India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Cyrano]

Does the US provide liability waiver or cap for private companies involved in it's civil nuclear industry?

[Amber G.]

Yes, the United States does provide a liability cap and indemnification for private companies involved in its civil nuclear industry -- called the Price-Anderson Act.

[Haridas]

No fair AmberG , I deserve at least partial credit for Q2. FBTRs are an explicitly required step for thorium cycle as we never had enough Pu stock required for step 3. I guess I misunderstood the question, now that you explained it.

AHWR based Thorium utilization, by using enriched U from internal or imported enriched fuel, was always a option. After IUCNU deal that made most sense for Bharat, an opportunity lost to be ready with field tested design, so that when national economic development demands it ( geopolitical risk mitigation) Bharat can build cookie cutter plants.

As of now, with tremendously inexpensive yet highly automated fuel reprocessing robots have further made AHWR very attractive. Specially with imported LEU, without requiring FBR.

BARC is looking at energy efficient generation of neutron beam source that could be supplementary close loop implementation option.

@Amber ji, thanks for keeping interest of newbies on, and educating in interesting ways.

[Haridas]

Without looking :
Q1: either a or b. Saha was an astrophysicist and Kosambi was a mathematician I think

Thanks. (After seeing your answer, I realized my question might have been a little imprecise )..

Q was:

Q1 Which Indian physicist, played a key role in applying nuclear physics to national planning, and was instrumental in the early conceptualization of India's atomic energy program — before Homi Bhabha formalized it?

(a) D.M. Bose
(b) K.S. Krishnan
(c) D.D. Kosambi
(d) M.N. Saha

Correct Answer: (d) Meghnad Saha — but K.S. Krishnan also deserves partial credit for his later institutional role.


Short Answer & Perspective (from a physics-savvy lens):
Let’s be honest — both Saha and Krishnan made major contributions, but in different phases. So depending on what you mean by “key role” and “early conceptualization,” Saha takes the crown — but Krishnan wasn’t far behind when it came to building the actual system.

Why Saha Wins (for this question):

Meghnad Saha was talking about atomic energy in the 1930s–40s, before most people in India even knew what a nucleus was.

He saw science — including nuclear power — as essential to national development.

He pushed hard for state-led planning, wrote extensively on using science for public good, and even served in Parliament doing exactly that.

So while he wasn’t running labs, he was laying the intellectual groundwork and urging political investment.

Krishnan’s Timeline — and Real Contribution:

K.S. Krishnan came into the atomic energy picture more after Independence, late 1940s and 1950s.

He was co-discoverer of the Raman effect, had a strong background in experimental physics (solid-state, magnetism).

He joined the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and helped build its institutional base.

Nehru briefly considered him to head the atomic effort, but chose Bhabha instead.

So yes — Krishnan helped implement, but Saha was already conceptualizing.

D.M. Bose - Early nuclear research (cosmic rays), mentor to Bibha Big contribution in science and Mentoring but - limited role in planning and (politics, so less well known)
D.D. Kosambi - Very famous Mathematician (and Marxist historian); strong in planning, theory, but not involved in nuclear..

How Bhabha Overshadowed Saha and others :

Bhabha had charisma, Tata family connections, and Nehru’s trust.

He wrote the famous 1944 letter to the Tata Trust asking for support — and got it.

That led to TIFR, which became the nucleus (pun intended) of India’s atomic energy program.

While Saha stayed outside the Bhabha-Nehru institutional circuit, Bhabha got full control of the program by the late 1940s.

Atomic Energy Leadership Timeline (Simplified) (For interested people here):

- 1930s–40s Saha Advocated atomic energy in national development
- 1944 Bhabha Proposed atomic program to Tata Trust (via letter)
- 1945 TIFR founded Bhabha becomes de facto leader
- 1948 AEC created Bhabha leads; Krishnan joins commission
- 1950s Bhabha + Krishnan Build institutions and research programs
- 1960's-70's - Many young people (like me and institutes (including IIT's) - became interested in Nuclear Physics and Bhabha's vision )

If the question is about who first brought nuclear physics into the national planning conversation, (d) Meghnad Saha is the clear answer.

But if you're grading generously, K.S. Krishnan deserves a solid partial credit for helping turn the vision into a system — post-Bhabha, but still critical.

Comment on this (and other Q's welcome - I will post my thoughts also)

Meganand Saha's role is less known because of lazy Indian students and education system to rote memorization and cult worship of westernized icons, fair skinned coconut Indians.

Even I did not know about him during my engineering collage days 44 yrs ago, one of my Asst Professor claimed feather on his cap , bcoz he was earlier working at Saha institute in Bengal. Much later I understood Saha's personality.

[Amber G.]

<snip>
AHWR based Thorium utilization, by using enriched U from internal or imported enriched fuel, was always a option. After IUCNU deal that made most sense for Bharat, an opportunity lost to be ready with field tested design, so that when national economic development demands it ( geopolitical risk mitigation) Bharat can build cookie cutter plants...
<snip>

BARC is looking at energy efficient generation of neutron beam source...

Good points — particularly the missed opportunity post-IUCNA to have a field-tested AHWR design ready for modular deployment. Given the global pivot toward standardized reactor fleets, that “cookie-cutter” scalability would’ve positioned Bharat well.

The reference to advanced reprocessing automation and BARC’s neutron source initiatives is timely — both are critical enablers for a thorium-driven closed fuel cycle without waiting on FBR maturity.

Thanks for these strategic techno-policy discussions ...