India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

New developments in N-fusion.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... rgy-source

Nuclear fusion breakthrough raises hopes for ultimate green energy source
Scientists have moved a step closer to achieving sustainable nuclear fusion and almost limitless clean energy
Ian Sample, science correspondent
theguardian.com, Wednesday 12 February 2014 18.00 GMT

US researchers have achieved a world first in an ambitious experiment that aims to recreate the conditions at the heart of the sun and pave the way for nuclear fusion reactors.

The scientists generated more energy from fusion reactions than they put into the nuclear fuel, in a small but crucial step along the road to harnessing fusion power. The ultimate goal – to produce more energy than the whole experiment consumes – remains a long way off, but the feat has nonetheless raised hopes that after decades of setbacks, firm progress is finally being made.

Fusion energy has the potential to become a radical alternative power source, with zero carbon emissions during operation and minimal waste, but the technical difficulties in demonstrating fusion in the lab have so far proved overwhelming. While existing nuclear reactors generate energy by splitting atoms into lighter particles, fusion reactors combine light atomic nuclei into heavier particles.

In their experiments, researchers at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California use a bank of 192 powerful lasers to crush a minuscule amount of fuel so hard and fast that it becomes hotter than the sun.

The process is not straightforward. The lasers are fired into a gold capsule that holds a 2mm-wide spherical pellet. The fuel is coated on the inside of this plastic pellet in a layer as thin as a human hair.

When the laser light enters the gold capsule, it makes the walls of the gold container emit x-rays, which heat the pellet and make it implode with extraordinary ferocity. The fuel, a mixture of hydrogen isotopes called tritium and deuterium, partially fuses under the intense conditions.

The scientists have not generated more energy than the experiment uses in total. The lasers unleash nearly two megajoules of energy on their target, the equivalent, roughly, of two standard sticks of dynamite. But only a tiny fraction of this reaches the fuel. Writing in Nature, the scientists say fusion reactions in the fuel released at best 17 kilojoules of energy.

Though slight, the advance is welcome news for the NIF scientists. In 2012, the project was restructured and given more modest goals after six years of failure to generate more energy than the experiment consumes, known as "ignition".

Results from the NIF facility will help scientists work out how to build a fusion reactor, but the centre is funded primarily to help the US understand how its stockpile of nuclear weapons is ageing. The experiments help to verify computer models that are used in place of nuclear tests, which are now banned.

Omar Hurricane, the lead author of the report, said the latest improvement came by controlling the implosion of the spherical pellet more carefully. In previous experiments, the pellet distorted as it was crushed, which seemed to reduce the efficiency of the process. By squashing the fuel more softly, helium nuclei that are produced in the fusion reactions dump their energy into the fuel, heating it up even further, and driving a cycle of ever more fusion.

"We are finally, by harnessing these reactions, getting more energy out of that reaction than we put into the DT fuel," Hurricane said. The report appears in the journal Nature.

The dream of controlled fusion remains a distant hope, and Hurricane said it was too early to say whether it was even possible with the NIF facility. The researchers need to get a hundred times more energy from the fusion reactions before the process can run itself, and more for it to deliver an overall surplus of energy.

Steven Cowley, director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy near Abingdon in the UK, said the study was "truly excellent" and began to address the core challenges of what is known as inertial fusion in the lab. He said the team may need a bigger laser, or a redesigned capsule that can be squashed more violently without becoming unstable. "Livermore should be given plenty of time to develop a better capsule. It strikes me that we have only just begun to understand the fusion regime," Cowley told the Guardian.

The Culham lab has taken a different approach, called magnetic confinement. As long ago as 1997, the facility generated 16MW of power with 24MW put into the device. "We have waited 60 years to get close to controlled fusion. We are now close in both magnetic and inertial. We must keep at it. The engineering milestone is when the whole plant produces more energy than it consumes," Cowley said.

The experimental fusion reactor Iter, which is being built in France, is expected to be the first plant to produce more energy than it consumes. The project has faced delays of more than two years and overrun budgets, but is still an international flagship for fusion research. "Iter is going slowly but progress is happening," said Cowley.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by symontk »

Why it is called Advanced Heavy water reactor? It is only using Light water, right?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11243
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

symontk wrote:Why it is called Advanced Heavy water reactor? It is only using Light water, right?
The design (Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR)) - specifically as a means for ‘burning’ thorium – this will be the final phase of their three-phase nuclear energy infrastructure plan. From what I know, the reactor will operate using thorium-plutonium or thorium-U-233 seed fuel in mixed oxide form. It is heavy water moderated ( and light water cooled) and will eventually be capable of self-sustaining U-233 production.

...about 75% of the power will come from the thorium... the pilot AHWR is envisaged in the later plan period ( 2017?) and for operation around 2022..

Hope this is helpful.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ramana »

AmberG, Did you read Foundation by Issac Asimov? Isn't the thorium reactors development going by that storyline!
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11243
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

^^Asimov is one of my favorite and but I have read Foundation series in a very cursory way only -- long ago... what did he say about thorium?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

My how the mighty have fallen!

Australia seeks to draw India into tighter embrace with nuclear deal
It's a sentiment that finds resonance across the five-month-old Liberal-National coalition government of Tony Abbott. "We have a very strong commitment to making this deal happen. We want to be seen as a trusted partner of India," trade and investment minister Andrew Robb said.
And :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Both Bishop and Robb were critical of the Kevin Rudd-led Labour government for overturning Liberal predecessor John Howard's decision to supply uranium to India. "The Howard government, in which I was a minister, had signed off on it. Unfortunately, the next government had a different policy," Robb said. "I think it will provide a great opportunity for peaceful power generation. We have 40% of the world's uranium deposits and have a great willingness to ensure that it is made available to India."
A super LOL moment!

Added later: This particular avatar of the Nuke Dhaga was started in July 2011. It is worthwhile to read the first 10 pages or so of this dhaga (not to talk about the previous avatar in the archives) to realise how times have changed.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by symontk »

Amber G. wrote:
symontk wrote:Why it is called Advanced Heavy water reactor? It is only using Light water, right?
The design (Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR)) - specifically as a means for ‘burning’ thorium – this will be the final phase of their three-phase nuclear energy infrastructure plan. From what I know, the reactor will operate using thorium-plutonium or thorium-U-233 seed fuel in mixed oxide form. It is heavy water moderated ( and light water cooled) and will eventually be capable of self-sustaining U-233 production.

...about 75% of the power will come from the thorium... the pilot AHWR is envisaged in the later plan period ( 2017?) and for operation around 2022..

Hope this is helpful.
Thanks, didn't notice the heavy water part, got stuck up with light water
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11243
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

symontk wrote:Thanks, didn't notice the heavy water part, got stuck up with light water
You are welcome. For those who are interested in little physics/general principles..

A nuclear reactor, which uses unenriched natural uranium as its fuel, generally uses heavy water (deuterium oxide D2O) as its moderator. While heavy water is more expensive than ordinary light water, it yields greatly enhanced neutron economy, allowing the reactor to operate without fuel-enrichment facilities (to offset capital cost of the heavy water) and generally enhancing the ability of the reactor to efficiently make use of alternate fuel cycles.

Also the mechanical arrangement of the AHWR, which places most of the moderator at lower temperatures, is efficient because the resulting thermal neutrons are "more thermal" than in traditional designs, where the moderator normally runs hot. This means that a AHWR is not only able to "burn" natural uranium and thorium, but tends to do so more efficiently as well.

AHWR do have some drawbacks. Heavy water generally costs hundreds of dollars per kilogram, though as said above this is a trade-off against reduced fuel costs. Also the reduced energy content of natural uranium/thorium as compared to enriched uranium necessitates more frequent replacement of fuel ityadi...
(More in any standard source)
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11243
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Amit - Also a small news item, caught my eye ..Tokyo;s new governor elected recently, Yoichi Masuzoe, is not opposed to the restart of idled nuclear reactors,... Masuzoe's main rivals in the election had both based their election campaigns on a strongly anti-nuclear stance.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Amber G. wrote:Amit - Also a small news item, caught my eye ..Tokyo;s new governor elected recently, Yoichi Masuzoe, is not opposed to the restart of idled nuclear reactors,... Masuzoe's main rivals in the election had both based their election campaigns on a strongly anti-nuclear stance.
Amber,

Japan has no other choice than nuclear and Japanese leaders understand this very well. As is natural in a democracy after the Black Swan, there was a lot of popular rhetoric about shutting nuclear plants. However, as memory of the disaster fades away things are going to go back to regular programming IMO.

The country has no choice. The alternative to nuclear is coal and the Japan hardly has any of its own coal. As a result, in an power generation economy which is dependent on imported coal, there's always a fear of a Chinese naval blockade or at least an harassment of ships. Japan will not IMO allow itself into a situation like that more so now as there is real question marks of whether the US would intervene in a Japan-China spat. Sadly nothing can be looked in isolation from geopolitics and this is something that some romantics on this thread fail to understand, again IMVHO.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by symontk »

In the PHWR's heavy water is used as both moderator and coolant. But in AHWR's only as moderator. Coolant is light water. is it because of cost concerns, any ideas?
gunjur
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by gunjur »

Apologies if already posted

India, Russia close in on Kudankulam 3 and 4 deal
India and Russia are close to reaching an agreement on the third and fourth units of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP), India’s ambassador to Russia, P. S. Raghavan told RIR in an interview. “I think the agreements on units 3 and 4 will be concluded soon,” the ambassador said without giving a specific timeframe.

Raghavan said the energy cooperation between the countries needed to be deepened. “What is not realistic today may become very profitable tomorrow,” the ambassador said when talking about the possibility of the construction of an energy pipeline parallel to the Turmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan India (TAPI) pipeline.
Guru's any idea which pipeline he is talking about??
gunjur
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by gunjur »

Apologies if already posted
Heavy lifting ahead in the Japan-India nuclear deal

A nuclear cooperation agreement between Japan and India is looming. When prime ministers Shinzo Abe and Manmohan Singh met on January 25, it was as part of a broader effort to strengthen ties, but of all the issues they discussed, progress towards a nuclear deal was the most crucial to the two countries’ economies and strategic relationship. The potential agreement is also tremendously controversial.

Once the deal is finalized, Japanese companies will be able to export civilian nuclear technology and equipment to India. New Delhi’s motivation is clear: It is struggling to meet energy demand to sustain the country’s rapid economic growth. But Japan—the only country to have experienced nuclear devastation from both military attack, 70 years ago on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a civilian reactor accident, three years ago in Fukushima—is reversing its own core principle of nonproliferation as it confronts a formidable and unprecedented dilemma: Should it adhere to the old rules, or, more realistically, try to revitalize its economy with much-needed revenue?

The Japanese government has cast its lot with the second choice. Through a contentious decision-making process, it seems Tokyo has concluded that since some kind of nuclear agreement with India at this point looks inevitable, anti-proliferation conditions must be included in the deal as the next-best option. This will be difficult to achieve, but if Japan can muster the political will to make it happen, the agreement could potentially help strengthen nonproliferation and disarmament worldwide.

US pressure on Japan. Since the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and despite severe and increasing criticism from domestic anti-nuclear voices, Japan’s ruling coalition, led by the Liberal Democratic Party, has concluded several bilateral nuclear agreements with so-called “emerging nuclear powers,” including Vietnam and Jordan. It will soon conclude one with Turkey, and negotiations with more countries are under way. Among all the agreements, though, the one with New Delhi is most significant, because India is the only negotiating partner that both possesses nuclear weapons and has never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It is the India deal that puts Japan most at risk of compromising its national identity as a champion of nonproliferation and disarmament.

An economy in the doldrums is, to be sure, one of the forces driving Japan to sell nuclear technology and equipment: India is planning to construct 18 more nuclear power reactors by 2020, which given that Japanese manufacturers are considered the strongest contenders for the business, could become a 9 trillion yen ($86.1 billion) market. However, finances are not the only factor. Such exports will also enhance the two countries’ geopolitical position as they confront their mutual rival China. And the most significant consideration causing Japan to overturn its longstanding principles has been United States pressure.

In 2005, Washington announced that it would pursue a civilian nuclear trade deal with India, reversing decades of its own nonproliferation policy. Soon afterwards the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the multinational body that controls commerce in nuclear materials, began to consider granting India a waiver that would exempt it from the rule forbidding trade with countries not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Japan had expressed no position on the possible exemption, but under intense pressure from the United States, had no option but to join the consensus. On September 6, 2008, the NSG approved the waiver. In return, New Delhi agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect some of its civilian nuclear facilities (but not its military ones). The 45 members of the NSG were from then on allowed to conduct nuclear trade with India. To date, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Namibia have signed bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with New Delhi.

In 2010, under the administration of Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Democratic Party of Japan, Tokyo finally decided to pursue civilian nuclear cooperation with India, and the two countries met three times that year to negotiate a deal. After the Fukushima catastrophe in March 2011, though, they suspended negotiations for more than two years.

When Prime Minister Singh visited Japan in May 2013, the two countries decided to resume talks toward a nuclear agreement, aiming to conclude the deal within one year. They began negotiations in September 2013.

Does Tokyo have what it takes? The India exception has damaged the global nonproliferation regime. With enough political resolve, though, it may be possible to limit the damage. Negotiations between India and Japan to conclude a civilian nuclear deal should be treated as an opportunity to strengthen global nonproliferation and disarmament.

Japan is more qualified and has more leverage to make this happen than most countries are. Three of the four most advanced US and French nuclear reactor designs contain components that can be made only in Japan. Although the United States and France wish to sell these reactors to India, without a Japan-India nuclear agreement they wouldn’t be able to, making it hard for New Delhi to get its hands on the highest-quality equipment.

Meanwhile, Japan’s strong disarmament and nonproliferation policy, deeply grounded in the country’s historical experience, gives it the moral authority and credibility to stand firm against further compromise. This should make India consider concessions of its own.

Japan’s domestic politics will have a major influence on whether it actually does push for nonproliferation measures. The Liberal Democratic Party’s junior coalition partner, the New Komei Party, is a steadfast advocate for nuclear disarmament, with a platform that clearly states the goal of “strengthening the NPT regime toward a world free of nuclear weapons.” Party leader Natsuo Yamaguchi visited India in early January, prior to Abe’s visit later in the month. According to media reports, Yamaguchi was supportive of the nuclear deal, but highlighted that the Japanese people are very sensitive about such issues given the country’s experience, and that therefore it is important to obtain some degree of consent from them. It’s unclear how much positive impact the New Komei Party can have on this particular issue, but as an influential ruling coalition partner, it should continue to emphasize its nonproliferation stance loudly.

Necessary compromises.
Both Japan and India will have to overcome difficult issues to conclude an agreement. Japan is taking the unprecedented step of going against its own historic stance on nuclear exports, but India must also compromise.

First, this deal should impose more stringent inspections than those required under India’s nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries. So far New Delhi has been reluctant to allow anything more intrusive than the inspections regime required by the United States-India nuclear deal.

Second, India and Japan are negotiating over whether to include a so-called termination clause in the agreement, which would allow the deal to be invalidated if either side conducted a nuclear weapons test. India should allow the clause to be included.


Finally, India should agree not to enrich or reprocess any fuels of Japanese origin.

It won’t be easy to get India on board with all of these provisions, especially with a Japanese Liberal Democratic Party so in favor of nuclear exports. But if Japan seriously aims to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, it has to try to bring India along. If any country is positioned to turn a nuclear cooperation agreement into an opportunity to advance disarmament, it is Japan.
gunjur
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by gunjur »

EDIT: Deleted the post as news on thorium based design already posted.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

BTW that headline is very misleading. There have been numerous Thorium reactors over the years. Literally hundreds of designs, many were built and tried out, all are now shut down as there were various problems.

This looks like a prototype. There is no generation linkage yet evident. Meaning it is still not economically viable. Meaning in common with all the previous designs it will likely consume more energy than it produces.

Technically it 'breeds' Thorium, not 'burn' it. Thorium can not be 'burnt' as it is not fissile. It needs a full load of U-233 to run or even start. Of which India has only a few grams in research facilities. PFBR is supposed to supply the 2-3 tons of U-233 necessary but somewhere a design change was made and PFBR will not be breeding Thorium or producing U-233. I don't think even the DAE has any idea where the U-233 is going to come from.

Before this can even be started another PFBR will have to be constructed first, with the ability to breed thorium to U-233. Until then this project should not be started.

2040 If we are lucky. More likely 2050.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by sivab »

^^^ Incorrect. First AHWR will not use U233, but LEU.

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downlo ... 3/AHWR.pdf

AHWR can be used for diverse fuel cycle options including once through and closed fuel
cycles. AHWR is also optimised to achieve high burn up with LEU-Thorium based fuel in
AHWR300-LEU. The design provides for inherent safety characteristics through achievement
of required reactivity coefficients.
AHWR300-LEU is fuelled by (Th-LEU) MOX fuel. The equilibrium core has 444 fuel
channels. The fuel cluster is similar as explained in section 2.3. The content/fraction of LEU in
(Th-LEU) MOX fuel is different for the different rings of fuel pins in the fuel cluster. The
inner ring fuel pins have 30wt% LEU and the middle ring fuel pins have 24wt%. Two fuel
pins of the inner ring also have 5wt% Gd2O3 in the MOX fuel as an integral burnable absorber
to suppress the excess reactivity of the cluster. The outer ring of fuel pins have (Th-LEU)
MOX with 18wt% LEU in the lower half of the fuel stack and 14wt% LEU in the upper half
of the fuel stack. The equilibrium core cluster will give average discharge burnup of 60
MWd/kg. The other thermal hydraulic parameters and design of various systems remains
similar.
First AHWR to be constructed as technology demonstration plant is expected to be
AHWR300-LEU.
http://www.barc.gov.in/reactor/ahwr.html
Development of Advanced Heavy Water Reactor, AHWR300-LEU, is an effort to realise these futuristic objectives through innovative configuration of present day technologies.

AHWR300-LEU is a 300 MWe, vertical, pressure tube type, boiling light water cooled, and heavy water moderated reactor. The reactor incorporates a number of passive safety features and is associated with a fuel cycle having reduced environmental impact. AHWR300-LEU possesses several features, which are likely to reduce its capital and operating costs.

More design details here

http://www.barc.gov.in/reactor/ahwr.pdf

A critical facility for the physics of this reactor and fuel is already up and running since 2008.

http://www.barc.gov.in/reactor/cf.html
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

[In response to Theo's post]

^^ Sure and we are #pappus.

Are you talking about delaying the inevitable using phony science? Well it is not going to cut any mustard (or yellow cake).

Is your concern about "molten salt" - what will happen if it is exposed to the elements., well nothing but a chota-mota blast. But more importantly, molten salt based battery systems are mainstream. I already pointed you out to a commercialized solution widely available and you have not responded to it at all (and neither to the deaths of the innocents in Kudankulam).

Now coming back to your statement:

1. First you mention that it is prototype and then like a vanaraa make 3 leaps of faith and conclude it "will likely" (definitely a maybe!) consume more energy than it produces.

Okay sample this from the above link itself:

"The AHWR is a unit that will be fueled by a mix of uranium-233 and plutonium - which will be converted from thorium by previously deployed and domestically designed fast breeder reactors."

So a breeder reactor (PFBR from kalpakkam say) will provide the Pu/U-233 from burning U-238/Th in breeder reactors. The breeder reactors themselves produce electricity (PFBR/Kalpakkam/500 MW) and also the fuel for AHWR. And the proposed AHWR provides 300 MW - So in two reactors per current design - we are getting 800 MW. So where is the "will likely" consume more energy? It *will* consume Thorium and that is "how it is burnt" eventually.

Just like when an animal digests the food completely and the outcome is poo (not Pu)., one does not have to identify each and every step - some steps *will* consume more energy than it generates - like processing the poo.
Theo wrote:Technically it 'breeds' Thorium, not 'burn' it. Thorium can not be 'burnt' as it is not fissile. It needs a full load of U-233 to run or even start. Of which India has only a few grams in research facilities.
Do you even read what you write? Can you back the above? Particularly the underlined one. If not, just repeat my (above yours) statement verbatim.
Theo wrote: PFBR is supposed to supply the 2-3 tons of U-233 necessary but somewhere a design change was made and PFBR will not be breeding Thorium or producing U-233. I don't think even the DAE has any idea where the U-233 is going to come from.
Do you understand the design of AHWR? Okay if PFBR is *not* producing U-233., what is it producing? Back to Pu-239 -> How? One blankets the Pu-239 with more of U-238 to produce Pu-239. Or if the composting starter (Pu) is enough, one blankets it with Th-232 which goes from Th-232 -> U-233 -> Pu-239. This is assuming that U-233 is not taken off for AHWR along side with some PU-239 and Th-232 to generate more energy and more burning of Th->Pu/U.

And *importantly* AHWR can take in a LEU (Low Enriched Uranium) + Thorium to power itself and this is where imported Uranium helps.

And getting the 3-stage programme started should be a *National Mission*. The goal should be to generate 50% of India's electricity from Thorium reserves by 2050. Then, India will be completely energy independent for the next 400 years.

[Edited: to make the post clearer]
Last edited by disha on 19 Feb 2014 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

Theo_Fidel made a straightforward post... why the hostility? just refute if there are refutable points, as there seem to be...

Interesting Greco-Roman name BTW, TF.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5619
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

India needs to start thinking bigger. We should begin taking fusion seriously like the West. General Fusion is going to have a working prototype ready soon.

http://www.generalfusion.com/
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

We need to see 'internationally' if countries that have not found thorium fuel cycle efficient enough (obviously tech advanced for this much) are also
1) self sufficient directly or indirectly - for comparative efficiency of energy/tech.
2) part of NSGroup gang up to deny others fuel and tech for decades
3) how does thorium fuel cycle decrease competitiveness of any other countries' energy/tech products and does 'disapproving' such a cycle or such tech as well increase such competitiveness.
4) Is a little delta decrease in efficiency better than the most efficient ever fuel cycle for which India has to be dependent on NSGroup gang up. (Any more efficiency is bonus, and complete independence is needed in totality.)
5) Is it worth it to allow foreign dependence for a little delta efficiency especially if thorium consumed is wholly from India in which case meaning of efficiency should be delinked from indegenous thorium fuel.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

JE Menon wrote:Theo_Fidel made a straightforward post... why the hostility? just refute if there are refutable points, as there seem to be...

Interesting Greco-Roman name BTW, TF.
JE' sir since you asked on why:

JE'Sir., saying 2+2=5 and then point out that since the numbers do not add up, one should put the numerical system in abeyance is neither a point or a straightforward post. Particularly when it is well known that the point is made from a total nuclear-is-a-scourge standpoint.

It is an assault on other hardworking posters who go out, dig data, analyze and post their points and particularly to math students who *know* the reality (that 2+2 != 5). This assault has led to several fires in the past on this very thread.

Further, there are points made on this forums itself to which TF'ji is answerable, and from my POV, TF'ji is answerable to the following:

1. What is TF's stand on deaths of innocent Indians in Kundankulam? It is important to know.
2. What is TF's stand on the commercialization of liquid sodium technologies in other countries?

Any poster should be able to take a clear stand on the above to not cloud their future postings. Is that too much to ask?

And thanks' JE Sir for your suggestion in second point. For the refutable points there will be refuted rightly. And I will be glad to hear your suggestions on how to rationally counter irrational statements.

TF, you do have a chance to address the above two points.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

sivab wrote:^^^ Incorrect. First AHWR will not use U233, but LEU.
That is not what the India Today article says.
The AHWR is a unit that will be fueled by a mix of uranium-233 and plutonium - which will be converted from thorium by previously deployed and domestically designed fast breeder reactors.
--------------------------

WRT Fusion, India is spending $1 Billion + to participate in the ITER. This ensures access to technology.

The real problem with all these technologies is making the jump to commercial production, meaning cost viability. So far it has been a real struggle for everything except U-238 once thru. Remains to be seen if fusion can make that jump either.
------------------------

JEM,

Actually it is Germanic-latin. Too many vowels in my name. :)
Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Shalav »

FUD - India Today is hardly the epitome of accurate reporting!

BARC's literature should have been it's kill-shot.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

^^ Theo - Of course India Today article is more trustworthy.

Anyway from wiki:
The reactor physics design is tuned to maximise the use of thorium based fuel, by achieving a slightly negative void coefficient. Fulfilling these requirements has been possible through the use of PuO2-ThO2 MOX, and ThO2-233UO2 MOX in different pins of the same fuel cluster, and the use of a heterogeneous moderator consisting of amorphous carbon (in the fuel bundles) and heavy water in 80–20% volume ratio. The core configuration lends itself to considerable flexibility and several feasible solutions, including those not requiring the use of amorphous carbon based reflectors, are possible without any changes in reactor structure.
and from IAEA http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downlo ... 3/AHWR.pdf

Fuel material (Th, 233U)MOX and (Th, Pu)MOX

Cladding tube material Zircaloy-2

Outer diameter of fuel rods 11.2 mm
Rod array of a fuel assembly 54 Pin cluster
Number of fuel assemblies 452
Enrichment of reload fuel at equilibrium core

Ring 1: (Th, 233U)MOX/3.0
Ring 2: (Th, 233U)MOX/3.75
Ring 3: (Th, Pu)MOX/ ...
And one can find the design of the AHWR itself.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by disha »

Theo_Fidel wrote: The real problem with all these technologies is making the jump to commercial production, meaning cost viability. So far it has been a real struggle for everything except U-238 once thru. Remains to be seen if fusion can make that jump either.
Pure and total FUD.

Anyway, JEM, I welcome you to answer the above! :)

[PS: I would rather read and post from the IAEA's doc rather than respond to the above FUD]
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I'm not sure what is the point of the India Today article was then.
The AHWR-LEU design was ready 5 years back per this article in the Hindu. It was debated on BRF and all its plus-minus discussed!

The base AHWR design with U-233 requirement should not be built without a supply of U-233.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... e21268.ece
India has designed a new version of Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) which will use low enriched uranium along with thorium as fuel, chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar announced on Wednesday in Vienna.

"A new version of AHWR named Advanced Heavy Water Reactor-Low Enriched Uranium (AHWR-LEU) that uses low enriched uranium along with thorium as fuel has been designed recently," Mr. Kakodkar said at the International Atomic Energy Agency's General Conference.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

disha,

just be polite, so as not to start a personal crapshoot here on this thread is what I'm saying... and like I said, it's not that there are no refutable points in TF's post...

TF,

That should be Greco-Latin. If you want to go further back, maybe even Sanskrit-Latin.. A rough translation of your handle would be "True to God". That's why I said it was interesting.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by shiv »

Theo_Fidel wrote:


Technically it 'breeds' Thorium, not 'burn' it. Thorium can not be 'burnt' as it is not fissile. It needs a full load of U-233 to run or even start. Of which India has only a few grams in research facilities. PFBR is supposed to supply the 2-3 tons of U-233 necessary but somewhere a design change was made and PFBR will not be breeding Thorium or producing U-233. I don't think even the DAE has any idea where the U-233 is going to come from.
Theo isn't this complete rubbish? Stated with surprising confidence.

Thorium 232 is mined, not produced in a reactor. That Thorium is to be irradiated in a Plutonium reactor to produce U 233. Technically the Thorium is "consumed" (less of it is left afterwards) because it gets converted to U 233.

That U 233 is then used in the AWHR along with more Thorium 232. As that reactor produces energy, the Thorium gets irradiated to produce even more U 233. I am no nuclear scientist but this is about the fact that we don't have much U235 but plenty of Thorium.

And if others have not done it, we need to do it. No? It may be difficult, but the fact that others have not succeeded is a purely rhetorical argument - apart from what appear to me to be gross, and fatal inaccuracies in your post above.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

shiv wrote:Theo isn't this complete rubbish? Stated with surprising confidence.

Thorium 232 is mined, not produced in a reactor. That Thorium is to be irradiated in a Plutonium reactor to produce U 233. Technically the Thorium is "consumed" (less of it is left afterwards) because it gets converted to U 233.

That U 233 is then used in the AWHR along with more Thorium 232. As that reactor produces energy, the Thorium gets irradiated to produce even more U 233. I am no nuclear scientist but this is about the fact that we don't have much U235 but plenty of Thorium.

And if others have not done it, we need to do it. No? It may be difficult, but the fact that others have not succeeded is a purely rhetorical argument - apart from what appear to me to be gross, and fatal inaccuracies in your post above.
Shiv,

Please point out these fatal inaccuracies in my post. You have stated it is rubbish with surprising confidence. I’m limiting myself to the AHWR as mentioned in the article. Thorium is indeed bred to eventually form majority U-233, along with other isotopes. And yes it is mined from the earth. And BTW there is plenty of Thorium in many other countries. In fact the USA just disposed of 8000 tons by burying it in the desert.

BTW Just for clarity the AHWR-LEU will use LEU not Pu. I believe 4%-5% U235 fuel. Are you getting mixed up with the PFBR which does indeed use RG Pu? Please be clear there will be no Thorium ‘irradiated’ in the PFBR. There is no such reactor at present to breed Thorium other than some small research operations. It is now 60+ years that India has been trying to get Thorium technology to commercial scale, the rest of the world has been trying for 80+ years. When do we face reality?

You misunderstand my position. I’m not opposed to a properly worked out Nuclear energy program, involving the people and the nation in facing reality. I don’t think this is happening right now. The DAE needs to level with the nation about is Thorium program. This is not easy technology and the chances of success are quite small. And the timescales involved are increasingly marginalizing the tech. This is not pessimism. In engineering, the real world tends to under-promise and over deliver. The exact opposite of what is being done right now.

Neither am I a Nuclear scientist, however I can read and it’s not that hard to figure out the picture. I too was under the impression that India was Thorium and that no one else has tried this technology. It came as rude shock to me to realize almost all the things India is trying has been tried by many other countries who finally gave up commercializing the technology. Please understand, it is possible to demonstrate all things in a lab and develop a proto-type or two but to commercialize requires one to cross an entire range of other items, including the cost viability. It is at the cost viability stage that most Thorium projects have foundered. For instance read up on why Canada gave up breeding Thorium with the CANDU reactors, the design India is still working on with the AHWR variants.

Consider the experience of the SuperPhenix in France. The Super Phoenix LMFBR (Molten Sodium Breeder), which is almost identical to the PFBR redesign, works on the U238 - Pu239 breeding cycle, ended up with an PLF of under 7% and even under best circumstances produced inflation adjusted electricity of around Rs20/kw(28 cents per kw). This was without including the costs of reprocessing the Pu so the actual commercial costs would have been even higher. The SuperPhenix cost 6 times its original estimate to build, roughly $9 Billion for 1,200 mw, was years behind budget. It also suffered these following accidents.

- At least 3 serious Sodium leaks.
- An accident where the remote fuel loading system broke down due to the intense heat.
- The fuel loading crane collapsed at one point.
- Pumps had to be replaced repeatedly due to premature corrosion.
- Cracks in the reactor vessel presumably due to heat.
- Repeated leaks in the molten Sodium secondary cooling circuit. (This is the one that finally doomed the project as the danger of a release event was too high)

I could go one with the dozens of other shut down Breeder/Thorium projects that were tried.

BTW Even U-235, once thru reactors are having viability issues. The Areva reactors just came back to NPCIL with a tariff of Rs9-Rs 10 per unit, present prices. Any Thorium cycle costs, which will require many other complex steps, would be well above this.

In any case I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone else to change positions. We all have good reasons for believing what we do. We are all well informed folks. Calling things rubbish and fatal is hard to justify though.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by shiv »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Please point out these fatal inaccuracies in my post. You have stated it is rubbish with surprising confidence. I’m limiting myself to the AHWR as mentioned in the article. Thorium is indeed bred to eventually form majority U-233, along with other isotopes. And yes it is mined from the earth.
Let us take small steps at a time. You are effectively moving the goalpost and trying to move away from factual inaccuracies in your post and adding layers of opinion that come secondary to the fact that your post starts with something that is fundamentally wrong

Thorium 232 is not "bred" . Thorium, that is mined is loaded into the reactor in which it is bombarded with neutrons leading to a process that ultimately creates U 233 out of Thorium 232. U 233 is bred. Recall that Thorium 232 needs to be irradiated with neutrons in a reactor to create Thorium 233. This Thorium 233 spontaneously becomes Protoactinium 233. In 2 hours 90% of the Thorium 233 would have become Protoactinium 233. And in about 4 months 90% of the Protoactinium 233 spontaneously becomes Uranium 233. That is the simplified version.

It would be nice if you could simply be gracious and admit that you made an error which anyone can make about a complex technical subject about which we have few experts but every man and his uncle have an opinion . It becomes difficult to even start looking at other things you say when you can't accept a blatant error that you have made in two posts because the rest of your post may well contain similar errors. It is easy to take the rhetorical viewpoint that Theo Fidel is simply trying to bluff his way out of this. You cannot start with an error and then claim you are making valid points in a long post. Please correct the error first.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by shiv »

Theo_Fidel wrote: It is now 60+ years that India has been trying to get Thorium technology to commercial scale, the rest of the world has been trying for 80+ years. When do we face reality?
.
Theo Fidel - it appears to me that you like to intersperse your posts with what can be most politely termed as "factual inaccuracies". In other words you are simply bluffing. Perhaps I need to point out what reality is?

The first nuclear reactor ever was made less than 75 years ago, let alone a Thorium cycle reactor.

Your are simply eliminating your own viewpoint from this issue by bluffing. I used to try and take your posts seriously, despite the fact that your skill at rhetoric far exceeds your ability to post facts. But I think I need to call out plain bluffs when I see them. Would you be able to defend yourself if you were simply called a liar?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11243
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

JE Menon wrote:.... straightforward post... why the hostility? just refute if there are refutable points, as there seem to be....
JEM sir, with all due respect, sometimes a "straightforward post" for some is the worst kind of trolling.
One is missing a point if one asks to "refute" a "Banglore, Kerala" type post by asking the person to focus only on geographical point.

But you know this, as this has been documented here more than once in the past. These kind of posts, unfortunately are not uncommon. What is worse, is that, some times, even a technically correct "refutation" done in an absolutely good faith, becomes a ground for a lathicharge (a brf-admin's word, not mine).

Just to give an example, even correction of the most basic physics concept, such as wrong use of unit for energy (it is KW*Hour and NOT KW per hour -- multiplication in math is different than division) resulted in volley of insults hurled at the person who pointed out the error. No wonder an expert in the field, asked if the purpose of this dhaga was to "find new gaalis for Indian Scientists".

I will urge you to show leadership.

Thanks.
PS ...I request that you show by example how would you refute (or refute a refutation :)) the folloing post in physics dhaga.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1530020

I urge you to please read it (and a few messages before to get more background) and make a comment.. I sure would like to see what you think.

(The post was a reaction to refutation of a claim that a 900 Kg steel plate was propelled at 66Km/sec)

(That was after I pointed out the following:)
energy needed to propel a 900 Kg plate with 66Km/sec is about 2TJ (or about 0.5 KT.. that is 500 tons of TNT), less likely to come from Pasclal-B test, whose TOTAL yield was about 300 Tons of TNT


(This is why Disha's comment about "2+2=5" was not that much off the mark)
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

Three things can be done in general... Ignore the trolling or take the bait or repeat previous reasoning... Choose the bait and we have to intervene early or several pages of rubbish will follow ... Long experience.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by shiv »

The point is that if an educated person confidently bluffs on this board - one that is full of technically knowledgeable people, and then embellishes the bluff with long, appropriately worded rhetorical arguments supporting one particular viewpoint, the bluff is supporting that viewpoint. That viewpoint cannot be questioned unless the bluff is shown up.

If this happens on a board such as this, imagine the kind of easy bluffing that can happen with a bunch of villagers near a nuclear power plant. Human rights, safety issues cannot be wished away, but bluffing cannot be condoned either.

Once bluffs and rhetoric take the place of facts, the issue becomes a political argument after which no one can unravel the facts from the bluff.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

Absolutely right doc. But one cannot call the bluff in admin capacity or let others break rules to call the bluff. Guys on the board are sharp enough to know what to do. You are doing it now.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JE Menon »

Theo,

You know what you are doing. It's your call whether you want to continue this game. Enough long-termers have made the call, and not all can resist this subtle trolling. You have been warned four times in the past. After long disruptions this thread is just beginning to get back into stride. Handle with care. This is not a warning or a caution, just an observation, because you have broken no obvious rules.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Shiv,
Neither you nor I have time to play these games. I gave you a reasoned careful post on my conflicted point of view and you have called it trolling and bluffing. I'm well aware what the consensus on this board is and to be perfectly honest I agree with many lines of that consensus. So my last post on this.

it is certainly possible I worded it poorly first time around. I will stick to exactly what DAE says on the subject.

http://dae.nic.in/writereaddata/.pdf_31

Page 11

• Using external fissile material U235, Plutonium or an accelerator driven neutron source, thorium can sustain a thermal breeding cycle.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by gakakkad »

sigh!! I visit this thread after a long time and there is lather,rinse,repeat of the same old stuff..

How many time have we gone over and over the thorium cycle ? in the real world things have moved way beyond ...for instance australia is almost begging us to buy there uranium ore...last time we had the thorium debate they were showing "some positive steps in that direction." and the time before that they just said no...

I am sure thorium cycle research has moved way past the last time we had the 'debate'... Perhaps the next time we undertake the fruitful methane gas releasing exercise , a viable th reactor would be on the verge of achieving criticality ...and the time after that ,th reactors would be available in walmart...
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Austin »

Russia, India discuss agreement on second phase of Kudankulam NPP
NEW DELHI, February 26, /ITAR-TASS/. Russia and India are engaged in consultations on the text of the feasibility study agreement for the construction of a third and fourth units at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in India’s southern Tamil Nadu state, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said.

“Consultations are underway. We think that the atmosphere at the consultations is improving, and we hope for a positive solution,” he said on Wednesday, February 26.

Russia believes that “the present government of India is able to fully implement the roadmap that calls for building up to 14-16 units at nuclear power plants using Russian designs. These include the Kudankulam NPP and one other site to be coordinated by the central and regional Indian authorities,” Rogozin, who is the co-chair of the Russian-Indian Inter-Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Science, Technical and Cultural Cooperation, said.

He stressed that “as far as phase 2 [units 3 and 4] is concerned, Russia proceeds from the confident position that was demonstrated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Moscow… We hope that we will soon hear the news that will meet our expectations.”

The newspaper Deccan Herald wrote earlier that the text of the agreement on Kudankulam Unit II was ready and the sides were close to resolving contradictions over the application of the liability clauses of Indian law that regulate nuclear damage issues. The law envisions the supplier’s liability throughout the power plant’s service life.

The plant’s unit 1 is now on a trial run at 75 percent of capacity. Several tests were conducted and the unit was disconnected from the power grid for an inspection of equipment and systems.

Unit 1 was synchronised to the power grid on October 22, 2013, generating 160 MWe. The power will be further raised to 500 MWe, 750 MWe and 1,000 MWe in stages. At every stage, various tests are conducted and the technical parameters are verified. Based on the results of the tests at each of the stages and with AERB clearances, subsequent stages are reached.

With the addition of Unit 1 of 1,000 MWe capacity, nuclear power contribution in the country will increase from 4,780 MWe to 5,780 MWe. Unit 1 is the 20th nuclear power station of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited connected to power grid in the country.

In the middle of July 2013, India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) gave the green light to the launching of the first unit at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

The Board granted Clearance for the First Approach to Criticality (FAC) of Unit 1 as the next major stage of its commissioning. FAC is the commencement of the controlled nuclear fission process for the first time and is a step towards the subsequent beginning of power production in a nuclear reactor, it explained.

Unit 1 is the first of two units of VVER reactors located at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, with installed capacity of 1,000 MW each. It is the first commercial pressurised water reactor-based nuclear power plant in the country, the Board said.

AERB Chairman S.S. Bajaj was satisfied with the power plant’s safety. India’s Supreme Court also ruled that the plant was safe and that its construction would boost the Indian economy.

The Kudankulam nuclear power plant being built with Russia’s assistance can withstand a strong earthquake or tsunami, members of the government committee for the evaluation of the nuclear power plant's safety said.

However the commissioning of the first stage of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant scheduled for late 2011 was delayed by mass protests that demanded its closure.

Prime Minister Singh said that protests at the Kudankulam NPP construction site reflected people’s safety and environmental concerns, and stressed that the government took them seriously. The government set up an independent group of expects to respond all legitimate and realistic needs and concerns among the local population, he said.

Singh stressed that cooperation between Russia and India in the field of nuclear energy, specifically under the Kudankulam NPP project, was progressing.

He said that the development of the Indian nuclear programme is a key element of the bilateral partnership. The construction of unit No. 1 at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant has been completed and it will soon start generating electricity.

“Unit 1 is ready for launch. And we hope to launch Unit 2 next year,” Rogozin said in the autumn of 2013.

India plans to build 19 nuclear power units with a combined capacity of 17,400 MWe by 2017. Eight of them will be built in cooperation with other countries. Russia will help build units 3 and 4 at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. Each will have a capacity of 1,000 MWe.

The construction of Unit 2 is almost completed. Rosatom Head Kiriyenko said earlier that Unit No. 2 would be commissioned by the summer of 2013. “All the rest depends on when the Indian side makes the decision,” he added.

He also said that the coordination of commercial terms of building units 3 and 4 at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant had been completed. “We earlier signed an agreement on a loan to India to build Units 3 and 4. The technical parameters have also been approved,” he said.

The Kudankulam NPP will supply electricity not only to the state of Tamil Nadu, where it is located, but also the whole south of India.

In 2010, Russia and India signed a roadmap for serial construction of up to 14-16 nuclear power units in the country, using Russian project design solutions.
Post Reply