Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

Postby menon » 22 Jul 2007 15:36

[quote="menon"]Looking at the damn deal in more detail

The termination clause states freezing of all co-operation if india is to test a nuclear weapon and US can exercise the right to return all equipment and fuel

What does this mean in simple language

is if we test just another weapon - us will not only impose sanctions but also ask us to return billions and billions of dollars worth of reactors and its components and the un utilised fuel already paid for and received in indian soil

even simpler explanation

US is telling us do not test another weapon because if we do the cost to the nation will be may be many billions and crippling of national economy very quickly

If we agree we loose our economy just not growth if we do not return there is no doubt us may and will use military power to take out our not just military but civilian nuclear capability too -just like they are doing in korea

By signing this deal we shall be opening our backside to us pressure for perpetuity

[color=blue][b]That is a Million $ question. As I understood the sticking point was what the US will demand back. If it is ALL then India was agreeable. If I is selective the answer by India was NO. This is how I understood.
The rationale is what will US do with thousands o tonnes if radioactive civil works and lots of radioactive waste. Thus the demand back becomes ineffective. I think this was agreed to making the demand back impracticable.
I am comfy with the words “and Dr. Kakokar smiledâ€

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 22 Jul 2007 15:42

So many here seems to be concerned with the text of the document. I would like to pose a question:

Does it really matter what we agree upon? wont the US, India, China or anyone else do as they please? Can one of the parties enforce something on the other?

Even if we got an agreament that says India can do as it pleases, test and develop what ever it wants? it does not guarentee that sanctions will not come in the future.

Just look at Pakistan, who paid for the F-16 and lost did not get the planes or the money back. Or Iraq, wich was invaded, for no reason what so ever.

The only thing that really matters, is the political and economical strength at any given time.

The course ahead must be to avoid overdependanciy on the outside world. Make shure that anything that is imported can be serviced and maintaind by local resources. If GE builds a Powerplant, then make shure that we also get 15 years of uranium supplies and that all parts can be serviced and maintained by local resources.

Once India has the tech and the market, it can test and develop as much nukes as it likes, regardless of any treaty or what ever.

Without the treay we get nothing and our politicians do not have the spine to do new tests anyway. In actual effect we got nothing to loose (unless MMS decides to give up FBR tech.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Jul 2007 17:00

no enriching of uranium beyond 20% -making it use less for all weapons application and even pressurised water reactors for our submarines


Does the enrichment cap apply to the US fuel or to Indian fuel?

Can't see AK and Grover agreeing to something that would stop the production of thermonuclear secondaries and the ATV reactor.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 22 Jul 2007 17:25

Gerard wrote:
no enriching of uranium beyond 20% -making it use less for all weapons application and even pressurised water reactors for our submarines


Does the enrichment cap apply to the US fuel or to Indian fuel?

Can't see AK and Grover agreeing to something that would stop the production of thermonuclear secondaries and the ATV reactor.


Its only for US origin fuel. Once the NSG approves N-coop with India, I suspect unkil will push through similar restrictions in NSG terms as well.

Reproc was always a red herring. Was well known that it was a matter of exec fiat to grant reproc rights, didn't have to go thru the legislative rig-morale. And even there, some crticial parts are left to the future, doesn't sound comforting....

Here's my ques to tech gurus here. If imported U is allowed to only be 20% enrichable, then what're the implications for our FBR inputs and the radioactive waste that comes out in the conventional (pre-FBR) stages?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2007 17:39

Does the enrichment cap apply to the US fuel or to Indian fuel?


Only to US supplied fuel.

Which begs two other questions:

1) Can this 20% be used within Indian reactors - non-safeguarded? Which is why they wanted reprocessing - for the FBRs.
2) Can India come to other agreements with other nations? I suspect they can.

BTW gents, DAE will govern any civilian reactors - so far.

I do not think it is a sellout to the extent (IMHO) it could have been - and actually was planned to be. Thanks to Scicom.

At the same time it is no where close to J18 and I suspect, if tested, it will fail if put to the famous promise made in parliament. It will pass only because of verbiage - not proper content. MMS has let the Scicom down, but he was unable to take them out.

We have to also put all this in the context of a time-line. For all I know people like Cheney will not even be alive when some of these reactors come on-line. So too the heads of some of these big companies pushing for this. The LCA would be inducted and the MRCA would probably be going thru' a life extension. And, MMS and gang will not be around for sure. You all will be 20-25 years older!!!!! And, in that span of time China and TSP will provide much fodder to position India even better and negate the NPAs - NPAs who are in deep sleep meeting their makers.

Not many have capability to project even their own lives 20-25 years down stream. It is very difficult.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2007 17:46

What happens if India cannot agree with IAEA or the diktats of the NSG?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 22 Jul 2007 18:22


Raju

Postby Raju » 22 Jul 2007 18:29

More or less certain that this is about Iran. During NSG and IAEA negotiations movements against Iran will take place spearheaded by Cheney fronted Clique where India's silence would be obtained through nuclear-deal blackmail.

MMS and Co will be silent giving excuse of nuclear deal. Poor thing what to do he is keeping quite for success of nuclear deal onlee will be the impression spread by media. As usual he will maintain his carefully nurtured sorry figure and pretend he is helpless because his priority is to improve the lives of 200 million poor people etc.

There are some folks who are speculating scenario that another WMD attack within US is imminent as the excuse given for provocation of war against Iran. That probably is a bit far fetched scenario because public will not digest two similar events with two dissimilar responses. Probably Israel this time is going to provoke a war with Iran inviting retaliation from Iran and Cheney & C will have no option but to jump in to protect its beloved. India's support will then be required because there will be internal debate within India with minorities and significant section of population supporting Iran and MMS & Co spinning support for Us-Israel combo with nuclear deal as front.

vinayak_d
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 03:33

Postby vinayak_d » 22 Jul 2007 18:53

I have no sympathy for iran in this matter. They mullah fags have been trying to punch above their means. They are giving 1 billion to syria just so that syria wouldn't sign a peace deal with israel :twisted: . Its high time US and israel took them out. Stupidity is no bloody excuse.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 22 Jul 2007 19:10

Iran can create problems for India. They can reach a tactical agreement with AQ for creating problems in India or worse....even help AQ use their Shia pockets influence in South India and Lucknow.

Recall the Babri Masjid episode and PVNR patching up with Rafsanjani in 1993. But historically speaking Iran has not supported India much on any international forum except for that 93 Geneva HR conference. Again thanks to PVNR we swung Iran to our side.

A study of India Iran relations in those days would be worthwhile to predict future relations.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 22 Jul 2007 19:19

Top scientists hail breakthrough in Indo-US nuke talks
Hailing the forward movement in the just concluded Indo-US nuclear talks in Washington, top scientists here today cautioned the government against any dilution of the original July 18, 2005 joint statement on full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

M R Srinivasan, member of the Atomic Energy Commission and former chairman of the body, said, "this will end India's nuclear isolation which was always due to US policy."

However, some experts pointed out that it was still not clear whether the latest understanding between the two sides will free India, facing technology denial for over three decades, to shop around for civil nuclear technology and fuel.

Former Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Director A N Prasad said: "it isn't very clear whether the deal will be for full civilian nuclear cooperation as envisaged in the 2005 statement."

"All these things will begin rolling once the 123 agreement's draft, which has to be first reviewed by AEC, goes to the Prime Minister and gets final approval from the Union Cabinet," Srinivasan (comment: Srinivasan is member of AEC) said.

Raju

Postby Raju » 22 Jul 2007 19:25

Attack on Iran gives the Cheney fronted clique even greater control over oil and gas. An example is how prices of Uranium went up an year in advance of India nuclear deal. The price of every fuel in US sphere of influence is manipulatable to the detriment of developing nations and the standard of living of poor worldwide.

When Iran is attacked the clique will get a complete stranglehold over gas pricing. And even gas prices will get unaffordable. This has many benefits for the established order. After making oil, gas and then nuclear energy unaffordable leaving no chance for countries like India to play catch up and allowing the established order to play a lot of games.

For India's strategic safety we need countries on India's neighbourhood which will not behave like attack dogs for Washington. Iran is the only one that even remotely resembles such.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 22 Jul 2007 19:27

Could some kind but knowledgeable ppls like ramana pls kindly post the specific points (known) and their interpretation, succinctly?

As I understand, Indian interests are:

1. Entry to the P-6. De facto is fine.
2. Freedom (understandably, at some cost, albeit not catastrophic) to test nukes in future, IF there are compelling strategic or tactical compulsions dictated by the national interest. This is clearly a cost-payoff-consequences of inaction tradeoff, so I am not talking about the freedom to let off nuke bums for the heck of it.

3. Core, baseload electric power for strategic industrial growth and big-city infrastructure. Without this, India cannot move out of the 19th century in the cities, or in industrial strength, all ITSuperPower hype notwithstanding.

However, I rank this #3, because without #1 and #2, this is like putting all the wealth into gold furnishings at Somnath Temple while the soldiers on the frontlines have nothing to stop the Ghauris and Ghaznis.

4. Foreign policy independence. Again, with no economic clout, and no strategic weapons, there is no clout. So this is #4.

5. Excellent relations with the US and with civilized nations of the world all over.

6. Swift end to the Pakistan Problem.

7. Good relations with the Chinese, which means an end to their territorial and other bullying.
**********************************************


US interests are:

1. US-supplied fuel should not return to US as bombs set off in US cities.

This is complex, because it means:
a) track and account accurately for lifecycle disposition of fuel down to milligram level.

b) if it is directed into enrichment, some guarantee that the enrichment is for energy-related uses, not for making bums that might one day come back to the US as given above.

2. NO enriched fuel should come to the US as bombs set off in US cities.

a) Ideally, this is achieved by making everyone else get rid of nukes by shipping the fuel to the US for downblending and using in power reactors.
b) If not, in the case of the P-(#), it can be done by ensuring that whatever their militaries do is done in military facilities, where they don't let Pakis in.

3. Market monopoly for US fuel.

Unfettered Russian fuel exports to India would trash the market for US-supplied fuel, and the prices of nuke fuel would plunge so that the US nuclear fuel industry goes the way of the US Steel industry.

4. Market access (preferably sole-source) for US nuke reactor builders in India.

Done only if US fuel does not go with impossible conditions or total unreliability of supply.

Also, if any other country signs deals with India on nuke supplies, those deals should not be much more favorable to India than what the US is willing to give. So it is far better to sign a deal that India likes more or less, than to be obnoxious, and have India go to France and Russia.

5. Salvage some semblance of credibility for US regimes such as NPT, CTBT. FMCT, etc, given that now BOTH Iran and NoKo have successfully thumbed their noses at US pressure.

***************************************************
That's it. Let's not clutter the discussion with Indian and US politics. What is the summary of the deal given the above, pls?

vinayak_d
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 03:33

Postby vinayak_d » 22 Jul 2007 19:30

Iran may not be an american watch dg but they are certainly not rational. If they think they can hit israel or even India then they have a death wish. Its not there ramblings that bother me, but the fact that they will make trouble for israel using hezbollah which will lead to israel and US attacking and plunging the middle east into catastrophe. Israel has pretty much declared that they won't let Iran build a bomb and unlike India they will see to it.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 22 Jul 2007 19:31

When Iran is attacked the clique will get a complete stranglehold over gas pricing


But Iran is toast anyways.....so might as well join in the leading side. and we need to do something about China.

I submit that if India is able to break the Sino-US agreement to keep using Pakistan as a troublemaker in our region then it will be the greatest victory for India since 1971. Think of Nixon's masterstroke in weaning China away from the USSR.

Success of of J18 agreement is a step in this direction.

Raju

Postby Raju » 22 Jul 2007 19:31

Paul wrote:Recall the Babri Masjid episode and PVNR patching up with Rafsanjani in 1993. But historically speaking Iran has not supported India much on any international forum except for that 93 Geneva HR conference. Again thanks to PVNR we swung Iran to our side.

A study of India Iran relations in those days would be worthwhile to predict future relations.


they just repaid the favors done in that period. Nothing more or less.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 22 Jul 2007 19:38

Iran provided F104s and Sabre Jets to Pakistan in 1965 and logistical support as well. Did we provide anything other than training facilities to Iraq in those days?

Raju

Postby Raju » 22 Jul 2007 19:39

Paul wrote:
When Iran is attacked the clique will get a complete stranglehold over gas pricing


But Iran is toast anyways......


Probably...but the trick is to postpone that as long as possible. Or atleast until we have increased our leverage to offset various contingencies viz energy etc.

That is also why they are in tearing hurry to act now, before we are in a position to control outcome.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Jul 2007 19:53

vsudhir, India doesn't need this fuel for its military program. Remember there are 8 PHWRs + Dhruv and soon to be decommissioned CIRRUS in the non-civilian side.

N^3 am working on those points and need time. One big net asset is India is a legitimate nuke weapon state and has all the rights and duties of such a power.

Now need to put the deal in the context of the Indian national movement and see the big picture.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Jul 2007 20:01

Also a message from the unseen one:

hello folks,

Looks like a deal is in the making ... the clincher was the dedicated re-pro facility ... NPAs have put a 20% cap on enrichment ... it turns out that the 20% number is directly out of IAEA rulebook ... all thorium aspirants have to live by the 20% number ... there doesn't seem to be any show-stopper ...

so, what's the downside? Cheers,

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2007 20:09

the downside:

"By declaring that we will have a separate plant for spent fuel, we will lose some flexibility."

Fearing that the Americans might still continue their embargo by excluding enrichment and heavy water technology, which are specifically covered under the US Henry Hyde Act, from the ambit of the agreement, Prasad said in all probability the bilateral deal may not fall in the "full civilian nuclear cooperation" sphere.


Flexibility. How that will impact will depend on how the US will be able to tie up Pakistan AND China - which is in the Hyde Act.

There is a certain amount of loss on the foreign policy side - which is to be expected.

Both these are the down side.

Having said that a future GoI that is willing to ditch this deal is a problem for the US too. So, there is a balance that both sides need to maintain, with both sides knowing that a third party can topple this wagon.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 22 Jul 2007 20:18

Dear Gurus

Please explain this statement, " All thorium aspirants will have to live by the 20% limit onlee???"

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 22 Jul 2007 20:21

ramana wrote:NPAs have put a 20% cap on enrichment ... it turns out that the 20% number is directly out of IAEA rulebook ... all thorium aspirants have to live by the 20% number


Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

The 20% limit is perfectly suited for the fuel needed in various classes of civilian reactors, giving India the legal cover for civilian fuel-cycle independence, in tandem with the right to reprocess.

What would really be significant is to find out if the US has - in the complex legal wording of the 123 Agreement - agreed to share enrichment and reprocessing technology as part of this deal.

Not that India needs those technologies, but it is a signal that India can do free business on ALL dual-use technologies with any NSG nation, because - in all likelihood - the US will ensure that the NSG guideline for exemption for India will accurately reflect this US-India agreement in letter and spirit.

For folks that are complaining about the 20% limit, please be advised that this limit only applies to the civilian domain domestically and as a GNEP fuel source facility in the future.

The Ratehalli RMP and other military plants dedicated to enrich the ATV fuel would remain free to do their part and enrich 90% and beyond.

One point that remains unclear in this deal, if one is to go by the reports being published.

There is a talk of the need for a "separate" agreement with the US when India needs to reprocess US-origin fuel.

If India has been given automatic prior-consent for reprocessing US-origin fuel henceforth, what's the need for this additional agreement on a need-to-do basis ? Surely, that would be an Achiles heel ?

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 22 Jul 2007 20:27

p_saggu wrote:Dear Gurus

Please explain this statement, " All thorium aspirants will have to live by the 20% limit onlee???"


The Indian AHWR needs U-233 as part of its fuel which is primarily TH-232. The spent fuel will need to be reprocessed which I presume will be done in the dedicated reprocessing facility. The limit of that enrichment will be 20% which is adequate according to the IAEA.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2007 20:34

For folks that are complaining about the 20% limit, please be advised that this limit only applies to the civilian domain domestically and as a GNEP fuel source facility in the future.


That is a down side for sure.

Can this reproc facility be located on an island (close to the ME)?

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

On Foreign Policy Independence

Postby vnadendla » 22 Jul 2007 20:36

Do we have to flaunt our Foreign Policy Independence and NAM at each step and choose the looser and act anti US all the time. In Iran US cold or Hot conflict there is no doubt US will win. So learn from Chanukya and pick the winner - and get extra credit for picking him. India and what is best for India should alone be the concern for foreign policy decisions. And loss of couple of billion in oil prices should be eaten by us. Don't act cheap. "If you want to play with big boys act like one"

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 22 Jul 2007 20:38

ldev wrote:
p_saggu wrote:Dear Gurus

Please explain this statement, " All thorium aspirants will have to live by the 20% limit onlee???"


The Indian AHWR needs U-233 as part of its fuel which is primarily TH-232. The spent fuel will need to be reprocessed which I presume will be done in the dedicated reprocessing facility. The limit of that enrichment will be 20% which is adequate according to the IAEA.

Thanks for info

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6510
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 22 Jul 2007 20:40

ramana wrote: One big net asset is India is a legitimate nuke weapon state and has all the rights and duties of such a power.



Any speculation on what does the actual text would say about this?

N^3: I'd recall what Uneven said in WP interview. Depending on substance of the concessions India has made, state dept could very well apply the same yardstick to TSP, which it will acquiesce in heartbeat, and do an equal equal by offering them some nuke deal dog bone so as to keep Mush happy. Thus, India's TSP problem will continue, deal or no deal.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Jul 2007 20:46

The U233 is produced by neutron irradiation of Th232. There is no enrichment to be done. No natural U238 is present in the Uranium produced from Thorium.

The 20% cap suggests that India (or rather US MNCs) will build enrichment plants to produce fuel for LWRs.
Hopefully the MNCs will build the reprocessing plant as well. Let the US and the IAEA inspect the US equipment. They can live inside the plant if they wish.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 22 Jul 2007 20:46

Valkan S. wrote:
If India has been given automatic prior-consent for reprocessing US-origin fuel henceforth, what's the need for this additional agreement on a need-to-do basis ? Surely, that would be an Achiles heel ?


The "additional agreement" seems to be to ensure Indian compliance w.r.t. US's policies in India's neighbourhood.

For example, what would be the chances of this agreement being approved by the GOTUS if India continues to have an inpendent Iran policy?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Jul 2007 20:49

[quote]As I understood the sticking point was what the US will demand back. If it is ALL then India was agreeable. If I is selective the answer by India was NO. This is how I understood.
The rationale is what will US do with thousands o tonnes if radioactive civil works and lots of radioactive waste. Thus the demand back becomes ineffective. I think this was agreed to making the demand back impracticable.
I am comfy with the words “and Dr. Kakokar smiledâ€

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 22 Jul 2007 20:55

Gerard wrote:The U233 is produced by neutron irradiation of Th232. There is no enrichment to be done. No natural U238 is present in the Uranium produced from Thorium.

The 20% cap suggests that India (or rather US MNCs) will build enrichment plants to produce fuel for LWRs.
Hopefully the MNCs will build the reprocessing plant as well. Let the US and the IAEA inspect the US equipment. They can live inside the plant if they wish.


Thanks Gerard. As I understand it, the AHWR is U-233 neutral after the initial loading - but the spent fuel (U-233) has to be re-processed. The Indian insistence on the reprocessing was to precisely reduce the dependence on the LWRs i.e. to be able to complete the 3 stage fuel cycle as a viable alternative to the LWRs which will inevitably be pushed as part of all MNCs efforts whether US or French.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 22 Jul 2007 21:13

Rishirishi wrote:
I did read that on BR only, if you have testd xKT nuke you can make 4x KT nuke through using same design. So a 200 Kt test is essentially to make a 1 MT nuke, As of now we do posess the everything to make 160 to 200 KT Nuke.


As per my understanding India has conducted a proven 25kt design. Hence the multiplied by 4 it adds up to 100kt.

Can you provide link 160 kt capability
Thanks

Rishirishi where did the 25kt device come from? any reference?

Joey: Please see Weapons Options in BR Agni Page

The Thermonuclear weapon's second stage Fusion yield is reportedly 23kt (from fusion of 400gm of LiD fuel), this stage generates High Energy neutron (14Mev and 2.54MeV) that are used to fission the third stage of the weapon which cinsist of issile material like U238 (sic), U235, Pu239, U233 etc etc) (S-1 did not have fissile 3rd stage material to limit the yield).

The 23kt fusion neutrons allows the weapon designers to build a range of third stage yield by use suitable thickness of either depleted Uranium, or moderately enriched Uranium or Pu (this is fundamental nuclear physics property) for the second stage tamper and surrounding radiation case.

A one through use (as against addition yield from regenerative fission) of these high energy neutron can generate additional tertiary yield of 170 -230kt depending on choice of material and thickness of the material (that determines mass of the pkg) within the approx 250kg package weight. If one considers use of highly enriched material for 3rd stage the regenerative effect will increase the 3rd stage yield significantly higher. BTW as Dr Chidambram and others have hinted Indian TN's are designed to be of adjustable 3rd stage yield.

From the 3rd stage yield above Indian TN yield can safely be stated as adjustable from 45kt to 330kt.

Raju

Postby Raju » 22 Jul 2007 21:14

How about building up fuel stock, has that been allowed ?? Didn't find any specific mention of it in media reports.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Jul 2007 21:14

Let them build the LWRs. India needs the electricity. They should be self financing however... the MNCs can sell electricity to the (reformed) SEBs and recoup their investment. NSG fuel providers are welcome to take back their spent fuel bundles if they wish. If however they stay in India, all spent fuel must be reprocessed.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 22 Jul 2007 21:42

In this reference are we forgetting (or am I missing) reference to Nuclear fuel stockpile issue. Are we now are allowed to build a significant stockpile of fuel?

jerry
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Jul 2007 20:40
Location: DXB

Postby jerry » 22 Jul 2007 21:43

Rishirishi wrote:So many here seems to be concerned with the text of the document. I would like to pose a question:

Does it really matter what we agree upon? wont the US, India, China or anyone else do as they please? Can one of the parties enforce something on the other?

Even if we got an agreament that says India can do as it pleases, test and develop what ever it wants? it does not guarentee that sanctions will not come in the future.

Just look at Pakistan, who paid for the F-16 and lost did not get the planes or the money back. Or Iraq, wich was invaded, for no reason what so ever.

The only thing that really matters, is the political and economical strength at any given time.

The course ahead must be to avoid overdependanciy on the outside world. Make shure that anything that is imported can be serviced and maintaind by local resources. If GE builds a Powerplant, then make shure that we also get 15 years of uranium supplies and that all parts can be serviced and maintained by local resources.

Once India has the tech and the market, it can test and develop as much nukes as it likes, regardless of any treaty or what ever.

Without the treay we get nothing and our politicians do not have the spine to do new tests anyway. In actual effect we got nothing to loose (unless MMS decides to give up FBR tech.



This post aptly summs up everything about the nuclear deal. We must remember that MMs n Co are not anti india, but their keenness to get the deal through is to get india on a powerful economic standing wch will naturally ensure a stronger defence too.

All said and done to test or not all depends ont the political and economic strength at that time

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 22 Jul 2007 21:51

ldev wrote:
p_saggu wrote:Dear Gurus

Please explain this statement, " All thorium aspirants will have to live by the 20% limit onlee???"


The Indian AHWR needs U-233 as part of its fuel which is primarily TH-232. The spent fuel will need to be reprocessed which I presume will be done in the dedicated reprocessing facility. The limit of that enrichment will be 20% which is adequate according to the IAEA.

Not necessisarily U233 only, just any fissile material will suffice. In fact the rectors will be initially charged using Pu only.

Pls note that AHWR reactor requires driver fuel to compensate for sub-critical Thorium conversion to U233. AHWR does not necessarily depend on FBR for fuel, fuel can come from anywhere including fuel enrichers. The fuel bundle has different types of fuel pins
1. U233 and Thorium (driver plus fertile)
2. Pu and Thorium (driver plus fertile)

So its a mix and match system that just needs to provide positive fissile driver. I need to recheck again (Later) but I think 20% enrichment fo rthe driver is adequate.

As as civilian AHWR come online depending on cost of imported fissile material vs cost of civil-reprocessed fuel, it can be operated with either fuel types.

Pls go to BARC site it has loads of simple and also detailed info on AHWR.
Fuel assy
Image


AHWR

More AHWR

g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Postby g.sarkar » 22 Jul 2007 21:52

vinayak_dangui wrote:I have no sympathy for iran in this matter. They mullah fags have been trying to punch above their means. They are giving 1 billion to syria just so that syria wouldn't sign a peace deal with israel :twisted: . Its high time US and israel took them out. Stupidity is no bloody excuse.

Sir,
IMHO:
1. In a war weary US at this moment, there is no question of a lame duck president GWB attacking Iran, or even bombing its nuclear facilities. The current fiasco with Iraq has killed the neocon plans of invading Iran. Even his own GOP will not stand for a new war with Iran with the upcoming elections. As a matter of fact Bushes own unpopularity with Aam Janta is making them run for cover everytime he visits the individual states to raise money for the coming election. So, the general talk that you hear in radio and tv is that of withdrawal, withdrawal from Iraq and withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think what is coming for Iran is sanctions of the magnititude that Saddam Hussain faced before the war. But US may be too weak to enforce it alone, continuing Iraq war has made it also very unpopular in Europe, it will need the help of Germany and France. Also Russia and China will have to go along. And they will demand a price. But sanctions will not topple the Iranian government just it did not topple Mr. Hussain.
2.Another point, CRamS wrote: "State dept could very well apply the same yardstick to TSP, which it will acquiesce in heartbeat, and do an equal equal by offering them some nuke deal dog bone so as to keep Mush happy". Unfortunately, Mushes days are now limited. He may ask and GUBO all he wishes, but there is no question of Pakistan (or actually anyother nation) being offered a similar deal. This is one off and India specific only. Actually this is not deal yet done and there is still a likelihood that the Congress may scuttle it. Mush's wishes may however be partly fullfilled by the Maha Lizard, but that is another story.
Gautam

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 22 Jul 2007 22:05

Arun_S wrote:Pls note that AHWR reactor requires driver fuel to compensate for sub-critical Thorium conversion to U233. AHWR does not necessarily depend on FBR for fuel, fuel can come from anywhere including fuel enrichers. The fuel bundle has different types of fuel pins
1. U233 and Thorium (driver plus fertile)
2. Pu and Thorium (driver plus fertile)

So its a mix and match system that just needs to provide positive fissile driver. I need to recheck again (Later) but I think 20% enrichment fo rthe driver is adequate.


Thanks ArunS. Was aware of the Pu fuel requirement but did not mention it to simplify the post. But my sense is that the insistence on the reprocessing was to maintain the viability of the Indian 3 stage cycle which in the absence of reprocessing rights would be DOA (dead on arrival). Ofcourse a secondary benefit is that any LWR spent fuel can also be reprocessed as opposed to resulting in mountains of spent fuel waste with all the attendant radioactive risk.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests