India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Sep 2007 20:03

ldev wrote:If you have finally understood what that exchange was all about, you will realize that in the end the conclusion that I came to was that in the light of the correct and accurate AHWR Pu consumption numbers, India needs this deal.
Maybe, I missed it. Do we know or have a fair estimate of India's Pu stock pile?

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

Postby sraj » 06 Sep 2007 20:18

bala wrote:
Sraj,

I don't know whether India has approached the non-NSG nations. I am assuming our babulog to be pretty smart and would have thought/covered this angle. (comment: let someone ask GoI this question and we can find out) My hunch is the non-NSG are under NPT gag laws indirectly. (comment: again, worth finding out, although I don't believe there is a legal prohibition under international law. I will answer Kanson's question on this aspect shortly) After India signs on with US civilian nuke deal the US may relax the gag. But it never hurts to pursue this angle to its fullest.

BTW it is a pleasure to deal with you, since you ask very pertinent/relevant questions even though we may not agree on issues. (comment: thanks. we all need to do our bit to generate more light and less heat on this thread.)

emsin

Postby emsin » 06 Sep 2007 20:18

I would like to see evidence that either country has erected a 1GW plus reactor in three years. The normal timeframe quoted is 4 to 5 years. Source please?

There is no way expensive firangi maal can be as cheap as desi maal.


Frankly me too. Tried searching a bit, but was unsuccessful. However i am keen to know how much time the French and Japanese install 1 GW reactors in. Till then take my '3 year' statement with a pinch of salt.

As far as firangi maal and desi maal is concerned, i don't think the DAE has established mechanisms to transfer design blue prints to companies like L&T or Reliance. L&T has a nuclear Engineering wing IIRC, though i don't exactly know what they do. Delegating the installation part to these companies should make the process faster and possibly cheaper.

I'm just wondering if the GOI has taken into account any fallback options if the deal does'nt go through. That should include loss of reputation, procurement of fuel/materials, how it would hit future deals sealed with other countries. There's going to be an impact if this does'nt go through. I

IMO it would be advisable to consider fallback option scenarios.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 20:21

ShauryaT wrote:]Maybe, I missed it. Do we know or have a fair estimate of India's Pu stock pile?


Estimates of RgPu vary from 10 tons to 13 tons. My understanding is that 3-4 tons are required for the intial loading of a FBR. If the FBR uses TH-232 in the blanket, it will produce U-233 which can also be used as a driver fuel in the AHWR. However, the doubling time of fuel in the FBR could be 8 to 10 years depending on the kind of fuel used. The context of the earlier discussion (misunderstood by sanku) was as to India's unsafeguarded reactors in the separation plan and the amount of Pu they could produce as driver fuel and thereby what kind of installed AHWR MW base they could support.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 06 Sep 2007 20:30

Why does this Sanku remind me so much of someone who was sent outta BRF.... and that too just a cpl of days before Mr. Sanku joined BRF. :?:

Anywayz,
The Hydro Electric potential looks good on paper..... but when you actually get to damming up a river, generate the power and lastly transmit it we are faced with a number of problems:

1.Like, we can't make an HEP wherever we want to.... you gotta ask the River Goddess herself for one thing, Mother Earth, the people living in that area that's gonna be under hundred foot of water and of course the Medha Patkar-Arundathi Roy Banshee team. India prefers building thermal plants in MP and Chhattisgarh because of all that coal transportation/passenger train freq. thingie but you still CAN build a plant in rural Haryana or sylvan Kerala and get away with it. OTOH with HEPs one obviously does not have that much flexibility. Now with all the separation of state EBs (no not Energizer Bunnies :P ..... Electricity Boards!) into PGCL and PTCLs, i.e Power Generating Companies Ltd. and Power Transmission Companies Ltd. and the latter finally proving that it's transmission that causes the slide into the fiscal red, the flexibility in choosing location is going to be very important in the future.

2. You can't keep on adding units as you would extend a Thermal or Nuke plant sideways..... You know, add a few bays to the existing EHV system, clear some land to the side, fill up a depression or slice off a hill, clear another school for a lovely new 2000 acre ash pond. With parameters like flow (depending on rain-fed or perennial) and reservoir capacity you can't add new units. Most TPPs and NPPs coming up provide in excess of 2 GW (including all units and at atleast 0.67 load factor).... Now only HUGE HEPs therefore requiring massive catchments and allied infra (and prolly at god forsaken regions) can provide an equivalent amount of power. It's easy to talk about 12 GW in Arunachal.... it would be nice to put up such an HPP out there too, but just think on all the costs (monetary, social and of course security, O&M) involved ?
BTW..... don't we have a real friendly nation up north too?
PS: In Bhesthern nations you won't believe the sops they give to the "displaced". Out here we build a colony like 300 miles from their "home" and leave them with some minor compensation..... the Canadians and Americans who make those big HEPs can afford to give them continuing compensation, employment not to mention special schools and hospitals..... and still you have endless strikes and rallies. Then there is China who opens the floodgates without warning and "reduce" their population problem by a few million "units". India can't do any of these, right?

3. Given the lay of our land, our HEPs in the hilly country (fast flowing rivers and all) face chronic silting issues. Of course Naptha-Jhakiri comes to mind but this is only because the project was too big to remain unnoticed...... most HEPs in similar areas have this problem. Moreover, our perennial rivers are to slow flowing in the plains and the banks themselves are too highly populated to allow for a few HEPs downstream. Then there is the pollution to worry about.... IIRC even the minor barrage HEPs are causing quite a bit of problems since day one. Forget the local "sons of the soil" and even "children of China" type agitators..... the Environment Ministry itself's going apeshit.

4. Last but not the least there are problems like bringing the humongous TurboGen/High MVA Transformers (which come in BIG pieces AFAIK) over land from say BHEL-Bhopal/Trichy/Hardaw (which happen to be the centers where they make these things in India... that is if you don't want to ship them in from China) to say, our nice Dibang Valley. There are other "minor trifles" like,
Are the bridges there able to stand the massive loads? Look what the bridges in Punjab are doing to our Arjun MBT initiative! :(
Do we have height clearance in those bridges?
Can you construct some necessary eqpt. that need to be made at the site itself? Oh okay scratch it, how about a hundred km near to the site?
What about construction power, housing, logistics, medical etc?

These don't sound too big.... but when the big people sit down and talk about building a plant, you need just one of these issues to torpedo the project. Maybe out of political compulsions they will build a plant.... which operates in fits and starts for a few months, with factor of like 0.2 and finally scrapped for junk/sold to some drooling private party to convert it to something else.


Finally, as I keep saying, we are approaching a straining point w.r.t our coal and hydro potential.... and not too slow at that either. The estimates pulled up by the EBs and well meaning BRFites and even the Commies and the Knickerhood don't go into the very fine print. Even the GoI doesn't want to publicly state it methinks... after all if the deals go sour we have to use these resources even if we have to "encounter" Ms. Roy and bury Shimla under four feet of ash,! If you can get (even a measly figure like) 40GW nuke power courtesy Unkil & Co., in a decade or two with a minimum (unavoidable) loss in H&D (that's what it finally boils down to from the GoI/SciTech side IMO), I guess we should go for it.
JMTC.

emsin

Postby emsin » 06 Sep 2007 20:37

Good post Anand K. for bringing up the difference between Hydel power projections and practical application.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 06 Sep 2007 20:43

Anand K wrote:Why does this Sanku remind me so much of someone who was sent outta BRF.... and that too just a cpl of days before Mr. Sanku joined BRF. :?:


:rotfl:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Sep 2007 21:00

emsin wrote:Good post Anand K. for bringing up the difference between Hydel power projections and practical application.
Anand: the issues you bring up are fair and not unsurmountable. None of it takes away the reality of the untapped potential. Some folks here have even said that even Solar panels, consume more energy than they produce, so, seems nothing is without its fair share of issues - including nuclear.

The issue is choices were made based on policy directives. One in 2003, which envisioned 50,000 MW of Hydro power in 10 years, the other envisions the same through nulcear power. Both have costs, real and imagined.

What is not reasonable is to say that, there are no other options, except for this deal.

If I have to be cynical, I can say that the extra addition envisioned through foreign source nuclear energy can be filled in through a combination of wind and small scale hydro power alone - ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 MW in the next 10 years.

We do have options - each with its own costs.

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

Postby sraj » 06 Sep 2007 21:17

Kanson wrote:
India, being declared herself as Nuclear weapon state or in possesion of nuclear weapons, considering the exact text of the NPT rule which i quoted above, how this transfer of material is legally possible from NNWS NPT member to a country which is not an NWS under NPT rules ?

1. NPT defines 5 States (US, USSR, UK, China, and France) as a nuclear-weapon State (NWS), as per paragraph 3 of Article IX quoted below:
Article IX
...........
3..............For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

2. All other States are defined as "non-nuclear weapon States" (NNWS) for the specific purposes of NPT.

3. There can be States which are "Party to NPT" (i.e. they have signed and ratified NPT) and States which are "not Party to NPT".

4. For example: China was a State "not Party to NPT" until March 9, 1992. France was "not Party to NPT" until August 3, 1992. Similarly, India, Pakistan, and Israel continue to be "not Party to NPT" as of today.

Kanson: in light of above, pls re-read the relevant paragraph 2 of Article III of NPT, given below, carefully. you will find that what India has declared is irrelevant for the application of Article III:
Article III
............
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

You will also find that, over the last few decades, a lot of nuclear material transfers have taken place (under appropriate IAEA safeguards) to States that are "not Party to NPT" including to India (e.g. fuel for Tarapur was supplied by France in 1982 and by China in 1995).

The current embargo on fuel supplies to India is a result of NSG restrictions and has nothing to to do with NPT which allows fuel and equipment under appropriate IAEA safeguards. Of course, this does not mean we can get reactors too since none of the countiries outside the 45-nation NSG supply reactors.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2007 21:41

In continuing with the dicussion on Hydel prower projects...pls notice the following data from http://www.nhpcindia.com/...

The potential of 1 48 700 MW of installed capacity is mainly in the Indus basin as well as Brahmaputra basin, thats give the feasibility of the same in all circumstances.

Code: Select all

[b]Basin/Rivers            Probable Installed Capacity (MW)[/b]

Indus Basin               33832.00
Ganga Basin               20711.00
Central Indian River system         4152.00
Western Flowing Rivers of southern India   9430.00
Eastern Flowing Rivers of southern India   14511.00
Brahmaputra Basin            66065.00
Total                   1,48,701


Further, under 50,000 MW intiative, pls note the tariff. You will see only 34020 comes under 2.50 per MW, remaining thing is under question for obvious issues. And how this cost is arrived has to analysed before coming to the meaningful assumption or conclusion. To what hurdles it can throw pls read the following taken from the last page.

Code: Select all

Sl. No.   Particulars    Number   IC (MW)
1.00   Total PFRs   162.00   47930.00
2.00   PFRs with Tariff upto Rs. 2.50 per unit   78.00   34020.00
3.00   International Issue/Wild Life/Others   5.00   1084.00
4.00   DPRs to be Prepared   73.00   32936.00


9. Major challenges and responses:

Development of Hydroelectric projects has thrown up a number of important challenges, the world over and particularly in Indian context. Over a period of time, experiences have been acquired and India is responding to these challenges in the following manner.
a) Impact on Environment: Hydroelectric projects do create environmental issues emanating from sub-mergence of large areas also involving forest. The Govt. of India has a comprehensive legislation on environmental issues and based on this legislation, there are well laid down principles and guidelines. Environment Impact Assessment studies when properly carried out throw up the tasks to be undertaken by the project development agencies. Over a period of time, both the processes of a) studies and preparation of the plans to mitigate environmental impact and b) procedure of clearances from the authorities, have been streamlined. Process of improvement on these areas continues to see as to how best the adverse environmental impacts are mitigated and also the procedure does not lead to delays. It needs to be ensured that if the forest area is affected, sufficient amount of forest is created. Ministry of Environment & Forest is working on a plan to create Forest Bank which would entail creation of huge afforestation with funding from project development agencies in advance so that this issue could be adequately responded. The mechanism of compensatory afforestation through the Forest Bank will enable quicker clearances of projects.

b) Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) of Project Affected People (PAP) is another major issue affecting the smooth execution of Hydroelectric projects particularly where in submergence areas, the number of project affected people are large. Experience of last several years has brought about sufficient amount of understanding on the subject. The expectations of people, local authorities and project development agencies are being synthesised so that there is greater degree of acceptability of the system of R&R. Govt. of India is contemplating a national policy on R&R for Project Affected People. In the meantime, Ministry of Power of Govt. of India and its public sector undertakings are coordinating their efforts with the State Govts. so that R&R issues are adequately addressed and project implementation is smooth. In cases, where large projects are involved, specific monitoring mechanism has been put in place at senior most level in the Govt. so that proper implementation of R&R plans by project agencies is done in letter and spirit.
With the above experiences now, it appears that in future, the concerned project development agencies would evolve proper plans and programmes well in advance so that the mitigatory measures are adequate and project implementation is smooth.

c) Another issue of concern is in relation to safety of dams. Here again, experiences from some of the very large projects of the country have led to considerable amount of knowledge base and it is expected that in future projects, studies and findings on dam safety could provide much higher degree of confidence. Some of the Indian institutions have equipped themselves both with hardware and software to properly address these concerns. Where required, project development agencies do depend on expertise available anywhere in the world for in depth studies and guidance.

d) In view of complexity in development of Hydroelectric projects, particularly large ones, emanating from dam height, submergence, ramification of submergence, dam safety, drinking water schemes, irrigation, infrastructure etc., the process of clearances obviously gets linked with multiple agencies and authorities. Short cuts could create problems. Inordinate delays could entail huge cost and therefore unaffordable tariff. Harmonious balance has, therefore, to be struck. Here again, experience of last many decades has brought about a reasonable consensus on how to address this situation. The process of improvement on this front also continues. Procedures have been streamlined, and they would continue to be streamlined, to see that project development process, prior to commencement of main plant construction, by way of permission and clearances is made faster. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Power and other authorities continue to search for better solutions.

e) Reliability of detailed project report needs to be enhanced. There are a number of examples in Indian Hydro project development context of large variations from estimated costs primarily on account of differences between the outcomes of investigations and ground realities. Both in respect of hydrology and geology, the quality of studies, investigations, analysis and findings need substantial improvement. The silver line is that there are recent examples of project development where variations are within limits. Experience gained here again must lead to qualitatively better DPR’s and estimates and project could be completed without cost over runs, at least with avoidance of such cost increases which are on account of variation in estimates germane to inadequacies in investigations.

f) Construction time is another area of concern, which needs to be compressed. Large projects have taken inordinately long time. There are two major aspects which could make a difference – one is relating to construction management techniques starting from planning to monitoring and another relates to construction technology. Here again, there are recent examples of making substantial improvement on both the fronts. Some of the projects which have been sanctioned in the recent months are being targetted to be completed within 4-5 years.
Based on the benchmarks which have been established, the techniques and technologies would be further improved. Choice of technology will have to be given serious consideration. For the next few years, project development agencies are being advised to target 4 years for completion of small projects, 4 ½ years for medium size projects and 5 years for large projects. These schedules are significant improvement over the past performance. After these results are achieved, the norms would be further improved.

g) Communication with press, media and people at large to reduce the communication gaps on merits of hydro-projects and on mitigatory measures is another area of challenge which is being addressed. This also needs to be taken up appropriately at global level.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 06 Sep 2007 21:54

Amit wrote:So the great AK, who's so admired (shall I say was?) on BRF turns out to be a weak kneed civil servant who's ape shit scared of losing his job?


Just who the hell are you to make this observation. What is your contribution to India and the Nuclear establishment to make such glib statements. Oh, no, you are commie bunny, who is shit scared/weak kneed bozo that China's agenda to derail the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement does not happen, right?

Sanku wrote:bala etc.. etc.. who are dying to skin the bunny alive.

parent from West Bengal AND Kerla onleee. Just like me.

so many lies


Now that you have established the fact that you are a Commie (so many lies) batting for your beloved China Pigs (hogwash), what do I get for skinning a bunny alive only to find it is hogwash once again. Not worth the effort, comrade when you are turning out to be comical ali like pig with stinky snout on a rampage through the forest of indian nuclear discussion.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 06 Sep 2007 22:04

AFAIK we first planned to adding 14 GW of Hyrdo Power in the 10th plan period..... even this estimate was shaved down considerably (to 10 GW?).... it was due to that old "number of CNC machines problem" and of course monetary concerns. And how much has actually been injected so far? A measly 6.0 GW (high estimate)! And this is an improvement considering the fact that we are usually able to put up only 45-55% of targeted power. For example; in the 9th plan we could get oly 47% of targeted power up and running.... specifically, Hydro Power was to be 9.8 GW and we could achieve only 4.5 GW. And guess what, it's he private players who have consistently under performed.... their success ratio is like 28%! Can't blame them too if you look at it closely......
{PS: BTW, they say they will electrify all the remaining 80000 villages by 2012..... "Power for All". Yeah right!
Reminds me of a Narayan cartoon, the "little man" character asks a villager if they have electricity in the village. The villager is upbeat and points to a series of huge power pylons nearby and says- "Oh yes, we do! Over there.... power flows right through our village!" :D}


People must be cognizant of the crisis we are in now..... even with spirited efforts by the GoI and private players we are simply unable to pump out enough conventional power. And BTW, we are not so lagging when it comes to this non-conventional power tech either...... it's only the paucity of high end machining that makes the State PGCLs dump BHEL and go for GEC/Lanco/Tsinghua types. The point is, we face a big "target meeting" problem even in an area we are quite well versed in. That alone should make us ready to sigh, swallow some pride when Unkil offers us some U and tech and a way outta the Pariah status.

Okay, let's say we concentrate on Hydro power after dumping the 123.... how many dams and pen-stocks you think NHPC (the main player) and NBCC can build at a time? (Remember that NHPC is not so experienced and efficient as NTPC.... just look at difference in the number of projects executed, the results, the type of tech followed and general market buzz). Also, how many police battalions can be deployed to remove the massive number of stragglers/rebels? Forget all this, do we have many babus/IESwaalahs to work out the environmental and political aspects and prepare feasibility reports of the HEPs? How many competent number crunchers and draftsmen and engineers can consultants and contractors (players who themselves have experience in Hydro Projects... BTW, the number of such players happens to be VERY FEW unlike thermal) recruit/train in such short periods. It's not like the IT sector which can dive into the low end CCNA/PGDCA/BTech through Aptech types to fill the DOO and code-monkey slots after 6 months of training.

It's the transfer of tech, the ready made fuel that doesn't need costly bulk handling and most of all.... the higher percentage of non-HEP/non-Thermal power that feeds the grid that makes the 123 deal a necessity. Now it's not just because NHPC/misc problems of HEP that should make one turn more towards nuke power; I have heard of this funda in the Indian scenario which takes into account aspects like load pattern, peak load requirement and frequency and system stability; you need 30:50:20 ratio :: HEP:Thermal:Nuke power. And what ratio do we have now? 27:65:8! Long way to go.... we need to even that ratio out pronto. Even the waste thingie is better with NPP given the reprocessing agreement and simply due to the fact that we don't need huge ash ponds/towering ash silos and of course lose a lot of real estate under water.

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 22:09

ldev wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:]Maybe, I missed it. Do we know or have a fair estimate of India's Pu stock pile?


Estimates of RgPu vary from 10 tons to 13 tons. My understanding is that 3-4 tons are required for the intial loading of a FBR. If the FBR uses TH-232 in the blanket, it will produce U-233 which can also be used as a driver fuel in the AHWR. However, the doubling time of fuel in the FBR could be 8 to 10 years depending on the kind of fuel used. The context of the earlier discussion (misunderstood by sanku) was as to India's unsafeguarded reactors in the separation plan and the amount of Pu they could produce as driver fuel and thereby what kind of installed AHWR MW base they could support.


Could you please exemplify a bit further on the following highlighted statement: Estimates of RgPu vary from 10 tons to 13 tons. Where did this figure come from and on what basis was it arrived at? Next, in what context do you state the doubling time of fuel in the FBR could be 8 to 10 years depending on the kind of fuel used. Specifically, what's the significance of this statement within the present context, and on what basis did you arrive at the figures?

Further, it's indeed true that U233 (produced through neutron capture in the Th232 blanket ) as driver fuel in the AHWR is possible - in fact it's even desirable. The number of fission neutrons produced for every neutron absorbed in the thermal spectrum is increased quite significantly i.e. \geq 5 times the same ratio with using conventional fuels. In fact Chalk River Labs in Canada has done some pretty elegant work on this for CANDU's which has been extended for the AHWR by BARC's reactor physics division.
Last edited by RaviCV on 06 Sep 2007 22:27, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2007 22:22

sraj wrote:NPT defines 5 States (US, USSR, UK, China, and France) as a nuclear-weapon State (NWS), as per paragraph 3 of Article IX quoted below:
Article IX
...........
3..............For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

2. All other States are defined as "non-nuclear weapon States" (NNWS) for the specific purposes of NPT.

3. There can be States which are "Party to NPT" (i.e. they have signed and ratified NPT) and States which are "not Party to NPT".

4. For example: China was a State "not Party to NPT" until March 9, 1992. France was "not Party to NPT" until August 3, 1992. Similarly, India, Pakistan, and Israel continue to be "not Party to NPT" as of today.

Kanson: in light of above, pls re-read the relevant paragraph 2 of Article III of NPT, given below, carefully. you will find that what India has declared is irrelevant for the application of Article III:
Article III
............
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.

You will also find that, over the last few decades, a lot of nuclear material transfers have taken place (under appropriate IAEA safeguards) to States that are "not Party to NPT" including to India (e.g. fuel for Tarapur was supplied by France in 1982 and by China in 1995).

The current embargo on fuel supplies to India is a result of NSG restrictions and has nothing to to do with NPT which allows fuel and equipment under appropriate IAEA safeguards. Of course, this does not mean we can get reactors too since none of the countiries outside the 45-nation NSG supply reactors.


Sraj...pls note these words were codified before India smiled its buddha. At that time there were only two groups, haves and have-nots. Pls note, the wording in the Article III para 2 is as "non-nuclear weapon state" and NOT codified as "any state". To clear further ambiguities, it uses two terms "non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty" as well as "non-nuclear-weapon State"

From reading the Article I, Article II as well Article III, there is a clause specifically codified for NNWS which is absent for NWS, which is: "not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material,".
I have the opinion that this is the reason why China(NWS) & Russia were able to supply fuel after signing the NPT and not possible by NNWS.

If there were any situtation where these NNWS not under NSG transported fuel to non-NPT states ?

With common-sense, how you still consider a state which declared itself publicly as Nuclear weapon state can be treated as non-nuclear weapon state.
Last edited by Kanson on 06 Sep 2007 22:27, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 22:27

RaviCV wrote:Could you please exemplify a bit further on the following highlighted statement: Estimates of RgPu vary from 10 tons to 13 tons. Where did this figure come from and on what basis was it arrived at? Next, in what context do you state the doubling time of fuel in the FBR could be 8 to 10 years depending on the kind of fuel used. Specifically, what's the significance of this statement within the present context, and on what basis did you arrive at the figures?

Further, it's indeed true that U233 (produced through neutron capture in the Th232 blanket ) as driver fuel in the AHWR is possible - in fact it's even desirable. The number of fission neutrons produced for every neutron absorbed in the thermal spectrum is increased quite significantly i.e. \geq 5 times the same ratio with using conventional fuels. In fact Chalk River Labs in Canada has done some pretty elegant work on this for CANDU's which has been extended for the AHWR by BARC's reactor physics division.


I know people who work and have worked at Chalk River. If you know so much about elegant work done at Chalk River and are in a position to appreciate it, then it should be very easy for you to work out the answers as to RgPu stock and fuel doubling time highlighted in blue in your question.

Sorry, I think you can find out these answers on your own.

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 22:53

ldev wrote:
RaviCV wrote:Could you please exemplify a bit further on the following highlighted statement: Estimates of RgPu vary from 10 tons to 13 tons. Where did this figure come from and on what basis was it arrived at? Next, in what context do you state the doubling time of fuel in the FBR could be 8 to 10 years depending on the kind of fuel used. Specifically, what's the significance of this statement within the present context, and on what basis did you arrive at the figures?

Further, it's indeed true that U233 (produced through neutron capture in the Th232 blanket ) as driver fuel in the AHWR is possible - in fact it's even desirable. The number of fission neutrons produced for every neutron absorbed in the thermal spectrum is increased quite significantly i.e. \geq 5 times the same ratio with using conventional fuels. In fact Chalk River Labs in Canada has done some pretty elegant work on this for CANDU's which has been extended for the AHWR by BARC's reactor physics division.


I know people who work and have worked at Chalk River. If you know so much about elegant work done at Chalk River and are in a position to appreciate it, then it should be very easy for you to work out the answers as to RgPu stock and fuel doubling time highlighted in blue in your question.

Sorry, do not have the time right now to do your research for you. Maybe later in the day when my day job allows me some time. Ok?


Clumsy way to extricate yourself from a situation! Frankly, your list of contacts is irrelevant either to me or to this issue. Chalk River was mentioned by me as a point of reference to buttress your statement concerning the use of U233 as driver fuel in CANDU's and their derivatives/extensions. Three further points:

1. I wasn't asking your help to do my research. I just wanted to know whether you're dropping figures for the sake of cheap effect (which I suspect you are), or are talking on the basis of actual knowledge and analysis.

2. Frankly, I doubt whether your "day job" would suddenly interfere if you were senselessly/sadistically targetting someone who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't call you on the mat.

3. Chalk River has nothing to do with India's stockpile or the doubling of the fuel time for the FBR!

In any case, I anxiously await your reply, which I hope you keep strictly technical.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 22:59

RaviCv,

In BR there is a tradition that you contribute something before you demand answers. You have got a sum total of 14-15 posts to your credit and are demanding answers. You have already been slapped on your wrists by Arun_S for making pompous ill informed statements.

Suggest you drop this ID and resurrect yourself under some other name :wink:

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 23:12

ldev wrote:RaviCv,

In BR there is a tradition that you contribute something before you demand answers. You have got a sum total of 14-15 posts to your credit and are demanding answers. You have already been slapped on your wrists by Arun_S for making pompous ill informed statements.

Suggest you drop this ID and resurrect yourself under some other name :wink:


I wasn't "slapped on the wrist" by anybody, and assuming you can read, I did provide a credible answer using laser fusion and simulation to circumvent the Hyde Act, after I noticed that CAT was on the unsafeguarded list, and, after bala posted the issue of UK's AWE at Aldermaston. In fact, I have done work in this area, which anonymity does not permit me to cite. In any case, never ever did I attack or dodge people who asked questions of me.

On the other hand, it does appear that you have all the makings of a break and run coward! So why don't you answer my questions, which it is increasingly becoming evident that you cannot, or keep your peace!

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2007 23:19

RaviCV, are you a JRF/SRF ?

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 23:23

Kanson wrote:RaviCV, are you a JRF/SRF ?


Sorry, I'm not familiar with these aconyms. Could you please expand?

Thanks

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

Postby vsudhir » 06 Sep 2007 23:26

RaviCV wrote:
Kanson wrote:RaviCV, are you a JRF/SRF ?


Sorry, I'm not familiar with these aconyms. Could you please expand?

Thanks


Just guessing. Junior Research Fellow/Senior RF

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2007 23:37

Yes, I meant Junior Research Fellow. Are u anyway affilated with Indian insitutions doing research studies was my implied question.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 06 Sep 2007 23:37

Indian Parliament Soap Opera has started. First BJP wanted JPC. Congress said no. CPI&M does not want JPC but wants opposition.. go figure.
Karat asks BJP to join Left in opposing nuclear deal
Disagreeing with the BJP demand for a JPC, he told NDTV "I think the question is political. The agreement is not acceptable to the majority in Parliament. We can all tell the Government, don't proceed (with the deal). And I don't see why the BJP cannot take that position".

Karat felt Parliament should discuss the nuclear issue and BJP should voice its views there. "Let the country know whether this government has any support in Parliament on the nuclear deal. That will be the best way to make sure that this deal is not proceeded with. How can a government go against the majority in Parliament?

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 06 Sep 2007 23:38

RaviCV wrote:On the other hand, it does appear that you have all the makings of a break and run coward! So why don't you answer my questions, which it is increasingly becoming evident that you cannot, or keep your peace!


Oooh!! Some kind of pre existing grudge I see, coward et. al :D

Now, since you are only 15 posts old, does this mean that you were here under some other avtaar? Very interesting!!!. Otherwise I fail to see how my unwillingness to answer your question has aroused such passion and enemity? :eek: Wonder if somebody who was banned in the recent past has joined under multiple IDs? :shock:

OK, an authoritative source for FBRs in India is the following paper:

A perspective on Science and Technology of Fast Breeder Reactors by Dr. Baldev Raj

Read all 20 pages of it which speaks of a doubling time of 10 years.

As far as RgPu stock is considered, multiple mention has been made of it in various publications. For your reference one such reference is
here

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 06 Sep 2007 23:39

vsudhir wrote:
RaviCV wrote:
Kanson wrote:RaviCV, are you a JRF/SRF ?


Sorry, I'm not familiar with these aconyms. Could you please expand?

Thanks


Just guessing. Junior Research Fellow/Senior RF


Deleted.
Last edited by RaviCV on 07 Sep 2007 00:02, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby vsudhir » 06 Sep 2007 23:42

RaviCV

Are you the same as one Ramanujan (and then Greg) who once used to post here on BRF?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 23:46

My very strong albeit unsolicited, advice to RaviCV is to delete all that. If u think u can't b traced with that info, u r in lalastan.

Last time I gave such advice, it wasn't taken either, and the fellow left in tears (yes, I had a small part in that, I admit, :oops: but some others were much more guilty).

But times have changed. The issue is no longer whether u will b ridiculed by kindergartners and other anonymous brats. It is far worse.

Delete the stuff while u still have time.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 06 Sep 2007 23:46, edited 1 time in total.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6151
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 06 Sep 2007 23:46

vsudhir wrote:RaviCV

Are you the same as one Ramanujan (and then Greg) who once used to post here on BRF?


Or arun_gupta if I recall the moniker correctly.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 06 Sep 2007 23:46

Butting in; I don't think RaviCv is Ramanujan..... IIRC Ramanujan was into life sciences and he made a few posts which sorta resonated with Jared Diamond's fundae. Of course that fact ain't conclusive, but in those days not many IT-Vity types knew about Diamond.... it was usually the bios/medicos who were acquainted with him. And of course there was that uber technical spat with Rudradev on migratory patterns and brain cells of African odd toed ungulates or something. :)

Oh one more thing;
post=post+1 8)
Last edited by Anand K on 06 Sep 2007 23:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby sraj » 06 Sep 2007 23:48

Kanson wrote:
From reading the Article I, Article II as well Article III, there is a clause specifically codified for NNWS which is absent for NWS, which is: "not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material,".
I have the opinion that this is the reason why China(NWS) & Russia were able to supply fuel after signing the NPT and not possible by NNWS.

I guess you did not read Article III carefully enough, as I had requested. :) The first few words of paragraph 2 in Article III are "Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide:"

With common-sense, how you still consider a state which declared itself publicly as Nuclear weapon state can be treated as non-nuclear weapon state.

In which case, I guess you would agree that the Congress of the US (COTUS) and Govt of the US (GOTUS) are lacking in common-sense, since their laws still treat India as a non-nuclear weapon state! :)

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 06 Sep 2007 23:48

Any postors who sit here in anonymity and ask for ID of other postors, should b "targeted". :P

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36016
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 07 Sep 2007 00:01

RaviCS, did you meet Einstein and Oppenheimer in BR? /kidding. We have lotsa MPs here (Master of Piskology).. interlacing is fine, but interfacing gets you into it.

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

Postby sraj » 07 Sep 2007 06:06

Gerard wrote:Reports claim a Pakistani hot test in May 1983 at Lop Nor, Xinjiang.

The Times article I posted states US had intelligence of a cold test in 1983 and a hot test in 1984 with the help of China.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests