Power Crisis is being MISUSED to Promote Nuclear Energy!Meanwhile Former bureaucrats, scientists move Supreme Court against nuclear plants!The agitation against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant turned violent on Thursday night as police ‘bashed up’ six

Power Crisis is being MISUSED to Promote Nuclear Energy!Meanwhile Former bureaucrats, scientists move Supreme Court against nuclear plants!The agitation against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant turned violent on Thursday night as police 'bashed up' six physically challenged persons sitting in fast at the project site.!

I have been in KUDANKULAM last Decemebr only! The place is surrounded by Dense Population inhibited by Indigenous Dravid Excluded Communities! The Fisher Communities and Farmers have to be UPROOTED for the Nuclear Project!
Sea Coast Line Security Act and Environment Norms are VIOLATED! lANDSCAPE ABORIGINE AND NATURAL BIO CYCLE DESTROYED!

Shortage of power in states such as Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka Friday threatened to cascade into a pan-India crisis with coal supplies hit due to varied reasons, including rains and civil strife. Several states have been facing three-four hours of power cuts a day and the situation appeared to be worsening despite some steps to spruce up feedstock supplies announced  by Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal Thursday.

Jaya offers support to anti-nuke lobby, but protestors demand more

Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - SEVEN HUNDRED Forty THREE

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/

www.indianliberationnews.com

Power Crisis is being MISUSED to Promote Nuclear Energy!Meanwhile Former bureaucrats, scientists move Supreme Court against nuclear plants!The agitation against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant turned violent on Thursday night as police 'bashed up' six physically challenged persons sitting in fast at the project site.!

Shortage of power in states such as Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka Friday threatened to cascade into a pan-India crisis with coal supplies hit due to varied reasons, including rains and civil strife. Several states have been facing three-four hours of power cuts a day and the situation appeared to be worsening despite some steps to spruce up feedstock supplies announced  by Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal Thursday.

I have been in KUDANKULAM last Decemebr only! The place is surrounded by Dense Population inhibited by Indigenous Dravid Excluded Communities! The Fisher Communities and Farmers have to be UPROOTED for the Nuclear Project!

Sea Coast Line Security Act and Environment Norms are VIOLATED! lANDSCAPE ABORIGINE AND NATURAL BIO CYCLE DESTROYED!

Jaya offers support to anti-nuke lobby, but protestors demand more

A day after receiving a letter from prime minister Manmohan Singh reminding that it was in Tamil Nadu's interest to have an early commissioning of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram assured opponents of the nuclear plant that she was with them.
Her statement, though, was received with reservation by protestors in Kudankulam who want the Rs 13,000 crore, ready-to-commission nuclear plant scrapped. The protestors have discounted her statement, coming as it does a few days ahead of the local body elections in the state.
Speaking during her campaign tour to Tuticorin today, Jayalalithaa said her government would act in the Kudankulam nuclear plant issue, respecting the local sentiments. "I will be one among you", she said.
However, leaders of the protest movement said they were disappointed both with her statement and the fact that she avoided the subject in Tirunelveli district, where the Indo-Russian nuclear power plant is located.
"She has been saying that she is with us for a while, but this is not enough. She must give concrete proof that she is committed to our cause and that the cabinet resolution her government approved is carried out", M Pushparayan, convenor of the Coastal People's Federation, one of the many organisations that are involved in the movement against nuclear energy, told ET.
At Idinthakarai village near Kudankulam, 106 people, including 22 women and three parish priests, completed the fifth day of their indefinite hunger strike today.
Angry protestors also staged a road block in front of the nuclear power plant at 3 pm, creating some trouble and inviting police intervention.
Leaders of the rainbow of organisations co-ordinating the protests, including the People's Movement against Nuclear Power, have condemned the attitudes of the central and state governments, and have so far been unwilling to dilute their demand for abandoning the project in total.
People from three southern districts of Tamil Nadu – Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Nagercoil – have rallied around the protestors, making it a difficult issue to negotiate for political parties in the state as they face next week's civic polls. The main opposition party, DMDK has been main political outfit to have strongly backed the protestors' demand.

Power plants with sufficient coal stocks have been asked to divert some to units with low fuel stocks.

Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said on Friday that India's power supply situation will improve in the next 4-5 days as coal supply to power plants is slowly picking up. He also said that power plants with sufficient coal stocks have been asked to divert some of their stocks to units with low fuel stocks. "Diwali would be celebrated with light... The power situation would improve in the next 4-5 days," power minister Sushilkumar Shinde told reporters in New Delhi. He assured that the Power Ministry is taking various steps to resolve the power crisis and that it is in constant discussions with the ministries of coal and railways regarding the same. "There are problems of supply of coal and we are in touch with the Coal Ministry," Shinde said. "Floods in Orissa have flooded the mines, thereby coal could not be supplied to the power plants." "Now, the situation is improving, to get quick rakes we have asked the railways," he said. The situation would start improving in a few days and would be resolved by Diwali, Shinde said.

Members of civil society, including former bureaucrats, scientists, a former navy chief and NGOs, today approached the Supreme Court seeking its direction to stay construction of all proposed nuclear power plants.

They have filed a joint PIL pleading that the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, be declared as unconstitutional and appoint an expert independent body to conduct a thorough safety reassessment of all existing and proposed nuclear facilities in the country.

"Issue an appropriate writ canceling clearances given to proposed nuclear power plants and staying all proposed nuclear power plants till requisite safety assessment studies, thorough comparative cost-benefit analysis and meaningful public hearings are carried out by or under the supervision of an independent expert body," the petition said.

The petitioners, who include former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, former Chief of Naval Staff L Ramdas, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Secretary to the Prime Minister KR Venugopal and nuclear scientist PM Bhargava, pleaded an expert nuclear regulator independent of the government be set up to do a comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis other sources of energy.

They submitted the apex court should rule that in the case of a nuclear accident, all nuclear operators and suppliers, would be jointly and severally and absolutely liable for civil damages and their financial liability would be unlimited.

Activists continued to protest outside Tamil Nadu's Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) on Friday, preventing employees of the plant from going inside to work.

For the past six days, 106 people have been on fast demanding scrapping of the nuclear power project. The relay fast is being held at Idinthakarai village near Kudankulam in the district, around 650 km from here.

Villagers have surrounded all the entry points to KNPP.

Around 25 employees, forming part of essential services group, were escorted by police to the plant at 5 a.m., a senior official on condition of anonymity told IANS.

Around 1,000 contract workers are working at the site.

"The condition is tense. So please wait for other employees to be escorted," a police officer said.

KNPP officials told IANS that plant maintenance was being taken care of by skeletal staff. On an average, around 1,000 people work per shift.

Giving a boost to the Kudankulam protesters, chief minister J. Jayalalithaa had said Thursday: "I am one amongst you. The Tamil Nadu government will act in a way that respects the local people's feelings."

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is building two 1,000 MW capacity nuclear power reactors with Russian technology and equipment in Kudankulam. The first unit is expected to go on stream in December.

The total project cost is estimated to be around Rs.11,500 crore.

The activists are angry with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for telling Jayalalithaa that the state's industrialisation would be impacted by the non-availability of electricity if the 2,000 MW Kudankulam nuclear power project was scrapped.

The activists of People's Movement against Nuclear Energy intensified their agitation from Friday morning which literally brought all works in the reactors to a grinding halt . Tamil Nadu is witnessing a rare kind of agitation with the civilian population in Tirunelveli expressing their solidarity with the anti-nuclear activists in their demand for the closure of the KNPP.

"No works could be done as scientists and technicians were not allowed inside the KNPP by the agitators. The district administration is taking stock of the situation and we are waiting for words from them," N K Balaji, project director, KNPP, told DNA. He said the emergency works inside the reactors were being done with a team of skeleton staff.

SP Udaya Kumarand Pushparajan, the two young leaders of the PMANE emphatically declared on Friday that nothing short of a closure of the KNPP was acceptable to them.

"We will not allow these reactors to come up here. Let them shut it down and go for some kind of renewable energy like solar or wind. This is our final word," said Udaya Kumar.

Pushparajan said the police on late Thursday night bashed up the physically challenged persons without any provocation.

"Vijayendra Bidari, the young superintendent of police, himself led the police team in beating up the agitators. Rajamony (49), Manikandan (29) Thangadurai (35), Selvakumar(31), Swayambu(37) andRaja (32) were brutally assaulted by the police. When we took them to a government5 hospital, they were denied treatment at the instance of the police. Hence we had to admit them to a private hospital," said Pushparajan.

Neither the collector or the SP were available for comments. Udaya Kumar said he was not sure about any help from the politicians. "What we conveniently forget is the fact that hundreds of thousands of locals would have to live with fear because of these reactors. The Gulf of Mannar Marine Park, which is home to thousands of flora, fauna and some of the exotic marine life found in the world will be totally destroyed by this reactors," he said.

He said the agitation would be continued till the government declares the close down of the KNPP. Balaji agreed that the agitation has intensified since Friday morning. "We are all staying back in our residences as all roads leading to KNPP have been taken over by them," he said.

I'll be one among you on Kudankulam: Jayalalithaa

The Hindu - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Thursday assured the people living in the vicinity of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project that her government wouldact in such a manner as to respect their views on the issue. "I will be one among you on this ...

Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa prefers votes to energy

Economic Times - ‎20 hours ago‎
"As for as Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project is concerned, Tamil Nadu government will certainly act respecting the local peoples' sentiments. I will be one among you on the issue,'' she told a campaign rally at Tuticorin for the next week civic polls. ...

'White man's technology has hurt the Earth badly'

Tehelka - ‎5 hours ago‎

So your problem is with nuclear energy itself? We are asking for the plant's closure. We also feel that India should not go for nuclear energy when developed countries such as Germany and Italy are phasing out their reactors. ...

N-plant row: Protesters stop 700 scientists

NDTV.com - ‎Oct 12, 2011‎

The first of two nuclear reactors at the plant was meant to start functioning this month. Kudankulam is designed to be the single largest source of atomic energy in India. In a letter to Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa yesterday, the Prime Minister ...

Jaya backs locals on Kudankulam N-plant

Daily Pioneer - Swati Das - ‎22 hours ago‎
Throwing her support behind locals agitating against the Kudankulam nuclear power project (KNPP), Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa on Thursday spurned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's request for cooperation in completing the project. ...

Jayalalithaa backs anti-Kudankulam agitation

TruthDive - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
Tuticorin, Oct13 (TruthDive) : "As far as Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project is concerned, Tamil Nadu government will certainly act respecting the local people's sentiments. I will be one among you in the issue," Tamil Nadu CM Dr Jayalalithaa told a ...

Kudankulam protesters decide to continue stir

NetIndian - ‎Oct 11, 2011‎
The anti-Kudankulam protesters today decided to continue their stir till the Centre suspended works on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project at Koodankulam village in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. "We have unanimously decided to continue our stir, ...

Jayalalithaa backs Koodankulam protesters

Times Now.tv - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
"As far as Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project is concerned, Tamil Nadu government will certainly act respecting the local peoples' sentiments. I will be one among you in the issue," she told a campaign rally ahead of next week's civic polls. ...

Anti-nuclear protests in Tamil Nadu gather strength

Livemint - Vidya Padmanabhan, Bridget Leena - ‎26 minutes ago‎
According to Karuna Raina of Greenpeace India, which campaigns for green issues, a Russian audit of its own nuclear power plants had shown that their seismic strength—the ability to withstand earthquakes—had to be reevaluated, and that the integrity of ...

Protests at Kudankulam intensify with blockades

Economic Times - ‎5 hours ago‎
CHENNAI: The movement by villagers against the commissioning of the 2000mw nuclear power plant at Kudankulam intensified today, a day after chief minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram opted to be on the side of the villagers despite a letter from prime ...

Koodankulam plant's entry points blocked

Times Now - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
Despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's second letter assuring anti-nuke plant protesters in Tamil Nadu, the agitation at the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant site continued on Thursday (October 13). As the protests entered its fifth day, the agitators ...

N-plant row: 'PM's assurance not enough'

Times Now - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
Rejecting all assurances by the prime minister, the protesters continue their indefinite fast. Amidst all this, prime minister wrote another letter to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, saying that the nuke plant is in state's interest.

CM Jaya snubs PM, backs Koodankulam N-plant protesters

NewsX - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
Speaking in Tuticorin, Jayalalithaa held out to protesters at the nuclear plant in Koodankulam, saying she will ensure that the interests of the people of Koodankulam are not compromised. She told protesters she would be one among them in resolving the ...

Stir against Tamil Nadu N-plant intensifies

IBNLive - ‎Oct 13, 2011‎
The protests against the Kudankulum nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu have intensified with the villagers blocking all entry points to the project on Thursday.

KNPP: Nuclear Power Corp pins hopes on TN

IBNLive.com - ‎22 hours ago‎
KNPP is not like any consumer durable company where one can switch off the plant and start again," SK Jain, chairman and managing director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India(NPCIL), told IANS from Mumbai over phone. "The electrical systems have to ...

Villagers to convey dissent to PM

Hindustan Times - ‎21 hours ago‎
As the ongoing protest against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu intensifies, villagers opposing the proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant in Ratnagiri district have also decided to strengthen their agitation. decided to write to Prime ...

Anti-nuke power activists try to block N-plant

Economic Times - ‎20 hours ago‎
"For the past five days, 106 people are on fast demanding scrapping of the nuclear power project. The government doesn't seem concerned with the protest while some officials are passing uncharitable comments about the protest. Hence, we have decided to ...

Back Kudankulam N-plant: PM to Jayalalithaa

IBNLive - ‎Oct 12, 2011‎
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday wrote a letter to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and sought her support on the Kudankulam nuclear plant project.

Police beat up Kudankulam protestors, 4 injured

IBNLive.com - ‎8 hours ago‎
New Delhi: A day after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa announced her support for the locals, the police allegedly beat protestors agitating against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Four disabled youth who were a part of the agitation have been ...

N-plant row: Protesters beaten up by police?

Times Now.tv - ‎12 hours ago‎
Protests at Tamil Nadu's Koodankulam nuclear power plant site intensified on Friday (October 14) after police allegedly beat up the agitators, which reportedly left four physically challenged boys injured. According to reports, one of the boys was ...

Centre keen on resolving nuke plant row amicably, says Narayanaswamy

TruthDive - ‎11 hours ago‎
The project, which is being set up in collaboration between India and Russia, envisages the building of two 1000 MW type reactors by the end of December 2011. However, in the wake of the Fukushima incident in Japan, several nuclear projects across ...

Agitators block roads to plant

Hindustan Times - ‎22 hours ago‎
The second wave of protests against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant entered the fifth day on Thursday and acquired forceful overtones with the agitators, who had so far resorted to fasts, blocking roads to the plant site. ...

Villagers demand closure of Indian nuclear plant

BusinessWeek - ‎6 hours ago‎
News reports say angry villagers living near a recently built nuclear power plant in southern Indiahave blocked a highway to demand its closure. TimesNow television says some villagers near the Koodankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu state have been ...

Anti-nuclear protests on rise

Morning Star Online - ‎1 hour ago‎
by Our Foreign Desk Angry villagers living near a recently built nuclear power plant in southernIndia blocked a main road to demand its closure on Thursday, saying they don't believe the facility is safe. Some villagers near the Koodankulam nuclear ...

PMs stand could lead to a flashpoint

IBNLive.com - ‎Oct 12, 2011‎
CHENNAI: The seemingly tough stand taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa to take steps to implement the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) without bothering to expedite measures to convince those protesting ...

Protestors want Kudankulam N-plant scrapped

IBNLive - ‎Oct 11, 2011‎
Protests against the Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu has intensified with the villagers of the area demanding that the project be scrapped. Several hundred villagers are protesting against the nuclear power plant and have decided to indefinitely ...


"In order to ensure greater availability of coal for the power sector, the ministry of coal has decided to offer some of the e-auction coal to the sector during the current month," said a statement issued Wednesday evening.
As per the existing policy on supply of coal, 10 percent of the total available quantity of this feedstock is kept for e-auction. Jaiswal also directed officials to increase immediately loading of coal to 180 rakes per day from the present 153 rakes.
Out of these 145 rakes were earmarked for the power sector.
"We welcome this first step from the government. This will definitely help mitigate the immediate coal crisis," said Ashok Khurana, director general of the Association of Power Producers, an lobby mainly for private players.
The main reasons behind the shortage of feedstock are heavy rains in some coal producing areas, a two-day strike by workers of state-run Coal India last week and the disruption of mining in Andhra Pradesh due to a strike to press for a separate state of Telengana.
As a result, many of the units of the country's largest power producing utility, the state-run NTPC, have been left with coal supplies for no more than two days. Some units were also operating at sub-optimal levels, power ministry officials said.
In the national capital, one of the two distribution companies said the situation was set to improve by weekend. "But during the interim, to the extent of the shortfall, the Delhi discoms will be constrained to undertake load shedding on a rotational basis."
In West Bengal, though, the situation was caused by Coal India's subsidiaries halting supplies to state-run utilities due to default in payment, prompting the state's power minister to assure people that the situation will improve in three days.
Gujarat, on the other hand, while not facing a power crisis decided to stop distribution to other states as a precautionary measure, claiming a 30 percent drop in coal supplies to the state from central government-run coal mining entities.


In continuing war of words, DMK chief M Karunanidhi today sought to ridicule Chief Minister Jayalalithaa for throwing a challenge at him over the extent of DMK headquarters land here, saying she had misunderstood his explanation over the issue.

The two are locked in a bitter exchange of words since Jayalalithaa recently alleged that the DMK office was built on land grabbed from a zamindar family in 1972.

Denying her contention that he had said DMK office was built on 25 grounds (one ground is 2,400 square feet), Karunanidhi in a statement said he had only stated that one cawny of land was equivalent to 25 grounds.
The sale deed had clearly stated that the nett extent of land sold was three cawnies, 12 grounds and 1951 sq.feet, he said.

"I had not said the entire area is 25 grounds. I had only explained that one cawny was roughly around 25 acres. But Jayalalithaa had misunderstood my explanation and challenged that if the area exceeded 25 grounds, whether the surplus land will be handed over to the government," he said.

Jayalalithaa yesterday alleged that Karunanidhi had used "strong-arm methods" in acquiring the plot and her political mentor late MG Ramachandran was expelled from the DMK only because he had questioned it.

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2011)

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant
Location of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant
Country	India
Coordinates	8°10′08″N 77°42′45″ECoordinates: 8°10′08″N 77°42′45″E
Construction began	1997
Owner(s)	Nuclear Power Corporation of India LTD.
Reactor information
Reactors under construction	6 x 1200 MW 2 x 1000 MW
Website Nuclear Power Corporation of India
As of August 11, 2007

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power station currently under construction in Koodankulam in the Tirunelveli district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Project investment cost to India was estimated to be US$ 3.5 billion in a 2001 agreement.^[1]

Contents   [hide]  1 History 2 Technical description 3 Protest against the opening of Nuclear Reactors 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

[edit]History

An Inter-Governmental Agreement on the project was signed on November 20, 1988 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The project remained in limbo for 10 years due to political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup, and also due to objections of the United States on the grounds that the agreement does not meet the 1992 terms of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).^[2]

There are negotiations over the possible addition of a naval base at the site, both safeguarding the project and as a presence in the southern tip of the country.^[3] A small port became operational in Kudankulam on January 14, 2004. This port was established to receive barges carrying over sized light water reactor equipment from ships anchored at a distance of 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi). Until 2004 materials had to be brought in via road from the port ofTuticorin, risking damage during transportation.^[4]

In 2008 negotiation on building four additional reactors at the site began. Though the capacity of these reactors has not been declared, it is expected that the capacity of each reactor will be 1000 MW or 1 GW.^[5][6] The new reactors would bring the total capacity of the power plant to 9200 MW or 9.2 GW.

In June 2011, Sergei Ryzhov, the chief designer of the light water VVER nuclear reactors used at this Nuclear Power Plant was killed in an airplane accident. The plane belonging to the Rus-Air airlines was flying from Moscow to the Karelian capital Petrozavodsk. ^[7]

[edit]Technical description

Two 1 GW reactors of the VVER-1000 model are being constructed by the Nuclear Power corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Atomstroyexport. When completed they will become the largest nuclear power generation complex in India producing a cumulative 2 GW of electric power.^[8] Both units are water cooled water moderated power reactors.^[9] The first was scheduled to start operation in December 2009 and the second one was scheduled for March 2010. Currently, the official projections put unit 1 into operation in June 2011, and unit 2 in March 2012.^[10][11][12]

Four more reactors are set to be added to this plant under a memorandum of intent signed in 2008.^[13] A firm agreement on setting up two more reactors, has been postponed pending the ongoing talks on liability issues. Under an inter-government agreement signed in December 2008 Russia is to supply to India four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of 1170 MW.^[14] The nuclear project will be commissioned in April 2011.^[15]

[edit]Protest against the opening of Nuclear Reactors

When construction began, there was not much opposition against the project[Ref Required]. Recently a slew of social workers and environmental activists have begun protests. They said the population density was too high[Ref Required]. . Protestors cite the examples likeChernobyl Russia. They also quote the current Japan Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster during the Tsunami that affected Japan. The recent nuclear incident at Marcoule, southern France has further aggravated the protest. The protestors also say that, Germany and many other countries are reconsidering their nuclear energy policy. Japan has begun a similar discussion[Ref Required]. The key debate will revolve around the question of relative risk posed by nuclear power plant in comparison to short and long term risk posed by current use of non-renewable energy sources such as coal.

There is also fear that the fish and other life inside the sea will be affected by the water discharged from the nuclear reactor into the Bay of Bengal[Reference Required]. The area around the Koodankulam reactor is home to a lot of small scale fishermen.The fear is that they might be affected[Reference Required]. However the health risk posed by nuclear reactor is taken seriously by the scientific community and safety mechanisms are being created and updated regularly to meet national and International standards[^[16]],Renowned astronomer and former Greenpeace members like Patrick Moore have supported nuclear energy as a safe and clean alternative energy strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change.^[17]

The protest is as of now of a non-violent nature. However, the present Tamilnadu government have defended the Koodankulam project^[18] On September 22, 2011, the Tamil Nadu cabinet passed a resolution urging the Centre to halt the work on the plant until the fears of the local population over the safety of the plant are allayed.^[19]

People recently claimed that it would be very safe if the plant can be moved to a place near CHENNAI which has well locality near sea. so that the distribution of energy will be good enough and the loss will be minimal and this is under consideration by the government.

[edit]See also

	India portal
	Nuclear technology portal
	Energy portal

• Nuclear Power Corporation of India

[edit]References

1. ^ http://www.eca-watch.org/problems/asia_pacific/india/documents/SFried_indiaprojectssurvey_jan2004.pdfAt What Cost? ECAs in India: Bankrolling Nuclear Power Plants, Mega-Dams, and Scandal-Ridden Projects; January 2004
2. ^ Nuclear Exports to India from Russia
3. ^ New Naval base at Kudankulam
4. ^ Kudankulam Port operational
5. ^ Dmitry Sergeev (2008-02-12). "Russia, India edge closer to major nuclear deal". Reuters. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
6. ^ [1]^{[dead link]}
7. ^ "Designer of Indian N-reactor killed in Russian plane crash - Times Of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2011-06-22. Retrieved 2011-09-17.
8. ^ NPCIL to go into details with 4 reactor suppliers
9. ^ Nuclear Power Plant Type
10. ^ "Kudankulam Atomic Power Project". Retrieved 2011-03-16.
11. ^ "KUDANKULAM ATOMIC POWER PROJECT 1 & 2". Archived from the original on 2008-05-15. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
12. ^ History of the Kudankulam Project
13. ^ Four more reactors
14. ^ Details on the Next Generation Reactors
15. ^ "Kudankulam reactor commissioning in April | Russia & India Report". Indrus.in. 2011-03-14. Retrieved 2011-09-17.
16. ^ Ref
17. ^ See
18. ^ See
19. ^http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article2477355.ece

[edit]External links

• Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd

[hide]v · d · eNuclear power in India Uranium reserves Tummalapalle Uranium mine Operational plants Jaitapur · Kaiga · Kakrapar · Koodankulam · Madras (Kalpakkam) · Narora · Rajasthan (Kota) · Tarapur Research and testing Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) · CIRUS reactor · Dhruva reactor · Heavy Water Board ·Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology  · Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) ·Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) · Pokhran · Pokhran-II · Smiling Buddha · Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (VECC) Organizations Atomic Energy Commission of India · Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) · Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT) ·Department of Atomic Energy · Homi Bhabha National Institute · Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) Other topics Energy policy of India · India's three stage nuclear power programme · U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative Electricity sector · Solar power · Wind power

View page ratings

Rate this page

What's this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Categories: 

• Nuclear power stations in India
• Buildings and structures in Tamil Nadu
• Tirunelveli
• Proposed nuclear power stations
• Proposed power stations in India
• India – Soviet Union relations
• Nuclear power stations using VVER reactors

1. Jayalalithaa urged to visit protesters at Idinthakarai ‎ The Hindu - 1 day ago Activists opposing the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) have urged Chief Minister Jayalalithaa to visit protesters observing indefinite fast at ... KNNP activists prevent entry of workers into N-plant complex‎ IBNLive.com K-protesters get Jaya's support‎ Deccan Chronicle KNPP Stir Emotive, Issue Can't Be Resolved Overnight: Jaya‎ indiatvnews.com all 14 news articles »

   * The Hindu

2. Protest against Kudankulam project resumes ‎ iNewsOne - 5 days ago 'We are holding the protest for three days hoping that the central government will ...The fast is being held at Idinthakarai village near Kudankulam in the ... Kudankulam N-plant stir resumes in Tamil Nadu‎ Times of India Will form expert group in TN N-power project, assures PM‎ Hindustan Times MR Srinivasan: Why Kudankulam nuke plant is viable‎ Business Standard The Hindu - Daily Pioneer all 167 news articles »

   * The Hindu

3. Kudankulam protesters disallow PM Manmohan Singh's envoy to speak ‎ Economic Times - 20 Sep 2011 ... misgivings of villagers in Kudankulam protesting against the nuclear plant set to be operationalised shortly - was not allowed to address villagers. ... Video: PM sends emissary to Koodankulam nuclear site IBNLive Kudankulam protests unfortunate: Russia‎ The Hindu Koodankulam: Protest ends after Jaya intervenes‎ IBNLive.com Times of India - News Today all 305 news articles »

   * The Hindu

4. India needs clean energy like atmoic power: Kalam ‎ IBNLive.com - 3 hours ago PTI | 08:10 PM,Oct 14,2011 Coimbatore, Oct 14 (PTI) As the protest against theKoodankulam nuclear power project intensified, former president APJ Abdul ...

   * Rediff

5. Assocham calls for dialogue with Koodankulam protesters ‎ Moneycontrol.com - 4 days ago ... the government to address the concerns of people, who are protesting against setting up of the Koodankulam nuclear power plant, through a dialogue. ... ASSOCHAM bats for nuclear power‎ Washington Bangla Radio all 15 news articles »

   * Moneycontrol.com

6. Protesters stop construction of Indo-Russian nuclear plant ‎ RIA Novosti - Evgeniy Bezeka - 1 day ago On Wednesday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said protests against theKoodankulam facility would impede the state's development. More than 700 engineers and ...

   * The Hindu

7. Kudankulam agitation ends after TN assembly passes resolution ‎ Times of India - 22 Sep 2011 TIRUNELVELI: The protesters against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) wound up their agitation and dispersed from the protest site at ... Anti-nuke activists meet in Madurai on Sunday‎ IBNLive.com all 2 news articles »

8. Anti-nuke activists threaten to revive stir ‎ Times of India - 2 Oct 2011 was withdrawn, the anti-nuclear plant activists have threatened to revive the protest if the ongoing work in the multi-crore Kudankulam Nuclear Power ... Power and protest‎ Frontline Support in Kerala buoys Tamil Nadu's anti-nuke agitators‎ Economic Times Vehicle march from Kerala against Kudankulam nuclear plant‎ The Hindu all 8 news articles »

   * The Hindu

Keep up to date with these results:

• Create an email alert for kudankulam protest

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Next

  
  
  
  
  

  India | Updated Oct 14, 2011 at 12:29pm IST

  Power crisis: major plants running short of coal

  CNN-IBN
  Click to play video
  New Delhi: India's metros are running short of power and what is worse is that the situation could get worse. CNN-IBN has learned that five National Thermal Power Corporation plants have coal for just a day or maximum two.
  NTPC's 13-day coal reserves of 5.3 metric tonnes have depleted and supply from Coal India for power plants is down to just 20 per cent.
  For now the Cabinet has allowed NTPC and other PSUs to import coal to tide over crisis.
  Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal has blamed the shortfall on heavy rain in mining areas. He said, "We had a meeting regarding the shortfall of the coal and the target that we have set for our production. There has been some shortfall because of heavy rainfall in mining areas, if NTPC asks for more coal we will provide them because it's a government company and provides power to the nation."
  The power plants that are likely to be affected include Indraprastha in Delhi, Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, Panipat plant in Haryana among others.
  The power situation in West Bengal, too, is not any better with domestic production of coal hit. On Thursday, there was a shortage of 875 MW across the entire state with the capital Kolkata and neighbouring suburbs reeling under heavy power cuts due to a shortage of 170 MW.
  The reserve at the main coal plants is running thin. Farakka has coal stock which can last only for the next three days.
  Also, the state has outstanding dues amounting to Rs 500 crore to various coal companies.
  (Follow IBNLive.com on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube, and on Google+ for updates that you can share with your friends.)
  #Power crisis #NTPC #Electricity #Coal #Sriprakash Jaiswal
  
  http://ibnlive.in.com/news/power-crisis-major-plants-running-short-of-coal/192845-3.html
  
  
  
  

  PIL for re-assessing nuclear safety

  OUR BUREAU
  SHARE  ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
  Business LineA view of the nuclear power plant at Koodankulam - Photo: A. Shaikmohideen
  NEW DELHI, OCT. 14:
  A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday asking the court to direct that an expert body, independent of the Government and the nuclear establishment, conduct a thorough safety re-assessment of the country's existing and proposed nuclear facilities.
  It also wanted the court to direct this body to carry out a comprehensive safety re-assessment of the country's mining facilities of uranium and other nuclear fuel.
  The PIL also sought the court's direction for an independent expert body to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of all proposed nuclear facilities and a thorough comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis other sources of energy.
  The petitioners in the PIL include NGOs Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation as well as prominent persons such as former Cabinet Secretary Mr T.S.R. Subramanian, former Chief Election Commissioner, Mr N. Gopalaswami, and former Navy Chief Admiral L Ramdas.
  The petitioners are represented by advocate Mr Prashant Bhushan. This petition seeks other reliefs in the interest of right to life, right to clean environment and right to healthy and safe enjoyment of life.
  Keywords: Public Interest Litigation, nuclear facilities safety, NGOs Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation, clean environment
  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/economy/article2537674.ece

  1. Power crisis looms in West Bengal as utilities run out of cash for ... ‎ Hindu Business Line - Pratim Ranjan Bose - 3 days ago The 25 lakh consumers of CESC Ltd in Kolkata are, however, not facing a crisis, as of now. Daily power - cuts as long as 4 - 5 hours in West Bengal. Power Min pegs generation loss at four billion units‎ Business Standard all 56 news articles » NSE:COALINDIA - BOM:533278

     * Hindu Business Line

  2. Maharashtra slams poor quality coal supply to power plants ‎ MSN India - 2 hours ago ... coal to its power plants which has resulted in the ongoing energy crisis gripping the state. Locking horns with the WCL - a subsidiary of the Coal India ...

  3. Rs 60 cr support to WBPDCL ‎ Business Standard - 20 hours ago The crisis in the national grid has aggravated the crisis in the state. The Union coal minister has asked Coal India to arrange more coal supply to power ...

  4. Glitch in Northern Grid aggravates power crisis ‎ Daily Pioneer - Pragya Singh - 3 days ago A collapse like situation of Northern Grid (that supplies power to ten states in NorthIndia including Delhi) occurred on Monday when its frequency dropped ... Power woes to continue in city due to shortage‎ The Asian Age Delhi govt blames UP for power cuts‎ India Today Power crisis hits many cities in India‎ News24online Zee News all 72 news articles »

     * News24online

  5. Centre blinks at Karnataka's power crisis ‎ Deccan Herald - 1 day ago The Coal India Limited strike had also hit coal supplies as the company was the biggest supplier to NTPC. "We have received several demands for power from ... Demand spiral has tripped power supply‎ Times of India all 26 news articles »

     * Deccan Herald

  6. G-20 Said to Weigh Boosting IMF Lending Power to Aid Europe ‎ BusinessWeek - Sandrine Rastello - 7 hours ago See EXT4 for more on Europe's debt crisis and GMEET for the G-20 meeting. ...Officials from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- the so-called ... US Warns To Expand IMF Resources Premature, But Open To The Idea Later‎ Wall Street Journal G-20 Said to Weigh Boosting IMF Lending Power to Aid Europe‎ Bloomberg all 116 news articles »

     * Politico

  7. President, Prime Minister discuss energy crisis, law & order ‎ Business Recorder (blog) - 2 days ago Minister for Water and Power Naveed Qamar and Minister for Commerce Amin Fahim briefed the meeting about energy crisis, economic situation, and Indian ... Power politics on power crisis won't be allowed: Zardari‎ The News International Another cabinet reshuffle on cards‎ The Nation, Pakistan Govt decides to continue atmosphere of political harmony arising ...‎ South Asian News Agency all 37 news articles »

     * DAWN.com

  8. Crisis in ties with Afghanistan ‎ DAWN.com - Khalid Aziz - 14 hours ago Before departing for India, President Karzai had accused Pakistan of some ...vulnerable to being undermined by insurgent groups and power brokers". ...

  
  
  Anti-nuclear protests in Tamil Nadu gather strength
  The protests gathered strength after a tsunami swamped the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, exposing citizens to alarming levels of radiation
  

  Vidya Padmanabhan

  Koodankulam, Tamil Nadu: L. Devasagayam moved into the tsunami resettlement quarters in the village of Idinthakarai on the coast in the far south of Tamil Nadu after his neighbourhood further south was destroyed in the 2004 calamity. But now, he worries that the colourful home that he gratefully accepted after that disaster could be his undoing.
  Gaining momentum: A protest demonstration in front of the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. Photo: R S Kumar/Mint
  The reason for the fear confronts him when he steps out of his house. Clearly visible at a distance of about 2km are the twin domes of the Koodankulam nuclear power plant, a project against which area residents have been protesting, with increasing vehemence in recent weeks.
  "Initially, we thought it was a project that would supply energy, so we didn't mind living close to it," said Devasagayam, a 51-year-old fisherman. "But now we realize there is danger from radiation, and the nuclear waste (released into the sea) could make the fish toxic. Our livelihoods will be lost."
  Such fears, which some authorities contend are baseless, have driven opposition to the 2,000MWe power project in Koodankulam ever since it was initiated in 1988. The protests gathered strength after a tsunami swamped the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, exposing citizens to alarming levels of radiation.
  On Thursday, angered by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's insistence this week that work on the plant continue, and hardly mollified by chief minister J. Jayalalithaa's assurance that she would respect the sentiments of locals, more than 1,000 women, who gathered to block plant workers from going to work, planned to continue their protest through the night.
  "We have some 13 points of opposition," said S.P. Udhayakumar, coordinator of the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, which has been organizing the protests. "But mainly, this is not conducive to the right to life and livelihood of our people. All over the world, people are phasing out or cancelling nuclear power plants. We need electricity, we are a growing country, we are mindful of that, but electricity should be for the people. It cannot be at the cost of the people."
  Around 127 villagers went on an indefinite fast last month demanding that work on the plant, which is scheduled to be commissioned in December, be halted immediately. Jayalalithaa has assured the people that her government would not support a project that threatened their safety. She wrote to Singh on 19 September, asking him to intervene. The chief minister's promise to stop operations of the plant till the issue was resolved assuaged the villagers' fear enough for them to give up their fast last month.
  However, in a letter on Wednesday, Singh asked Jayalalithaa to support the project, writing, "in case the prospects of availability of this power are suddenly withdrawn, this would impact on the state's development and industrialization plans."
  "The government will not compromise on safety in pursuit of our nuclear energy programme, be it in terms of technology, regulation, skilled manpower or emergency preparedness," Singh wrote. The Prime Minister stressed that Tamil Nadu is industrializing quickly and would benefit from the 925MWe of power that would be allocated to the power-starved state out of the 2,000MWe the plant would produce.
  The villagers, whose representatives met the Prime Minister last week, were disappointed with his response, and on Thursday, 106 of them were on the fifth day of another hunger strike outside the St. Lourdes Church in the village of Idinthakarai.
  At the protest in Koodankulam, the women, some barefoot, some carrying babies, shifted to makeshift pandals as the sun beat down mercilessly, but their voices lost none of their passion as they followed a leader to call out slogans such as, "We will fight, we will fight, we will fight till they end."
  "They say there's no danger from this," said M. Saraswathi, a beedi factory worker from Koodankulam. "But, we have seen what happened in Japan on TV and in the papers. What do we believe? We are ordinary people. We don't even need this power," she said.
  L. Fatima, a resident of Idinthakarai, claimed fishermen were too intimidated by armed guards at the power plant to go fishing in the best fishing waters that lay close to the plant. "Even if we do catch fish, who will buy our catch?" she asked, saying she worried that nuclear waste would destroy the waters.
  Some of these fears are unfounded, according to experts. "These protests are totally unjustified, but I would not blame them," said J.K. Sinha, member of the Nuclear Disaster Management Agency. "It appears that they are not aware of all the precautions and arrangements that are already in place and are further being strengthened." He said that educating the people on the safety measures would help the protests die down.
  Others dispute this. According to Karuna Raina of Greenpeace India, which campaigns for green issues, a Russian audit of its own nuclear power plants had shown that their seismic strength—the ability to withstand earthquakes—had to be reevaluated, and that the integrity of its nuclear equipment was under review. Considering that the Koodankulam project is an Indo-Russian venture, there is a need to review it in light of the Russian reports, she said.
  Sinha admitted that a recent survey of six districts where nuclear plants were located had revealed a lack of adequate medical care. "We have realized that there is a shortage of trained professionals to diagnose a patient," he said. "So a massive programme has been launched to train doctors."
  India currently has 20 nuclear plants with an installed capacity of 4,760MW, and plans to increase the capacity to 20,000MW by 2020 and 50,000MW by 2030. But safety concerns have stalled many projects in the recent past.
  The proposed 9,990MW Jaitapur nuclear plant in Maharashtra saw widespread protests from neighbouring communities, which rebelled against the setting up of six French reactors.
  In Koodankulam, protesters have been emboldened by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's move in August to scrap the proposed nuclear plant in Haripur as a result of protests.
  "If the state does not implement the cabinet resolution (passed by Jayalalithaa to halt work at the plant), we Tamil people will implement the resolution," Udhayakumar said.
  Amritha Venketakrishnan in New Delhi and S. Bridget Leena in Chennai contributed to this story.
  vidya.p@livemint.com
  http://www.livemint.com/2011/10/14230937/Antinuclear-protests-in-Tamil.html?h=B
  
  

  From cut-outs to being cut out, Kudankulam officials baffled

  Submitted by admin4 on 14 October 2011 - 6:19pm
  • India News
  
  By Venkatachari Jagannathan, IANS,
  Chennai : From red carpet to furious protests. Officials of Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) remember the arches raised to welcome them to Kudankulam not long ago, and wonder why people have turned against the nuclear power plant now.As protestors continue to gather outside the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) and block all entry points, officials say they are baffled, wondering why a 180-degree turn and calls to vacate the area, about 650 km from here in Tirunelveli district.
  "We are surprised at the change. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed in the recent past from our side," said S.K. Jain, NPCIL chairman and managing director, who is based in Mumbai.
  "My situation is similar to that of a boy who was told by his brother that he does not like him any more after years of growing up together," Jain told IANS over phone.
  "I still have the photos of bishops and others giving us a warm welcome to Kudankulam. The people used to erect cut-outs when we visited the project site, sometimes much to our embarrassment."
  Now anti-nuclear power activists, protesting the Rs.13,000 crore, 2,000 MW project being built with Russian technology and equipment, have blocked entry to the complex - for the third day Friday.
  People's Rights Movement coordinator S. Sivasubramanian, who is spearheading the protest against the project, said there was genuine fear among people.
  "People have been fearing for their safety ever since the nuclear power plant was set up. Their fears have increased after seeing the Fukushima reactor accident in Japan," Sivasubramanian told IANS.
  But the company's chief said the economic prosperity seen around Kudankulam had come about only because of the project and that Rs.20 crore have been spent on building roads, water tanks as well as fish and vegetable markets.
  "We also improved the facilities in the local schools. All these at the request of villagers. We have also donated computers to the local schools and notebooks to the students," Jain said.
  "In other project sites, we used to build housing camps for contract workers. But here we decided otherwise so that the locals can earn rental income from the workers and improve their economic lot."
  But Sivasubramanian countered this and said economic development was not due to the project. "Income levels have gone up in all villages, not particularly in Kudankulam," he said.
  Jain also spoke at length on the blockade and its impact.
  "All electrical and sophisticated electronic systems have to operate continuously. There are water systems like desalination plant that need to function. All systems are inter-linked. They have to work in tandem continuously. We told the government this."
  He said work connected to the commissioning of the first unit was going on round-the-clock with additional hands from Russia when the protest blew up in their face. "There are around 150 Russians, 800 of our own staff and around 4,000 contract labourers."
  NPCIL officials said the first 1,000-MW reactor has completed what is called a "hot run" - trial run of the reactor with dummy fuel -- to check all the reactor systems, including steam generation.
  "Our plan is to generate and sell power at Rs.2.50 per unit. If there is delay, then the cost per unit will go up," Jain said.
  Queried about the plans for spent fuel, Jain said: "After tough negotiations with the Russians, we have decided to reprocess the spent fuel to be used in future. Initially, it was planned to send it back to Russia."
  According to him, a reprocessing facility will be viable only if it can reprocess around 200 tonnes of nuclear fuel. "It will take around seven years for the Kudankulam reactors to give that tonnage. Its fuel will be reprocessed at a national facility."
  http://twocircles.net/2011oct14/cutouts_being_cut_out_kudankulam_officials_baffled.html

• 1. PRS | Bill Track | The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010

     www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage-bill...

     The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 seeks to create a mechanism for compensating victims of nuclear damage arising from a nuclear incident. ...
     
  2. [PDF] 

     The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 - PRS

     www.prsindia.org/.../Nuclear/...

     File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
     BILL to provide for cfi1iI_1iabflig»for nuclear damage, appointment of Claims ...
     
     Show more results from prsindia.org
  3. [PDF] 

     THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE BILL, 2010

     164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/PassedBothHouses/nuclear.pdf

     File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
     Bill No. 19-F of 2010. THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR. DAMAGE BILL, 2010. (AS PASSED BY THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—. LOK SABHA ON 25TH ...
     

  4. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010-Some Tentative ...

     environmentpress.in/.../the-civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage-bill-20...

     One, the name has been changed from 'The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009' to 'The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010'16. Two, in clause 6. ...
     

  5. Civil Liability for Nuclear Claims Bill, 2010: is life cheap in India?

     www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Op-Ed

     21 Jun 2010 – Worst case nuclear accident damages are likely to be more severe and long-lasting. If the Civil Liability Nuclear Claims Bill of 2010 it is not ...
     

  6. Civil Liability For Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010: An Ideological Twin Of ...

     www.countercurrents.org/mannully250810.htm

     25 Aug 2010 – 25 August, 2010. Countercurrents.org. The passing of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 (Nuclear Bill) by the Lok Sabha after the high ...
     

  7. civil liability for nuclear damage bill 2010 | Legally India | Legally India

     www.legallyindia.com/tag/civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage-bill-2010

     13 Aug 2010 – nuclear The new 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill is a double-edged sword full of loopholes and unanswered questions that are ...
     

  8. Nuclear Liability Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Liability_Bill

     The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 or Nuclear Liability Bill is a highly debated and controversial bill which was passed by both houses of Indian ...
     

     You visited this page on 18/08/11.

  9. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 tabled in Lok Sabha

     news.oneindia.in/2010/.../civilliability-for-nuclear-damage-bill-2010-...

     25 Aug 2010 – New Delhi, Aug.25 (ANI): The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 was tabled in the Lok Sabha by Minister of State for Parliamentary ...
     
  10. [PDF] 

      THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE BILL, 2010

      www.opendemocracy.net/files/st.pdf

      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
      THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE BILL, 2010. A. BILL to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage, appointment of Claims Commissioner, ...
      

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Next

  
  

  U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  

  U.S. President George W. Bush and India's Prime MinisterManmohan Singh exchange handshakes in New Delhi on March 2, 2006.

  The 123 Agreement signed between the United States of America and the Republic of India is known as the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation or Indo-US nuclear deal.[1] The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005, joint statement byIndian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and to place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.[2] This U.S.-India deal took more than three years to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, including amendment of U.S. domestic law, specially the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,[3] a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, an India-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India's first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved,[4] and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.[5] Once India brings this agreement into force, inspections began in a phased manner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.[6] The deal is seen as a watershed in U.S.-India relations and introduces a new aspect to international nonproliferation efforts.[7] On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,[8] after which the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.[9] The 45-nation NSG granted the waiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[10] The implementation of this waiver made India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to theNon Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[11]
  The US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28 September 2008.[12] Two days later, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country to have such an agreement with India.[13] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate also approved the civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States.[14][15] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.[16] The agreement was signed by then Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on 10 October.[17][18]

  Contents  [hide] 1 Overview 2 Background 3 Rationale behind the agreement 3.1 Nuclear non-proliferation 3.2 Economic considerations 3.3 Strategic 4 Passing of Agreement 5 Hyde Act Passage in the U.S. 6 Political opposition in India 7 Indian parliament vote 8 IAEA approval 9 NSG waiver 9.1 Versions of U.S. draft exemption 9.2 Initial support and opposition 9.3 Reactions following the waiver 9.3.1 Indian reactions 9.4 Other reactions over the issue 10 Consideration by U.S. Congress 10.1 Passage in Congress 11 Formal signing of the deal 12 Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal 13 See also 14 References 15 External links

[edit]Overview

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India[19] and in particular to negotiate a 123 Agreement to operationalize the 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the United States. The Hyde Act cannot be binding on India's sovereign decisions although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. reactions. As per the Vienna convention, an international treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal law such as the Hyde Act.[20][21][22]
The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinet ministers. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[23]
After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27, 2007,[24] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from thecommunist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.[25] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275–256 votes in the backdrop of defections by some parties .[26] The deal also had faced opposition from non-proliferation activists, anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[27][28] In February 2008 then U.S. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be "consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[29] The bill was signed on October 8, 2008.

[edit]Background

Parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a recognized right of access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and an obligation to cooperate on civilian nuclear technology. Separately, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed on guidelines for nuclear exports, including reactors and fuel. Those guidelines condition such exports on comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are designed to verify that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful use to weapons programs. Though neither India, Israel, nor Pakistanhave signed the NPT, India argues that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles.[30] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".
Led by the U.S., other states have set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[31] Consequently, India was left outside the international nuclear order, which forced India to develop its own resources for each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation, including next generation reactors such as fast breeder reactors and a thorium breeder reactor[32][33] known as the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor. In addition to impelling India to achieve success in developing these new reactor technologies, the sanctions also provided India with the impetus to continue developing its own nuclear weapons technology with a specific goal of achieving self-sufficiency for all key components for weapons design, testing and production.
Given that India is estimated to possess reserves of about 80,000-112,369 tons of uranium,[34] India has more than enough fissile material to supply its nuclear weapons program, even if it restricted Plutonium production to only 8 of the country's 17 current reactors, and then further restricted Plutonium production to only 1/4 of the fuel core of these reactors.[35] According to the calculations of one of the key advisers to the US Nuclear deal negotiating team, Ashley Tellis:[35]
Operating India's eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative] regime would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policy maker, has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely approximates such numbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New Delhi has the capability to produce a gigantic nuclear arsenal while subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its known uranium reserves.
However, because the amount of nuclear fuel required for the electricity generation sector is far greater than that required to maintain a nuclear weapons program, and since India's estimated reserve of uranium represents only 1% of the world's known uranium reserves, the NSG's uranium export restrictions mainly affected Indian nuclear power generation capacity. Specifically, the NSG sanctions challenge India's long term plans to expand and fuel its civilian nuclear power generation capacity from its current output of about 4GWe (GigaWatt electricity) to a power output of 20GWe by 2020; assuming the planned expansion used conventional Uranium/Plutonium fueled heavy waterand light water nuclear power plants.
Consequently, India's nuclear isolation constrained expansion of its civil nuclear program, but left India relatively immune to foreign reactions to a prospective nuclear test. Partly for this reason, but mainly due to continued unchecked covert nuclear and missile proliferation activities between Pakistan, China [36][37] and North Korea,[38][39] India conducted five more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.
India was subject to international sanctions after its May 1998 nuclear tests. However, due to the size of the Indian economy and its relatively large domestic sector, these sanctions had little impact on India, with Indian GDP growth increasing from 4.8% in 1997–1998 (prior to sanctions) to 6.6% (during sanctions) in 1998–1999.[40] Consequently, at the end of 2001, the Bush Administration decided to drop all sanctions on India.[41] Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998,[42] it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.

[edit]Rationale behind the agreement

[edit]Nuclear non-proliferation

The proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognizes India's "de facto" status even without signing the NPT. The Bush administrationjustifies a nuclear pact with India because it is important in helping to advance the non-proliferation framework [43] by formally recognizing India's strong non-proliferation record even though it has not signed the NPT. The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal said "India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can't say that about Pakistan." when asked whether the U.S. would offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal.[44][45][46] Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[47] The reaction in the Western academic community was mixed. While some authors praised the agreement as bringing India closer to the NPT regime, others argued that it gave India too much leeway in determining which facilities were to be safeguarded and that it effectively rewarded India for continuously defying the Non-Proliferation Treaty by not acceding to it.[48]

[edit]Economic considerations

Financially, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the U.S. wants a share.[49] It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade. However, the developmental economic advising firm Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase electricity production in India.[citation needed] They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants. Although India's parliament passed The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages bill on August 25, 2010,[50][51] the legislation does not meet international standards for nuclear liability as set forth in theConvention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, because it allows the operator to sue the supplier in case of an accident due to technical defects in the plant.[52] After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, issues relating to the safety of operating nuclear power plants, compensation in the event of a radiation-leak accident, disaster clean-up costs, operator responsibility and supplier liability has once again come into the spot-light.

[edit]Strategic

Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, has requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, i.e. having separate policies toward India and Pakistan rather than just an "India-Pakistan" policy. The United States also sees India as a viable counter-weight to the growing influence of China,[citation needed] and a potential client and job creator.[53]
While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the world's known and economically viable thorium,[54] it possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves.[55] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers on the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow. Indian opposition to the pact centers on the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.

[edit]Passing of Agreement

On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[56]
Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[57] The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and boost U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.
On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[58] Nicholas Burns, the chief negotiator of the India-United States nuclear deal, said the U.S. has the right to terminate the deal if India tests a nuclear weapon and that no part of the agreement recognizes India as a nuclear weapons state.[59]

[edit]Hyde Act Passage in the U.S.

On December 18, 2006 President George W. Bush signed the Hyde Act into law. The Act was passed by an overwhelming 359–68 in theUnited States House of Representatives on July 26 and by 85–12 in the United States Senate on November 16 in a strong show of bipartisan support.[60][61][62]
The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due to amendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with a House vote of 330–59 on December 8 and a Senate voice-vote on December 9 before being passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[63][64] The White House had urged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the end-2006 lame duck session, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[65] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iran were incorporated in the Hyde Act.
In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India, President Bush, stated "Given the Constitution's commitment to the authority of the presidency to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the bill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued by saying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy."[66]

[edit]Political opposition in India

Main article: Opposition to the Indo-US civilian agreement in India
The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was met with stiff opposition by some political parties and activists in India. Although many mainstream political parties including the Congress(I) supported the deal along with regional parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam andRashtriya Janata Dal its realization ran into difficulties in the face of stiff political opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs, bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing their support for the deal.[67] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels. The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the Left Front in opposing the deal changed its stand after discussing with ex-president of India and scientist Dr A P J Abdul Kalam. The SP then supported the government and the deal. The Indian Government survived a vote of confidence by 275-256 after the Left Front withdrew their support to the government over this dispute.[68] Incidentally, results showed ten MP's belonging to the opposing BJP party cross-voting in the favor of the government.
As details were revealed about serious inconsistencies between what the Indian parliament was told about the deal, and the facts about the agreement that were presented by the Bush administration to the US Congress, opposition grew in India against the deal. In particular, portions of the agreement dealing with guaranteeing India a fuel supply or allowing India to maintain a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel appear to be diametrically opposed to what the Indian parliament was led to expect from the agreement:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement in parliament is totally at variance with the Bush Administration's communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which says India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercut American leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act's stipulation—the little-known 'Barack Obama Amendment' -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate with reasonable operating requirements". The 'strategic reserve' that is crucial to India's nuclear program is, therefore, a non-starter.[69] Furthermore, the agreement, as a result of its compliance with the Hyde Act, contained a direct linkage between shutting down US nuclear trade with India and any potential future Indian nuclear weapons test, a point that was factually inconsistent with explicit reassurances made on this subject by Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, during final parliamentary debate on the nuclear deal. As professor Brahma Chellaney, an expert in strategic affairs and one of the authors of the Indian Nuclear Doctrine [70], explained:
While the Hyde Act's bar on Indian testing is explicit, the one in the NSG waiver is implicit, yet unmistakable. The NSG waiver is overtly anchored in NSG Guidelines Paragraph 16, which deals with the consequence of "an explosion of a nuclear device". The waiver's Section 3(e) refers to this key paragraph, which allows a supplier to call for a special NSG meeting, and seek termination of cooperation, in the event of a test or any other "violation of a supplier-recipient understanding". The recently leaked Bush administration letter to Congress has cited how this Paragraph 16 rule will effectively bind India to the Hyde Act's conditions on the pain of a U.S.-sponsored cut-off of all multilateral cooperation. India will not be able to escape from the U.S.-set conditions by turning to other suppliers.[71]

[edit]Indian parliament vote

Further information: 2008 Lok Sabha Vote of Confidence and Notes-for-Vote scandal
On July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[72] This development came after the Prime Minister of IndiaManmohan Singh returned from the 34th G8 summit meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush.[73] On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Left Front, whose support was crucial for the ruling United Progressive Alliance to prove its majority in the Indian parliament, continued to oppose the nuclear deal and he described their stance as irrational and reactionary.[74] According to the Hindu, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's earlier statement said "I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority," [75] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put its signature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a 'opposition-initiated no-confidence motion' or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian parliament after being told to prove its majority by the president. On July 8, 2008, Prakash Karat announced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over the decision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceeding with this deal citing national interests.[76]
On 22 July 2008 the UPA faced its first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over India approaching the IAEA for Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The UPA won the confidence vote with 275 votes to the opposition's 256, (10 members abstained from the vote) to record a 19-vote victory.[77][78][79][80]

[edit]IAEA approval

The IAEA Board of Governors approved the safeguards agreement on August 1, 2008, and the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers Group next had to approve a policy allowing nuclear cooperation with India. U.S. President Bush can then make the necessary certifications and seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[81] There were objections from Pakistan, Iran, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria at the IAEA meeting.[82]

[edit]NSG waiver

On September 6, 2008 India was granted the waiver at the NSG meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived at after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)[83][84] The Indian team who worked on the deal includes Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Shiv Shankar Menon, Shyam Saran, MK Narayanan, Anil Kakodkar, Ravi Grover, and DB Venkatesh Varma.[83]

[edit]Versions of U.S. draft exemption

On August 2008 U.S. draft exemption would have granted India a waiver based on the "steps that India has taken voluntarily as a contributing partner in the non-proliferation regime".[85] Based on these steps, and without further conditions, the draft waiver would have allowed for the transfer to India of both trigger list and dual-use items (including technology), waiving the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines.[86]
A September 2008 waiver would have recognized additional "steps that India has voluntarily taken."[87] The waiver called for notifying the NSG of bilateral agreements and for regular consultations; however, it also would have waived the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines without further conditions.[86]
The U.S. draft underwent further changes in an effort to make the language more acceptable to the NSG.[88]

[edit]Initial support and opposition

The deal had initial support from the United States, the United Kingdom,[89] France,[90] Japan,[91] Russia,[92] and Germany.[93][94] After some initial opposition, there were reports of Australia,[95] Switzerland,[96] and Canada[97][98] expressing their support for the deal. Selig S. Harrison, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Washington Post, has said the deal may represent a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state,[99] while former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph says the "U.S. State Department made it very clear that we will not recognize India as a nuclear-weapon state".[100]
Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Japan all warned that their support for India at the IAEA did not mean that they would not express reservations at the NSG. New Zealand, which is a member of the NSG but not of the IAEA Board of Governors, cautioned that its support should not be taken for granted.[28] Ireland, which launched the non-proliferation treaty process in 1958 and signed it first in 1968, doubted India's nuclear trade agreement with the U.S.[101] Russia, a potentially large nuclear supplier to India, expressed reservations about transferring enrichment and reprocessing technology to India.[102] China argued the agreement constituted "a major blow to the international non-proliferation regime".[103] New Zealand said it would like to see a few conditions written in to the waiver: the exemption ceasing if India conducts nuclear tests, India signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) additional protocol, and placing limits on the scope of the technology that can be given to India and which could relate to nuclear weapons.[104] Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinaviancountries proposed similar amendments.[105] The nuclear deal was opposed by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who opined that the U.S. would be making "a dangerous deal with India"[106]
After the first NSG meeting in August 2008, diplomats noted that up to 20 of the 45 NSG states tabled conditions similar to the Hyde Act for India's waiver to do business with the NSG.[107] "There were proposals on practically every paragraph," a European diplomat said.[107] A group of seven NSG members suggested including some of the provisions of the U.S. Hyde Act in the final waiver.[108] Daryll Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the NSG should at a minimum "make clear that nuclear trade with India shall be terminated if it resumes testing for any reason. If India cannot agree to such terms, it suggests that India is not serious about its nuclear test moratorium pledge."[109]

[edit]Reactions following the waiver

After India was granted the waiver on September 6, the United Kingdom said that the NSG's decision would make a "significant contribution" to global energy and climate security.[110] U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "this is a historic achievement that strengthens global non-proliferation principles while assisting India to meet its energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner. The United States thanks the participating governments in the NSG for their outstanding efforts and cooperation to welcome India into the global non-proliferation community. We especially appreciate the role Germany played as chair to move this process forward."[111] New Zealand praised the NSG consensus and said that it got the best possible deal with India.[112] One of India's strongest allies Russia said in a statement, "We are convinced that the exemption made for India reflects Delhi's impeccable record in the non-proliferation sphere and will guarantee the peaceful uses of nuclear exports to India."[113] Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that the NSG granted waiver because of "India's rise as a global power" and added, "If such a request was made for another country, I don't think it would have been cleared by the NSG members."[114] During his visit to India in September 2008, Smith said that Australia "understood and respected India's decision not to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty".[115] German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner called India a "special case" and added, "Does this agreement send an approving message to Iran? No, it absolutely does not."[116]
Initially, there were reports of People's Republic of China analyzing the extent of the opposition against the waiver at the NSG and then revealing its position over the issue.[117] On September 1, 2008, prominent Chinese newspaper People's Daily expressed its strong disapproval of the civilian agreement with India.[118] India's National Security Advisor remarked that one of the major opponents of the waiver was China and said that he would express Indian government's displeasure over the issue.[119] It was also revealed that China had abstained during the final voting process, indicating its non-approval of the nuclear agreement.[120] In a statement, Chinese delegation to the NSG said the group should address the aspirations of other countries too, an implicit reference to Pakistan.[121] There were also unconfirmed reports of India considering the cancellation of a state visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.[122] However, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the Chinese Foreign Minister will be welcomed "as an honored guest".[123] The Times of India noted that China's stance could have a long-term implication on Sino-Indian relations.[124]
There were some other conflicting reports on China's stance, however. The Hindu reported that though China had expressed its desire to include more stern language in the final draft, they had informed India about their intention to back the agreement.[125] In an interview to theHindustan Times, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said that "China understands India's needs for civil nuclear energy and related international cooperation."[126] Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told India's CNN-IBN, "We didn't do anything to block it [the deal]. We played a constructive role. We also adopted a positive and responsible attitude and a safeguards agreement was reached, so facts speak louder ... than some reports".[127] During a press conference in New Delhi, Yang added, "The policy was set much before that. When consensus was reached, China had already made it clear in a certain way that we have no problem with the [NSG] statement."[128]Highlighting the importance of Sino-Indian relations, Yang remarked, "let us [India and China] work together to move beyond doubts to build a stronger relationship between us."[129]

[edit]Indian reactions

Indian PM Manmohan Singh visited Washington D.C. on September 26, 2008 to celebrate the conclusion of the agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush.[130] He also visited France to convey his appreciation for the country's stance.[131] India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed his deep appreciation for India's allies in the NSG, especially the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, South Africa and Brazil for helping India achieve NSG's consensus on the nuclear deal.[132]
Bhartiya Janata Party's Yashwant Sinha, who also formerly held the post of India's External Affairs Minister, criticized the Indian government's decision to seek NSG's consensus and remarked that "India has walked into the non-proliferation trap set by the U.S., we have given up our right to test nuclear weapons forever, it has been surrendered by the government".[133] However, another prominent member of the same party and India's former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra supported the development at the NSG and said that the waiver granted made "no prohibition" on India to conduct nuclear tests in the future.[134]
A leading advocate of the agreement was India's most eminent strategic affairs analyst K. Subrahmanyam, also known for his long and controversial championing of an Indian nuclear deterrent.[135] He argued that the convergence of strategic interests between the two nations forced such a remarkable gesture from the US, overturning its decades-long stand on non-proliferation, and that it would be unwise on India's part to spurn such an overture.[136] He also argued that not recognizing new geo-political realities would be even more foolhardy on the part of the Indian elite.[137][138]
Former President of India and noted Indian scientist, APJ Abdul Kalam, also supported the agreement and remarked that New Delhi may break its "voluntary moratorium" on further nuclear tests in "supreme national interest".[139] However, analyst M K Bhadrakumar demurred. He said that the consensus at NSG was achieved on the "basis" of Pranab Mukherjee's commitment to India's voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and by doing so, India has entered into a "multilateral commitment" bringing it within "the ambit of the CTBT and NPT".[140]
The NSG consensus was welcomed by several major Indian companies. Major Indian corporations like Videocon Group, Tata Power andJindal Power saw a $40 billion (U.S.) nuclear energy market in India in the next 10–15 years.[141] On a more optimistic note, some of India's largest and most well-respected corporations like Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation and Larsen & Toubrowere eyeing a $100 billion (U.S.) business in this sector over the same time period.[141] According to Hindustan Times, nuclear energy will produce 52,000 MW of electricity in India by 2020.[142]

[edit]Other reactions over the issue

More than 150 non-proliferation activists and anti-nuclear organizations called for tightening the initial NSG agreement to prevent harming the current global non-proliferation regime.[143] Among the steps called for were:[27]

• ceasing cooperation if India conducts nuclear tests or withdraws from safeguards
• supplying only an amount of fuel which is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements
• expressly prohibiting the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production items to India
• opposing any special safeguards exemptions for India
• conditioning the waiver on India stopping fissile production and legally binding itself not to conduct nuclear tests
• not allowing India to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by a member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards
• agreeing that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member-state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities

The call said that the draft Indian nuclear "deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament" and also pushed for all world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race to "to stand up and be counted."[27]
Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who has taught political science at Tehran University, has argued the agreement will set a new precedent for other states, adding that the agreement represents a diplomatic boon for Tehran.[144] Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the Iranian Deputy Director General for International and Political Affairs,[145] has complained the agreement may undermine the credibility, integrity and universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan argues the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."[146] Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has suggested his country should be considered for such an accord,[147] and Pakistan has also said the same process "should be available as a model for other non-NPT states".[148] On July 19, 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton countered Pakistan statements by saying that Pakistan's checkered history on nuclear proliferation "raises red flags" regarding nuclear cooperation with Pakistan.[149] Israel is citing the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal as a precedent to alter Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules to construct its first nuclear power plant in the Negev desert, and is also pushing for its own trade exemptions.[150]
Brahma Chellaney, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, argued that the wording of the U.S. exemption sought to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. He argued India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with India being tied to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India would acquiesce to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. He concluded that instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies would be restricted through the initial NSG waiver.[151]

[edit]Consideration by U.S. Congress

The Bush Administration told Congress in January 2008 that the United States may cease all cooperation with India if India detonates a nuclear explosive device. The Administration further said it was not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items.[152] The statements were considered sensitive in India because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The State Department had requested they remain secret even though they were not classified.[153] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also previously told the House Foreign Affairs Panel in public testimony that any agreement would "have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[29] Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher and the Former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative AffairsJeffrey Bergner also said the agreement would be in conformity with the Hyde Act.[154]
Howard Berman, chair of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that an NSG waiver "inconsistent" with the 2006 Hyde Act would "jeopardise" the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in the U.S. Congress.[155] Edward J. Markey, co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, said that there needed to be clear consequences if India broke its commitments or resumed nuclear testing.[156]

[edit]Passage in Congress

On September 28, 2008 the US House of Representatives voted 298-117 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[157] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate voted 86-13 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[158] The Arms Control Association said the agreement fails to make clear that an Indian nuclear test would prompt the U.S. to cease nuclear trade;[158] however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any nuclear test by India would result in the "most serious consequences," including automatic cut-off of U.S. cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions.[159]
After Senate approval, US President George W. Bush said the deal would "strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner."[160] Then-US presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as then-Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, voted in support of the bill.[161]

[edit]Formal signing of the deal

There was speculation the Indo-US deal would be signed on October 4, 2008 when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in India. The deal was to be inked by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The two leaders were to sign the deal at 2 pm at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi.[162] But Mr. Mukherjee announced that India would wait for the US President to sign the 123 agreement legislation first into law and address India's concerns on fuel supply guarantees and the legal standing of the 123 agreement in the accompanying signing statement.[163]
Ms Rice was aware of the Indian decision before she left Washington. But she was very hopeful that the deal would be signed as the US state department had said that the President's signature was not prerequisite for Rice to ink the deal.[164] Rice had earlier said that there were still a number of administrative details to be worked out even as she insisted that the US would abide by the Hyde Act on the testing issue:

Secretary Rice and Indian Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee after signing the 123 agreement in Washington on October 10, 2008.

"There are a lot of administrative details that have to be worked out. This (the deal) was only passed in our Congress two days ago. The President is looking forward to signing the bill, sometime, I hope, very soon, because we'll want to use it as an opportunity to thank all of the people who have been involved in this," said Rice.[165]
In Washington, a Senate Democratic aide said that such a delay was not that unusual because legislation needed to be carefully reviewed before being sent to the White House.[166]
US President George W Bush signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into law on October 8.[16] The new law, called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, was signed by President Bush at a brief White House function in the presence of the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Ronen Sen besides a large gathering of other dignitaries.[167] The final administrative aspect of the deal was completed after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed the bilateral instruments of the 123 Agreement in Washington on October 10 paving the way for operationalization of the deal between the two countries.[168] [169]

[edit]Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal

July 18, 2005: President Bush and Prime Minister Singh first announce their intention to enter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.
March 1, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time.
March 3, 2006: Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategic partnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006,' which stipulates that Washington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
July 28, 2006: In India, the Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue in Parliament.
November 16, 2006: The US Senate passes the 'United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act' to "exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India."
December 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law congressional legislation on Indian atomic energy.
July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and India conclude.
Aug 3, 2007: The text of the 'Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy' (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.
Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the deal in Parliament.
Aug 17, 2007: The CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the 'honeymoon (with government) may be over but the marriage can go on'.
Sept 4, 2007: In India, the UPA-Left committee to discuss nuclear deal set up.
Feb 25, 2008: Left parties in India say the ruling party would have to choose between the deal and its government's stability.
March 3–6, 2008: Left parties warn of 'serious consequences' if the nuclear deal is operationalised and set a deadline asking the government to make it clear by March 15 whether it intended to proceed with the nuclear deal or drop it.
March 7–14, 2008: The CPI writes to the Prime Minister Singh, warns of withdrawal of support if government goes ahead with the deal and puts political pressure on the Manmohan Singh government not to go with the deal.
April 23, 2008: The Indian Government says it will seek the sense of the House on the 123 Agreement before it is taken up for ratification by the American Congress.
June 17, 2008: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee meets Prakash Karat, asks the Left to allow the government to go ahead with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement.
June 30, 2008: The Indian Prime Minister says his government prepared to face Parliament before operationalising the deal.
July 8, 2008: Left parties in India withdraw support to government.
July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated to IAEA's Board of Governors for approval.
July 10, 2008: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls for a vote of confidence in Parliament.
July 14, 2008: The IAEA says it will meet on August 1 to consider the India-specific safeguards agreement.
July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board of Governors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.
July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the country's strategic autonomy will never be compromised, says Prime Minister Singh.
July 22, 2008: The UPA government led by Manmohan Singh wins trust vote in the Lok Sabha in India.
July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate an atomic arms race in the sub-continent.
July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for an exemption for nuclear commerce.
July 25, 2008: IAEA secretariat briefs member states on India-specific safeguards agreement.
Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India- specific safeguards agreement unanimously.
Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amid reservations by some countries.
Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes up with a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.
Sept 11, 2008: President Bush sends the text of the 123 Agreement to the US Congress for final approval.
Sept 12, 2008: US remains silent over the controversy in India triggered by President Bush's assertions that nuclear fuel supply assurances to New Delhi under the deal were only political commitments and not legally binding.
Sept 13, 2008: The State Department issues a fact sheet on the nuclear deal saying the initiative will help meet India's growing energy requirements and strengthen the non- proliferation regime by welcoming New Delhi into globally accepted nonproliferation standards and practices.
Sept 18, 2008: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee kicks off a crucial hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Sept 19, 2008: America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials tells Congressional panel.
Sept 21, 2008: US financial crisis diverts attention from N-deal as both the Bush Administration and the Congress are bogged down over efforts to rescue bankrupt American banks. financial crisis in the country.
Sept 26, 2008: PM Singh meets President Bush at the White House, but were not able to sign the nuclear deal as the Congress did not approve it.
Sept 27, 2008: House of Representatives approves the Indo-US nuclear deal. 298 members voted for the Bill while 117 voted against.
Oct 1, 2008: Senate approves the Indo-US civil nuclear deal with 86 votes for and 13 against.
Oct 4, 2008: Secretary of State Rice visits Delhi. India and the US unable to ink the nuclear agreement with New Delhi insisting that it would do so only after President Bush signs it into a law, an occasion when it expects certain misgivings to be cleared.
Oct 4, 2008: White House announces that President Bush will sign the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into a law on October 8.
Oct 8, 2008: President Bush signs legislation to enact the landmark US-India civilian nuclear agreement.
Oct 10, 2008: The 123 Agreement between India and US is finally operationalized between the two countries after the deal is signed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington D C.

[edit]See also

*	Energy portal

• India – United States relations
• Energy policy of India
• Nuclear Liability Bill
• Energy security
• Foreign relations of India
• Nuclear power in India

[edit]References

1. ^ Sultan, Maria; Mian Behzad Adil (September, 2008). "The Henry J. Hyde Act and 123 Agreement: An Assessment" (PDF). South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, London. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
2. ^ Office of the Press Secretary (18 June 2005). "Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh".Home > News & Policies > July 2005. The White House. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
3. ^ Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.; Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Tuesday, 3 January 2006)."''Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006''". The federal government of the United States of America.
4. ^ IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement
5. ^ India Safeguards Agreement Signed
6. ^ Unattributed (25 July 2008). "Communication dated 25 July 2008 received from the Permanent Mission of India concerning a document entitled "Implementation of the India-United States Joint Statement of July 18, 2005: India's Separation Plan" (INFCIRC/731)" (pdf). International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
7. ^ Bajoria, Jayshree (November 5, 2010). "The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal". http://www.cfr.org.
8. ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal - International Herald Tribune". Iht.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
9. ^ "outlookindia.com | wired". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
10. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver - MarketWatch". Marketwatch.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
11. ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energized by nuclear pacts". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
12. ^ "House of Reps clears N-deal, France set to sign agreement-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-29. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
13. ^ "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". Indianexpress.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
14. ^ Rajghatta, Chidanand (2008-10-02). "Finally, it's done: India back on the nuclear train-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
15. ^ "Senate approves nuclear deal with India - CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
16. ^ a b "Bush signs bill on N-deal on October 8". United States Office of the Press Secretary. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
17. ^ Done Deal: India, US seal landmark nuclear pact CNN-IBN
18. ^ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee At the Signing of the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
19. ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
20. ^ The Indo-U.S. nuclear debate from www.gulfnews.com
21. ^ ITGD Bureau. "India Today - India's most widely read magazine". Indiatoday.digitaltoday.in. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
22. ^ "War of words & world views-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
23. ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics - livemint.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
24. ^ "India and US confirm nuclear pact". BBC News. 2007-07-27. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
25. ^ India: Government crisis deepens over U.S. nuclear deal
26. ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
27. ^ a b c Arms Control Association: "Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster"
28. ^ a b Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: What's Next?
29. ^ a b Economic Times of India: Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too
30. ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". Retrieved 2006-06-01.
31. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group".
32. ^ "A Thorium Breeder Reactor".
33. ^ "India unveils 'world's safest nuclear reactor'".
34. ^ "P.18, paragraph 1, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF).
35. ^ a b "P.31-P.36, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF).
36. ^ Vergano, Dan (2008-08-29). "Report says China offered widespread help on nukes". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
37. ^ "Against nuclear apartheid".
38. ^ "Bermudez, Joseph S. Jr. 1998. A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK".
39. ^ "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program - 1998: The Year of Testing".
40. ^ "Achieving 9% Growth Rate in India: A Growth Paradigm".
41. ^ "U.S. Ready to End Sanctions on India to Build an Alliance".
42. ^ {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118726909/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0}
43. ^ "Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch". The Economic Times. 2008-07-26. Retrieved 2008-08-03.
44. ^ [1][dead link]
45. ^ "Russia hints at smooth sail for India at IAEA". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
46. ^ http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:nlT8QsQA48QJ:www.ipcs.org/countIssueBrief.jsp%3Fissue%3D31+india+willing+to+sin+npt+as+a+nuclear+weapons+state&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=in
47. ^ VandeHei, Jim; Linzer, Dafna (2006-03-03). "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-03-03.
48. ^ Müller, Jörn (2009). "The Signing of the U.S.-India Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy". Göttingen Journal of International Law. pp. 179–198. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
49. ^ Linzer, Dafna (2005-07-20). "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-07-20.
50. ^ [|PTI Correspondent] (August 26, 2010). "Nuclear liability bill to bring in more investment: US media". The Times of India.
51. ^ [|PTI Correspondent] (August 25, 2010). "Lok Sabha passes Nuclear Liability Bill". The Times of India.
52. ^ India's Nuclear Liability Dilemma, by Ashley Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Interviewed by Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, CFR.org, November 4, 2010.
53. ^ PTI Correspondent (February 18, 2010). "US wants Indian businesses to create jobs in America". The Times of India.
54. ^ "Information and Issue Briefs – Thorium". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
55. ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 – Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. Archived from the original on April 27, 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
56. ^ "Bush, India's Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
57. ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2006-07-29.
58. ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". Archived from the original on July 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
59. ^ U.S. can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns
60. ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
61. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
62. ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-11-16.
63. ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
64. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-12-08.
65. ^ "Nuclear deal with U.S. made easier for India to digest". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
66. ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. Retrieved 2006-12-19.
67. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: 'The question is can we get a better n-deal? No&#x2019". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
68. ^ Indian government survives vote
69. ^ "The Pioneer > Columnists". Dailypioneer.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
70. ^ "Brahma Chellaney a strategic affairs expert, is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research. He was one of the authors of the nuclear doctrine submitted to the government for finalisation". rediff.com. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
71. ^ "Stagecraft and Statecraft: India's retarded nuclear deterrent". Chellaney.spaces.live.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
72. ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
73. ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI (timesofindia.indiatimes.com). 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
74. ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
75. ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". Chennai, India: www.thehindu.com. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
76. ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". Chennai, India. 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
77. ^ Sengupta, Somini (2007-07-23). "Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
78. ^ Indian gov't wins trust vote in parliament_English_Xinhua
79. ^ Default
80. ^ Post trust vote victory, India Govt. to move forward with reforms, nuclear deal - International Business Times
81. ^ "IAEA board gets India's safeguards agreement". www.rediff.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
82. ^ N-deal: Getting NSG nod may not be easy
83. ^ a b "NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA". CNN-IBN. September 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
84. ^ "INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER". NDTV.com. September 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
85. ^ Carnegie Endowment (August 2008): Text of U.S. NSG Proposal on India
86. ^ a b NSG Guidelines
87. ^ Arms Control Association (September 2008): Revised Indo-U.S. NSG Draft
88. ^ Khabrein: U.S. plans nuclear rewrite to build NSG consensus
89. ^ "UK backs India's nuke energy ambitions". The Australian. 2008-01-23.
90. ^ "France to back India at IAEA meet-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-15. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
91. ^ India Times: Japan to recognise India as nuclear state
92. ^ "Russia, India Close on Nuclear Deal". Moscowtimes.ru. 13 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
93. ^ German leader: Much scope for India-Germany cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy - International Herald Tribune
94. ^ "Germany for end to India's N-isolation". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2007-10-23.
95. ^ RTTNews - Political News and Chatter, World Political News, Forex News, Earnings Revisions
96. ^ "Switzerland to support India's case at NSG- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. 2008-08-17. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
97. ^ "Canada, India exploring ways to co-operate in nuclear energy". PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. 2007-10-10.
98. ^ Times of India: Canada behind U.S., Britain in wooing India, says expert
99. ^ Harrison, Selig S. (2006-04-23). "How to Regulate Nuclear Weapons". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
100. ^ Arms Control Today (May 2006): Interview With Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph
101. ^ "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race". CNN IBN. 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-24.
102. ^ Times of India: India's NSG battle to focus on nuclear tech
103. ^ Times of India: India sees red as China voices n-deal concerns
104. ^ The National Business Review: NZ wants conditions written into nuclear agreement
105. ^ Gulf Times: NSG 'will seek clear conditions'
106. ^ Carter, Jimmy (2006-03-29). "A Dangerous Deal With India". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
107. ^ a b Daily Times: Nuclear suppliers propose terms for U.S.-India deal
108. ^ Telegraph: Vienna blow to nuclear deal
109. ^ AFP: Nuclear suppliers fail to reach consensus on U.S.-India deal
110. ^ Sep 6, 2008 (September 6, 2008). "AFP: Britain hails landmark US-India nuclear deal". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
111. ^ "U.S., India welcome NSG's agreement to lift nuclear trade embargo on India_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
112. ^ "New Zealand compromises on India nuclear deal_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
113. ^ "The Hindu : International : Russia welcomes NSG waiver for India". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
114. ^ "'India got the waiver because of its rise as global power'-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
115. ^ "India understands uranium stance: Smith - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
116. ^ DW Staff (jen). "Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 09.09.2008". Dw-world.de. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
117. ^ "NDTV.com: China, the main spoiler". Ndtv.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
118. ^ "China state paper lashes India-U.S. nuclear deal | Markets | Reuters". In.reuters.com. 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
119. ^ "China was India's secret enemy at Vienna | What NSA says". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
120. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&ParentID=725c91cd-5ecf-44c4-8e4f-d5bd5791c1e4&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions
121. ^ "NSG should address aspirations of others too: China". Indianexpress.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
122. ^ "India runs into the great wall of China at NSG". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
123. ^ "Will discuss NSG U-turn with China Foreign Min: NSA". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
124. ^ "Beijing 'disappoints' Delhi-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
125. ^ "The Hindu : Front Page : Waiver enables member states to provide India full civil nuclear cooperation". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
126. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions&strParent=strParentID
127. ^ "China denies blocking India's nuclear waiver bid | Markets | Reuters". Uk.reuters.com. 2008-09-08. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
128. ^ "We decided to back India in NSG before Vienna meeting: China- Hindustan Times". Hindustantimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
129. ^ "Let's move beyond doubts to build ties: China to India - Express India". Expressindia.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
130. ^ "Manmohan arrives in Washington, to meet Bush". Thaindian News. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
131. ^ "Manmohan leaves for home winding up 9 day US, France visit". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
132. ^ "India thanks NSG's Big Four for 'unique' waiver - Sify.com". Sify.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
133. ^ "Gulf Daily News". Gulf-daily-news.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
134. ^ "The Hindu : National : Advantage India, says Brajesh Mishra". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
135. ^ Sengupta, Somini (2006-12-10). "Interests Drive U.S. to Back a Nuclear India". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
136. ^ http://www.aerospaceindia.org/Journals/Monsoon%202005/Indo-US%20Relations%20in%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf
137. ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/13ndeal.htm
138. ^ http://www.samachaar.in/Politics/Stalling_nuclear_deal_will_be_a_historical_mistake_23244/
139. ^ Hindustan Times: N-deal, NSG waiver good for country
140. ^ "Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan". Atimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
141. ^ a b "India Inc sets eyes on $40 bn nuclear energy market- Indicators-Economy-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
142. ^ Laxman, Srinivas (2008-09-11). "N-trade: It's a $40 billion opportunity-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
143. ^ The Hindu: Tighten draft waiver for India
144. ^ Afrasiabi: Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote
145. ^ Second Meeting of Experts of The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (July 2004): Statement By His Excellency Dr. Ali-Asghar Soltanieh
146. ^ Forbes: India moves a step closer to U.S. nuclear pact
147. ^ ISIS (July 2008): "Press Trust of India - India dismisses Pak talk of arms race due to N-deal"
148. ^ Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the International Organizations (July 2008): Letter from Pakistan to the IAEA Board of Governors and Nuclear Suppliers Group
149. ^ Clinton woos Pakistan on security, aid, Reuters, July 19, 2010.
150. ^ Hindustan Times: Now, Israel wants NSG rules changed
151. ^ "Serious implications for India in NSG draft". In.rediff.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
152. ^ Indian Express: Was India misled by America on nuclear deal?
153. ^ Washington Post: In Secret Letter, Tough U.S. Line on India Nuclear Deal
154. ^ Department of State: Answers to questions about Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement
155. ^ "N-deal will be consistent with US domestic law". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2008-08-08.
156. ^ Economic Times of India: Congressional approval may not be automatic; dissenters speak out
157. ^ Times of India: US House approves Indo-US nuke deal
158. ^ a b Bloomberg: Bush Wins Approval in Congress for Priority India Atomic Accord
159. ^ The Hindu: Nuclear test will have serious consequences
160. ^ "Bush hails Senate passage of Indo-US nuclear deal-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
161. ^ Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal
162. ^ "N-deal faces last-minute glitch". Deccan Harald.
163. ^ "Condoleezza Rice leaves without inking deal". Economic Times.
164. ^ Sunday Times (October 5, 2008), Rice is here but deal still not on table, Times of India
165. ^ "Rice arrives, nuclear deal not to be signed today". NDTV.com.
166. ^ "Rice in India, may not sign nuclear deal". Reuters.com. 2008-10-04.
167. ^ "Bush signs India-U.S. nuclear bill into law". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
168. ^ Gollust, David (2008-10-10). "US, India Sign Civilian Nuclear Accord". Voice Of America. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
169. ^ Times of India (October 11, 2008), India, US seal 123 Agreement, Times of India

[edit]External links

U.S. Government links

• U.S. Government Printing Office: The text of the Hyde Act
• U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Questions for the Record submitted to Assistant Secretary Bernger by Chairman Tom Lantos
• U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Documents from the White House related to the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement

India Government links

• Indian Ministry of External Affairs (August 2007): Text of the preliminary Indo-US nuclear agreement (meaindia.nic.in)

IAEA links

• IAEA Board of Governors. Nuclear Verification - The Conclusion of Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols : "An Agreement with the Government of India for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities" (GOV 2008/30 of 9 July 2008).

Nuclear Suppliers Group links

• Copy of Final NSG Agreement of 6 September 2008
• Nuclear Suppliers Group (4-6 September 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting, Vienna
• Nuclear Suppliers Group (21-22 August 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting, Vienna
• Nuclear Suppliers Group (November 2007): INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1
• Nuclear Suppliers Group (March 2006): INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2

  [show]v · d · eNuclear power in India

  
  

  [show]v · d · e Foreign relations of India

  
  View page ratings
  Rate this page
  What's this?
  Trustworthy
  Objective
  Complete
  Well-written
  I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
  Submit ratings
  Categories:
  • Arms control
  • Energy in India
  • Nuclear energy in India
  • Energy treaties of India
  • Energy treaties of the United States
  • Independent India
  • India – United States relations
  • Nuclear proliferation
  • Nuclear technology in India
  • Politics of India
  • Treaties of the Republic of India
  • Manmohan Singh administration
  • 2006 in law

India and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India
Nuclear program start date	1967
First nuclear weapon test	18 May 1974 (Smiling Buddha)
First fusion weapon test	11 May 1998 (declared)
Last nuclear test	13 May 1998
Largest yield test	20-60 kt total in Pokhran-II(yield is disputed)[1]
Total tests	6
Peak stockpile	80–100(2011 est.)[2]
Current stockpile	80–100(2011 est.)[2]
Maximum missile range	<2500 km (Agni II)
NPT signatory	No

Weapons of mass destruction
By type
Biological, Chemical, Nuclear, Radiological
By country
Albania Algeria Argentina Australia Brazil Bulgaria Burma Canada PR China France Germany India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Libya Mexico Netherlands North Korea Pakistan Poland Romania Russia Saudi Arabia South Africa Sweden Syria Taiwan (ROC) Ukraine United Kingdom United States
Proliferation
Biological, Chemical, Nuclear, Missiles
Treaties
List of treaties
Book ·  Category
v · d · e

Nuclear weapons
History Warfare Arms race Design Testing Effects Delivery Espionage Proliferation Arsenals Terrorism Anti-nuclear opposition
Nuclear-armed states
United States · Russia United Kingdom · France China · India · Israel Pakistan · North Korea South Africa (former)
This box: view · talk · edit

India possesses nuclear weapons and maintains short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft, surface ships, and submarines under development as possible delivery systems and platforms. Although it lacks an operational ballistic missile submarine, India has ambitions of possessing a nuclear triad in the near future when INS Arihant the lead ship of India's Arihant class of nuclear-powered submarines formally joins the Indian Navy in 2012 after undergoing extensive sea-trials. Though India has not made any official statements about the size of its nuclear arsenal, recent estimates suggest that India has between 80 and 100 nuclear weapons,^[2] consistent with earlier estimates that it had produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for up to 75–110 nuclear weapons.^[3] Production of weapons-grade plutonium is believed to be taking place at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, which is home to the CIRUS reactor, acquired from Canada and shut down in 2010, to the indigenous Dhruva reactor, and to a plutonium separation facility.^[4]

India is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India argues entrenches the status quo of the existing nuclear weapons states whilst preventing general nuclear disarmament.^[5] India tested a nuclear device in 1974 (code-named "Smiling Buddha"), which it called a "peaceful nuclear explosion." The test used plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor, and raised concerns that nuclear technology supplied for peaceful purposes could be diverted to weapons purposes. This also stimulated the early work of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.^[6] India performed further nuclear tests in 1998 (code-named "Operation Shakti").

India has signed and ratified both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Contents   [hide]  1 Brief historical overview 2 Current arsenal and estimates of inventory 3 Doctrine 4 Command and control 5 International treaties 6 Delivery systems 6.1 Ballistic missiles 7 AAD and PAD 7.1 Prithvi 7.1.1 Dhanush 7.1.2 Agni 7.1.3 Surya 7.1.4 Shaurya 7.1.5 Sagarika 7.2 Cruise missiles 7.3 Surface to air missile 8 Delivery mechanisms 8.1 Nuclear submarines 8.2 Frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers 8.3 Nuclear-capable aircraft 9 Ballistic missile defense 10 Chemical weapons 11 Biological warfare 12 See also 13 References 14 External links

[edit]Brief historical overview

As early as 26 June 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, soon to be India's first Prime Minister, announced:

"

As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.[7]

"

India's first nuclear test occurred on 18 May 1974.^{[citation needed]} Since then India has conducted another series of tests at the Pokhran test range in the state of Rajasthan in 1998. India has an extensive civil and military nuclear program, which includes at least 10 nuclear reactors, uranium mining and milling sites, heavy water production facilities, a uranium enrichment plant, fuel fabrication facilities, and extensive nuclear research capabilities.

In 1998, as a response to the continuing tests, the United States and Japan imposed temporary economic sanctions on India.

[edit]Current arsenal and estimates of inventory

• In 2005, it was estimated that India had between 40 and 50 warheads.^[8]

• In November 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that India has about 70 assembled nuclear warheads, with about 50 of them fully operational.^[9]

• A report by David Albright, published by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2000, estimated that India at end of 1999 had 310 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium, enough for 65 nuclear weapons. He also estimated that India had 4,200 kg of reactor grade plutonium which is enough to build 1,000 nuclear weapons.^[10][11] By the end of 2004, he estimates India had 445 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for around 85 nuclear weapons considering 5 kg of plutonium required for each weapon.^[12]

• As of February 2011, the Federation of American Scientists estimated that India had a stockpile of 80-100 weapons.^[13]

• Former R&AW official J.K. Sinha, claimed that India is capable of producing 130 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium per year from six "unsafeguarded" reactors not included in the nuclear deal between India and the United States.^[14]

[edit]Doctrine

India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine^{[15][dead link]} which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'"^[15]

According to the NRDC, despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.

Indian National Security Advisor Shri Shiv Shankar Menon signaled a significant shift from "No first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of National Defence College in New Delhi on October 21, 2010, a doctrine Menon said reflected India's "strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence."^[16][17]

[edit]Command and control

India's Strategic Nuclear Command was formally established in 2003, with an Air Force officer, Air Marshal Asthana, as the Commander-in-Chief. The joint services SNC is the custodian of all of India's nuclear weapons, missiles and assets. It is also responsible for executing all aspects of India's nuclear policy. However, the civil leadership, in the form of the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) is the only body authorized to order a nuclear strike against another offending strike: In effect, it is the Prime Minister who has his finger "on the button."

[edit]International treaties

India is not a signatory to either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), but did accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty in October 1963. India is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and four of its 17 nuclear reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards.

India announced its lack of intention to accede to the NPT as late as 1997 by voting against the paragraph of a General AssemblyResolution^[18] which urged all non-signatories of the treaty to accede to it at the earliest possible date.^[19]

Thermonuclear device used in the Pokhran Test

India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the CTBT, which was adopted on 10 September 1996. India objected to the lack of provision for universal nuclear disarmament"within a time-bound framework." India also demanded that the treaty ban laboratory simulations. In addition, India opposed the provision in Article XIV of the CTBT that requires India's ratification for the treaty to enter into force, which India argued was a violation of its sovereign right to choose whether it would sign the treaty. In early February 1997, Foreign Minister I.K.Gujral reiterated India's opposition to the treaty, saying that "India favors any step aimed at destroying nuclear weapons, but considers that the treaty in its current form is not comprehensive and bans only certain types of tests."

In August 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved safeguards agreement with India under which the former will gradually gain access to India's civilian nuclear reactors.^[20]In September 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted India a waiver allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.^[21] The implementation of this waiver makes India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the NPT but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.^[22]

Since the implementation of NSG waiver, India has signed nuclear deals with several countries including France,^[23] United States,^[24] Mongolia, Namibia,^[25] and Kazakhstan^[26] while the framework for similar deals with Canada and United Kingdom are also being prepared.^[27][28]

[edit]Delivery systems

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)

Below is the list of missiles currently in India's inventory or under development that can carry Nuclear Warheads. Information on the missiles is given below.

Agni II was India's first long range missile

Agni missile range.

India's nuclear capable missiles
Name	Class	Range	Payload	Status
Agni-I	SRBM	700 km	1,000 kg	Operational
Agni-II	MRBM	2,000 km - 3,000 km	500 kg - 1,000 kg	Operational
Agni-II Prime	MRBM	2,750 km - 3,000 km	500 kg - 1,500 kg	Under development
Agni-III	IRBM	3,500 km	2,490 kg	Inducted
Agni-V	ICBM	5,000 km - 6,000 km	3,000 kg+	Under development
Surya-I	ICBM	5,200 km - 11,600 km	700 kg - 1,400 kg	Under development
Dhanush	SRBM	350 km	500 kg	Operational
Nirbhay	Subsonic Cruise Missile	1,000 km	?	Under development
Brahmos	Supersonic Cruise Missile	290 km	300 kg	Operational
P-70 Ametist	Anti-shipping Missile	65 km	530 kg	Operational
P-270 Moskit	Supersonic Cruise Missile	120 km	320 kg	Operational
Popeye	ASM	78 km	340 kg	Operational
Prithvi-I	SRBM	150 km	1000 kg	Operational
Prithvi-II	SRBM	250 km	500 kg	Operational
Prithvi-III	SRBM	350 km	500 kg	Operational
Sagarika (missile)	SLBM	700 km - 2,200 km	150 kg - 1000 kg	Awaiting Arihant SSBN's
Shaurya	TBM	700 km - 2,200 km	150 kg - 1,000 kg	Operational

[edit]Ballistic missiles

Prithvi I

[edit]AAD and PAD

Under former president Dr. Abdul Kalam India pursued the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) which was an Indian Ministry of Defense program for the development of a comprehensive range of missiles, including the intermediate range Agni missile (Surface to Surface), and short range missiles such as the Prithvi ballistic missile (Surface to Surface), Akash missile (Surface to Air), Trishul missile (Surface to Air) and Nag Missile (Anti Tank). Other projects such Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program have derived from the IGMDP. In 2005, India became only the fourth country to have Anti Ballistic capability when India tested two systems the AAD and PAD.^[29]

India has methodically built an indigenous missile production capability, using its commercial space-launch program to develop the skills and infrastructure needed to support an offensive ballistic missile program. For example, during the 1980s, India conducted a series of space launches using the solid-fueled SLV-3 booster. Most of these launches put light satellites into near-earth orbit. Elements of the SLV-3 were subsequently incorporated into two new programs. In the first, the new polar-space launch vehicle (PSLV) was equipped with six SLV-3 motors strapped to the PSLV's first stage. The Agni IRBM technology demonstrator uses the SLV-3 booster as its first stage.

[edit]Prithvi

The Prithvi (Sanskrit: "Earth") I is mobile liquid-fueled 150 kilometer tactical missile currently deployed with army units. It is claimed that this missile is equipped only with various conventional warheads (which stay attached to the missile over the entire flight path). The missile is of particular interest to the United States (and potential buyers) in that has the capability of maneuvering in flight so as to follow one of several different pre-programmed trajectories. Based on the same design, a modified Prithvi, the Prithvi II, is essentially a longer-ranged version of the Prithvi I except that it has a 250-kilometer range and a lighter payload. It is suspected that any nuclear missions will be executed by the Prithvi II. Currently, the Prithvi II has completed development and is now in production. When fielded, it will be deployed with air force units for the purpose of deep target attacking maneuvers against objectives such as air fields.

• Prithvi I — Army Version (150 km range with a payload of 1,000 kg)
• Prithvi II — Air Force Version (250 km range with a payload of 500 kg)
• Prithvi III — Naval Version (350 km range with a payload of 500 kg)

The Prithvi missile project encompassed developing 3 variants for use by the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. The initial project framework of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program outlines the variants in the following manner. in October 2009 India conducted 2 simultenous user trials of 350 km extended range Prithvi II to be used for strategic purposes.

[edit]Dhanush

Dhanush (Sanskrit: Bow) is a naval variant of the Prithvi missile.^[30] It can fire either the 250 km or the 350 km range missiles. Supposedly it is a customised version of the Prithvi and that the additional customizations in missile configuration are to certify it for seaworthiness. Dhanush has to be launched from a hydraulically stabilized launch pad. Its low range acts against it and thus it is seen a weapons either to be used to destroy an aircraft carrier or an enemy port. Indian Navy's K-15 Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile is reported to be a variant of the Dhanush missile.^[31]

The ship launched Dhanush Ballistic Missile was tested from INS Subhadra of the Sukanya class patrol craft in 2000. INS Subhadra is a vessel which was modified and the missile was launched from the reinforced helicopter deck. The 250 km variant was tested but the tests were considered partially successful.^[32] In 2004, the missile was again tested from the INS Subhadra and was this time successful.^[33] Then the following year in December the missile's 350 km version was tested from the INS Rajput and hit the land based target.^[34]

[edit]Agni

The Agni (Sanskrit: Fire) missile system comprises four missiles:

• Agni I
• Agni II
• Agni III
• Agni V

Agni-I uses the SLV-3 booster (from India's space program) for its first stage and a liquid-fueled Prithvi for its second stage.^[35]

Nuclear-capable Agni-II missiles have a range of up to 3,000 km and can carry a payload of 1,000 kg.^[36] Unlike the Agni-I, the Agni-II has a solid-fueled second stage.^[37]

In July 2006, India successfully test-fired Agni-III,^[38] a two-stage nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range of 3,000 km.^[39] Both stages of the Agni-III utilizes solid-fuel propellants and its range can be extended to 4,000 km.^[40] The missile is capable of carrying a nuclear payload within the range of 600 to 1,800 kg including decoys and other anti-ballistic counter-measures.^[41]

India's DRDO is also working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile version of the Agni-III missile, known as the Agni-III SL. This missile is expected to provide India with a credible sea-based second strike capability. According to Indian defense sources, Agni-III SL will have a range of 3,500 km. ^[42] In addition, the 5,000 km range Agni-V ICBM is expected to be tested by 2010-11.^[43]

[edit]Surya

The report of Surya ICBM has not been confirmed by officials of the Indian government and have repeatedly denied the existence of the project.The Surya ICBM is an ICBM program that has been mentioned repeatedly in the Indian press .^[44] Surya (meaning Sun in Sanskrit and many other Indian languages) is the codename for the first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that India is reported to be developing. The DRDO is believed to have begun the project in 1994.

As the missile is yet to be developed, the specifications of the missile are not known and the entire program continues to remain highly speculative.^[45] Estimates of the range of this missile vary from 5,000 km^[46] to 10,000 km.^[47] It is believed to be a three-stage design, with the first two stages using solid propellants and the third-stage using liquid. In 2007, the Times of India reported that the DRDO is yet to reveal whether India's currently proposed ICBM will be called Agni-V (or Surya-1).^[46] As of 2009 it was reported that the government had not considered an 8,000-km range ICBM.^[44]

Four decades of investments in a missile-related design, development, and manufacturing infrastructure have also made this sector less vulnerable to long-term disruption by technology denial regimes. More significantly, India's sophisticated civilian satellite launch capability makes it one of the few developing states theoretically capable of building an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).^[48]

Shaurya is India's first hypersonic missile.

[edit]Shaurya

The Shaurya missile (Sanskrit: Valour) is a short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile developed by DRDO of India for use by the Indian Army. It has a range of 600 km and is capable of carrying a payload of one-tonne conventional or nuclear warhead. The Shaurya missile provides India with a significant second strike capability.^[49] Shaurya Missile is considered a land version of the Sagarika. This missile is stored in a composite canister just like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. The composite canister makes the missile much easier to store for long periods without maintenance as well as to handle and transport. It also houses the gas generator to eject the missile from the canister before its solid propellant motors take over to hurl it at the intended target. Shaurya missiles can remain hidden or camouflaged in underground silos from enemy surveillance or satellites till they are fired from the special storage-cum-launch canisters. DRDO Defence scientists admit that given Shaurya's limited range at present, either the silos will have to be constructed closer to India's borders or longer-range missiles will have to be developed. The Shaurya system will require some more tests before it becomes fully operational in two-three years. Moreover, defense scientists say the high-speed, two-stage Shaurya has high maneuverability which also makes it less vulnerable to existing anti-missile defense systems.^[50]When Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Advanced Air Defence (AAD) and Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) are to be tested again, the Shaurya invulnerability to anti-missile systems will be tested. The DRDO scientists also have said that if Shaurya is successful and manages to avoid anti ballistic missile radars then the missile can even be used to improve the AAD and PAD systems.

[edit]Sagarika

Sagarika (Sanskrit: Wave / Born from the Ocean) is a nuclear capable submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 750 km. This missile has a length of 8.5 meters, weighs seven tonnes and can carry a pay load of up to 500 kg.^[51] The development of this missile started in 1991. The first confirmation about the missile came in 1998.^[52] The development of the underwater missile launcher known as the Project 78 (P78) was completed in 2001. This was handed over to the Indian Navy for trials. The missile was successfully test fired thrice. The Indian Navy plans to introduce the missile into service by the end of 2010. Sagarika missile is being integrated with the Advanced Technology Vessel that is expected to begin sea trials by 2009.^[53] Sagarika will form part of the triad in India's nuclear deterrence and will provide with retaliatory nuclear strike capability.^[54]

Sagarika has already been test-fired from an underwater pontoon, but now DRDO is planning a full-fledged test of the missile from a submarine and for this purpose may use the services of a Russian sub-marine.^[55] Eventually it could be introduced into as many as 5 ballistic missile submarines.

[edit]Cruise missiles

India has a number of Moskit supersonic nuclear capable cruise missile

P-70 Ametist cruise missile

• Nirbhay

Nirbhay (Sanskrit "Fearless") is a long range, subsonic cruise missile being developed in India. The missile will have a range of 1,000 km and will arm three services, the Indian Army, Indian Navyand the Indian Air Force.^[56] The Nirbhay will be able to be launched from multiple platforms on land, sea and air. The first test flight of the missile is expected in the year 2009. Nirbhay will be a terrain hugging, stealth missile^[57] capable of delivering 24 different types of warheads depending on mission requirements and will use inertial navigation system for guidance.^[58] There are plans to arm the IL-76MDs with the aerial version of the missile.^[59]

• 3M-54 Klub

India has acquired around 200 3M-54 Klub for arming Talwar class frigate, Shivalik class frigate,Kolkata class destroyer and Sindhughosh class submarine.^[60] The Russian 3M-54 Klub is a multi-role missile system developed by the Novator Design Bureau (OKB-8) with a range of 250 km-300 km and an average speed of .8 Mach with a maximum of 2.9 Mach.^[61] India has both the Klub-N and Klub-S variant to be used for Ships and Submarines respectively.^[62] Both the Klub-N and Klub-S have been tested successfully. India currently has the 3M-54E, 3M-54E1, 91RE1 and 91RE2 variants. In addition the Navy has plans to arm the Tu-142 and Tu-22M with an air-launched version. Due to Klub's longer range than BrahMos it may also be used in the Mirage 2000 and Su-30 MKI too. The Navy has shown interest in buying more Klubs which would be incorporated on to the S-1000 submarine if bought by India. India is also keen on other Former Soviet cruise missile such as the P-700 Granit and P-500 Bazalt.

• P-70 Ametist

India has Soviet P-70 Ametist submarine-launched cruise missiles.^[63] The missile were mostly probably bought in the early 90s and may be used today as canistered launched land based cruise missiles instead of submarine launched cruise missiles. The missiles can carry nuclear warheads and have a range of 50–65 km. Although they are extremely old and incompetent due to their low range and speed, there are still reports that they are kept in reserve and can still be used due to their upgrades in the late 90s.^[64]

• Moskit

India has a number of operational Moskits.^[63] The P-270 Moskit is a Russian supersonic ramjet powered cruise missile capable of being launched from land and ships. India has most probably bought both land and ship variants which have a range of 120 km. India bought around 200 Klub missiles and now it is believed that the Moskit have been kept in reserve but can still be used.

• Brahmos

BrahMos is a supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. It is a joint venture between India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Russia's NPO Mashinostroeyenia who have together formed the BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited.^[65]

The acronym BrahMos is perceived as the confluence of the two nations represented by two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskvaof Russia.^[66] It travels at speeds of Mach 2.5 to 2.8 and is the world's fastest cruise missile. It is about three-and-a-half times faster than the U.S.A's subsonic Harpoon cruise missile. A hypersonic version of the missile is also presently under development (Lab Tested with 5.26 Mach Speed). BrahMos claims to have the capability of attacking surface targets as low as 10 meters in altitude. It can gain a speed of Mach 2.8, and has a maximum range of 290 km.^[67] The ship-launched and land-based missiles can carry a 200 kg warhead, whereas the aircraft-launched variant (BrahMos A) can carry a 300 kg warhead. It has a two-stage propulsion system, with a solid-propellant rocket for initial acceleration and a liquid-fueled ramjet responsible for sustained supersonic cruise. Air-breathing ramjet propulsion is much more fuel-efficient than rocket propulsion, giving the BrahMos a longer range than a pure rocket-powered missile would achieve.

The high speed of the BrahMos likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles such as the Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost four times faster than the Tomahawk, the BrahMos has almost 32 times the initial kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (although it pays for this by having only 3/5 the payload and a fraction of the range despite weighing twice as much, suggesting a different tactical paradigm to achieve the objective).

Although BrahMos is primarily an anti-ship missile, it can also engage land based targets. It can be launched either in a vertical or inclined position and is capable of covering targets over a 360 degree horizon. The BrahMos missile has an identical configuration for land, sea, and sub-sea platforms. The air-launched version has a smaller booster and additional tail fins for added stability during launch. The BrahMos is currently being configured for aerial deployment with the Su-30MKI as its carrier. India has produced more than 110 Brahmos by March 2011 as per SIPRI, inducted 1 regiment of Brahmos Type-I GLCM with 67 missiles.

[edit]Surface to air missile

Akash SAM

• Akash

Akash (Hindi: Sky) is India's medium range surface-to-air missile defense system The missile can target aircraft up to 30 km away, at altitudes up to 18,000 m.^[68] Akash can be fired from both tracked and wheeled platforms.^[69] Akash is said to be capable of both conventional and nuclear warheads, with a reported payload of 60 kg.^[70] A nuclear warhead could potentially give the missile the capability to destroy both aircraft and warheads from ballistic missiles. The missile is described as being able to strike several targets simultaneously, which could mean either separate, independently targetable warheads, or a sufficient blast to destroy a number of them.

Along with India, a limited number of other countries including the US and Russia have developed operational multi-target handling surface-to-air missile systems capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

[edit]Delivery mechanisms

Former leased Charlie-Class submarine

6 Sindhughosh Class submarines can fire nuclear capable cruise missile, 3M-54 Klub.

The INS Tabar and other Talwar class frigates are armed with the Nuclear capable3M-54 Klub cruise missiles.

[edit]Nuclear submarines

According to some accounts, India plans to have as many as 20 nuclear submarines capable of carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. Currently, India has built one and is building two more nuclear submarines under the Advanced Technology Vessel plan. India currently maintains six submarines of the Sindhughosh Class that can launch the nuclear-capable 3M-54 Klub cruise missiles.

• Former Leasing of Soviet submarines

In 1988 INS Chakra (Sanskrit: Wheel), a Charlie-class submarine was leased by the Indian Navyfor three years from the Soviet Union, until 1991. The submarine was leased to India between 1988 and 1991 mainly for India to gain experience in the operations of a nuclear submarine. It was later decommissioned in 1991.

• Arihant class submarine

The Arihant class submarines (Sanskrit: Slayer of Enemies) are a class of nuclear-poweredBallistic Missile submarines being constructed for the Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam, India under the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Project ^[71][72] The ATV is an SSBN and will be armed with ballistic missiles.

The first of these, INS Arihant was launched on 26 July 2009. The vessel, which will undergo sea-trials for up to two years, will then be equipped with an unknown number of K-15 SagarikaSLBMs.^[73]

The second and third submarines of the class may incorporate the Nirbhay as well. As of July 2007, the Sagarika missile as well as Dhanush had undergone three successful tests each.

• INS Cruise Missile Submarines

The INS Sindhuraj (Sanskrit: King of the Ocean), INS Sindhuvir(Sanskrit: Warrior of the Ocean), INS Sindhuratna(Sanskrit: Gem of the Ocean), INS Sindhushastra (Sanskrit: Weapon of the Ocean), INS Sindhukesari(Sanskrit: Lion of the Ocean) and INS Sindhuvijay(Sanskrit: Conqueror of the Ocean) are capable of launching 3M-54 Klub and BrahMos nuclear-capable cruise missiles.^[74]India bought 10 Kilo class (in India known as Sindhughosh Class) submarine of which 6 have been refitted by the Russian Navy so that the they can launch cruise missiles such as nuclear capable3M-54 Klub.

• Leasing of Russian Akula and Amur submarines

In 2000, negotiations between India and Russia were conducted into the leasing of two incompleteAkula class. The Akulas were to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008 on a lease of at least seven years and up to ten years, in which at the end of the lease, it has an option to buy them. The acquisition was to help the Indian Navy prepare for the introduction of the ATV. The cost to India of acquiring two Akula submarines and their support infrastructure along with training of the crews had been estimated at $2 billion.^[75]The Indian version was reportedly armed with the 300 km range 3M-54 Klub nuclear-capable missiles.^[74] Supposedly on 9 November 2008 one of the two submarines was conducting tests, when an accident on board killed 20 sailors but no damage occurred to the submarine. Though this deal fell apart for some time due to the Indians demanding an upgrade/improvement in some of its safety features, Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev on his official trip to New Delhi said that the deal was back on track and that "The talk is not about selling submarines into India's property, but about their rent by India's navy".^[76] However, unlike the earlier deal the modified deal states that India can only rent and not buy the subs, but defence experts state that the so-called lease agreement is only to divert international attention and that it would be eventually modified and India would inevitably keep the subs. The first submarine will be named INS Chakra.^[77] Russia has also offered the advanced Amur Class Submarine, known as the S1000. According to GlobalSecurity India is already building the S1000cruise missile submarines in Mazagaon Docks.^[78] The Amur will be most probably fitted with P-700 Granit or the Klub cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

[edit]Frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers

The Shivalik class frigates are armed with the 3M-54 Klub and may also incorporate the nuclear capable Nirbhay missile in the future. Seen here is the INS Shivalik when under sea trials.

Other than submarines, India also maintains ships such as destroyers, modified patrol crafts and frigates which can launch nuclear capable ballistic and cruise missiles.

Talwar class frigate and Shivalik class frigate are frigates of the Indian Navy that can fire nuclear capable cruise missiles. INS Tabar and INS Trishul are Talwar class vessel armed with supersonic nuclear 3M-54 Klub cruise missiles while INS Shivalik was the first vessel of the Shivalik class to incorporate the 3M-54 Klub. Other vessels of the Shivalik Class and Talwar Class are to be armed with the BrahMos and 3M-54 Klub missiles by 2009 and 2010 respectively. All these frigates are also equipped with Barak missiles or other SAMs and harbour helicopters such as the HAL Dhruv. In years to come, the Nirbhay missile is also to be incorporated into Talwar class frigates andShivalik class frigates.

Rajput Class, Kolkata Class and Delhi Class are Destroyers of the Indian Navy that may be armed with nuclear capable missile-Nirbhay. In addition Kolkata Class will also incorporate the Russian nuclear 3M-54 Klub cruise missile.^[60]

The ship launched Dhanush Ballistic Missile was tested from INS Subhadra of the Sukanya class patrol craft in 2000. INS Subhadra is a patrol vessel which was modified and the missile was launched from the reinforced helicopter deck. The 250 km variant was tested but the tests were considered partially successful.^[32] In 2004, the missile was again tested from the INS Subhadra and was this time successful.^[33]Then the following year in December the missile's 350 km version was tested from the INS Rajput and hit the land based target.^[34]

INS Vikramaditya Aircraft Carrier (formerly known as Admiral Gorshkov) was fitted with P-500 Bazalt nuclear capable cruise missiles of the range of 550 km.^[79] The Vikramaditya could still be armed with this after its refit. India is also a potential customer for a Slava class cruiserwhich also incorporates the P-500 Bazalt.

[edit]Nuclear-capable aircraft

Indian Air Force Mirage 2000H.

IAF Sukhoi Su-30 MKI

India currently has fourth generation jet fighters capable of launching nuclear weapons. Nuclear-capable aircraft are also seen as a less expensive way of dropping nuclear warheads as well as being as effective.

• Fighter jets

The Sukhoi Su-30MKI,^[80] Dassault Mirage 2000,^[81] and MiG-29^[82] serve in the Indian Air Force and are also seen as a means to deliver nuclear weapons. In addition India maintains SEPECAT Jaguar and MiG-27M which can be used to drop gravity bombs.^[83] On the other hand, the Su-30MKI, capable of carrying nuclear weapons and tailor-made for Indian specifications, integrates Indian systems and avionics.^[80] is one of the best air superiority fighters and also consists of French and Israeli subsystems.^[84] The MKI variant features several improvements over the basic K and MK variants and is classified as a 4.5 generation fighter.^[85][86] Due to similar features and components, the MKI variant is often considered to be a customized Indian variant of the Sukhoi Su-35. The Mirage 2000Hs were heavily customised during the Kargil War and is the only other version, other than the French 2000N, to be able to be armed with nuclear weapons. Though theMiG-29 like the HAL Tejas after many test flights have not been tested to use nuclear weapons, they have the capacity to be armed with them. Both the HAL Tejas and Su-30MKI can travel excess of 3,000 km without refueling; this allows India to attack targets far away in an effective manner only using planes rather than delivery systems such as the Agni. The HAL Tejas is India's only indigenous plane to be armed with nuclear weapons, thus making India less dependent on Russia.

India has leased four Russian Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers, which could carry air-launched cruise missiles. India has reportedly upgraded its Russian-built Tu-142 maritime patrol aircraft to carry air-launched cruise missiles.^[87] India is also buying 250 Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter jets from Russia.^{[citation needed]}

[edit]Ballistic missile defense

India's Advanced Air Defense (AAD) interceptor missile

Main article: Indian Ballistic Missile Defense Program

India has an active ABM development effort using indigenously developed and integrated radars and locally designed missiles.^[88] In November 2006, India successfully conducted the PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) in which an Anti-ballistic missile, called the Prithvi Air Defense (PAD) an Exoatmospheric (outside the atmosphere) interceptor system intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic missile. The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile and can reach altitude of 80 km. During the test the target missile was intercepted at an 50 km altitude.^[89] India became the fourth nation in the world to acquire such a capability and the third nation to develop it through indigenous effort.^[90] On 6 December 2007 the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile system was tested successfully.^[91] This missile is an Endo atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of 30 km. According to scientist V K Saraswat of DRDO the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent.^[92] Induction of the system into services is expected to be in 2010. Two new anti ballistic missiles that can intercept IRBM/ICBMs are being developed. These high speed missiles (AD-1 and AD-2) are being developed to intercept ballistic missiles with the range of 5,000 km.^[93]

India also has Russian S300 PMU-2 and it is used as an interceptor for ballistic missiles. An indigenous nuclear tipped surface to air missile, Akash Missile is used to destroy low range missiles and is capable of destroying various targets and is one of the few of its kind systems in the world. India has also shown interest in the Russian S-400, the most advanced anti-ballistic missile.

[edit]Chemical weapons

In 1992 India signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), stating that it did not have chemical weapons and the capacity or capability to manufacture chemical weapons. By doing this India became one of the original signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] in 1993,^[94] and ratified it on 2 September 1996. According to India's ex-Army Chief General Sunderji, a country having the capability of making nuclear weapons does not need to have chemical weapons, since the dread of chemical weapons could be created only in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Others suggested that the fact that India has found chemical weapons dispensable highlighted its confidence in the conventional weapons system at its command.

In June 1997, India declared its stock of chemical weapons(stockpile of 1044 tonnes of sulphur mustard).^[95][96] By the end of 2006, India had destroyed more than 75 percent of its chemical weapons/material stockpile and was granted extension for destroying (the remaining stocks by April 2009) and was expected to achieve 100 percent destruction within that timeframe.^[97] India informed the United Nations in May, 2009 that it had destroyed its stockpile of chemical weapons in compliance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention. With this India has become third country after South Korea and Albania to do so.^[98][99] This was cross-checked by inspectors of the United Nations.

India has an advanced commercial chemical industry, and produces the bulk of its own chemicals for domestic consumption. It is also widely acknowledged that India has an extensive civilian chemical and pharmaceutical industry and annually exports considerable quantities of chemicals to countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, and Taiwan.^[100]

[edit]Biological warfare

India has a well-developed biotechnology infrastructure that includes numerous pharmaceutical production facilities bio-containment laboratories (including BSL-3 and BSL-4) for working with lethal pathogens. It also has highly qualified scientists with expertise in infectious diseases. Some of India's facilities are being used to support research and development for BW defense purposes. India has ratified the BWC and pledges to abide by its obligations. There is no clear evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that directly points toward an offensive BW program. New Delhi does possess the scientific capability and infrastructure to launch an offensive BW program, but has chosen not to do so. In terms of delivery, India also possesses the capability to produce aerosols and has numerous potential delivery systems ranging from crop dusters to sophisticated ballistic missiles.^[101]

No information exists in the public domain suggesting interest by the Indian government in delivery of biological agents by these or any other means. To reiterate the latter point, in October 2002, Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam asserted that "we [India] will not make biological weapons. It is cruel to human beings..."^[101]

[edit]See also

• Minimum Credible Deterrence
• Defence Research and Development Organisation

[edit]References

1. ^ Sachin Parashar, TNN, Aug 28, 2009, 12.55am IST (2009-08-28)."Kalam certifies Pokharan II, Santhanam stands his ground - India - The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
2. ^ ^a b c "Federation of American Scientists: Status of World Nuclear Forces". Fas.org. June 7, 2011. Retrieved 2011-05-04.
3. ^ "Weapons around the world". Physicsworld.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
4. ^ "India Profile: Nuclear Overview". Nuclear Threat Initiative. February 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2011.
5. ^ US wants India to sign NPT Business Standard, 7 May 2009.
6. ^ [1]^{[dead link]}
7. ^ B. M. Udgaonkar, India's nuclear capability, her security concerns and the recent tests, Indian Academy of Sciences, January 1999.
8. ^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen "India's nuclear forces, 2005". "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". September/October 2005. doi:10.2968/061005021. Retrieved 2009-08-04.
9. ^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen "Indian nuclear forces, 2008". "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". November / December 2008. doi:10.2968/055006016. Retrieved 2009-08-04.
10. ^ "India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities". Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
11. ^ "India's and Pakistan's Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Inventories, end of 1999". Isis-online.org. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
12. ^ Albright, David. "India's Military Plutonium Inventory, End 2004". (Archived from the original at [2]). 7 May 2005. Archived on 2 September 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
13. ^ Status of World Nuclear Forces, Federation of American Scientists, February 21, 2011.
14. ^ India can make 50 nuclear warheads a year [3] [4]
15. ^ ^a b Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine
16. ^ Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on "The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs": Web-site of Ministry of External Affairs (Govt. of India)
17. ^ NSA Shivshankar Menon at NDC (Speech) : india Blooms
18. ^ United Nations General Assembly Verbatim meeting 67 session 52 on 9 December 1997 (retrieved 2007-08-22)
19. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution session 52page 16 (retrieved 2007-08-22)
20. ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal — IAEA". iaea.org. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
21. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver — MarketWatch". Marketwatch.com. 2008-10-06. Archived from the original on 2008-10-20. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
22. ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
23. ^ "India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
24. ^ "Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law - Home". livemint.com. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
25. ^ TNN, Sep 15, 2009, 02.41am IST (2009-09-15). "India, Mongolia sign civil,nuclear cooperation pact - India - The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
26. ^ Sanjay Dutta, TNN, Jan 23, 2009, 01.35am IST (2009-01-23)."Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance - International Business - Business - The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
27. ^ UK, Canada eye India's nuclear business (2009-01-18). "UK, Canada eye India's nuclear business". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
28. ^ [5]^{[dead link]}
29. ^ "Can India's PAD and AAD ABM systems effective against pakistans missiles?". Defence.pk. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
30. ^ "India: The Hunt for an Indian Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile". Stratfor. 2007-09-11. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
31. ^ "India to test submarine-launched missile". Sify.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
32. ^ ^a b "Nuclear Data - Table of Indian Nuclear Forces, 2002". NRDC. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
33. ^ ^a b [6]^{[dead link]}
34. ^ ^a b "Dhanush, naval surface-to-surface missile, test fired successfully". domain-b.com. 2007-03-31. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
35. ^ "Agni 1/2/3/4 (India), Offensive weapons - Jane's". Janes.com. 2008-07-21. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
36. ^ "India test-fires N capable Agni-II missile". Indianexpress.com. 2009-05-19. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
37. ^ "Developing a delivery system - By R. RAMACHANDRAN". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 1999-05-07. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
38. ^ Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi (2006-07-09). "India tests long-range missile". London: Guardian. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
39. ^ "India tests longest-range missile - BBC". BBC News. 2007-04-12. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
40. ^ 12 Apr, 2007, 11.40AM IST,AGENCIES (2007-04-12). "Agni-III test fired - Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
41. ^ Facts about India's Agni-III missile - Daily Times
42. ^ "Agni-III test-fired successfully". Hinduonnet.com. 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
43. ^ TNN, May 13, 2009, 03.10am IST (2009-05-13). "'User-trial' of surface-to-surface Agni-II missile on May 19". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
44. ^ ^a b John Pike. "Surya - India Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
45. ^ "India: The U.S. Nuclear Deal and Indian ICBMs - Startfor". Stratfor.com. 2007-06-21. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
46. ^ ^a b Rajat Pandit, TNN, Apr 15, 2007, 12.23am IST (2007-04-15)."After Agni, India plans 5,000-km missile". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
47. ^ Dec 20, 2007 (2007-12-20). "India adds oomph to its space race By Siddharth Srivastava". Atimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
48. ^ "Research Library: Country Profiles: India". NTI. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
49. ^ "Front Page : "Shourya missile cannot be easily detected"". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2008-11-14. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
50. ^ Pandit, Rajat (13 November 2008). "India successfully test fires Shaurya missile". Times of India.
51. ^ "Sagarika missile test-fired successfully". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-02-27. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
52. ^ "India ready for new missile test". BBC News. 1998-09-04. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
53. ^ Sandeep Unnithan (2008-02-25). "Final test of K-15 ballistic missile on Tuesday". Indiatoday.digitaltoday.in. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
54. ^ "India gets sub-marine missile power". Ibnlive.com. 2010-02-03. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
55. ^ "Coming from India's defense unit: ASTRA missile". Rediff.com. 2004-12-31. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
56. ^ "Fearless Tomahawk-type missile on radar". Telegraphindia.com. 2007-07-20. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
57. ^ "DRDO developing hypersonic missile". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-05-09. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
58. ^ "Nirbhay to beef up missile muscle". Dnaindia.com. 2007-07-22. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
59. ^ "LiveFist - The Best of Indian Defence: More on Nirbhay". Livefist.blogspot.com. 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
60. ^ ^a b [7]^{[dead link]}
61. ^ "3M-54 Klub". Fas.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
62. ^ "3M-54 Klub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
63. ^ ^a b "Weapon Systems". India Defence. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
64. ^ "SS-N-7". MissileThreat. 2006-08-01. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
65. ^ "Joint Venture". BrahMos.com. 1998-02-12. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
66. ^ "Brahmos Supersonic Cruise missile". Indian-military.org. 2010-03-12. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
67. ^ 22 Mar, 2010, 07.06AM IST,ET Bureau (2010-03-22). "India launches Brahmos cruise missile - Politics/Nation - News - The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
68. ^ Asian tribune: Upgraded version of 'Akash' test fired; By Hemanta Kumar Rout^{[dead link]}
69. ^ Sharma, Ravi, Air Force to place order for Akash missile system. The Hindu, 13 April 2008. Retrieved 19 April 2008.
70. ^ "India Tests Short Range SAM". MissileThreat. 2004-11-27. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
71. ^ The secret undersea weapon^{[dead link]}
72. ^ "Indian nuclear submarine", India Today, August 2007 edition
73. ^ "Front Page : Nuclear-powered submarine to be fitted with ballistic missiles". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2009-07-27. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
74. ^ ^a b "International / India & World : Russia may lease nuclear submarine to India". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2006-07-01. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
75. ^ Project 971 Shuka-B Akula class www.globalsecurity.com
76. ^ [8]^{[dead link]}
77. ^ Press Trust of India (2008-07-03). ""Indian nuclear submarine", India Today, July 2008 edition". Indiatoday.digitaltoday.in. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
78. ^ John Pike. "Project-75A / Project-75I / Project 76". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
79. ^ [9]^{[dead link]}
80. ^ ^a b [10]^{[dead link]}
81. ^ history
82. ^ "India Aircraft Special Weapons Delivery Systems". Fas.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
83. ^ "CDI Nuclear Issues Area - Nuclear Weapons Database: French Nuclear Delivery Systems". Cdi.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
84. ^ "Article: The year of the MiG-29: in 2001, RAC Mig had its best year in the... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy". AccessMyLibrary. 2002-03-01. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
85. ^ "The Telegraph - Calcutta : Opinion". Telegraphindia.com. 2005-05-11. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
86. ^ "Su-30MKI". Deagel.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
87. ^ John Pike. "India Aircraft Special Weapons Delivery Systems". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
88. ^ Interview: Vijay Kumar Saraswat Chief Controller of Research and Development, India's DRDO^{[dead link]}
89. ^ Prithvi Mission Milestone in Missile Defence.
90. ^ Outlook India. India develops new anti-missile system. 27 November 2006.
91. ^ "INDIA successfully conducts interceptor supersonic missile test". Pib.nic.in. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
92. ^ Rajat Pandit, TNN, 26 November 2007, 02:43am IST (2007-11-26). "India on way to joining exclusive BMD club". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
93. ^ "India to develop high speed interceptors". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2010-08-31.
94. ^ [pointer]=49
95. ^ Dominican Today - India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009
96. ^ India declares its stock of chemical weapons
97. ^ Dominican Today - India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009
98. ^ Zee News - India destroys its chemical weapons stockpile
99. ^ [11]^{[dead link]}
100. ^ "Research Library: Country Profiles: India Biological Chronology". NTI. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
101. ^ ^a b "Research Library: Country Profiles: India Biological Chronology". NTI. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

49. http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/status-of-participation-in-the-cwc/?tx_damfrontend_pi1[pointer]=2

[edit]External links

• Indian Nuclear Weapons program A good article with very detailed information
• Nuclear Files.org India's nuclear conflict with Pakistan- background and the current situation
• Nuclear Files.org Current information on nuclear stockpiles in India
• Missile testing ranges of India
• Video interviews taken at the 2008 NPT PrepCom on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
• Annotated bibliography for India's nuclear weapons program from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues

[show]v · d · e  Military of India

[show]v · d · e Missiles of the Republic of India

-

Liability for Nuclear Damage

(updated August 2011)

• Operators of nuclear power plants are liable for any damage caused by them, regardless of fault. They therefore normally take out insurance for third-party liability, and in most countries they are required to do so.   
• The potential cross boundary consequences of a nuclear accident require an international nuclear liability regime, so national laws are supplemented by a number of international conventions. 
• Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society. 

An illustrative exchange on insuring nuclear power plants  It is commonly asserted that nuclear power stations are not covered by insurance, and that insurance companies don't want to know about them either for first-party insurance of the plant itself or third-party liability for accidents. This is incorrect, and the misconception was addressed as follows in 2006 by a broker who had been responsible for a nuclear insurance pool: "it is wrong [to believe] that insurers will not touch nuclear power stations. In fact, wherever they are available to private sector insurers, Western-designed nuclear installations are sought-after business because of their high engineering and risk management standards. This has been the case for fifty years." He elaborated: "My comment refers very much to the world scene and is not contentious. Apart from Three Mile Island, the claim experience has been very good. Chernobyl was not insured. Significantly, because Chernobyl was of a design that would not have been an acceptable risk at the time, notably the lack of a containment structure, the accident had no impact on premium rates for Western plants.

 

The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks. Insurance (direct damage and third party liability insurance) is placed with either one of the many national insurance pools which brings together insurance capacity for nuclear risks from the domestic insurers in the local country, or into one of the mutual insurance associations such as Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) based in USA or EMANI and ELINI based in Europe. These are set up by the nuclear industry itself. Third Party liability involves international conventions, national legislation channeling liability to the operators, and pooling of insurance capacity in more than twenty countries. The national nuclear insurance pool approach was particularly developed in the UK in 1956 as a way of marshalling insurance capacity for the possibility of serious accidents. Other national pools that followed were modeled on the UK pool - now known as Nuclear Risk Insurers Limited, and based in London. The mutualisation of insurance risks began with the forerunner of NEIL in 1973 

Ever since the first commercial nuclear power reactors were built, there has been concern about the possible effects of a severe nuclear accident, coupled with the question of who would be liable for third-party consequences.  This concern was based on the supposition that even with reactor designs licensable in the West, a cooling failure causing the core to melt would result in major consequences akin to those of the Chernobyl disaster. It was supposed that damage caused could be extensive, creating the need for compulsory third party insurance schemes for nuclear operators, and international conventions to deal with transboundary damage. On the other hand it was realized that nuclear power makes a valuable contribution to meeting the world's energy demands and that in order for it to continue doing so, individual operator liability had to be curtailed and beyond a certain level, risk had to be socialized.   Experience over five decades has shown the fear of catastrophe to be exaggerated, though the local impact of a severe accident or terrorist attack was shown at Fukushima in 2011 to be considerable, even with minor direct human casualties. Prior to that, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was taken as being indicative.

Nuclear liability principles 

Most conventions and laws regarding nuclear third party liability have at their heart the following principles:

• Strict liability of the nuclear operator 
• Exclusive liability of the operator of a nuclear installation
• Compensation without discrimination based on nationality, domicile or residence
• Mandatory financial coverage of the operator's liability 
• Exclusive jurisdiction (only courts of the State in which the nuclear accident occurs have jurisdiction)
• Limitation of liability in amount and in time

Strict liability means that the victim is relieved from proving fault. In the case of an accident the operator (power plant, enrichment/fuel facility, reprocessing facility) is liable whether or not any fault or negligence can be proven. This simplifies the litigation process, removing any obstacles, especially such as might exist with the burden of proof, given the complexity of nuclear science. In layman's terms: strict liability means a claimant does not need to prove how an accident occurred.

Exclusive liability of the operator means that in the case of an accident, all claims are to be brought against the nuclear operator. This legal channeling is regardless of the accident's cause. By inference suppliers or builders of the plant are protected from public litigation in the case of an accident. Again this simplifies the process because claimants do not have to figure out who is responsible – under law it will be the nuclear operator.

Mandatory financial coverage means that the operator must maintain insurance cover, and it ensures that funds will be made available by the operator or their insurers to pay for damages. The minimum amount of protection required is set by national laws which in turn often depend on international treaty obligations. Over time the amount of this mandatory protection has increased, partially adjusting for inflation and partially allowing for an increased burden of responsibility to be passed on to nuclear operators. 

Exclusive jurisdiction means that only the courts of the country in which the accident occurs has jurisdiction over damages claims. This has two effects; firstly it prevents what is known as jurisdiction shopping, whereby claimants try and find courts and national legislation more friendly to their claims, thus offering nuclear operators a degree of certainty and protection. Secondly it locates the competent court close to the source of damage meaning that victims do not have to travel far in order to lodge claims. This combined with exclusive liability ensures that relevant courts are accessible, even when the accident is transport-related and the relevant company based far away. 

Limitation of liability protects individual nuclear operators and thus is often controversial.  By limiting the amount that operators would have to pay, the risks of an accident are effectively socialized. Beyond a certain level of damage, responsibility is passed from the individual operator either on to the State or a mutual collective of nuclear operators, or indeed both. In essence this limitation recognizes the benefits of nuclear power and the tacit acceptance of the risks a State takes by permitting power plant construction and operation, as with other major infrastructure.

Altogether these principles ensure that in the case of an accident, meaningful levels of compensation are available with a minimal level of litigation and difficulty.

International Framework

Governments have long recognized the risk of a nuclear accident causing transboundary damage. This led to the development of international frameworks to ensure that access to justice was readily available for victims outside of the country in which an accident occurs, so far as the countries are party to the relevant conventions. The number of different international instruments and their arrangements often give rise to confusion. Many of the major instruments, outlined below, have been amended several times and not all countries party to the earlier version have ratified the latter. The result is a patchwork quilt of countries and conventions and work towards harmonization of these regimes is ongoing.

Before 1997, the international liability regime was embodied primarily in two instruments:
- the IAEA's Vienna Convention* on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of 1963 (entered into force in 1977), and
- the OECD's Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 1960 which entered into force in 1968 and was bolstered by the Brussels Supplementary Convention in 1963**.

* Parties to Vienna Convention are mainly outside of Western Europe, including: Argentina, Bulgaria, Czech Rep, Egypt, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine.  See also http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/liability_status.pdf
** The Paris convention includes all Western European countries except Ireland, Austria, Luxembourg and  Switzerland.  Parties to both Paris & Brussels are: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK.  Paris only: Greece, Portugal, Turkey.  See also: http://www.nea.fr/html/law/paris-convention-ratification.html
http://www.nea.fr/html/law/brussels-convention-ratification.html 

These Conventions were linked by the Joint Protocol adopted in 1988 (see below) to bring together the geographical scope of the two*. They are based on the concept of civil law and adhere to the principles outlined above. Specifically they include the following provisions:

1. Liability is channeled exclusively to the operators of the nuclear installations (legal channelling means exclusive liability of operator, and protects suppliers);
2. Liability of the operator is absolute, i.e. the operator is held liable irrespective of fault, except for "acts of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection";
3. Liability of the operator is limited in amount. Under the Vienna Convention the upper ceiling for operator liability is not fixed**; but it may be limited by legislation in each State.  The lower limit may not be less than US$ 5 million. Under the 1960 Paris convention, liability is limited to not more than 15 million Special Drawing Rights***  (SDRs - about US$ 23 million) and not less than SDR 5 million.
4. Liability is limited in time. Generally, compensation rights are extinguished under both Conventions if an action is not brought within ten years.  Additionally, States may not limit the operator's liability to less than two years under the 1960 Paris convention, or three years under 1960 Vienna convention, from the time when the damage is discovered.
5. The operator must maintain insurance or other financial security for an amount corresponding to his liability or the limit set by the Installation State, beyond this level the Installation State can provide public funds but can also have recourse to the operator;
6. Jurisdiction over actions lies exclusively with the courts of the Contracting Party in whose territory the nuclear incident occurred;
7. Non-discrimination of victims on the grounds of nationality, domicile or residence.
8. Definition of nuclear damage covers property, health and loss of life but does not make provision for environmental damage, preventative measures and economic loss. This greatly reduces the total number of possible claimants, but increases the level of compensation available to the remainder. 

* parties:  http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/jointprot_status.pdf** The Paris Convention set a maximum liability of 15 million Special Drawing Rights - SDR (about EUR 18 million), but this was increased under the Brussels Supplementary Convention up to a total of 300 million SDRs (about EUR 360 million), including contributions by the installation State up to SDR 175 million (EUR 210M) and other Parties to the Convention collectively on the basis of their installed nuclear capacity for the balance. 

***An SDR is the unit of currency of the international monetary fund, it is approximately equal to 1.5 US dollars. 

The 1963 Brussels supplementary convention created a system of three tiers to provide for damages. Parties of the Brussels convention must also be party to the Paris convention which provides for the first tier of funds via the nuclear operator's liability. Tier two requires the state to pay the difference between the operator's liability (which is set under national law) and SDR 70 million. Tier three calls upon all parties to the convention to supply up to SDR 50 million. The maximum total amount available for compensation of the 1963 convention is therfore SDR 120 million, though note that this has since been increased - see below..

Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the IAEA initiated work on all aspects of nuclear liability with a view to improving the basic Conventions and establishing a comprehensive liability regime. In 1988, as a result of joint efforts by the IAEA and OECD/NEA, the Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention was adopted. Parties to the Joint protocol are treated as if they are Parties to both conventions. If an accident takes place in a country bound by the Paris convention which causes damages in a country bound by the Vienna convention, then victims in the latter are subject to compensation as per the Paris convention. The reverse is also true. Generally, no country can be a party to both conventions because the exact details are not consistent, leading to potential conflict in their simultaneous application. The Joint protocol was also intended to obviate any possible conflicts of law in the case of international transport of nuclear material. It entered into force in 1992.

The Vienna convention has been amended once in 1997, while the Paris convention and associated Brussels convention have been amended three times; in 1964, 1982 and 2004, though the latest amendment has not yet been ratified by enough countries to pass into force.

In 1997 governments took a significant step forward in improving the liability regime for nuclear damage when delegates from over 80 States adopted a Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention. The amended IAEA Vienna Convention sets the possible limit of the operator's liability at not less than 300 million SDRs (about EUR 360 million) and entered into force in 2003 but with few members.  It also broadens the definition of nuclear damage (to include the concept of environmental damage and preventive measures), extends the geographical scope of the Convention, and extends the period during which claims may be brought for loss of life and personal injury. It also provides for jurisdiction of coastal states over actions incurring nuclear damage during transport.

There was no change in the liability caps provided for under either of the 1964 Paris or Brussels amendments or the 1982 Paris amendment. However, under the 1982 Brussels amendment, the second tier of finance (made available by the country in which the accident occurs) was raised to the difference between the operator's liability and SDR 175 million (i.e. between SDR 160 million and 170 million ), while the third tier called upon all contracting countries to contribute up to SDR125 million so that the total amount currently available is SDR 300 million.

In 2004, contracting parties to the OECD Paris (and Brussels) Conventions signed Amending Protocols which brought the Paris Convention more into line with the IAEA Conventions amended or adopted in 1997. The principal objective of the amendments was to provide more compensation to more people for a wider scope of nuclear damage. They also shifted more of the onus for insurance on to industry. Consequently new limits of liability were set as follows: Operators (insured) €700 million, Installation State (public funds) €500 million, Collective state contribution (Brussels) €300 million => total €1500 M. The definition of "nuclear damage" is broadened to include environmental damage and economic costs, and the scope of application is widened. Moreover the 2004 amendment removed the requirement for a state to restrict the maximum liability of a nuclear operator, allowing for the first time states with a policy preference for unlimited liability to join the convention.

These Paris/ Brussels amendments are expected to be ratified by the contracting parties once they have consulted with industry stakeholders and then drafted the necessary amending legislation. They are not yet in force, and the old limits still apply (c €210 million, €360 million).

Also in 1997 IAEA parties adopted a Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)*. This defines additional amounts to be provided through contributions by States Parties collectively on the basis of installed nuclear capacity and a UN rate of assessment, basically at 300 SDRs per MW thermal (ie about EUR 360 million total).  The CSC - not yet in force - is an instrument to which all States may adhere regardless of whether they are parties to any existing nuclear liability conventions or have nuclear installations on their territories, , though in the case where they are not party to either Paris or Vienna they must still implement national laws consistent with an annex to the CSC. In order to pass into force the CSC must be ratified by five countries with a minimum of 400 GW thermal of installed nuclear capacity. Currently the only ratifying party with significant nuclear generating capacity is the USA (c 300 GWt). Fourteen countries have signed it, now including India, but most have not yet ratified it. The CSC is set to enter into force on the 90th day after date of ratification by at least five States who have a minimum of 400,000 units of installed nuclear capacity (ie MWt). India will bring about 22 GWt operating and under construction. 

* www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp.html 

Table 1: Nuclear power States and liability conventions they are party to

Countries	Conventions party to		Countries	Conventions party to
Argentina	VC; RVC; CSC		Lithuania	VC; JP
Armenia	VC;		Mexico	VC
Belgium	PC; BSC; RPC; RBSC		Netherlands	PC; BSC; JP; RPC; RBSC
Brazil	VC		Pakistan
Bulgaria	VC; JP		Romania	VC; JP; RVC; CSC
Canada			Russia	VC
China			Slovak Republic	VC; JP
Czech Republic	VC; JP		Slovenia	PC; BSC; JP; RPC; RBSC
Finland	PC; BSC; JP; RPC; RBSC		South Africa
France	PC; BSC; RPC; RBSC		Spain	PC; BSC; RPC; RBSC
Germany	PC; BSC; JP; RPC; RBSC		Sweden	PC; BSC; JP; RPC; RBSC
Hungary	VC; JP		Switzerland	PC; RPC; BSC; RBSC
India	CSC*		Taiwan
Iran			Ukraine	VC; JP
Japan			United Kingdom	PC; BSC; RPC; RBSC
Korea			United States	CSC

PC = Paris Convention (PC). RPC = 2004 Revised Paris Protocol. Not yet in force
BSC = Brussels  Supplementary  Convention. RBSC = 2004 Revised Brussels Supplementary Convention. Not yet in force
VC = Vienna Convention. RVC = Revised Vienna Convention
JP = 1988 Joint Protocol. 
CSC = Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). Not yet in force. 
 * India has signed the CSC but has not yet ratified it, and it is not yet clear whether their domestic liability law conforms with the requirements of the convention. 

 Beyond the provision of the above-mentioned instruments there is at least a tacit acceptance that the installation state will make available funds to cover anything in excess of these provisions, just as is the case with any major disaster - natural or other (the main industiral ones have been chemical plants). This has long been accepted in all developed countries. In the event of government payout to meet immediate claims however, the operator's liability is in no way extinguished, and taxpayers would expect to recover much or all of the sums involved.

However, several states with a significant current or planned nuclear capacity such as Japan, China and India, are not yet party to any international nuclear liability convention, so far relying on their own arrangements.

Beyond the international conventions, most countries with commercial nuclear programs also have their own legislative regimes for nuclear liability.  These national regimes implement the conventions' principles, and impose financial security requirements which vary from country to country.  There are three categories of countries in this regard:  those that are party to one or both of the international conventions and have their own legislation, those that are not parties to an international convention but have their own legislation (notably USA, Canada, Japan, S.Korea), and those that are not party to a convention and are without their own legislation (notably China).

In 2010 both France's CEA and the IAEA called for an overhaul and rationalization of the several international conventions. In particular, the Paris Convention open only to OECD countries was unsatisfactory when reactor vendors and utilities from those countries were building plants in non-OECD countries. Partly due to the US channeling situation described below, the CSC is seen as a possible basis for an all-encompassing international regime 

US Framework

The USA takes a somewhat different approach, and having pioneered the concept is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, except for the CSC, which has yet to come into force. The Price Anderson Act - the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law - has since 1957 been central to addressing the question of liability for nuclear accident. It now provides $12.5 billion in cover without cost to the public or government and without fault needing to be proven. It covers power reactors, research reactors, enrichment plants, waste repositories and all other nuclear facilities. 

It was renewed for 20 years in mid 2005, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover. The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 375 million liability cover (as of 2011) which is provided by a private insurance pool, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI).  This is financial liability, not legal liability as in European liability conventions. 

The second layer or secondary financial protection (SFP) program is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. It is funded through retrospective payments if required of up to $112 million per reactor per acident* collected in annual instalments of $17.5 million (and adjusted with inflation). Combined, the total provision comes to over $12.2 billion paid for by the utilities. (The Department of Energy also provides $10 billion for its nuclear activities.) Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event of a major accident. 

* plus up to 5% if required for legal costs. 

More than $150 million has been paid by US insurance pools in claims and costs of litigation since the Price- Anderson Act came into effect, all of it by the insurance pools. Of this amount, some $71 million related to litigation following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires all licensees for nuclear power plants to show proof that they have the primary and secondary insurance coverage mandated by the Price-Anderson Act. Licensees obtain their primary insurance for third-party liability through American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), and ANI manages the secondary insurance program also. Licensees also sign an agreement with NRC to keep the insurance in effect. American Nuclear Insurers also has a contractual agreement with each of the licensees to collect the retrospective premiums if these payments become necessary. A certified copy of this agreement, which is called a bond for payment of retrospective premiums, is provided to NRC as proof of secondary insurance. It obligates the licensee to pay the retrospective premiums to ANI if required. 

American Nuclear Insurers is a pool comprised of some 60 investor-owned stock insurance companies, including the major ones. About half the pool's total liability capacity comes from foreign sources such as Lloyd's of London. The average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site is $400,000. The premium for a second or third reactor at the same site is discounted to reflect a sharing of limits.

The nuclear operators' mutual arrangement for insuring the actual plants against accidents is Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) which is well funded (a $5 billion surplus) and cooperates closely with the American Nuclear Insurers pool. It was founded in 1980 and insures operators for any costs associated with property damage, decontamination, extended outages and related nuclear risks. For property damage and on-site decontamination, up to $2.75 billion is available to each commercial reactor site. The policies provide coverage for direct physical damage to, or destruction of, the insured property as a result of an accident ["accident" is defined as a sudden and fortuitous event, an event of the moment, which happens by chance, is unexpected and unforeseeable. Accident does not include any condition which develops, progresses or changes over time, or which is inevitable]. The policies prioritize payment of expenses to stabilize the reactor to a safe condition and decontaminate the plant site.

The Price Anderson Act has been represented as a subsidy to the US nuclear industry.  If considered thus, the value of the subsidy is the difference between the premium for full coverage and the premium for $10 billion in coverage. On the basis of data obtained from two studies - one conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the other by the Department of Energy (DOE) - the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the subsidy probably amounts to less than 1 percent of the levelized cost for new nuclear capacity. 

The Price Anderson Act does not fully align with international conventions in that legal channelling is forbidden by state laws, so the Act allows only economic channelling, whereby the operator is economically liable but other entities may be held legally liable. This is a complication regarding any future universal compensation regime, though a provision was written into the CSC to allow the USA to join despite this situation. Hence the CSC may prove the most realistic basis for any universal third party regime.

Japan 

Japan is not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them. Two laws governing them are revised about every ten years: the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage. 

Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute, and power plant operators must provide a financial security amount of JPY 120 billion (US$ 1.4 billion) - half that to 2010. The government may relieve the operator of liability if it determines that damage results from "a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character", and in any case liability is unlimited. 

For the Fukushima accident in 2011 the government set up a new state-backed institution to expedite payments to those affected. The body is to receive financial contributions from electric power companies with nuclear power plants in Japan, and from the government through special bonds that can be cashed whenever necessary. The government bonds total JPY 5 trillion ($62 billion). The new institution will include representatives from other nuclear generators and will also operate as an insurer for the industry, being responsible to have plans in place for any future nuclear accidents. The provision for contributions from other nuclear operators is similar to that in the USA. The government estimates that Tepco will be able to complete its repayments in 10 to 13 years, after which it will revert to a fully private company with no government involvement. Meanwhile it will pay an annual fee for the government support, maintain adequate power supplies and ensure plant safety. 

In relation to the 1999 Tokai-mura fuel plant criticality accident, insurance covered JPY 1 billion and the parent company (Sumitomo) paid the balance of JPY 13.5 billion. 

Other countries

In the UK, the Energy Act 1983 brought legislation into line with earlier revisions to the Paris/Brussels Conventions and set a new limit of liability for particular installations. In 1994 this limit was increased again to £140 million for each major installation, so that the operator is liable for claims up to this amount and must insure accordingly. The majority of this insurance is provided by a pool of UK insurers comprising 8 insurance companies and 16 Lloyds syndicates - - Nuclear Risk Insurers. Beyond £140 million, the current Paris/Brussels system applies, with government contribution to SDR 300 million (c €360 million).  The government is proposing legislation which would require operators' insurance of EUR 1.2 billion. The level would initially be set at EUR 700 million specified under the 2004 Paris/Brussels Protocol (when it enters force) and then increased by EUR 100 million annually. Also, proposals allow for the government to provide waivers, indemnity, and government-provided insurance to nuclear operators in cases where commercial insurance or other financial security measures are unavailable in the private market. A public consultation on this is under way until the end of April 2011.

In mainland Europe, individual countries have legislation in line with the international conventions and where set, cap levels vary. Germany has unlimited operator liability and requires €2.5 billion security which must be provided by the operator for each plant. This security is partly covered by insurance, to €256 million.  France requires financial security of EUR 91 million per plant. Switzerland (which has signed but not yet ratified the international conventions) requires operators to insure to €600 million. It is proposed to increase this to €1.1 billion and ratify the Paris and Brussels conventions. 

Finland has ratified the 2004 Joint Protocol relating to Paris and Vienna conventions and in anticipation of this coming into force it passed a 2005 Act which requires operators to take at least € 700 million insurance cover. Currently the level is only EUR 300 million. Also operator liability is to be unlimited beyond the € 1.5 billion provided under the Brussels Convention. "Nuclear damage" is as defined in revised Paris Convention, and includes that from terrorism.

Sweden has also ratified the 2004 Joint Protocol relating to Paris and Vienna conventions.  The country's Nuclear Liability Act requires operators to be insured for at least SEK 3300 million (EUR 345 million), beyond which the state will cover to SEK 6 billion per incident.  However, Sweden is reviewing how this relates to the EUR 700 million operator's liability under the Joint Protocol amending the Paris convention, and has announced that it will seek unlimited operator liability.

The Czech Republic is moving towards ratifying the amendment to the Vienna Convention and in 2009 increased the mandatory minimum insurance cover required for each reactor to CZK 8 billion (EUR 296 million).

In Europe there are two mutual insurance arrangements which supplement commercial insurance pool cover for operators of nuclear plants. The European Mutual Association for the Nuclear Industry (EMANI) was founded in 1978 and European Liability Insurance for the Nuclear Industry (ELINI) created in 2002. ELINI plans to make EUR 100 million available as third party cover, and its 28 members have contributed half that to late 2007 for a special capital fund. ELINI's members comprise most EU nuclear plant operators. EMANI has some 70 members and covers over 100 sites, mostly in Europe. Its funds are about EUR500 million.

In Canada the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act is also in line with the international conventions and establishes the licensee's absolute and exclusive liability for third party damage. Suppliers of goods and services are given an absolute discharge of liability. The limit of C$75 million per power plant set in 1976 as the insurance cover required for individual licensees was increased to $650 million in the Act's 2008 revision, though this has not yet passed.  Cover is provided by a pool of insurers, and claimants need not establish fault on anyone's part, but must show injury. Beyond the cap level, any further funds would be provided by the government.

Russia is party to the Vienna Convention since 2005 and has a domestic nuclear insurance pool comprising 23 insurance companies covering liability of some $350 million. It has a reinsurance arrangement with Ukraine and is setting one up with China. It has some "interim" bilateral agreements to cover entities working under safety assistance programs, but the legislative deficit here is a deterrent to Western contractors in particular..

Ukraine adopted a domestic liability law in 1995 and has revised it since in order to harmonise with the Vienna Convention, which it joined in 1996. It is also party to the Joint Protocol and has signed the CSC. Operator liability is capped at 150 million SDRs (c €180 million). Special provisions provisions apply to work on the Chernobyl shelter so as to extend coverage outside the Vienna Convention countries.

China is not party to any international liability convention but is an active member of the international insurance pooling system, which covers both first party risks and third party liability once fuel is loaded into a reactor.  China's 1986 interim domestic law on nuclear liability issued by the State Council contains most of the elements of the international conventions and the liability limit was increased to near international levels in September 2007.  It is also setting up a reinsurance arrangement with Russia which is more symbol than substance.

(For insurance of the plants themselves, Hong Kong-listed Ping'an Insurance Company accounts for more than half of China's nuclear power insurance market, with its clients including nuclear power plants in Guangdong, Jiangsu and both first- and second-phase projects of Qinshan Nuclear Power Station in Zhejiang. Four Chinese Insurance companies provided US$ 1.85 billion worth of insurance to Tianwan Nuclear Power Station in Jiangsu, most of which will be reinsured internationally.  About RMB 40 billion ($5.85 billion) insurance for the first two EPR units of the Taishan nuclear plant in being provided by Ping'an, All Trust, CPIC, PICC and others.  In late 2009 seven insurance companies and China Power Investment Corporation (CPI) signed a RMB 100 billion insurance cooperation agreement with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co to insure the ten CPR-1000 units that CGNPC plans to build in the next three years.  In December 2007 Ningde Nuclear Power had announced a US$2 billion insurance agreement with Ping An Insurance Corp for its 4-unit CPR-1000 nuclear power project in Fujian Province.  All this is first party cover only.) 

The Indian government has introduced a bill which will bring the country's nuclear liability provisions broadly into line internationally, making operators liable for any nuclear accident, and protecting third party suppliers. Operators need to take out insurance up to the liability cap of $110 million, and other provisions are related to the IAEA's Vienna Convention (1997 amendment).

Sources:
IAEAWorldatom web site
Nuclear Risks, by G.C.Warren, British Nuclear Insurers, 2000 (now: Nuclear Risk Insurers)
Brown, O.F. 2004, Nuclear Liability paper at WNA-NEI conference, Madrid.

Brain, S. 2006, personal communication (former chairman of the Australian Nuclear Insurance Pool from 1985 to 1997) re initial section.

NRC factsheet on Nuclear Insurance, May 2005.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html-

Tamil Nadu: People power nukes Koodankulam nuclear power project

Locals demanding closure of the N-plant are on indefinite fast.

RELATEDS

• PM's emissary faces protest over N-plant
• Stop work at nuclear plant: Jaya tells PM
• TN: 10,000 fishermen fast to protest N-plant
• N-plant protesters seek resolution

People's power has delivered a cracking punch that could halt Prime MinisterManmohan Singh's ambitious plan to roll outnuclear energyin India on a large scale.

Bowing to a popular upsurge, the Centre has abandoned its stubbornness and decided to reconsider the 2,000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNP) in southernTamil Nadu.

The dry run is in progress for the first of the two 1,000 MW reactors - being built with Russian design and technology - and its commissioning is scheduled for November. Stopping work at this point, and putting off plans to set up four more reactors at the same site, will be a big blow to both India and Russia.

But a massive protest for the last 10 days at Idinthakarai near the project site has forced the government to halt in its tracks. Over one lakh people have joined the agitation to oppose the nuclear power project. More than 100 people are on an indefinite fast against it. The protest is not confined to Idinthakarai. It has become a burning issue in the coastal districts of Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Kannyakumari with its fallout having an echo in the entire southern region.

"The Centre is ready to reconsider the project. People's safety comes first. Power comes later," said V. Narayanasamy, minister of state in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) after visiting the venue of the mass protest at Idinthakarai, close to the project site.

But, this apparent assurance has failed to mollify the people of the region. "We want the project to be abandoned. We want the chief minister (Tamil Nadu CM J. Jayalalithaa) to pass a one-line resolution in the (state) assembly to press for its closure. With this assurance, she should send a delegation for the fast to be concluded," said S.P. Udayakumar, of the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) that is spearheading the protest.

Narayanasamy was expectedly given a hostile welcome when he met the protesters. Cries of "shut the plant" greeted him on his arrival. Pushed on to the back foot, he told the mediapersons: "I will convey to the PM the people's sentiments and apprehensions. Their fears appear genuine. We have to respect their feelings and legitimate concerns."

Initially, Narayanasamy was to hold negotiations with the leaders of the agitation in nearby Radhapuram. With the leaders of the stir uncomfortable about joining the parleys with the government outside the protest venue, the minister reached Idinthakarai on Tuesday evening.

Meanwhile, a delegation of leaders spearheading the agitation against the nuclear plants are meeting Jayalalithaa to demand that she pass a resolution in the assembly or in the state cabinet to abandon the Koodankulam project. In fact, there has been a change in the CM's position on the nuclear power plants following the growing protests. She had earlier defended the Koodankulam project but has now made a U-turn and slammed the Centre for its insensitivity on the issue.

Click here to Enlarge

"If the government does not do anything to address public anger and allay the fears about the safety of nuclear technology, the entire nuclear programme including running of the existing nuclear plants will be in trouble", warned Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

Six years since the nuclear deal India signed with the US, not a single new project with imported reactors has begun. The landmark deal was supposed to open the doors for the import of technology and expansion of nuclear power generation in India.

The implementation of the accord was subject to the crossing of 'hurdles' such as waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the IAEA safeguard agreement. The problems associated with all these steps were known when the deal was signed, and they were addressed adequately. The government probably had no inkling that public opposition to nuclear power could be a stumbling block, so it made no contingency plan for them to be handled.

The integrated energy policy of the country projects the need for an installed capacity of about 778 GW of power by 2032 if India has to sustain a growth rate of 8 per cent. Of this, the share of nuclear power is envisaged to be about 63,000 MW.

Now it appears that the way forward for the nuclear establishment may not be smooth. The public mood on nuclear power has changed globally after the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

The protests in India have to be viewed in this context. First it was Jaitapur. Now it is Koodankulam. Haripur was nipped in the bud by West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee even before protests could begin. In fact, Banerjee's decision is likely to embolden protesters elsewhere.

Resistance against nuclear power plants is continuing in Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, where nuclear power projects have been proposed at Fatehabad, Mithi Virdi, Chutka, Jaitapur and Kovvada, respectively.

Given the public perception about safety of nuclear power and problems involved in land acquisition and environmental clearance, setting up a large number of plants and with technology from multiple vendors seems a tall order. "The government will have to learn how to handle public anger. You just can't brush it aside. People have been protesting, but their voices were not heard by an arrogant nuclear establishment so far," Gopalakrishnan said.

At Idinthakarai for instance, what began as a protest of the fishermen community has turned out to be a mass protest, with people cutting across caste and community joining the agitation.

On Tuesday, Narayanasamy attempted to counter the charge that the government had been insensitive to the concerns of the local community while pushing ahead with the Koodankulam project.

He pointed out that the PM had ordered a review of all nuclear plants soon after the Fukushima accident. "Accordingly, review panels were constituted and about two months back on the basis of the reports given by the committees, further strengthening of safety measures has been done by most nuclear plants, including at Koodankulam," the minister told newspersons.

Vinuta Gopal of Greenpeace India said the concerns raised by the people of Idinthakarai were genuine. According to her, a report prepared by the Russian regulatory body had raised concerns about the safety of the Russian reactors being installed at Koodankulam. However, officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited said a safety review of the plant was done after Fukushima, in addition to safety features already incorporated in the design. It is located at an elevation and would be safe from storm surges.

Russia insists 'all norms in place'

Terming as unfortunate the resistance to the commissioning of the Kudankulam nuclear plant - an Indo-Russian joint venture - Russia on Tuesday said all safety norms had been taken into consideration in view of the Fukushima accident in Japan.

It also ruled out the possibility of the ongoing protests influencing Indo-Russian cooperation in the future. "What is happening in Tamil Nadu is unfortunate.

It looks like that the protests will shadow the commissioning of the plant which is going to happen in December," senior counsellor in the Russian embassy, Sergey V. Karmalito, said.

He added: "Last month, we conducted the trial runs (and) checked all safety measures. It is not correct to compare the Fukushima plant with the one in Kudankulam because the reactor in Japan was constructed decades ago and the one in Tamil Nadu is one of the most powerful and modern reactors in the world."

-With PTI inputs

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/anti-nuclear-plant-protesters-in-tamil-nadu-stall-pms-n-power-dream/1/152074.html

sunday, june 12, 2011

DARKNESS

It has become a common sight that angry citizens take to the streets in protesting against the abysmal power situation. Some of the areas receive only an hour of electricity every day. Police has to control the law and order situation on account of people's agitation.

State governments blame Centre for not allocating enough electricity to their states. The Governments try to blame its predecessor. The people do not buy this excuse. Who is to blame for the abysmal power situation this summer?

Those in Government find it easiest to pass the buck. The states blame the Centre. The Centre blames the states. Power is on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. Both the Centre and states must share the blame.

The Centre must take the rap for the shortage in generation of power. The peak power deficit-the gap between demand and supply in the summer of 2010-according to the Government's own calculations was 10.8 per cent. The responsibility for distributing available power inefficiently falls on the states. Losses in distribution average over 30 per cent across India.

At the Centre, the power, environment, coal and heavy industries ministries have in various ways acted as obstacles to the addition of capacity. In the states, populist governments and spineless electricity regulators have done little to reform ailing distribution networks. The situation is expected to get worse before it gets better.

The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), the main advisory body to the Union power minister, has set a target of 100,000 mw of additional power generation in the period of the 12th five-year plan between 2012 and 2017. That is what is needed to meet the power demand of an economy forecast to grow at 9 per cent per annum. The Planning Commission accepts this target but Environment Ministry does not which says that the target is "ecologically unsustainable".

Environment Ministry is worried about the impact this additional generation will have on climate change. Seventy per cent of this additional capacity is to be added through coal-based thermal power. Given the dismal record over the past 20 years, Environment Ministry need not worry about the Government meeting its target. According to Planning Commission estimates, only an average of 50.5 per cent of overall targets were met in the eighth, ninth and tenth five-year plans between 1992 and 2007.

Every major political formation has governed the country in that period none has much to be proud of in terms of performance in the power sector. The target for the 11th plan (2007-2012) has already been revised downwards from 78,700 mw to 62,374 mw. With a year and a half to go until the end of 2012, only around 50 per cent of that revised target has been achieved. Realistically speaking, the Government will do well to hit 60 per cent of its original target by the end of 2012.

The most serious bottleneck in generation is the shortage of coal. At the end of 2007, the gap between the demand and supply of coal was 35 million tonnes. It is expected to be around 83 million tonnes at the end of 2012. Says the mid-term appraisal document of the Planning Commission: "The shortage would have been even more had all the planned coal-based power plants been commissioned on time." By 2017, the shortage is forecast to be 200 million tonnes.

As per the government the shortage of domestic/imported coal affected thermal generation. Some of the blame for the shortage can be laid at the door of the environment minister whose controversial 'no-go' policy announced in 2009 imposed a ban on mining in heavily forested areas. It declared 35 per cent of forest area in nine major coal-mining zones as 'no-go' zones. That led to an immediate halt of mining activity in 203 blocks which had a potential capacity of over 600 million tonnes.

Coal Ministery argued that this ban could affect power generation to the tune of 1,30,000 mw. The matter is now before a Group of Ministers (GOM) on mining.

The fallout of the nuclear accident in Japan means that thermal power is back at the forefront. Hydro power continues to flounder because of concerns over rehabilitation and resettlement.

Another serious bottleneck to generation is the shortage of equipment. According to a 2010 report prepared by consulting firm KPMG on the power sector, equipment shortages have been a significant reason for India missing its capacity addition targets for the 10th five-year plan. The shortage has been primarily in the core components of boilers, turbines and generators.

What may also deter private investors in the future is the inability of state electricity boards (SEB) to buy power at commercially viable rates. When India's largest thermal power generator, the Government-owned National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) recorded a mere 1 per cent growth in net profits in 2010-11, NTPC made the power stations available, but the SEBs did not draw power from those projects. This led to less generation of power and therefore less revenue. The drawdown in generation by NTPC led to a loss of 13 billion units (bu) of electricity in 2010-11. India's annual generation of power is estimated at around 800 billion units. NTPC's drawdown is 1.6 per cent of this total. If selling power to SEBs is a problem for NTPC, it is likely to be a problem for everyone else.

The combined losses of SEBs currently stands at Rs 70,000 crore. The 13th Finance Commission has forecast this figure rising to over Rs 1 lakh crore by 2014.

We cannot sustain the improvement in the quality of power supply unless tariffs are revised. Delhi's distribution companies lose Rs 1.79-1.93 per unit of power supplied to consumers. Planning Commission calculations of the financial performance of distribution companies in 20 major states (excluding Delhi and Orissa) shows that the average loss per unit supplied to the consumer was 90 paise in 2009-10. The loss per unit sold has hovered steadily between 80 paise and Re 1 between 2005 and 2010. Contrary to popular perception, Indian consumers on average pay much less for a unit of electricity than countries which are richer, both in terms of income and resources. In India, the average tariff charged is eight US cents per unit compared to 12-15 cents in Canada, South Africa and the US and 19-20 cents in much of Europe and the developing world.

India will have to start thinking like a developed country. It is imperative that tariffs are regularized.

A committee headed by former Comptroller and Auditor General V.K. Shunglu is working to recommend ways to reduce losses suffered by distribution companies. On top of the list of recommendations is reportedly the need to take action against inactive state electricity regulatory authorities which actually set the tariff.

The regulatory authorities have statutory independence but usually act under pressure from state governments. In Tamil Nadu, for example, tariffs have not been revised for seven years. In Delhi, they have not been revised for three years. That needs to change. Politicians, regulators and citizens need to recognize the need for viable tariffs.

The transmission network needs to be strengthened to encourage private investors is the principle of "open access" where they are not captive to any one SEB for sales. SEBs are also free to look outside their state to buy electricity.

wednesday, may 25, 2011

ROLE OF ESCO IN ENERGY CONSERVAION

Seeing the huge scope of energy conservation the GoI with state governments is promoting investments through public-private partnerships in tapping renewable energy resources from mini hydro, solar, biomass, urban/industrial waste, cogeneration, etc. For this purpose the State Governments are notifying nodal agencies for carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

All project developers (private as well as Government) can have assistance of these designated agencies in terms of seeking carbon credits under CDM for both supply new and renewable sources of energy as well as demand (energy efficiency) side projects.

With a view to intensifying efforts towards Energy Conservation Action Plan to pursue a harmonious growth in energy efficiency different state government has nominated different organization to act as nodal agency the purpose of these is to implement energy efficiency programmes as per guide lines of BEE.

The major objectives of the Energy Conservation Action Plan are to:

· Raise the profile of energy conservation movement with the active participation of the stakeholders, in consonance with the national objectives of reducing the energy intensity of the economy.

· Identify and implement cost-effective energy efficiency programs through a sustainable mechanism;

· Encourage energy efficiency activities by drawing upon the prevailing best practices relevant to the state and keeping in mind the national programs and activities being launched by BEE. These include the concerns of state electricity regulator in the domain of energy end-use efficiencies and focused demand-side man agement (DSM) initiatives.

· Encourage a spurt towards professional activities with adequate emphasis on self regulation and market principles, and monitoring and evaluation of programs through quantitative metrics (performance indicators).

· Create consumer awareness vis-à-vis energy conservation and energy efficiency consumer information and provide training opportunities for key professionals such as energy managers and auditors, building designers, government officials, and facility managers.

· Protect and enhance the local, national and global environment.

Towards the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Program the different states are taking up Governmental Buildings to begin with. The governmental building sector offers substantial energy saving potential in both new and existing building constructions. One of the major drivers for energy efficiency will come from the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) launched by BEE in May 2007. The Governments are announcing the mandatory following measures applicable to the governmental sector:-

· Issuing notifications regarding the mandatory use of solar water heating systems,

· Use of compact fluorescent lamps,

· Use of BIS marked pump sets in government and private buildings, including industries and

· Use of solar water heating systems made mandatory in buildings having an area of more than 500 sq yard.

Towards the beginning the state governments are going ahead with replacement of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in all government buildings and offices, including government guest houses, offices of board, corporations, cooperative organizations and municipalities. Further the SDAs are adopting strategies related to existing buildings in addition to ECBC to tap the energy saving potential in new construction/ existing buildings

SDAs play an important role in developing better guidance on conducting building energy audits and developing commercial building energy use benchmarks (kWh/sq. m.) that would help in screening potential retrofit projects and help organizations set performance targets against peer benchmarks.

There is a vast scope to improve energy efficiency in office buildings, hospitals, schools and universities. Several studies have shown that avenues to curtail energy use to the extent of 30-50% in end uses such as lighting, cooling, ventilation, refrigeration, etc. The potential is largely untapped partly because of lack of an effective delivery mechanism. Performance contracting through ESCOs is an innovative process.

An energy service company (acronym: ESCO or ESCo) is a commercial business providing a broad range of comprehensive energy solutions including designs and implementation of energy savings projects, energy conservation, energy infrastructure outsourcing, power generation and energy supply, and risk management.

The ESCO performs an in-depth analysis of the property, designs an energy efficient solution, installs the required elements, and maintains the system to ensure energy savings during the payback period. The savings in energy costs is often used to pay back the capital investment of the project over a five- to twenty-year period, or reinvested into the building to allow for capital upgrades that may otherwise be unfeasible. If the project does not provide returns on the investment, the ESCO is often responsible to pay the difference.

There is a draw back in this concept particularly to energy sector in India as in most of the cases the base line data of energy consumption is not available, for example if the ESCO is appointed say for replacement of all agriculture pumps with energy efficient pump sets (EEPS), investment is to be made by ESCO, it has to replace all inefficient pumps and then also it has to take care of their replacement within specified payback period, the saving thus achieved is to be distributed between ESCO and the employing agency. But here comes the main problem who will tell the saving? How the saving can be calculated as the base line data is not available. Most of the supply in agriculture sector is un-metered at consumer end even the sub station meters of secondary substation are not having proper metering. Even if the meter is working properly then there is no maintenance of records. Further most of the feeders has a mixed load so there is no method to calculate the net saving in energy after energy efficient device is installed by the ESCO. Same is the case with street lights where lies a huge potential by replacing sodium vapor lamps with LED, here again no base line data is not available for the purpose of evaluation.

monday, april 18, 2011

Energy Efficiency In SME Sector

As per the energy policy of GoI power to be made available to all by 2012. One of the strategies to improve power scenario includes promotion of energy efficiency and its conservation in the country, this is found to be the most cost effective option to augment the gap between demand and supply. Nearly 25,000 MW of capacity creation through energy efficiency in the electricity sector alone has been estimated in India.

National Productivity Council (NPC), an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, was asked by BEE to undertake the study of energy saving potential in all 35 states / UTs. The study focused only on estimation of the total electricity consumption and saving potential in different sectors of each state / UT. The potential for savings is about 15% of the electricity consumption. The sector wise aggregated potential at the national level is as under:

S.No.	Sector	Consumption (Billion KWh)	Saving Potential (Billion KWh)
1.	Agriculture Pumping	92.33	27.79
2.	Commercial Buildings/ Establishments with connected load > 500 KW	9.92	1.98
3.	Municipalities	12.45	2.88
4.	Domestic	120.92	24.16
5.	Industry (Including SMEs)	265.38	18.57
	Total	501.00	75.36

The BEE study pertaining to SME revealed the overall saving potential of the clusters is about 72,432 TOE (Tonnes of oil equivalents) which is 27.4 per cent of the total energy consumption in SMEs.

Though, large numbers of SMEs, located in clusters in various states of the countries, have large potential for energy savings, there is not much authentic information and data available with respect to their energy consumption and energy saving opportunities.

Energy Efficiency in the SME sector assumes importance because of the prevailing high costs of energy and supply related concerns.

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) is implementing a program (BEE's SME Program) to improve the energy performance in selected SME clusters.

The project will conduct situation assessment of 35 (maximum) clusters in the country to assess the situation vis-à-vis the number of operating units, energy usage, potential for saving energy and probable impact of intervention. This will lead to identification of clusters for intervention. A Technology and Energy Use Analysis in identified clusters will be carried out that will identify in detail the prevalent technologies in the sector, audits them for energy use on a sample basis and identify opportunities for energy saving through either changes in technology or through best practices. This study will also identify possible sources of technology and/or expertise in different clusters as the case may be.

Because of the similar characteristics like geographical location, markets, products manufactured, technology, development issues and common pool of resources, cluster based approach has been undertaken while working with SMEs. Generally this has been found to be resource efficient and effective.

The project will pool available resources as those from WB and UNDP which have already shown interest in partnerships with BEE for undertaking work on EE with the MSME sector in India. Thus the project will limit drawing of GoI to such levels as may be required after financing from WB UNDP-GEF has been made available

Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MoMSME) has agreed in principal to capitalise on the DPRs prepared under the BEE's SME program. MoMSME proposes to provide financial support for implementation of the technologies identified in these DPRs.

Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) will also act on similar lines and will provide subsidized finance for implementation of energy efficiency technologies as identified in the DPRs. A MoU in this regard has already been signed.

BEE is also the Implementing Agency for GEF (Global Environment Facility) 'Programmatic Framework for Energy Efficiency in India in which World Bank & UNIDO are the GEF agencies working on Energy Efficiency in SME clusters. World Bank would work in 5 clusters & UNIDO in 12 clusters.

Bureau of Energy efficiency has taken a nationwide energy efficiency program covering 25 SME clusters. Which include Cold Storage, Carpet, Pottery, Brass, Foundry and Glass Clusters.

Stake Holders for implementing EE in SME are-

• Government.
• Development Agencies.
• Energy Consultants.
• ESCOs.
• Manufacturing Companies
• Lenders.

Role of the Government is to encourage the SME to adapt EE measures, educate them, give them incentives for taking up energy efficiency, encourage them to identify EE projects The role of ESCO is also very important as it has to adopt modern technology for implementation of the EE project it has to educate the SME by telling him the benefits of the EE project. ESCO has to prepare the DPR with simple calculation for the payback and debt serving feasibility. The DPR should be easily understood by SME and the lender. The most important stake holder is the SME, as he is the ultimate beneficiary. Therefore he must have the orientation to implement the EE program and motivation and inclination towards EE program, he must understand the project. It is therefore important to-

• motivate the SME.
• motivate other stakeholders.

sunday, march 27, 2011

Agriculture Demand Side Management (Ag DSM)

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) is a statutory body under Ministry of Power, Government of India. The mission of BEE is to institutionalize energy efficiency services, enable delivery mechanism in the country and provide leadership to energy efficiency in all the sectors. The primary goal of the Bureau is to reduce the energy intensity in the Indian economy.

Seeing the supply and demand gap the DSM has become the need of the hour. Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (MSEDCL), called Mahadiscom or Mahavitran in short has taken a lead towards DSM, the company started taking measures towards load management in 2005 by increasing the tariff for increased consumption and decrease in tariff for reduced consumption compared to the last year.

The Maharastra Electricity Regulatory Commission has provided for a Charge as well as a Rebate, consumers were incentivised to reduce demand through better planning and utilization of electricity, rather than by fiat. Since then the MSEDCL has a provision of LMC (Load Management Charges) in its tariff. It has been observed that rural areas has a tremendous scope in load management as the pump sets used for irrigation purpose are highly inefficient and since the tariff applicable for them is flat rate tariff the farmers have least interest in efficiency of the equipments hence there is a need of Agriculture DSM. State of UP has yet to incorporate LMC.. UPERC in its tariff order has emphasized the need of DSM, as per ERC "The effect of Demand Side Management should reflect in lesser purchase of costly power due to effective energy conservation measures. This shall reduce the revenue requirement of the DISCOMS. The cost of such DSM projects would be offset by the savings in power purchase cost due to reduction in demand. This should be represented as a separate cost element which shall be allowed by the Commission as a part of the Annual Revenue Requirement of the DISCOMS".

In order to accelerate energy efficiency measures in agriculture sector, BEE has initiated an Agriculture Demand Side Management (Ag DSM) programme in which pump set efficiency upgradation would be carried out through Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. The objective of the program is to create appropriate framework for market based interventions in agricultural pumping sector by facilitating conducive policy environment to promote Public Private Partnership (PPP) to implement the projects.

Under this scheme of BEE, first Pilot Ag DSM project was launched at Mangalwedha subdivision of Solapur Circle in Maharashtra. This first pilot Ag DSM project covers 3530 agricultural pumps connected on five feeders (Bramhapuri, Nandeshwar, Borale, Bhose & Kharatwadi) in Mangalwedha & Pandharpur subdivisions. (All the five feeders are segregated agricultural feeders, feeding power to mostly agriculture pumps under the service areas)

The Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared after an exhaustive survey and detailed energy audit study of the pump sets in the pilot area. During the energy audit study detailed information (about all the agricultural consumers) such as details about pumps (number, Type, make, age and rating), water requirements / consumption, status of meter installation, number of harvesting

cycles, cropping pattern, underground water level in different seasons, power supply pattern and socio-economic conditions etc. is collected and analyzed.

This detailed project report provides an insight to Pump manufacturers / Energy Service Company for making investments in implementing energy efficiency measures on rural pump set feeders. The intervention would lead to lower energy supply on the feeder, and hence, could result in lower subsidized energy sale by utilities and lessen the subsidy to be paid by the State Government.

The salient features of the DPR are as below-

• Most of the pump motors (60-70%) have been rewound one or two times.

• Low voltage up to 290 V at consumer end is observed for few DTR.

• The workmanship quality for pump set installation was poor. No capacitors Connected to agricultural pumps.

• Even though the power availability is for 10 to 12 hours, intermittent power failures are observed frequently.

• It is also observed that most of the DTR's are overloaded leading to frequent transformer failures.

• The major reasons for pump set failure and lower discharge output was erratic power supply and cases of extreme low voltage.

Due to huge gap in the demand – supply situation of the state power grid, the agriculture feeders are faced with severe load shedding.Thus, whenever power is available most of the pump sets are automatically switched ON to supply water for irrigation. The farmers have made provisions for automatic starting of pumps. This is carried out either by auto-starter or starter is kept in on condition, continuously during the season, defeating interlocks.

Actual Pump set rating higher than name plate rating: It is also been observed that even though sanctioned demand is 3 HP or 5 HP, power rating of most of the pump sets is higher than sanctioned demand. The reason for measured power consumption rating higher than sanctioned demand is that most of the farmers have rewound the pump sets suitably to draw more power and deliver higher water discharge. Since farmers are charged on flat HP basis this results in potential revenue loss to DISCOM. This is the major reason for no encouragement for deployment of more efficient pumps. It is difficult to make the farmers agree to have their pumps replaced, as it requires repeated efforts to make the farmers fully conversant to the objectives of the project. Hence social opposition is expected for metering of power supply at pump level. But there will not be that much opposition for metering at transformer level.

The farmers have reported extreme low voltage as the major cause for motor burnouts and lower pump output. The pump set selection by farmers is mainly driven by voltage constraint (Voltage imbalance) and water level variations.

Pump set Installations: The pump sets installation is inappropriate with lack of proper foundation and footings. The ground surface water pump sets are merely placed on wooden planks and not properly anchored to the ground. The pump sets are observed with high vibration levels, which also contribute to lower operating efficiency.

The efficiency measured for these pumps is in the range of 15 % to 30 %. Only a small fraction of pump sets have efficiency below 10 % and above 55%. Pumps with efficiency below 10% are due to a combination of several factors like use of frequently rewound motors, non standard pumps, no maintenance, poor selection of pump, extremely low water depth, low voltage supply leading to lower output and higher power consumption. Pumps with higher efficiency than 55 % are due to recent installations and are very few in numbers.

Parameters Affecting Pump Set Efficiency Performance

There are various parameters that could affect the pump set efficiency performance. Parameters identified that could affect the pump performance are listed below -

• Energy Inefficient Pump Sets

• Improper pump selection and usage.

• Undersized pipes.

• Suction head Variations and large discharge lengths.

• Inefficient foot valves and piping system.

• Motor rewinding and low voltage profile

• Water table variations

• Other common causes

Energy Inefficient Pump Sets

· Due to lack of awareness about energy efficiency and flat HP based tariff structure for agricultural sector, energy aspect is overlooked by the farmers while selecting the pump sets.

· For conventional pump sets the efficiency variation with respect to change in flow and head is very high. At both the extreme ends of the pump curves (head Vs flow) the efficiency of the pump set is low. However better designed Energy Efficient Pump Sets (EEPS) have a flat top efficiency characteristic, so that any reduction in efficiency away from the 'Best Efficiency Point' (BEP) is small. As guaranteed by energy efficient pump manufacturers the difference in best efficiency of a good design is marginal and at the most up to 3% to 4%. The energy efficient pump sets could be selected to match the capacity and head requirements and to operate at BEP during the normal operating conditions. This will result in maximum energy savings, as compared to present inefficient pumps. Improper Pump Selection and Usage

· The educational level of the Indian farmers is not adequate to understand the technological aspects of pump operation. This leads to lack of awareness on pump selection, operation & maintenance. The improper selection and operation leads to poor efficiencies and wastage of energy.

· Field study has indicated that average overall efficiency of the pump sets is around 28%.

· The lower efficiency is also due to improper selection of pumps and mismatching prime movers and due to inferior quality of the pumps being marketed. The selection of the pumps should be governed by the characteristic curves i.e. the efficiencies in the various ranges of flow and head valves and for normal operating condition, the efficiency should be maximum.

Baseline Energy Consumption

For implementing the Ag DSM it is most important to know the base line energy consumption (BEC) of specified pump sets connected on pilot project feeder. The BEC was estimated for FY 2009 (Base year) by two different approaches specified below. One approach is based on past consumption data whereas other approach will be based on the detailed audit study undertaken in the region.

1. Approach 1: Here baseline energy consumption of existing pump sets connected on pilot project feeder lines is estimated based on last three year annual consumption data and monthly consumption data of metered consumers in the region (Mangalvedha sub division).

· In this approach the average consumption norms for metered consumers are applied to the non metered consumers in pilot project to arrive at their monthly consumption. This approach is also approved by MERC in determining the tariff of agricultural consumers.

· The baseline energy consumption for 2221 agriculture pumps operating under the 4 feeders has been arrived based on data available from MSEDCL.

· The metered consumers are categorized on the basis of sanctioned HP load and their monthly average consumption is taken as representative for that particular HP category pump consumption norms to arrive at the total consumption of 2221 pump sets considered under the pilot project. For the purpose, 2221 pump sets are segregated based on their sanctioned demand on HP basis.

· The baseline energy consumption arrived at Approach 1 is cross verified based on last three year annual energy consumption by project feeder lines. The four pilot project feeders are segregated agricultural feeders supplying power to agriculture consumers. However there are few residential consumers that are also connected on these feeders.

· The annual energy consumption for all the four project feeder lines for last 3 years is provided by MSEDCL. The last three year average energy consumption and average distribution loss levels for Maharashtra state is used for estimating the baseline energy consumption, the annual average energy consumption for all four project feeder lines is 21.16 MU at the MSEDCL substation end which also includes distribution losses. MSEDCL average distribution losses are 26.2 %. The baseline consumption attributable for 2221 pump sets is arrived at after deducting the losses from last three year annual energy consumption. Thus the baseline consumption is about 15.62 MU.

2. Approach 2: As per this approach, baseline energy consumption of existing pump sets of pilot Ag DSM project is estimated based on detailed audit study. The average operating efficiency and average input power in kW, for existing pump sets of different types such as monoblock, submersible and flexible coupling and for different HP ratings are estimated after analyzing the field study measurements.

· This average energy efficiency and average input power norms along with assumptions of average operating hours has been applied to total no of pump sets categorized as per their ratings and types to arrive at baseline energy consumption by total 2221 number of pumps sets connected on project feeder lines.

· As discussed in earlier sections, even though the supply isavailable for 8 to 10 hours on daily basis, not all the pump sets operate continuously. The reasons identified for not all the pump sets operating continuously are, varying irrigation requirements, non availability of water in the well, non availability of farmer to switch the pump set on and pump sets under repairs. Hence annual average operating hours are used to estimate the baseline energy consumption of all the pump sets connected on project feeder lines.

· Based on last 3 years annual average energy consumption of 21.16 MU recorded at the substation end of project feeder lines and MSEDCL distribution losses of 26.2% the energy consumption for 2221 pump sets is arrived at 15.62 MU. Where as baseline energy consumption as per approach 1 is 16.49 MU. The sum of average input power for all the pump sets is around 9523 kW based on energy audit study. Average operating hours for all the pump sets is estimated based on this information as provided below,

Annual Average Operating Hours=Energy Consumption ,15.62 MU *10^6

= 1640

Sum of average input power for all the pump sets, 9523 kW

Annual Average Operating Hours =Energy Consumption ,16.49 MU * 10^6= 1732

Sum of average input power for all the pump sets, 9523 kW

· Thus the annual average operating hours for all the pump sets connected on project feeder lines are estimated as 1640 and 1732. However, to be on conservative side average operating hours are assumed to be 1640.

· The annual average operating hours of 1640 are multiplied by the average input power per pump set and total number of pump sets for each categorized based on rating and type to estimate the baseline energy consumption.

· As per load shedding protocol electricity supply hours of MSEDCL can not be less than 8 hours per day i.e. 2920 hrs per annum. In addition analysis of historical data for past several years with regards to water availability, seasonal variation and cropping pattern, indicate that the water availability and seasonal variation will remain the same in future years and will not have any impact on pump set operating hours. Hence the assumption of 1640 annual average operating hours stands appropriately.

· Thus the baseline energy consumption based on approach 2 is 15.23 MU. Since the baseline consumption estimate based on approach 2 is on very conservative side it is used in the preceding sections to estimate energy saving potential.

Estimates of Energy Saving Potential

1. The energy could be saved by improving the overall system efficiency either by partial rectification or by complete replacement.

2. The partial rectification covers the options other than replacement of pump sets (Motor & Pump) as listed below,

• Replacement of inefficient foot valves

• Removal of unnecessary pipe lengths

• Removal of unnecessary bends

• Reduction in height of pipe above the ground

• Replacement of GI pipes with HDPE/PVC pipes

• Installation of capacitor banks for improving power factor

3. With partial replacement, farmers benefit in terms of more water discharge from the existing pumping system. However the reduction in energy requirement is marginal.

4. The complete replacement also covers the replacement of existing pump set with energy efficient pump set along with the options covered under partial rectification. Even though the complete rectification requires huge investment it leads to significant energy savings and reduced line loadings. In the DPR the option of replacement of exiting pump sets with energy efficient pump sets along with the replacement of foot valves is considered.

5. The rating of energy efficient pump sets for the replacement of existing pump sets is arrived at after analyzing the maximum possible head and current water discharge requirement. With the help of pump set manufacturers each pump set data is analyzed to propose energy efficient pump set along with its efficiency value. The energy efficient pump sets are selected in a way so as to operate in the range where the pump set efficiency curve is almost flat. As per the pump manufacturers, the maximum variation in the efficiency of these new pump sets will not be more than 3% to 4 %. The overall weighted average operating efficiency for energy efficient pump sets is arrived at 48.9%. However, to be on conservative side overall average operating efficiency for energy efficient pump sets is considered as 45 % (whereas that of non standard pump set is only 28%) to estimate the energy saving potential by replacement of all 2221 pump sets. The assumption of 45 % of overall average operating efficiency which is 4 % less than the actual, provides enough margin for the actual efficiency variation due to water level variations.

6. The overall average operating efficiency of 45% is used to arrive at revised average input power rating for energy efficient pump sets. The energy saving potential is estimated only for improvement in the system efficiency due to replacement of existing pump sets with energy efficient pump sets. The detail estimates of energy saving potential shows that the Overall consumption of existing pump sets is work out to be 15,617,923 units, where as with energy efficient pump sets the consumption will go down to 9,487,825 units for same average operating hours. This leads to the savings of 6,130,098 units i.e. 6.13 MU, The replacement of existing pump sets with energy efficient pump sets would lead to energy saving.

The percentage energy saving is calculated based on estimates-

Percentage Energy Savings= [(Energy Consumption by Existing Pump sets – Energy Consumption by Energy Efficient Pump Sets ) * 100]/(Energy Consumption by Existing Pump sets)= 40%

Thus implementations of Ag DSM projects offer opportunity to reduce overall energy consumption, cut down energy bill to the farmers, reduces subsidy burdens on then distribution companies and state governments and mitigate the energy short situation while improving the water extraction efficiency. However for sustainable investment in Ag DSM projects it is required to develop business models to assure sustainability of the savings for loan repayments and to provide adequate incentives to the investors.

MSEDCL utilizes a part of Load Management Charge (LMC) Fund collected under a tariff regulation for replacement of old inefficient pumps with new higher energy efficiency pump sets and contract out repair and maintenance of pumps and certain aspects of project works to a project contractor (DISCOM Mode).

7. With the above-noted background in mind and after taken in to account the possible financing options, different business models have been developed and categorized as DISCOM Mode, ESCO Mode and HYBRID Mode as described below,

· MSEDCL utilizes a part of Load Management Charge (LMC) Fund collected under a tariff regulation for replacement of old inefficient pumps with new higher energy efficiency pump sets and contract out repair and maintenance of pumps and certain aspects of project works to a project contractor (DISCOM Mode). (100% investment by the DISCOM)

· An ESCO which has a contract with MSEDCL finances and implements the project; the ESCO would borrow the project debt and repay it from project revenues (ESCO Mode). (100% investment by the ESCO). In this model benefit savings to be retained by ESCO is 95%.

· ESCO provides part of project funds through debt & equity and sign a contract with MSEDCL, whereas part of the project fund would be contributed by MSEDCL through LMC fund (HYBRID Mode). (67% investment by the DISCOM, 33% investment by the ESCO). In this model benefit savings to be retained by ESCO is 55%.

Since HVDS has not been implemented on the selected feeders, electric motors may burn out frequently due to poor voltage profile. Therefore, the risks involved for ESCOs/Project Contractors in the above discussed business models (DISCOM Mode and ESCO Mode) are high, which may lead to low participation from the interested bidders (ESCOs) for project implementation.

8. In order to motivate ESCOs to undertake the project, a hybrid solution has been proposed in which MSEDCL will be required to contribute upfront a portion of total investment from the LMC fund so that ESCOs and their lenders' risks are minimized. This would be a significant amount and may be an important factor for an ESCO to get loan from the lender.

Monetary Savings/ Benefit to MSEDCL

1. The major benefit of pump set efficiency improvement is to farmers by way of either increased water discharge output per unit of power consumed or same water discharge with lower power consumption.

2. Replacement of existing pump sets with correctly selected, better designed energy efficient pumps having higher efficiency for the same head range will give same water output and consumes lesser power. Benefits to MSEDCL due to lower power consumption by energy efficient agriculture pumps are estimated for sale of energy to all consumers at an average cost of supply.

3. MSEDCL revenue billed per unit is used as a proxy to average tariff. Average Cost of Supply for FY 08 is estimated from actual revenue from sale of power and actual energy sales to all consumers as provided comes out to be Rs 3.62 / kWh. Agricultural consumers are supplied at subsidized metered tariff of Rs 1.10 per kWh whereas average power tariff is Rs 3.62 / kWh. Hence MSEDCL is benefited due to reduction in agricultural energy consumption. In addition to this the revenue realization or collection efficiency from agricultural consumers in Mangalvedha sub division is only 18 %, which also leads to additional financial losses to MSEDCL, and could be avoided due to saved energy. Thus the saved energy could be sold to other consumers at an average rate of Rs. 3.62 per kWh (FY 08 Actual). The benefit analysis from MSEDCL's perspectives, considering the benefits of sale of saved energy to other consumers and reduction in financial losses pertaining to lower collection efficiency from agricultural consumers is provided in Table 31 below. However, at conservative side the collection efficiency of 60 % is assumed to estimate revenue collection loss due to saved energy.

As per calculations in the DPR the total investment needed for replacement of 2,221 existing pump sets will be Rs 432.8 Lakh, whereas MSEDCL's revenue from sale of saved energy to other consumers at Rs 3.62 / kWh is Rs. 221.91 Lakh. However there is reduction in MSEDCL's revenue at collection efficiency of 60 %, due to reduction in energy sale to agricultural consumers due to energy saved. At unit rate of Rs 1.10 /kWh for agricultural consumers and at collection efficiency of 60 % revenue from agricultural consumers comes out to be Rs. 40.46 Lakh. In addition to this, to ensure sustainable savings MSEDCL has to ensure proper R&M. The annual R&M cost is Rs 35.72 Lakhs, employee cost is Rs 6.6 Lakh and annual testing cost is Rs. 1.1 Lakh. Thus the net annual benefit to MSEDCL is Rs. 138.02 Lakh. This work out to be a simple payback period of 3 years.

PILOT AG-DSM PROJECT AT SOLAPUR

Based on these estimates, the detailed project financial analysis for a period of 10 years is carried out for project implementation through ESCO Mode and DISCOM Mode, whereas for HYBRID Mode financial analysis is carried out for 5 years. The project cash flows and summary benefits for all the three business models is provided in sections below.

1. The financial model indicates the economic viability for implementation of Ag DSM pilot project through ESCO Mode with Project IRR of 19.21% for a project cycle of 10 years(Simple payback Period – 5 years). Where as project implementation through DISCOM Mode by MSEDCL utilising LMC fund, the Project IRR is 33.5% for a project cycle of 10 years (Simple Pay Back Period – 3 years).

2. Implementation of project through HYBRID Mode, where ESCO invests 33% of total investment (Rs. 4.33 Crores) and retains 55% of net savings, the project IRR is 27.27% for ESCO where as for MSEDCL the project IRR is 12.83% for a project cycle of 5 years (Simple Pay Back Period – 4 years).

3. 1 The cash flow statements over a ten year period for ESCO Mode & DISCOM Mode business model have been worked out. Where as for HYBRID Mode business model the cash flow statements are worked out for five year period .

4. For all the three business models, provision of tax on profits has been considered at the rate of 33.99%. Project implementation through HYBRIDE Mode business model provides a reasonable IRR of 27.27 % for ESCO & 12.83 % for DISCOM for project cycle period of five years. Where as for other business models the project cycle is 10 years. Hence HYBRIDE Mode business model indicate good financial viability and ensures minimum risk for project investors.

5. In the context of the agricultural DSM project, energy consumption in the baseline and project scenarios and consequently energy savings can be determined under two different approaches:

· One is the project monitoring and verification (M&V) approachthat determines energy savings based on monitored values of efficiency parameters like head, flow and energy consumption.

· Other approach uses standard values of pumping efficiency (baseline and project pumps) and usage hours to arrive at energy savings called the deemed savings approachContractually; ESCOs must stand behind technical performance and specific efficiency of the systems and equipment they install. These are key values in the M&V savings calculation. Other values in the savings equation, i.e., operating hours can be estimated using baseline energy consumption data and then stipulated in the project contract. In this way, the ESCO is not exposed to uncontrollable risks, but does assume responsibility for system efficiency. The Discom and State Government in effect, assume the uncontrollable risks. If the ESCO is paid based on the agreed value of its capital investment and delivered services, this formulation can produce equitable results.

· For this reason, from the point of view of the ESCO and its lender, a Deemed savings approach may be appropriate. This would involve pre- and post performance demonstration of a sample of pumps by a third-party firm to estimate savings per pump set basis. This information is then be used to stipulate savings based on the operating hours estimated using baseline energy consumption data for the entire project area. Periodic sampling of pump set efficiencies during the course of the contract period is important to account for any deterioration of savings and to confirm that the ESCO is meeting its warranty obligations. Even if a Deemed savings approach is used to determine payments to the ESCO, the Discom can implement a monitoring and verification savings approach for all feeders and pump sets to gather the most accurate information.

Carbon Credit Benefits

a. The responsibility of registering the pilot project for availing carbon credits will be with the ESCO.

b. The ESCO shall prepare the Project Design Document and obtain required approval from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

c. All required and relevant data, technical support and necessary documents will be provided to the ESCO by MSEDCL on a timely basis to support the ESCO's application for carbon credit.

d. The benefits of carbon credits as applicable can be solely availed by the ESCO.

Based on above DPR the MSEDCL invited RFP for implementing Ag DSM in the state of Maharastra.

Proposed structure of the project

Hybrid Business Model has been proposed with AgIA (Agriculture Implementing Agency) providing the initial capital investment through debt & equity, whereas MSEDCL would be providing the support through annual payment from LMC fund and energy savings.( MSEDCL utilizes a part of Load Management Charge (LMC) Fund collected under a tariff regulation for replacement of old inefficient pumps with new higher energy efficiency pump sets and contract out repair and maintenance of pumps and certain aspects of project works to a project contractor (DISCOM Mode).

Brief Roles and Responsibilities of the AgIA

1. The AgIA shall be responsible for dismantling the existing pump sets, procurement of new EEPS. (Electricity Efficient Pumps)
2. Installation, maintenance and repair/replacement. AgIA shall also be responsible for financing, implementing and operating the Project. The AgIA shall procure EEPS and install them with following minimum specifications:-

· BEE Star rated Pump sets - 4star & above as per the existing available models in the Market

• Wide-voltage (should be operating at low voltage) Monoblock , open well submersible and bore well Submersible pump sets.
• The discharge rate of the EEPS shall not be lower than the existing pump sets of the farmers.
• EEPS installed shall be of the same type (Monoblock / Open well Submersible /Bore well Submersible) as the existing pump sets.
• Low-friction foot valves conforming to relevant ISI Standard & specification and
2. The AgIA shall install EEPS with capacitor banks of relevant ratings as per the pump set requirement.
3. Farmers shall be provided EEPS free of cost. They will also be provided with free installation of the EEPS. The EEPS shall be procured with a minimum warranty of 12 months (1 year) by pump set manufactures. The total R&M of 60 months shall be provided with no cost to the farmers by the AgIA.
4. The AgIA shall dismantle the existing pumps and keep an inventory of old pumps (with proper tagging of consumer ID) for one year. Disposal of old pumps should then be undertaken in a manner that precludes their use or reinstallation in any form anywhere in India. The AgIA shall provide a written assurance to MSEDCL describing the manner of disposal. MSEDCL shall have the right to audit or hire a third-party auditor to confirm the appropriate disposal of all old pumps. The disposal of old pumps shall be carried\ out in the following manner:

· Photograph of old and new pump-set with consumer details shall be taken

· Before disposal of old pump sets, a hole of appropriate size shall be made in the pump set in the presence of Third Party Request for Proposal Ag DSM Pilot Project MSEDCL

6. The term of the project shall be for a period of five years from the Effective Date of completion of replacement of all the existing pumps with EEPS. The start date shall be when all EEPS have been commissioned by AgIA.
7. The AgIA shall be responsible for dismantling the existing pump sets, planning the procurement, installation and initial testing of new EEPS within six months from the date of signing of the contract with MSEDCL.
8. A Third Party agency in the presence of AgIA and MSEDCL shall test all the existing pump sets as well as the new EEPS at the time of replacement. The base-line and energy savings for the first six months shall be estimated based on this initial testing & average annual hours of operation of pump sets - 1640 Hrs (deemed savings approach).
9. For subsequent period of the project, a stratified random sampling technique shall be used to select the pump sets to be tested. Stratification criteria shall be the type and the rating of the pump sets. An estimated size of 10% of the total no. of pump sets shall be tested randomly every year.
10. The sample pump sets shall be tested by Third Party in the presence of MSEDCL and AgIA annually for demonstrating the savings. The pump sets shall be selected randomly every year based on the approach mentioned in above clause.
11. This information is then be used to stipulate annual savings based on the estimate of the average operating hours / annum (1640 Hrs) (Deemed Saving Approach)
12. Third party monitoring and verification agency could be a local NGO / Technical Institute etc.

Support given by MSEDCL

1. MSEDCL shall provide to the AgIA the data and support necessary for implementing the tasks stated above.

2. MSEDCL shall install meters on all pump sets connected on five project Feeders.

3. MSEDCL shall make payments on quarterly basis to the AgIA based on "guaranteed savings demonstrated/achieved as per following-

a. Energy savings sharing %

The percentage sharing between MSEDCL andAgIA shall be as follow,

Draft Contract/Agreement Ag DSM Pilot Project

1. % retained with MSEDCL: .........70%.................

2. % shared with AgIA: ………30%………..

b. Base level energy consumption

Baseline energy consumption is estimated based on KW measured at the motor input terminal of all the pumps prior to the replacement of the existing Pump sets multiplied by operating hours of 1640 Hrs per annum as specified in bidding documents / DPR. The baseline established remains same for 5 years of the project. Energy consumption by EEPS For first six months of the term - based on the initial testing & average annual hours of operation of pump sets of 1640 Hrs. For subsequent period of the project – based on the testing of sample of 10% of EEPS selected randomly every year & average annual hours of operation of pump sets ofb1640 Hrs. Quantum of energy saved or "guaranteed annual energy savings" Base level energy consumption minus the Energy Consumption by EEPS (Item no.5-Item no.6)

c. Periods for Demonstration of "guaranteed annual energy savings

i. Initially, at the time of replacement of all the old pumps by EEPS

ii. After a period of six months from the start date of the project

iii. Then every year from the second demonstration for the balanced project period

d. Pricing of energy savings

i. "Energy savings shall be priced at Rs 2.70 / kWh for a project period of five years

4. MSEDCL shall ensure good power supply quality and load management system in pilot area.

5. MSEDCL shall provide necessary support to the AgIA at the field level, as may be required by AgIA from time to time, including, amongst others, regarding access to consumer premises, replacement of existing pump sets, recovering old pump sets and signing ownership agreement with the farmer/consumer.

Implementation of Ag DSM in Other States

About 50% of Indian populations are farmers. About 20% of the farmers have electric pumps. Hence, only 10% of population directly benefit from agricultural electricity use. Lack of perennial rivers made ground water tapping a prerequisite in irrigation in south India. This has led to an increase in consumption of electricity by agricultural sector. 73% of Indian population depends directly or indirectly on agriculture.. In most of the states, agricultural consumption is un-metered. Consumers pay a flat rate tariff which is also highly subsidized. As a result there is further wastage of electricity by using sub standard pump sets.

On the basis of the DPR prepared by Mahrastra for implementing Ag DSM the potential of energy saving is upto 40% and as per estimation of BEE Overall electricity savings(from 20 million pumps) all over India is estimated at 62.1 billion units annually.

Taking the case of state of Uttar Pradesh ( For the basis of calculation to apply for all India for analysis purpose) based on the approved ARR, the average cost of supply for FY 2009-10 works out to Rs. 4.17/kWh (Rs 17,791 cr/ 42,661 MUs). Thus earning by sale of this saved energy to other consumers can be calculated as following-

ACS= Rs 4.17/unit

Cost of supply to Ag= Rs 1.10 /unit

Cost saving =4.17-1.10=Rs 3.07/unit

Total revenue earning by sale to other consumer = 62.1*10^9*3.07/10^7

= Rs.19065 Cr

For above saving the following investment shall be required towards implementing Ag DSM-

As per the DPR of Mahavitran for connected pumping load of 9523 kW investment required = Rs 583.2 Lakh

Taking the above to be true for India scenario the investment required may be to the tune of 1,00,000 Cr.

In case the project is implemented through an ESCO mode, the energy savings would be shared between ESCO and Discom. Assuming 95% of the proposed energy savings is shared with ESCO for 10 years. The financial model indicates the economic viability for implementation of Ag DSM pilot project throughESCO Mode with Project IRR of 19.21% for a project cycle of 10 years(Simple payback Period – 5 years). With CDM Benefits taken in to account the project IRR improves to 22.8%.

Read more at:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/anti-nuclear-plant-protesters-in-tamil-nadu-stall-pms-n-power-dream/1/152074.html

Whither Haripur? - Nuclear energy option splits CPI(M) higher-ups

By Sankar Ray

On the issue of whether the nuclear option should be explored to meet power requirements in the future preferentially over coal-fired power generation, mandarins of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the largest Leftist party in India, are more adherents of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost than Stalinist orthodoxy of "democratic centralism". Nonagenarian CPI(M) polit bureau member Jyoti Basu frequently claims that his party is the most democratic and disciplined of all political parties in India and once a decision is taken following inner-party debate, every party member works for implementing the decision.

The West Bengal chief minister and CPI(M) polit bureau member Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is an unabashed proponent of nuclear option in creating additional power capacity. Speaking to The Hindu in mid-September, he said, "We just cannot avoid nuclear power". He argued that global warming forces us to look up to 'green power'. Coal-fired power, comprising 96 per cent of power generation in West Bengal is no green power, he felt. But interestingly, he interpreted his opinion as "technical rather than political," although he is far away from the realm of science and technology either academically or by practical experience.

The Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd includes Haripur, a coastal village of East Medinipur district, West Bengal, among the several new nuclear power plants. Bhattacharjee went ga-ga about it along with the commerce and industry minister Nirupam Sen, a CPI(M) central committee member and fully with the Chief Minister on wooing capitalists including MNCs for industrialization of the state. Which was why the CPI(M) state leadership stepped up campaign in favour of the proposed 3000 megawatt project. In the mid-1990s, there was a similar project proposed in the Sunderbans but the Left Front government had to drop it for strong protest from environmental scientists and South 24 Parganas district branch of the Paschimbanga Vijnan Mancha, state unit of CPI(M)-controlled All India People's Science Congress.

Prof Deb Kumar Bose, ex-chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Board, and formerly professor of economics, Indian Statistical Institute, did several econometric studies on nuclear power – published in Economic and Political Weekly – and warned against nuclear power option in the 1990s too. In the end months of 2006, when Dr Bose called on a top CPI(M) PB member to reiterate his opinion, he was told that Bhattacharjee got the matter through at the state party secretariat and hence Prof Bose, a CPI(M) member, should not write or speak about the nuclear power plant.

Prabir Purakayastha, a power technologist who worked for many years in BHEL and secretary, Delhi Science Forum, a constituent of AIPSC, dished out a profoundly different viewpoint and refuted those who are arguing for nuclear option. A Delhi state committee member of the party, Purakayastha wrote a 2670-word polemical piece - The Myth oOf Free Nuclear Energy in CPI(M)'s central organ Peoples Democracy in its 21 October 2007 issue . The notion that nuclear power will be cheaper than coal has "layers of lies built in", he said while admitting that "operating cost of a nuclear plant is lower than that of coal fired plants" . The cost of electricity includes capital cost too which is very high and consumers are to "pay for the capital cost of the plants also in the electricity charges , he pointed out . The cost of electricity using just the capital cost of the plant alone for imported reactors, he calculated, will be " Rs 3.65 per unit as against the cost per unit from coal including the fuel and all other operating costs of Rs 2.20-2.60, depending on their distance from the coal mines. If we take plants at pit heads, the cost committed by Reliance for the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project is only Rs 1.19. Even after using high cost imported coal, the cost of power from the Mundra Ultra Mega Power project is Rs 2.26′, he argued.

Purakayastha questioned the notion that the operating cost of a nuclear power unit is lower than the thermal counterpart. According to the NPCL exercise, the operating cost of Kaiga unt, taking into consideration, fuel, heavy water etc is Rs 1.48 a unit. But the DSF leader wrote, adding the cost of capital, "the cost of electricity becomes Rs 5.13! This is more than twice that from coal fired plants."

CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat a few months back said at a meeting in West Bengal that nuclear power generation cost "is substantially higher than coal-based power", citing Purakayastha's data but subsequently, addressing a seminar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University he kept options for nuclear power generation open, as if to keep Bhattacharjee and West Bengal comrades in good humour. After all, West Bengal CPI(M) is the largest financial resource-base for AKG Bhavan, national headquarters of CPI(M).

However, till date opponents of nuclear power generation like Purakayastha have not been gagged. But the free-for-all space is wide open mocking the Stalinist pride of CPI(M) biggies from Basu to the CITU president M K Pandhe. Shyamal Chakraborty, a CC member, defended nuclear power saying, " After all, we cannot lag behind science". Unlike Purakayastha and like Bhattacharjee, he never had basic science subjects in his undergraduate or post-graduate classes but pretends to know science better than energy experts. Srideep Bhattacharjee, former secretary of Paschimbanga Vijnan Mancha, now a CPI(M) state committee member in a note to the state leaders strongly opposed the move towards nuclear plant, especially in the coastal zone.

Contradictions and self-contradictions (Karat's volte face) on nuclear option in future power generation plans among CPI(M) leaders weakens the rigidities of democratic centralism, one of the principal pillars of organization among 'Official Marxists". Even for the CPI(M) whose founding leaders like B T Ranadive and Promode Dasgupta asked comrades to remain unflinchingly loyal to what Stalin used to do and instruct.

http://sanhati.com/news/548/

The Aftermath of Fukushima in Koodankulam

September 10, 2011

by S. P. Udayakumar

The three-in-one disaster at Fukushima has stirred human consciousness all over the world. On the one hand, it has prompted Germany's decision of phasing out nuclear energy by the year 2022, Italians' overwhelming vote against nuclear power in a national referendum, and some 20,000 Swiss citizens' rallying against nuclear power and so forth. Even the Chinese government put all its nuclear activities on hold and decided to do stocktaking before proceeding any further.

On the other hand, Fukushima has evoked a totally different and horrendous response from other quarters. India is a case in point. The chief of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) tried to explain away Fukushima accidents as "chemical explosions" and the chief of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) claimed that the Indian nuclear power plants were all away from earthquake-prone zones. The Prime Minister of India tried to reassure the nation that the Indian nuclear power plants were all safe. He did not elaborate on what made him feel so confident or what steps he had taken to evaluate the safety standards and procedures at the Indian nuclear power plants.

This kind of lame excuses and false promises only made the people of India wearier about the whole nuclear power program. To add insult to injury, Manmohan Singh cabinet chose April 26, 2011, the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl Day, to issue an official statement that they would persist with the nuclear power program. This slap on the face of every Indian on a sensitive day betrayed the real values and loyalties of the government.

The Congress party-ruled states such as Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh where French and American nuclear power parks are coming up are working overtime to facilitate these anti-people but pro-corporate projects. But the chief minister Mamta Banerjee of West Bengal asked the central government to cancel the Haripur project with Russian collaboration and pronounced that they would not welcome any nuclear power plant anywhere in her state.

In Tamil Nadu, however, all the political parties tend to see the nuclear power project as a developmental project and have never raised their voice against the Koodankulam or Kalpakkam or the Neutrino project coming up in Theni district. The People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy has been protesting against the Koodankulam project from the very beginning. Although we enjoy much support and sympathy in coastal villages where people live in harmony with Nature and will be the first victims of any nuclear calamity, people in the interior areas and the middle class have been generally indifferent. But watching Fukushima plants explode and the Japanese citizens flee the triple-tragedy on their TV screens, our people realize the intensity of the danger we are facing.

When the Koodankulam authorities gear up to start the first unit of 1,000 MW plant within a few months of Fukushima, the local people do take offense. When the former tries to conduct a safety drill, the local people get alert and angry. Safety instructions ask them to cover their noses and mouths and to enter the nearest building and close the doors. While the state government claims that 0-5 km area is sterilization zone, the Koodankulam authorities say informally that nobody will be displaced. This kind of confusions and carefully-concealed decisions do not help the people to feel confident.

On August 11, 2011, thousands of people from Koodankulam gathered around the local Catholic Church and demonstrated against the nuclear power plant. A local activist, Advocate Sivasubramanian phoned me and asked me to go to Koodankulam immediately. We organized the demonstration as best as possible and asked people to be careful and nonviolent as we did not want the emerging uprising to be crushed by the state power. The crowd of thousands of people was very cooperative and responsible although the presence of several drunkards, police informers, friends of vested interests and the ever-growing strength of police was a cause to worry.

As this demo was going on in Koodankulam, we received a message that people in the neighboring fishing village, Idinthakarai were ringing the bell in their church and gathering around the parish priest's house. We were invited to go and talk to them. We arranged a group of young people to lead a hunger strike at Koodankulam, and a few of us rushed to that fishing village and held a discussion. People took decisions such as boycotting fishing, keeping children away from schools, a complete shut down of shops and facilities, hoisting black flags in front of the houses, returning the government ration cards (which serve as important Identity card) and passing a resolution at the Village Council on the Independence Day (August 15) against the Koodankulam plant.

We held a planning meeting at Nagercoil on August 13 and decided that our only demand was closing down the Koodankulam plants and that we would avoid processions and marches that carry a good degree of vulnerability and stick to nonviolent hunger strikes.

On August 14, we visited the villages of Koothankuli, Koodankulam and Idinthakarai and conducted planning meetings. On the Independence Day (August 15) the Village Councils of Koodankulam, Vijayapathi, Koothankuli and Levingipuram passed resolutions to close down the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. On August 16, more than 10,000 people gathered for the hunger strike and we also formed an administrative committee, finance committee, and legal cell to lead the struggle.

On August 17, we started our three-day hunger strike at Koodankulam and thousands of men and women gathered for that. Police had denied permission on the 16th midnight but we defied that and went ahead with the strike. We heard that police was planning to break up our peaceful demonstration by force and we contacted the authorities to protest against it. They invited us for talks and requested us to halt all our demos in return for the cancellation of the safety drills. We reached an agreement that we would not hold any massive campaigns until September 7. But on August 27, 2011 the DAE chief announced that they would start the first unit of Koodankulam nuclear power plant in September 2011. Since this nullifies the ongoing dialogue, we convened our administrative committee meeting on August 30 at Idinthakarai and decided to resume our struggle. After all, India is still a democracy and Indian citizens have been guaranteed the rights to life and livelihood by our Constitution.

http://sanhati.com/articles/4118/

Tamil Nadu: Ten thousand people embark on hunger strike protesting Koodankulam nuclear power plant

August 16, 2011

PRESS RELEASE

People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE)
42/27 Esankai Mani Veethy Parakkai Road Junction
Nagercoil 629 002, Tamil Nadu, India
Phone: 91-9865683735Email: koodankulam@yahoo.com

Four Gram Sabhas Demand Koodankulam NPP's Closing

Massive Hunger Strike at Idinthakarai

People from Koodankulam, Vijayapathi, Koothankuli and Levinjipuram panchayats that lie next to the Koodankulam nuclear power plant passed a resolution demanding immediate shut down during the Gram Sabha (Village Council) meetings on India's Independence Day (August 15, 2011). The Gram Sabhas are called and considered to be village-level Parliaments and their resolutions are bound to be honored.

On August 17, 2011 some 10,000 people from Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari districts in Tamil Nadu sat on a day-long hunger strike at the coastal village of Idinthakarai. Anti-nuclear activists and other social activists gave inspiring speeches about the dangers of nuclear power plants, Fukushima accident, and the dangerous nuclear policies of the UPA government and so on. All of them demanded immediate closing of the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. The fishermen, farmers and others stayed away from their work, and children boycotted their school.

The People of Koodankulam are embarking on a relay hunger strike from August 17, 2011 and more rallies are being planned in various parts of the southern tip of India.

Nuclear power in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.^[1] As of 2010, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power plants, generating 4,780 MW^[2] while five other plants are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 2,720 MW.^[3] India's nuclear power industry is undergoing rapid expansion with plans to increase nuclear power output to 64,000 MW by 2032.^[4] The country is involved in the development of nuclear fusion reactors through its participation in the ITER project and is a global leader in the development of thorium-based fast breeder reactors.^[5]

Contents   [hide]  1 Nuclear fuel reserves 2 Nuclear agreements with other nations 3 Nuclear power growth in India 4 Nuclear power plants 5 Accidents 6 Anti-nuclear protests 7 References

[edit]Nuclear fuel reserves

India's domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India.^[6] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,^[7] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.^[8] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,^[9] India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France,^[10] the United States,^[11] the United Kingdom,^[12] Canada.^[13] and South Korea.^[14] India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia,^[15][16] Mongolia,^[17] Kazakhstan,^[18] Argentina^[19] and Namibia.^[20] An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.^[21]

Large deposits of natural uranium, which promises to be one of the top 20 of the world's reserves, have been found in the Tummalapalle belt in the southern part of the Kadapa basin in Andhra Pradesh in March 2011. The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India, which explores uranium in the country, has so far discovered 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium (U3O8) in just 15 km of the 160-km long belt.^[22]

[edit]Nuclear agreements with other nations

The nuclear agreement with USA led to India issuing a Letter of Intent for purchasing 10,000 MW from the USA. However, liability concerns and a few other issues are preventing further progress on the issue.

Russia has an ongoing agreement of 1988 vintage with India regarding establishing of two VVER 1000 MW reactors (water cooled water moderated light water power reactors) at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.^[23] A 2008 agreement caters for provision of an additional four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of capacity 1170 MW each.^[24] Russia has assisted in India's efforts to design a nuclear plant for itsnuclear submarine.^[25] In 2009, the Russians stated that Russia would not agree to curbs on export of sensitive technology to India. A new accord signed in Dec 2009 with Russia gives India freedom to proceed with the closed fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparationof the fuel for use in reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel.^[26][27]

France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India on 30 September 2008 after the complete waiver provided by the NSG.^[28] During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to India, deals worth $10 billion were signed for thesetting up two third-generation European Pressurized Reactors/Evolutionary Power Reactors (EPR) of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur,Maharashtra by the French company Areva. The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.^[29]

India and Mongolia signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15 Jun 2009 for supply of Uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The MoU on "development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy" was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries.^[30]

On 02 September 2009, India and Namibia signed five agreements, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of Uranium from the African country. This was signed during President Hifikepunye Pohamba's five-day visit to India in May 2009. Nambia is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of Uranium and setting up of nuclear reactors.^[31]

On 14 Oct 2009, India and Argentina signed an agreement in New Delhi on civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts to establish strategic partnership. According to official sources, the agreement was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and Argentine foreign minister Jorge Talana. Taking into consideration their respective capabilities and experience in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both India and Argentina have agreed to encourage and support scientific, technical and commercial cooperation for mutual benefit in this field.^[32][33]

The Prime Ministers of India and Canada signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in Toronto on 28 Jun 2010 which when all steps are taken, will provide access for Canada's nuclear industry to India's expanding nuclear market and also fuel for India's reactors. Canada is the world's largest exporter of Uranium and the two countries are the only users of heavy water nuclear technology.^[34]

On April 16, 2011, India and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, that envisages a legal framework for supply of fuel, construction and operation of atomic power plants, exploration and joint mining of uranium, exchange of scientific and research information, reactor safety mechanisms and use of radiation technologies for healthcare. PM Manmohan Singh visited Astana where a deal was signed. After the talks, the Kazakh President Nazarbaev announced that his country would supply India with 2100 tonnes of uranium and was ready to do more. India and Kazakhstan already have civil nuclear cooperation since January 2009 when Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Kazakh nuclear company KazAtomProm signed an MoU during the visit of Nazarbaev to Delhi. Under the contract, KazAtomProm supplies uranium which is used by Indian reactors.^[35][36]

South Korea became the latest country to sign a nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) in 2008. On 25 July 2011 India and South Korea signed a nuclear agreement on Monday which will allow provides South Korea with a legal foundation to participate in India's nuclear expansion program, and to bid for constructing nuclear power plants in India.^[37]

[edit]Nuclear power growth in India

India now envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2% to 9% within 25 years.^[38] In 2010, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 6,000 MW.^[39] As of 2009, India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.^[40] India's US$717 million fast breeder reactor project is expected to be operational by 2010.^[41]

The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years thanks in part to the passing of theU.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.^[42] When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.^[43]

India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at theMadras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.

Uranium used for the weapons program has been separate from the power program, using uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year.^[44] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20 GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40–50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.^[44]

[edit]Nuclear power plants

Currently, twenty nuclear power reactors produce 4,780.00 MW (2.9% of total installed base).^[45][46]

Power station	Operator	State	Type	Units	Total capacity (MW)
Kaiga	NPCIL	Karnataka	PHWR	220 x 4	880
Kakrapar	NPCIL	Gujarat	PHWR	220 x 2	440
Kalpakkam	NPCIL	Tamil Nadu	PHWR	220 x 2	440
Narora	NPCIL	Uttar Pradesh	PHWR	220 x 2	440
Rawatbhata	NPCIL	Rajasthan	PHWR	100 x 1 200 x 1 220 x 4	1180
Tarapur	NPCIL	Maharashtra	BWR (PHWR)	160 x 2 540 x 2	1400
			Total	20	4780

The projects under construction are:^{[47][citation needed]}

Power station	Operator	State	Type	Units	Total capacity (MW)
Kudankulam	NPCIL	Tamil Nadu	VVER-1000	1000 x 2	2000
Kalpakkam	BHAVINI	Tamil Nadu	PFBR	500 x 1	500
Kakrapar	NPCIL	Gujarat	PHWR	700 x 2	1400
Rawatbhata	NPCIL	Rajasthan	PHWR	700 x 2	1400
Banswara	NPCIL	Rajasthan	PHWR	700 x 2	1400
			Total	9	6700

[edit]Accidents

Main article: Nuclear accidents by country

See also: Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents

Several nuclear accidents have occurred in India:^[48]

Date	Location	Description	Cost (in millions 2006 US$)
Nuclear power plant accidents in India[49][50]
4 May 1987	Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India	Fast Breeder Test Reactor at Kalpakkam refueling accident that ruptures the reactor core, resulting in a two-year shutdown.	300
10 September 1989	Tarapur, Maharashtra, India	Operators at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station find that the reactor had been leaking radioactive iodine at more than 700 times normal levels. Repairs to the reactor take more than a year.	78
13 May 1992	Tarapur, Maharashtra, India	A malfunctioning tube causes the Tarapur Atomic Power Station to release 12 curies of radioactivity.	2
31 March 1993	Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, India	The Narora Atomic Power Station suffers a fire at two of its steam turbine blades, no damage to the reactor. All major cables burnt.	220
2 February 1995	Kota, Rajasthan, India	The Rajasthan Atomic Power Station leaks radioactive helium and heavy water into the Rana Pratap Sagar dam, necessitating a two-year shutdown for repairs.	280
22 October 2002	Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India	Almost 100 kg radioactive sodium at a fast breeder reactor leaks into a purification cabin, ruining a number of valves and operating systems.	30

It is estimated that before the accident at Tarapur, lack of proper maintenance exposed more than 3000 Indian personnel to "very high" and "hazardous" radiation levels. Researchers at the American University calculated at least 124 "hazardous incidents" at nuclear plants in India between 1993 and 1995.^[48]

[edit]Anti-nuclear protests

Environmentalists, local farmers and fishermen have been protesting for months over the planned six-reactor nuclear power complex on the plains of Jaitapur, 420 km south of Mumbai. If built, it would be one of the world's largest nuclear power complexes. Protests have escalated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima I nuclear accidents. During two days of violent rallies in April 2011, a local man was killed and dozens were injured.^[51]

Following the Fukushima disaster, many are questioning the mass roll-out of new plants in India, including the World Bank, the former Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, and the former head of the country's nuclear regulatory body, A. Gopalakrishnan. The massiveJaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern — "931 hectares of farmland will be needed to build the reactors, land that is now home to 10,000 people, their mango orchards, cashew trees and rice fields" — and it has attracted many protests. Fishermen in the region say their livelihoods will be wiped out.^[52]

The first reactor of the Russian made VVR-1000 reactors coming up at Koodankulam, in the southern district of Tamilnadu, was all set to be operational in December 2011. After the test run of the plant in 2011, and in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident, protests erupted in the area around the plant, and a number of people including women (a report in The Hindu cited 112 individuals, while unconfirmed reports put the numbers in thousands) went on an indefinite fast from 11 September, 2011. The core demand of the agitation, led by the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), was the closure of the Kudankulam project. The fast was called off on 22 September, 2011 after the Tamil Nadu Cabinet wrote to the Prime Minister of India to halt further operations at the plant site until all concerns of the local population were properly addressed. A traditional fishing community lives around the plant, and other than the safety concerns raised, the community also have specific concerns regarding the adverse impact of the warm water released from the plant into the sea on the marine life, on which the community depends for its survival.

[edit]References

1. ^ "~6429693.xls" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-22.
2. ^ "India's 20th nuclear power plant goes critical". Hindustan Times. 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2011-03-13.
3. ^ Verma, Nidhi (2008-08-18). "Westinghouse, Areva eye India nuclear plants-paper". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
4. ^ "India eyeing 64,000 MW nuclear power capacity by 2032: NPCIL". The Economic Times. 2010-10-11.
5. ^ Pham, Lisa (2009-10-20). "Considering an Alternative Fuel for Nuclear Energy". The New York Times.
6. ^ "Russia fulfills promise, supplies uranium to India". Expressindia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
7. ^ "Uranium shortage holding back India's nuclear power drive - Corporate News". livemint.com. 2008-06-30. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
8. ^ "Ministry of Power". Powermin.gov.in. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
9. ^ "news.outlookindia.com". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
10. ^ "India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
11. ^ "Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law - Home". livemint.com. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
12. ^ "UK, India sign civil nuclear accord". Reuters. 2010-02-13. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
13. ^ "Canada, India reach nuclear deal". Montreal Gazette. 2009-11-29. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
14. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-South-Korea-ink-civil-nuclear-deal/articleshow/9360801.cms
15. ^ "India to get 510 tonnes of uranium from Kazakhstan, Russia". Hindu Business Line.
16. ^ "South Asia | Russia agrees India nuclear deal". BBC News. 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
17. ^ "India, Kazakhstan sign nuclear pact". Financial Express.
18. ^ Sanjay Dutta, TNN, Jan 23, 2009, 01.35am IST (2009-01-23). "Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance". The Times of India. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
19. ^ India, Argentina ink agreement on peaceful uses of N-energy, The Hindu
20. ^ "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal".
21. ^ "Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger | Uranium, Niger, Company, Bajla, Government". taurianresources.co.in. Retrieved 2010-12-22.
22. ^ Subramanian, T. S. (20 March 2011). "Massive uranium deposits found in Andhra Pradesh". The Hindu (Chennai, India).
23. ^ George, Nirmala (21 June 1998). "Moscow Ends Atomic Power Blockade to India". Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
24. ^ Sasi, Anil (12 Oct 2008). "NPCIL to go into details with 4 reactor suppliers". The Hindu (Business Online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
25. ^ "Russia: Nuclear Exports to India". NTI. 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
26. ^ PTI (7 December 2009). "India, Russia sign nuclear deal". Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
27. ^ Bagchi, Indrani (20 August 2011). "Keep your word, we will keep ours, India tells NSG (pg 1)". [1], Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
28. ^ Samanta, Pranab Dhal (1 October 2008). "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
29. ^ Yep, Eric & Jagota, Mukesh (6 December 2010). "Areva and NPCIL Sign Nuclear Agreement". The Wall Street Journal - Business (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
30. ^ Bureau reporters (15 Sep 2009). "India signs civil nuclear deal with Mongolia". Financial Express. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
31. ^ "taragana.com" (2 September 2009). "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal". Republikein Online. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
32. ^ Chatterjee, Amit Kumar (30 October 2009). "Argentina -India's seventh nuclear destination". India - Articles (#2996). Institue of Peace and Conflict Studies. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
33. ^ Staff reporters (14 October 2009). "India signs N-pact with Argentina". OneIndia (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
34. ^ Sinha, Mohnish (6 April 2010). "Indo-Canada Nuclear Accord". IndiaStand. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
35. ^ "India, Kazakhstan ink civil nuclear cooperation deal". The Times of India. 17 April 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
36. ^ "India, Kazakh ink nuke and oil pacts". Indian EXpress. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
37. ^ Sriniwas, Laxman. "India & South Korea Sign Civil Nuclear Agreement". Asian Scientist (online)26 July 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
38. ^ "Slowdown not to affect India's nuclear plans". Business Standard. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2011-08-21.
39. ^ "Nuclear power generation to touch 6,000 Mw by next year". Business Standard. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
40. ^ "Plants Under Operation". NPCIL. Retrieved 2011-08-21.
41. ^ "India's fast breeder reactor nears second milestone". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
42. ^ [2]^{[dead link]}
43. ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal". livemint.com. 2008-07-10. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
44. ^ ^a b http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf
45. ^ "Nuclear Power Plants In India". Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Retrieved 2011-01-21.
46. ^ "India's 20th nuclear reactor connected to power grid". The Times of India. 2011-01-19. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
47. ^ "Projects Under Construction". NPCIL. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
48. ^ ^a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 380.
49. ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 393–400.
50. ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2009). The Accidental Century - Prominent Energy Accidents in the Last 100 Years
51. ^ Amanda Hodge (April 21, 2011). "Fisherman shot dead in Indian nuke protest". The Australian.
52. ^ Doherty, Ben (April 23, 2011). "Indian anti-nuclear protesters will not be deterred". Sydney Morning Herald.

[show]v · d · eNuclear power in India

[show]v · d · eEconomy of India

[show]v · d · eNuclear power by country

[hide]v · d · eNuclear energy in Asia Sovereign states Afghanistan · Armenia · Azerbaijan · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Brunei · Burma (Myanmar) · Cambodia · People's Republic of China ·Cyprus · East Timor (Timor-Leste) · Egypt · Georgia · India · Indonesia · Iran · Iraq · Israel · Japan · Jordan · Kazakhstan · North Korea ·South Korea · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Laos · Lebanon · Malaysia · Maldives · Mongolia · Nepal · Oman · Pakistan · Philippines · Qatar · Russia ·Saudi Arabia · Singapore · Sri Lanka · Syria · Tajikistan · Thailand · Turkey · Turkmenistan · United Arab Emirates · Uzbekistan · Vietnam ·Yemen States with limited recognition Abkhazia · Nagorno-Karabakh · Northern Cyprus · Palestine · Republic of China (Taiwan) · South Ossetia Dependencies and other territories Christmas Island · Cocos (Keeling) Islands · Hong Kong · Macau

View page ratings

Rate this page

What's this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Categories: 

• Nuclear energy in India
• Nuclear power by country

Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/