Talk:India's three-stage nuclear power programme

Untitled
I think this article has been surprisingly inactive till very recently. Can I reclassify this article to High or Top importance category, or is there some process for that? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminarin (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Have reclassified the importance to Mid for starters. Will come back to this later on when the article is more detailed. Charminarin (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Structure Feedback
Am thinking of having sub-sections within each "Stage - x" section of this article that deals with (1) Overview (2)Obstacles faced (3) Drawbacks/Criticism (4)Benefits Expected (5)Current status. Perhaps a section on how this programme dictated India's position in the US-India Nuclear deal also. Let me know if anyone has any ideas on how to expand this article further so that it is of better quality. Charminarin (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding POV tag
I’m sorry but this article is thoroughly biased towards nuclear power and the use of thorium in particular. Physicist M.V. Ramana is one scholar who has provided a detailed critical perspective, see and this needs to be presented and cited much more often here. Johnfos (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to feel sorry. Intelligent comments will always be welcome with me. I firmly believe that debate between well reasoned opinions almost always synthesize into better outcomes for the affected parties.


 * (1) On the article being in favour of nuclear power and thorium, that is really quite unavoidable due to the nature of the topic. India put in place the programme largely because its thorium reserves are disproportionately larger than both its fossil fuels and uranium reserves. The fact that the ultimate goal is thorium exploitation has never been in any doubt since then. So it’s a bit like saying that a solar power article is too much in favour of the sun or that an oil shale article is too much in favour of oil shale.


 * Also, note that the article has shown considerable restraint in not praising thorium outright by noting the better waste generation and proliferation characteristics of thorium vs. uranium. Perhaps another editor would want to make that case (if so, s/he would have to be allowed as it is legitimate), but I think I’ll pass. In the 1950s, thorium was chosen purely because of its capability of producing larger amount of energy and that is the consistent position carried in the article.


 * Resolution: Separate the fuel reserves sub-section into uranium reserves and thorium reserves to give greater attention to the uranium story as well.


 * (2) On citing Ramana, please note that two of his works are already present in the references, and a paper within a Sokolski edited book which is exceptionally critical of Indian nuclear power ambitions. Am not sure whether adding more is desirable. No scholar has been given more than two references and only one scholar apart from Ramana has been given two references. More tellingly, Ramana is a well known anti-nuclear activist with a definite POV and gets identified as such these days (despite his Princeton tag) . Lately he has been penning anti-nuclear polemics for the popular press in a context far removed from neutral academic analysis  ). However despite all this, if you absolutely insist that we add more Ramana references, I won’t say no. Think it is much more preferable to add similar references from other sources though. For instance, a Gadekar reference  is already present (he is also a physicist and an anti-nuclear campaigner).


 * Resolution: Please let me know if you want me to add something specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charminarin (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really think that resolution here is a long way off. You seem to think that the article being in favour of nuclear power and thorium is really quite unavoidable, yet the reality is that nuclear technologies are highly contested and controversial. You dismiss Ramana as an anti-nuclear activist, yet he has many academic publications which lay out his critical perspective in some detail. So I’m really not sure how we can move forward and make the article neutral. Johnfos (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Johnfos, As indicated, I have separated uranium reserve from thorium to give it more space. On the second point, I take from your reply that you are quite sure that inclusion of more Ramana research is a necessity. As a solution, I can replace one of the existing Ramana references with one that is far more critical of the programme. That should preserve the balance in scholar citations and will also address your concern. Let me know if you have any alternative ideas on a resolution. Charminarin (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have spent the last few days pouring over Ramana's research output, in order to select the most appropriate reference. Am happy to report that Ramana himself has summarised all his research on Indian civil nuclear programme into a single report done in 2009 . In my editorial judgement, his three reliable criticisms of the programme are 1) the slippage of targets/projections of Indian nuclear establishment 2) cost of power from PHWRs is more than cost of power from coal plants near the pit heads 3) monopolistic organisational strcuture of Indian nuclear establishment. I would take almost everything else he has to say with a grain of salt, as he never publishes anything +ve or even neutral about the programme. Just to give an example, he criticises uranium mining in India for deleterious health effects and then goes on to say that Indian uranium mining should be increased dramatically as an alternative to thorium. This self contradictory position only makes sense if one understands the commonality between the positions, both are primarily meant as independent criticisms and were not meant to be viewed together for consistency. Accordingly, I would suggest that we should try and find another scholar with a similar view when citing other points from Ramana's research.
 * Kindly, let me know whether the reference given above is suitable for our needs. I couldn't find a better one after some searching.


 * I agree that the article lacks balance - too credulous about the official pronouncements about India's nuclear power plans and optimistic projections about thorium. It's not so much bias as a lack of skepticism.  It has been expanded significantly and needs a skeptical from an editor who has time and knowledge. NPguy (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi NPguy, Thanks for your feedback. It would be great to see other editors get active on this article. I have left some messages on the India workgroup area to get more people interested. If no one shows up after a week or so, I will make the necessary additions to the article with the "skeptical hat" turned on. Till then, will concentrate on reducing the citations from news and primary sources, and expanding citations from books and secondary sources. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions/observations in the interim. Will integrate those into the future edits.Charminarin (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

MV Ramana's assertions are unreliable as the only criticism he offers leads one to conclude that all official statements about nuclear energy in India, motivated. For instance Bhabha's mistaken estimates of future capacities cannot be held either against him or the nuclear energy program. I would expect Ramana to offer us his analysis of Bhabha. Was it a paper he wrote? What were the comments it drew then? Unless Ramana tells us why, we have no way of verifying future projections. What are those "sustainable" energy options Ramana is talking about? How much can they alleviate of the problem of India's depleting hydrocarbon reserves? For a physicist Ramana shows a strange reluctance to engage with the science. He has added nothing useful to this debate. --Krungthep (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This articles highlights the use of thorium to deal with India's growing energy needs. MV Ramana's published articles deal with the dangers of nuclear energy which are too well-known. While we are wasting time, myriad interests are exporting this easy-to-mine thorium out of India while the government of India twiddles (deliberately?) on notifying the sands as a strategic asset and prohibits exports. Skumar7777 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)skumar7777

Merge into Nuclear Power in India
I can think of no reason why this article should exist separate from Nuclear power in India. Merging might be a bit complicated, since there is already some overlap, so before making a formal proposal to merge the articles, I wanted to solicit views on whether and how to merge the two articles. NPguy (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea - although it would take a lot of hard work. Merging would solve some of this article's neutrality/due weight problems. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is too large and interesting on its own merit as a original technological approach to fission in the long run. --Robertiki (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to merge. This is more of history and technical article. And the other article is mostly about facts and figures! - Raghuveer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.223.67 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

India and nuclear energy.
what are the developments taking place in the field of nuclear power in India since the past few years ? 122.177.189.9 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment
I've reassessed this to B (as it was before). I think the quality is fairly good with a few problems. This could make a good article nominee. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on India's three-stage nuclear power programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628234922/http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/0412_1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/0412_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How has the programme been changed
Could say when there was discussion of changing the plan (eg as in Parallel approaches) and when the official plans were changed, and how this all relates to the various 5 years plans (eg the 12th in 2013)[http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=98897 Establishment of Atomic Power Stations in the Country. Aug 2013] - Rod57 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India's three-stage nuclear power programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513232646/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chennai/India-s-new-fast-breeder-on-track-nuclear-power-from-September-next/Article1-542155.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chennai/India-s-new-fast-breeder-on-track-nuclear-power-from-September-next/Article1-542155.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)