about the need for a ‘level playing field’ at the NSG. And in the assurances Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave to Capitol Hill in order to ensure the speedy ratification of the 123 agreement last October.

Getting the NSG to agree to prohibit the export of ENR equipment and technology to states such as India that are not members of the NPT would be the United States’ “highest priority,” Dr. Rice told Congressman Howard Berman at the time.

The fact that the NSG held intensive consultations on the issue last November was also well known, as was the fact that the U.S. was managing to create a consensus around NPT conditionality, even as other issues like adherence to the Additional Protocol was opposed by some NSG members like Brazil and uranium-rich countries like Canada objected to ENR sales being restricted to so-called black-box technologies which could prevent them from developing their own enrichment know-how.
Full cooperation

Although India is technologically self-sufficient in reprocessing and enrichment technology, the inclusion of ENR components in the nuclear deal was a matter of principle, positioning and ‘paisa’. That is why Indian negotiators insisted in July 2005 that they would settle for nothing less than “full civil nuclear cooperation.”

After all, if an exception was being made for India because of its status as a responsible country with advanced nuclear technology, excluding sensitive technologies made no sense. India was also aware of the role ENR services would play in the future evolution of the global nuclear industry. With attempts under way to monopolise the fuel cycle, India needed to ensure its status as a ‘supplier’ country was recognised. Finally, costs were also an issue. Why spend crores producing components for ENR plants when the parts could be imported for a fraction of the cost? When push came to shove, the U.S. reneged on “full cooperation” but allowed India to get what it wanted at the NSG. Now, that is in jeopardy too.

As part of the NSG exemption, New Delhi pledged voluntary adherence to the cartel’s present and future rules. But the NSG also said it would “consult” with India prior to new rules being adopted. If these consultations have been held, New Delhi has clearly not been effective in putting its views across. The fact that the cartel is still some distance away from reaching a final decision provides cold comfort: the G8’s endorsement of last November’s “clean text” will certainly have the effect of speeding up the deliberative process at Vienna.

India had a chance to press its case with friends and allies and also to leverage the massive expenditure it is prepared to make on Russian, French and American nuclear reactors in order to ensure it does not become the target of fresh restrictions. By failing to be proactive, however, it has allowed the U.S. to gain the first mover advantage.

If a formal consensus does not emerge in the Nuclear Suppliers Group by the time the next plenary is held, India may have a small window to undo the symbolic and substantive damage that has occurred at L’Aquila. But it needs to lobby hard to ensure the interim ban adopted on ENR sales is not carried over to next year’s G8 statement.

Otherwise it should prepare for several rounds of bruising negotiations ahead. The second U.S. target will be spent fuel reprocessing. Existing agreements with Russia and France do not stipulate a new standalone facility or more intensive safeguards. And as the Obama administration presses ahead with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, attempts could be made to get the NSG to adopt a version of the U.S. ‘right of return’ for exported items in the event that India is seen as deviating from the disarmament and non-proliferation commitments it made last September.

The Hindu : Front Page : G8 ban is sign India’s nuclear quest is not over

 

[Known_Unknown]

Sadly, once India invests billions in foreign reactors, it will also be hooked on foreign uranium like a drug addict is on hashish. Before the nuclear deal, the western countries could not hurt India because sanctions were already in place and yet we had developed our own entirely indigenous nuclear industry. We had nothing to lose, and hence we could conduct nuke tests whenever we wanted and thumb our nose at the world.

By signing this deal, the Americans have revealed their far sighted deviousness. Just like Robert Clive of the East India Company, these "goras" make and break deals whenever they see fit thus defeating the very purpose of negotiating a bilateral agreement with them. Their immediate interest was to make it costly for India to test nukes again, and the only way to do that was to get India hooked on foreign uranium. Once India invests billions in reactors that might contribute 10% of the national electric grid, it's at the mercy of foreign "suppliers" that will be able to extract whatever concessions they wish from India to satisfy their global interests.

Maybe the communists were right in criticizing the deal, saying that the Americans can't be trusted.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

We should test a nuke and see what the reaction is?? Then we will not be the ones to have broken the deal, too bad a classic bait and switch which i thought india would never fall for.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Sadly, once India invests billions in foreign reactors, it will also be hooked on foreign uranium like a drug addict is on hashish. Before the nuclear deal, the western countries could not hurt India because sanctions were already in place and yet we had developed our own entirely indigenous nuclear industry. We had nothing to lose, and hence we could conduct nuke tests whenever we wanted and thumb our nose at the world.

By signing this deal, the Americans have revealed their far sighted deviousness. Just like Robert Clive of the East India Company, these "goras" make and break deals whenever they see fit thus defeating the very purpose of negotiating a bilateral agreement with them. Their immediate interest was to make it costly for India to test nukes again, and the only way to do that was to get India hooked on foreign uranium. Once India invests billions in reactors that might contribute 10% of the national electric grid, it's at the mercy of foreign "suppliers" that will be able to extract whatever concessions they wish from India to satisfy their global interests.

Maybe the communists were right in criticizing the deal, saying that the Americans can't be trusted.

they were also successful in keeping us in the uranium camp and further developing our thorium program, which now will also be dependent on this sham deal.

 

[Pintu]

PM, Sarkozy likely to review N-deal

Manmohan Singh will be the chief guest at French National Day celebrations on Tuesday

PM, Sarkozy likely to review N-deal

Anirban Bhaumik, NEW DELHI:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicholas Sarkozy are expected to review the civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries and discuss other bilateral issues during a luncheon meet in Paris next Tuesday.

Singh is travelling to Paris on an invitation from Sarkozy. He will be the chief guest at the French National Day celebrations on Tuesday.

The prime minister is visiting Paris at a time when the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and the French nuclear company Areva are at an advanced stage of negotiations on a contract to set up two 1650 MWe new generation European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. Diplomatic sources on Friday said negotiations between the NPCIL and Areva were going on and that the contract may be finalised in about two months.

The nuclear power plants at Jaitpura will be built and operated by the NPCIL with technology and engineering help from Areva.

Despite the minor hitches over tariffs of EPRs and fuel to be supplied by Areva during the entire lifetime of the reactors as well as the civil liabilities in case of an accident, both sides were confident of resolving all pending issues soon, sources said.

The NPCIL and Areva had on February 4 last signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that provided for “discussions for preparing the contract and related details for setting up two to six EPRs, including lifetime fuel supply for the reactors”. The MoU was the first such deal after New Delhi and Paris signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement on September 30 last year, just a few weeks after the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) granted a waiver for India. The nuclear agreement is now under ratification in France and has reached the “Chambre Haute” or the Upper House of the French Parliament.

Paris, according to sources, is also ready to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel in the facilities in France, if it is not possible in India.

Sources said Singh and Sarkozy would review the progress made in the operationalisation of the nuclear deal.

They would also discuss the global economic crisis, climate change and a wide range of other issues concerning the two countries, including bilateral trade and ties in the field of defence, culture and science and technology.

India and France had set a target to double the bilateral trade from Euro six billion to Euro 12 billion by 2012. The Sources, however, said the target had been set before the world plunged into the current economic crisis. But, with the early signs of recovery already in sight, both sides hope to meet the target.

DH News Service

 

[Pintu]

With respect to all the members I personally believe that it was not the US policy can be called full of deviousness , I think it is current President Barak Hussein Obama who is making the US policy the same, and as said in the Article posted by Singhji, further attack could be mounted on India's interest when Obama administration preparing to go full swing for implementing CTBT (North Korea is making mockery on that now and then!), and subsequently making the deal a very restricted deal with removal of most sops given by 123 agreement by the previous Bush regime.

Regards

 

[Known_Unknown]

Pintu,

From the article,

Somewhere along the line, the Indians assumed the game was over. The whistle blown at L’Aquila is a reminder that the U.S. has plenty of extra time in hand.

Of course, the tell-tale signs were all around: in the U.S. State Department’s answers to pointed queries from Congress about the need for a ‘level playing field’ at the NSG. And in the assurances Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave to Capitol Hill in order to ensure the speedy ratification of the 123 agreement last October.

Getting the NSG to agree to prohibit the export of ENR equipment and technology to states such as India that are not members of the NPT would be the United States’ “highest priority,” Dr. Rice told Congressman Howard Berman at the time.

So they had made up their mind on the matter right from the beginning. Also, remember Bush's "Secret" Letter in which he reneged on all assurances made to India in the agreement?

N-Deal: 'Bush letter' contradicts PM's assurances- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

Further the letter said that the “US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies.”

The letter further said that though there were provisions in the 123 Agreement for transfer of sensitive technology, heavy water production technology and sensitive nuclear faculties pursuant to amendments, the administration had no plans to seek any amendments on allowing such transfers. This also puts a question mark over India rights to reprocess spent fuel as it is also pursuant to an amendment.

Mr Singh had told Parliament on August 17, 2006, that India wanted the “removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel.”

 

[Daredevil]

Areva Submits Bid For Construction Of 2 EPR Reactors In India

PARIS (Dow Jones)--French nuclear group Areva (CEI.FR) said Friday it had submitted a bid for the construction of two of its EPR nuclear reactors in India.

It has submitted the bid to Indian utility NPCIL, Areva said.

Areva also said it has signed an agreement with Bharat Forge on a joint venture to build a forged parts manufacturing plant in India.

It also said it has signed an agreement with TCE Consulting Engineers Limited, or TCE, for the supply of engineering services.

TCE is a subsidiary of Tat Sons Limited, which controls diversified conglomerate Tata Group.

Areva's announcements come on the eve of Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's visit to France.

 

[I-G]

Pact with France soon on 2 nuclear plants

Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI: India and France are likely to sign a contract, within two months, for setting up two 1650-MW nuclear plants in Maharashtra, diplomatic sources said.

The pact will give effect to an inter-governmental agreement and the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and the French company, Areva.

The sources said quite a few steps were yet to be covered, but the discussions were on “smoothly.”

Unlike the U.S. which wanted a standalone facility, France had indicated that reprocessing could take place in India and if that was not adequate, it could be done on its soil. But the inter-governmental agreement is unlikely to be completed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris as chief guest of the French National Day celebration on July 14.

The Hindu : National : Pact with France soon on 2 nuclear plants

 

[John]

The Areva EPR; 1650 MW...60 years life span...nice

AREVA - Living better through advanced technology

enjoy

 

[Pintu]

Pintu,

From the article,



So they had made up their mind on the matter right from the beginning. Also, remember Bush's "Secret" Letter in which he reneged on all assurances made to India in the agreement?

You are right KU, that point I overlooked when I was arguing. Thanks for pointing it out, I agree with you.

Regards

 

[Singh]

India to ‘study’ G8 ban on nuclear fuel cycle sales ​

New Delhi: One day after The Hindu first reported the G8 ban on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology sales, the Ministry of External Affairs chose not to respond to a formal query on whether New Delhi intended to raise the rollback issue with the eight governments — all of whom were party to the clean exemption the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted India last September from its ban on nuclear sales to non-Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty signatories.

Instead, sources said it was important for India to see the text of what the G8 had endorsed before reaching any conclusion about its implications. The sources added that U.S. and G8 attempts to restrict ENR sales go back to 2004 and were not specifically directed at India.

“But as far as India is concerned, last year’s NSG waiver was a unanimous decision to which the G8 countries were party and that is the agreement we intend to go by.”

Some officials claimed the issue was not critical since India did not need ENR technologies from abroad, though they acknowledged the danger of diluting the principle of Indian eligibility for full civil nuclear commerce. However, with sources expressing the hope that the G8 nonproliferation statement might not be “binding” on all its members, it is evident that South Block has still not fully digested the implications of what has happened at L’Aquila.

Whatever New Delhi may choose to believe, the door for ENR sales from the G8 has been shut for now. G8 diplomatic sources told The Hindu that the adoption of the decision meant countries such as Russia and France would no longer be able to sell ENR items to India and that there was now a greater likelihood of the NSG forging a consensus along the lines of what has been agreed at L’Aquila.
Cost-effectiveness

The G8 decision does not affect the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel, or the right of India to reprocess spent fuel on the basis of bilateral agreements with individual suppliers. Unless overturned, it will, however, affect the cost-effectiveness of India’s reprocessing and enrichment operations, since all components will have to be indigenously manufactured.

The Hindu : Front Page : India to ‘study’ G8 ban on nuclear fuel cycle sales


-----------------
-----------------

G8 ban on ENR sales shuts Russian door on India ​

New Delhi: By not moving quickly to conclude an umbrella nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia before the international goalposts for commerce were moved again, India has made it easier for Washington to roll back the clean exemption the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted New Delhi from its export restrictions last year.

Diplomatic sources told The Hindu that Moscow had approached the Indian side several months ago for the negotiation of an agreement going beyond the one already signed for the purchase of additional reactors at Kudankulam. Such an agreement could have provided for cooperation across the full range of civil nuclear activities and technologies, including enrichment and reprocessing (ENR), and allowed Russia to buck new rules restricting international trade in these technologies by saying such cooperation with India had already been “grandfathered.”
Draft agreement

Though a draft agreement was developed, India showed no urgency in the matter. And now, it may be too late.

On July 8, the G8 declared: “Pending completion of work in the NSG [on new rules restricting ENR sales], we agree to implement [the “clean text” developed at the 20 November 2008 Consultative Group meeting] on a national basis in the next year.”

According to G8 diplomats, this text prohibits the sale of ENR items and technology to countries like India that are not parties to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

After being blindsided by the G8’s decision, officials here scrambled on Saturday to make light of the consequences. South Block officials said that the U.S. had been trying from the outset to exclude ENR items from the purview of nuclear cooperation with India and that it was “only to be expected” that Washington would keep working in this direction.

Despite this knowledge, however, no attempts were made to enlist the support of Russia or France — two countries that stand to make billions from reactor sales to India — in the battle to prevent dilution of the principle of “full civil nuclear cooperation.”

The Hindu : Front Page : G8 ban on ENR sales shuts Russian door on India

 

[nitesh]

worth reading, guys trust our capabilities:

India’s Uranium Enrichment Program

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF INDIA: A TECHNICAL STUDY FOR U.S.–INDIA COOPERATION