Can we not develop our own nuclear reactors? Shame India... Why don't we utilize the Solar power to the maximum... Can we not develope a technology where we can store the solar energy and distribute this efficiently and cheaper. Shame India... We should be able to sell this technology to all those countries who 365 days sun lights.... Go India Go... You can do this... I will not be ashamed of you if you can do it.
RE:Why the hell we need US...
by venkat narayanan on Jul 10, 2008 08:36 PM Permalink
who bothers if you are ashamed of the nation or not? you have a good point though but Freak.. you dare not say that you are ashamed of the nation lest you would be fit enough to be branded a traitor..
AN Prasad : "On a quick look at the text it is evident that it generally follows the standard safeguards practices already in vogue in the IAEA and there is hardly any India-specific article," he said.
if a "quick look" is all that the document on this deal merits to AN Prasad, he should not bother to enter into this serious discussion. if he is serious about discussing the merits of this deal, he should give it a detailed study and let us know if the fears of other distinguished scientists like PK Iyengar and A Gopalakrishnan are valid or not.
RE:a quick look?
by deepak on Jul 10, 2008 08:51 PM Permalink
Hello Text is a quick look... It is so vogue, there is almost nothing... Why does the agency need to do India's safeguard, when India already has nuclear bomb, and advance reaserch of nuclear research facilities. Agency's job, to this date, has been to inspect if NPT countries are not creating weapons... India is not an NPT member, and doesn't recognize NPT.. Agency cannot come in, and inspect, what is really ours... Little to no article related to India's soverign rights as far nuclear testing is concerned, and what possible objection could agency have, and its subsequent actions, if india does more tests... As far as USA is concerned, USA is clear about it in Hyde Act if India tests nuclear weapons... In hyde act, there is no distinction, whether India did it using its own technology or it did it using foreign technology. If India tests nuclear weapons, USA will pull out all of its technology, and colloboration...
I really dont understand these arguments about nuke deal.We are mature enough to understand that US is far more stronger than India economically, politically and in nuclear strength.But the world is changed now,no one wants to actually take a country which used to happen at the previous era of colonialism.Now US wants 120Crore people of india to buy their product.India is a big market and coke-pepsi-mcdonald can't expand without indian market.So why people are worried that US will create trouble for India and make a slave of them?
If France had made great advancements in the field of civil nuclear field, why do we need to persist on going for a deal with the US, which has a proven track record of having a big brother attitude? why not France then? If I am not wrong, US again, is playing the spoilsport to that as well. They have threatened saying that India cant sideline US and pursue another deal with any other country which belongs to the NSG.. What does this mean to you? This clearly means that US has a vested interest in ensuring that this deal is through. I am not a commie but I still support Left's stand that the nuclear deal in its present form is not well suited for India to achieve its goal of becoming a developed nation. May be yes, but only on the development side. That comes with compromising on our ability and freedom to go ahead with our nuclear weapons program. That is not good at all. No one can dictate terms to us as to what we can do and what we cant just because you have approached them for help on the nuclear know-how.. The only solution to this is for India to realize its potential and rise high above all these speculations. We need to make use of the rich thorium reserves we have with us and channelize more funding to our own nuclear research programs and encourage our scientists to come up with an alternate solution. It might take a while to be self dependent but after all, it will definitely not hurt our national interests and the wait should be very much worth it, I would say!!
i am still missing point why this government is so desperate to sign on nuclear deal. Both this government and Bush govt are facing sunset anyway. whats the rush. all the talk about nuclear energy, ok its essential , i do not say no? Question is how desperately we need that now? Here is a set of problem i would like this govt to answer immeditaely instead of this nuclear deal
1. The energy demand is increasing, yes all right, where , fossil fuel isn't it ? is this deal going to solve this problem, i doubt it? 2. the whole economy is going through the worst phase. prices are crazy blame it on crude oil price. Ok does this deal going to provide us any respite? no not really 3. Environment, whats going on in this country, does anybody give any thought to it? 4. transport and communication , i do not whats going to happen , the way cars are exploding on the roads which are simply are not fit , no answer
5. whats the use of the nuclear deal if i have to pay 50rs for rice and 50rs for my daily transport requirement.
the whole point is this govt wants to take credit before it goes away in this whole messy situation. there is no positive except probably this one. And even we do not know what will be the result of this deal. And i ask myself why my contry is part of this?
If i analyze last few years of world politics and economy, i do not see MR bush as a very bright president, i do not see Mr Bush creating any economic opportunity, rather i see war crazy man whose hunger for p
RE:missing the point
by Gopal on Jul 10, 2008 11:47 PM Permalink
All these halla ballu is for the sake of 6800MW of nuclear energy by 2020. ie 3% of total. Energy starts flowing in 2020. At the present rate of inflation it will cost Rs20/- per unit. This is from Uranium. Uranium is scarce and is reported that world total deposit will last only up to 2070 at the present rate of mining. As it becomes scarce it is natural that the Uranium price will be exorbitantly high making the nuclear power uneconomical and financially un-viable. Congress released a document projecting the energy needs of India. Read Times of India 9.7.08. “Congress releases document on nuke deal's importance”. India wants to generate 26% of total in 2050. That is around 120000MW. Can anyone imagine the total cost of projects to have such a huge capacity addition by 2050? Is it a realistic projection? Remember Uranium deposit will be depleting at faster rate. This does not stand to logic. Why does the congress come out with such false/unrealistic documents? Whom do they want to fool? Smells -some negotiation is in the pipe-line. The above document can be used to substantiate the financial viability. Beware Indians!!
RE:missing the point
by All Right on Jul 10, 2008 06:23 PM Permalink
Energy needs of India are increasing exponentially. Thus nuclear power is one of the way forward for India to bridge this gap. Increased price of oil and gas internationally, issues of climate change associated with coal as well as the breakdown of consensus on big dams (where NAPM is one principal actors) has forced the country to relook the viability of nuclear power.
Once we secure NSG waiver, it does not bind us to nuclear trade with only the US. We are at liberty to trade with anyone we like. It also does not imply that trade would be a one-way street, India reduced to being a net importer. India's fast breeder reactors are cutting edge, generations ahead of even the US. We have the largest reserves of thorium in the world. Thorium cannot be directly used as a nuclear fuel. It needs to be processed into uranium. And this uranium is one of the highest quality in the world. However the glitch is that it will take at least another 10 years for our fast breeders to come on stream. Uranium resources like fossil fuels are expected to last 30 years. We can rule the world as the key nuclear supplier in 30 years
So we need a short-term strategy to plug our energy needs and this is where the deal finds a fit.
Further once India secures a NSG waiver, it is immaterial whether US Congress approves the Indo-US Agreement as we will be at liberty to trade with all other countries whether it maybe Russia, France, Australia etc.
RE:missing the point
by DEBADATTA MISHRA on Jul 10, 2008 06:29 PM Permalink
yes so i thought, rosy picture isn't it? which means country like US should have done that already,ohh may be they are waiting for fossil fuel to dry out,then with a bang they will replace their all fossil fuelled energy stations and hydro power dams with nuclear paower plants? whats stopping the world powers to do the same what we are thinking here? isn't there something wrong?
RE:missing the point
by deepak on Jul 10, 2008 08:56 PM Permalink
and not to forget, Uranium price will shoot up by 1000% if countries started robust nuclear electricity...
RE:missing the point
by All Right on Jul 10, 2008 06:35 PM Permalink
There is renewed interest in nuclear interest all over the world. 24 new reactors itself is coming up in Asia. John McCain, Republican candidate promised to double the number of reactors in the US (now over 100). China is building 6 and so is India
A former BARC director A N Prasad says "the text is generally all right but there is nothing India-specific."
Nothing India specific? He must be joking. India has 22 reactors plus 6 more coming up. Only 14 existing reactors, identified
by India as totally civilian, comes under the deal. The other 8 reactors, outside the deal, permits India's military nuclear program to continue unfettered. The 6 reactors coming up and other reactors in future are outside the purview of the deal unless India puts them categorical under the deal which involves an amendment
This is a marked deviation of IAEA safeguard agreement with all other countries like Iran, Iraq etc, where all reactors are put under IAEA inspection regime.
It maybe added that these 14 reactors are not are long term strategic reactors, based on fast breeders and thorium fuel. The fast breeders are dual use - can be used both for civilian and military purposes. So the 14 reactors under the deal have no long term strategic value.
The article quotes only 3 scientists - known dissenters of the deal. Others quotes are on "under the condition of anonymity" an euphemism that the journalist may have quoted interviewed Prakash Karat or LK Advani
RE:Amazing Article
by Nandakumar Chandran on Jul 10, 2008 07:37 PM Permalink
you cannot rubbish the arguments of distinguished scientists just because they are "known dissenters". you need to judge their position by the validity of their arguments.
What if at a later date when india has nuclear weapons - will it not be violative of the agreement since the agreement identifies india as a non nuclear weapons state? just a thought
RE:Clarification
by mohsin on Jul 10, 2008 06:11 PM Permalink
Precisely, thats the whole point! India will have to forget being a Nuclear Weapons State, thats what US and their ally's, including our neighbours want.
RE:Clarification
by All Right on Jul 10, 2008 06:14 PM Permalink
First of all, India already possess nuclear weapons. That's the best part of the deal. It fakes acceptance that India is a non-weapon state though conferring us all the privilege of a weapons state. This is not the case with Iran, Iraq, N Korea
RE:Clarification
by DEBADATTA MISHRA on Jul 10, 2008 06:24 PM Permalink
so we can do another pokhran then , without anybody losing any sleep on that, i thought testing is important part scientific research
RE:RE:Clarification
by All Right on Jul 10, 2008 06:30 PM Permalink
Two types we tested and how did the world react? They imposed all kinds of sanctions. When India conducted Pokhran II under the NDA regime, the US reacted by constituting the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) which presently has 45 countries as its members. For countries to engage in nuclear transactions globally, it needed a NSG waiver. Because India did not have a NSG waiver, our nuclear program in this country began to hurt. Uranium supplies, spares etc dried up and consequently nuclear power generation capacity are operating at less than 50%. This means that the thousands of crores invested by the country is not providing full value in returns. The US is the most influential member of the NSG. Without US support, no waiver is possible. So the necessity of first striking a deal with the US, which even the Chinese have entered into.
he operating word is in the event of nuclear testing. Even here the agreement provides an exception - the right to test if China or Pakistan tests.
No one in the nuclear community believes any more for the need to physically test. They now test through computer simulation using past test data.
This is the reason why Vajpayee government shrewdly went for a series of explosions (5 to be precise) - to generate such a data base.
Having done that Vajpayee (1999) and Jaswant Singh (2000) gave an assurance to the world through their address to the General Assembly of the UN that India no longer needs to explode any nuclear devise.
RE:Clarification
by DEBADATTA MISHRA on Jul 10, 2008 06:36 PM Permalink
thats the exact question, this world is never very friendly isn't it? when we did something they were doing for so long we got slapped with sanctions, then how can you be so sure they will help if we face another problem of sucjh margin
and whats the heck with this chinese and pakistani test, are we some ridiculous people who will follow pakistan and chinese , do not we have our own identity, cant we feel to test something before pakistan and chinese, next time we develop somthing new we have to give it to china and pakistan so that they can test first so that we can get our chance next
Congress leaders and the PM keep saying the nuclear deal with USA is in the 'National Interest' of the country. Can someone clarify which country's national interest, India or USA? If it is in India's interest, can that be explained / elaborated by anyone?
RE:Nuclear deal in our 'NATIONAL INTEREST' ???
by Suresh Pandey on Jul 10, 2008 06:10 PM Permalink
we pay really high cost in terms of fuel and we all feel it. Smae will be true for electricity.coal is an option but it is not environment friendly. Look at Hine most poluted. As for other means like wind and thermal notonly are they too expnsive no body knows if theye will be useful or not. Nuclear is the way to go. In next 8 ysr we cna have enough nuclear reactors and uranium ot genartae electricity at reduced rate in 10 yrs perhaps. Without this argeement we will not have enough uranium. WIth this agreement we can now buy uranium. Now i agree US will benfit too but we have option to buy from any G8 so when it is cheap we buy and stock.
RE:Nuclear deal in our 'NATIONAL INTEREST' ???
by All Right on Jul 10, 2008 06:05 PM Permalink
Whose national interest? Certainly not China or otherwise the commies won't be so angry.
It is is more in Indian national interest:
a. It permits us to have a military program b. It consolidates and let us expand our civilian nuclear program. All it does is that it ensures all assistance towards our civilian program is not diverted for military purpose c. At present we are unable to trade in the global nuclear mkt because we do not have a NSG waiver. Once we secure it, we can. So the NSG waiver is more important that the Indo-US deal. d. We can scrap even the Indo-US deal, by giving one year's notice
