India Nuclear News And Discussion

[somnath]

What if the objective of nuke deal is different from getting nuke tech?

the BIG objective is certainly not to get "civilian nuclear power", that is pretty clear...

But in case we do not want any foreign power plant, we can simply not buy, there is no obligation in 123 (or similar ones with other countries) for us to buy any power plant from anyone...

[GuruPrabhu]

What if the objective of nuke deal is different from getting nuke tech?

The main objectives have been met, to wit: a) getting waivers out of NSG tamashaa and b) being able to import tonnes of uranium. Nuke tech would be nice because we would gain intellectual property from western manufacturers but if it is too expensive, what goes of my father to turn them down onlee?

[Sanatanan]

somnathji,

While collating the reference material required and preparing a point-by-point response to your last post { } addressed to me (in page 66 of this thread) I realised that my views on most of these points have been posted by me earlier in this Forum and what I have to state now may be repetition of the same. Instead, in an attempt to save 'band width' in these pages, I hope to be able to put up a post in my blog, bringing out my arguments in respect of the specific points mentioned by you (I must admit that I have been remiss in not updating my blog for a long time now). Nevertheless, I feel that on the issues you have mentioned (and in particluar on ideas regarding the path India needs to follow inorder to become a technologically developed nation), the differences I have with your views may be ideological in nature and hence perhaps not very easily amenable to resolution.

About the S-band imbroglio, how are the two linked? How does the US benefit from the "scam, there seems to be only one beneficiary right now, ie, Devas....

In response, may I ask why is it that US and Germany are bringing diplomatic pressure on GOI on behalf of Devas?

One similarity I can see as of now is that just as in the case of Jaitapur and other projects at pre-assigned sites to pre-determined suppliers of imported npps, ISRO went in for the Devas contract without trying to obtain competitive bids. I understand that it was not as if there was only one agency who could supply the equipment/systems/software and hardware/technology required by ISRO for this project - there are reports indicating that similar technology is available from South Korea too. There are already murmurs indicating that some national security issues are involved because of which contract must be given only to Devas. May be in time, more information will become public.

[GuruPrabhu]

somnathji, I realised that my position on most of these points have been posted by me earlier in this Forum and what I have to state now may be repetition of the same. Instead, in an attempt to save 'band width' in these pages, I hope to be able to put up a post in my blog, bringing out my arguments in respect of the specific points mentioned by you

Saar, without revealing too much, I can say that I am involved in the India side of IUCNA. Please update your blog. I will be happy to debate with you your viewpoint versus that of a large community of Indian nuke scientists.

[somnath]

Sanatananji,

Would wait for your response..the issue is ideological to a certain extent..But as long as the discussion is based on facts, it is none the worse..

In response, may I ask why is it that US and Germany are bringing diplomatic pressure on GOI on behalf of Devas

I would be a bit more circumspect at this stage on jumping to conclusions. Just because some former US diplomats lobbied on behalf of the company does not mean that the US is bringing "diplomatic pressure"....A big part of the diplomatic job description today is economic lobbying, our guysdo it too..And these are "former" diplomats and a Deutsche Telekom rep (which is a minority shareholder)...

We know too little about the deal to make any conclusions, and even less to conclude quid pro quo for nuke deal!

[Sanatanan]

. . .
There is no fence around Indian supreme national interests.

-However National agreements have review clauses in case India decides to exercise her supreme national interests.
- Hyde Act/India-US IAEA agreement etc. want return of equipment supplied etc which is ridiculous as it would be contaminated and use has hard tie wih their own rad waste etc. Also has Presidential signing statements to allow some leeway. Obama re-affirmed Bush's signing statements as powers of President.

. . .

In return for the "kind permission" accorded by the US and others to India to import U (to satisfy some trumped-up need), India was not only required to place its civilian nuclear facilities under safe guards in perpetuity, but also forced to sign a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. As I recall, there is at least one major difference between the India's Agreement and the equivalent Additional Protocol Agreement signed by the US with the IAEA. A provision exists in the APA signed by the US that will allow it to take any nuclear facility out of the safeguards regime citing supreme national interests. Such a provision does not exist in India's case. Again, as I recall, when confronted with this issue in the Parliament, Dr Manmohan Singh merely shrugged his shoulders (not withstanding Mr Shyam Saran's July 2005 proclamation that hence forth in nuclear matters, India would enjoy the same benefits as the US, "nothing more, nothing less").

It is as though Indian Nuclear Power plants (and their down stream facilities) that are put under safe guards, need to wear radio-tagged collars, in perpetuity.

Regarding the "return of equipment" issue, again, if I recall correctly, Dr Kakodkar tried to and did incorporate some imaginative language aimed at softening the blow. However, if India were to give cause for revoking/terminating the deal, then US (and others) may have other means of causing unacceptable damage to India, apart from requiring return of equipment. It would be to make India's "expedition in intransigence" so prohibitively costly that it will be forced to blink first. They could force the shutdown, decommissioning and moth-balling of all the civilian nuclear facilities (according to GW Bush, 90% of India's nuclear capacity will eventually fall under this regime). Considering the billions of Dollars India wants to splurge on importing npps (and would have done so by that time), India is extremely unlikely to undertake a detectable test and will, instead, go on shadow-boxing on how a theoretical mathematical computer model and one test of a device is enough for all time to come under all conditions. Incredible deterrent indeed!!

Added later: "collars" was "anklets"

[Sanatanan]

Sanatananji,

. . .
We know too little about the deal to make any conclusions, and even less to conclude quid pro quo for nuke deal!

somnathji,

I must apologise if I have given an impression of holding a view that implies the S-Band deal to be quid pro quo for the nuclear deal. What I wanted to convey is that, while these two deals may be quite independent of each other, they do show the penchant of India's premiere technology development agencies for favouring import, wherever possible, on single supplier basis.

[somnath]

India was not only required to place its civilian nuclear facilities under safe guards in perpetuity, but also forced to sign a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.

Sanatannji, only its "civilian nuke facilities". And India had the discretion to designate which facilities would be civilian and which ones wont...And there is no obligation of maintaining a "ratio" of safeguarded reactors..If tomorrow, we want to build 20 new unsafeguarded reactors, we can go ahaead and do it..

They could force the shutdown, decommissioning and moth-balling of all the civilian nuclear facilities (according to GW Bush, 90% of India's nuclear capacity will eventually fall under this regime).

and how exactly would they accomplish the same? Even for a US supplied plant, how do they "mothball" the facility against our wishes? Do they press a button from Washington? What they CAN do is to deny future supplies/maintenance..Now that is a call we have to take, based on the pros and cons of the situation (we did it once in the past )...Above all, how does the US impose the same conditions on Russia and France?

90% - well why not? If we fund and build 100 new power reactors imported from abroad...I dont see how we can afford that though...

Any agreement is a question of "give and take"..Here it was a one-time., exceptional agreement just o accomodate India...The quid pro quo was some pandering to NPA visions of the US...For us, basically it was about coming out and sitting on the high table to make the rules....

Testing is the bugbear...They say that they will stop "cooperation" if we test...Fine - that would be a variable in our decisiosn making process...And Russia and France are not obligated to follow suit in any case....BTW, on testing we had, back in 1998 announced a moratorium on testing, and even spoken of following the norms of CTBT...No govt changed that stance since then...There were sanctions imposed on testing - they were withdrawn as part of a process that involved the commitments on testing! If we tested again without the deal, there would plausibly have been those sanctions any which way..Ceteris paribus therefore, our testing decision-making at the margin has gotten easier...With economic stakes on the ground, the US (or Russia or France) would find it far more difficult imposing sanctions - If GE has a 10 billion dollar nuke project on the ground, it is hardly going to be amused if the US scraps the contract on testing!

[Amber G.]

Guru Prabhuji and Somnathji –
I would like to convey my thanks to both of you for many good posts in this thread. I have enjoyed reading them and many of the posts have been very informative. Please keep them coming. Lurkers like me appreciate this. Thanks also to Ramanaji for reconsidering his initial request to stop their discussion and indeed allow them to continue this discussion.

Meanwhile, FYI: Last month TIFR and Fermi lab conference held in Mumbai had a nice talk by P. Mohankrishnan on Indian Nuclear Energy R&D for FBR. I am giving the link to slides which may be worth for this audience.
Link to slides
There are other lectures/presentations by Srikumar Banerjee, . Anil Kakodkar and many other well known scientists from US and India (including BRF member/ex-member scientist) on nuclear physics and other related fields, status updates etc. (Slides etc are available on the TIFR site)

In all, things look pretty bright for future.. IMO.

[ramdas]

Ramanaji

You say deterrent was never based on S-1. Are you saying it is only based on fission/boosted fission warheads ? Arun_S, and more seriously,Bharat Karnad do allude to a variety of thermonuke designs that are meant to be part of the deterrent...who is correct here ? what about the SLBMs ?

[shyamd]

Can you please post more either your view on K Santanam's views on this matter or better yet, public articles on the matter by K Santanam, so that others can make up their mind on what does the highlighted portion of your post mean? Thanks.

India can produce more than 100 nuke weapons: Scientist

Allaying apprehensions about reports of Pakistan doubling its nuclear arsenal, a veteran Indian scientist who played a key role in India's second nuclear test has said India need not be alarmed as its credible minimum deterrence was robust and it can produce more than 100 weapons.

'Our credible minimum deterrent is robust and strong. There is no cause for undue alarm,' K Santhanam, a former scientist with the Defence Research and Development (DRDO) and the chief pointsman for the weaponisation programme for India's second nuclear test, said.

'Our plutonium-based nuclear programme is stronger and the plutonium produced can help make more than 100 weapons. The numbers are not the only thing that matter. Our nuclear programme is completely indigenous and stronger,' he said.

Santhanam was reacting to disclosures by a US daily that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal over the last several years and now has more than 100 deployed weapons.

Pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons, doubled its arsenal: Report

The Pakistanis have significantly accelerated production of uranium and plutonium for bombs and developed new weapons to deliver them, the influential US daily, The Washington Post, reported Monday citing estimates by non-government analysts.

[Jarita]

Please read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48832278/E-Jo ... 15-2011-10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48832406/E-Jo ... 15-2011-11

In India, we don’t have original researchfor alternative energy. Atomic and nuclear research centres have only learned themethodology and copied the impact studiesfrom the West or from the same geopoliticalplayers. Proliferation groups use these verydata to stop the strides towards energy self sufficiency developmental process. But noneever studied how 100 times more radiationin Kerala sea sand thorium deposits thanthose leaked either naturally or from faultydesigns of generation 1 2 3 reactors never affected any life living around it.Nor was it researched why the 90% pureuranium deposits in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand and Manipur from where uraniumcan be directly used in fuel generationprocess or weapons programme were never ‘discovered’ or mined till now by Indianscientists.Nor did we research why with all purenuclear reserves, for the last four decadesthe spent reactor fuel of the western world,which even the West does not know how todispose, was transported across thousandsof miles of empty oceans, which was adangerous and expensive process. Neither was it researched when such mines wereonly ‘discovered’ after Nuclear 123agreement, extraction licences were given,fore example, in Andhra Pradesh only toUS based UNION CARBIDE.It is the same company that was responsiblefor more than 20,000 deaths in Bhopal gastragedy and still refuses to pay dues for thedisaster for the last 25 years.If such research is not done then India withits high priorities of development and lack of capacities to handle this technology, thenwe should focus on energy through solar,geo-thermal and wind sources, which arecheaper and safer.

[somnath]

Last month TIFR and Fermi lab conference held in Mumbai had a nice talk by P. Mohankrishnan on Indian Nuclear Energy R&D for FBR. I am giving the link to slides which may be worth for this audience

Amberji, good presentation (though some of it went above my head!) - thanks for the pointer...

I was curious by the slide on the "Status" though..PHWRs (stage I of the planned cycle) show "Power Potential" of 10,000 MW...Its a number that I have seen before...Is it a question of fuel availability? Funding? Or simply that by the time indigeneous PHWRs reach 10k MW, the system would be ready to migreate to FBRs?

Bharat Karnad do allude to a variety of thermonuke designs that are meant to be part of the deterrent

Ramdasji, interestingly, while Bharat Karnad goes on and on about a megaton thermonuke bombs, back in 2008 his book on India's nuclear deterrence was largely "comfortable" about the status of India's deterrence posture..He was in fact more concerned about the fact that India was lagging behind even Pak in delivery platforms - apparently Pak had a faster missile production rate than India's..

IMHO, operationalisation of the delivery platforms in larger numbers is the bigger imperative...Given our large stockpile of reactor-grade Pu, and now unlimited amount of Uranium imports possible, the "size" of the bomb is perhaps less crucial...But the operationalisation of the delivery systems is crucial...Hopefully in the last 3 years (since 2008), our misile production has outstripped Pak's!

[ShauryaT]

India can produce more than 100 nuke weapons: Scientist

Allaying apprehensions about reports of Pakistan doubling its nuclear arsenal, a veteran Indian scientist who played a key role in India's second nuclear test has said India need not be alarmed as its credible minimum deterrence was robust and it can produce more than 100 weapons.

'Our credible minimum deterrent is robust and strong. There is no cause for undue alarm,' K Santhanam, a former scientist with the Defence Research and Development (DRDO) and the chief pointsman for the weaponisation programme for India's second nuclear test, said.

'Our plutonium-based nuclear programme is stronger and the plutonium produced can help make more than 100 weapons. The numbers are not the only thing that matter. Our nuclear programme is completely indigenous and stronger,' he said.

Santhanam was reacting to disclosures by a US daily that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal over the last several years and now has more than 100 deployed weapons.

Pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons, doubled its arsenal: Report

The Pakistanis have significantly accelerated production of uranium and plutonium for bombs and developed new weapons to deliver them, the influential US daily, The Washington Post, reported Monday citing estimates by non-government analysts.

ShyamD: First, thanks for the response. You stated the following

I believe his position has changed lately, to being satisfied with the current deterrent.

[/quote] Nothing in the above article states anything about him changing his position that the S1 failed to perform to expectation. Even on the matter of him being "satisfied" with the current deterrent would be an over read of his position. K Santanam can be critical of some aspects of our program and still be a defender of the program. I do not think, his position has changed one bit and neither would I say that he is "satisfied" with the deterrent. This article was posted on this thread earlier. Thanks.

[r_subramanian]

Australian Federal Resources Minister wants to sell Uranium to India

THE Labor Party needs to modernise its policy and allow uranium to be exported to India, federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says.
In frank public comments setting up a landmark debate at the party's national conference due later this year, Mr Ferguson said Labor's current uranium sales policy needed to allow ''flexibility and discretion'' when it came to India.
...

link

[Jarita]

Australian Federal Resources Minister wants to sell Uranium to India

THE Labor Party needs to modernise its policy and allow uranium to be exported to India, federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says.
In frank public comments setting up a landmark debate at the party's national conference due later this year, Mr Ferguson said Labor's current uranium sales policy needed to allow ''flexibility and discretion'' when it came to India.
...

link

From the write-up posted above
In India, we dont have original research for alternative energy. Atomic and nuclear research centres have only learned the methodology and copied the impact studies from the West or from the same geopolitical players. Proliferation groups use these very data to stop the strides towards energy self sufficiency developmental process. But none ever studied how 100 times more radiation in Kerala sea sand thorium deposits than those leaked either naturally or from faulty designs of generation 1 2 3 reactors never affected any life living around it.Nor was it researched why the 90% pure uranium deposits in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand and Manipur from where uranium can be directly used in fuel generation process or weapons programme were never discovered or mined till now by Indian scientists.Nor did we research why with all pure nuclear reserves, for the last four decades the spent reactor fuel of the western world,which even the West does not know how to dispose, was transported across thousands of miles of empty oceans, which was adangerous and expensive process. Neither was it researched when such mines were only discovered after Nuclear 123 agreement, extraction licences were given,fore example, in Andhra Pradesh only to US based UNION CARBIDE.It is the same company that was responsible for more than 20,000 deaths in Bhopal gas tragedy and still refuses to pay dues for the disaster for the last 25 years. If such research is not done then India with its high priorities of development and lack of capacities to handle this technology, then we should focus on energy through solar, geo-thermal and wind sources, which are cheaper and safer.

[somnath]

Nor was it researched why the 90% pure uranium deposits in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand and Manipur from where uranium can be directly used in fuel generation process or weapons programme were never discovered or mined till now by Indian scientists

Why didnt the Tata plant some up in Singur? Why did it take 8 years for the POSCO proposal to go through? Why is the Mittal proposal in Jharkhand pending for 5 years now? Same reasons...

extraction licences were given,fore example, in Andhra Pradesh only to US based UNION CARBIDE

Any source of this data?

[arnab]

Nor was it researched why the 90% pure uranium deposits in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand and Manipur from where uranium can be directly used in fuel generation process or weapons programme were never discovered or mined till now by Indian scientists

Why didnt the Tata plant some up in Singur? Why did it take 8 years for the POSCO proposal to go through? Why is the Mittal proposal in Jharkhand pending for 5 years now? Same reasons...

extraction licences were given,fore example, in Andhra Pradesh only to US based UNION CARBIDE

Any source of this data?

According to the World Nuclear Org - the highest quality of ore available (in Canada) is 20% uranium, so not sure where this 90% story is coming up from.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

And Union Carbide !! in India, again ? Can you really see that happenning? After all the Indian operations were purchased by Dow Chemicals. I think the author googled and found that Union Carbide has some leases in 'Indian territory' (US) but thought Andhra Pradesh would be a nice touch

Don't know why that piece of garbage needed to be posted twice.

[Jarita]

^^^
Boss, am just posting an article that seemed relevant for this thread. If you have the facts to refute it, go ahead.

Below is what I found about Uranium mining in India

http://www.wise-uranium.org/upin.html

The country's largest nuclear reactors are running at half of their capacity due to uranium shortage resulting in cutting down electricity supply to western India. The two 540 MWe units at Tarapur ran at 57 per cent of their capacity in January and on an average they were running at 55-70 per cent of their total capacity due to a shortfall in the availability domestic uranium, Union science and technology minister Prithviraj Chavan said in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday (Mar. 4). Chavan admitted a shortage of 324 MWe in nuclear power generation for the whole country, making it clear that the government is running behind schedule to operationalise new mills and mines in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. There are 18 operational nuclear plants across the country with a total installed capacity of 4340 MWe. (Deccan Herald Mar. 4, 2010)

(Isn't he the guy who pushed for GMO )

[somnath]

^^And where does it mention
a) availability of 90% Uranium
b) Union CArbide mining the same

[Kailash]

National Aluminum seeks to acquire uranium mines overseas

Bloomberg reported that National Aluminum Company of India is seeking to buy uranium mines in Canada, Mongolia and Namibia to secure supplies for its first move into nuclear energy.

Mr BL Bagra finance director of National Aluminum said that the company, based in the eastern city of Bhubaneswar is in talks with Uranium Corporation of India to develop any projects found and may tie up with the nation’s monopoly nuclear fuel producer in a month. Some targets have been identified for detailed studies.

Mr Bagra said that the two companies will chase deals aggressively after an agreement is signed.

Original

believe this was not posted.

[Jarita]

^^And where does it mention
a) availability of 90% Uranium
b) Union CArbide mining the same

??It does not but I did not write both the articles. It might however be worth exploring the points mentioned before throwing it into the dustbin

[Anujan]

Bharat Karnad: Nuclear mind games

Maj. Gen. Ali indicated that Pakistan planned to beef up its nuclear forces sufficient to enable a “counterforce third strike” — a scheme too ambitious not to prompt scepticism. A counterforce third strike essentially means having enough surviving nuclear weapons/warheads and delivery systems to take out Indian nuclear force assets after absorbing an Indian retaliatory hit in response to Pakistan’s first use of nuclear weapons. His impressive confidence notwithstanding, this strategy is unsustainable.

There are two great nuclear deficit areas: In the light of the failed hydrogen bomb test in 1998, the absence of proven high-yield thermonuclear armaments — a condition only further explosive testing can remedy, and curtailed weapon-grade plutonium production capacity.

[Sanatanan]

Bharat Karnad: Nuclear mind games

In the article quoted above:

[quote]. . .

......, dedicated military-use plutonium reactors cannot be conjured out of thin air nor erected in a trice. Indeed, with the decommissioning of the CIRUS reactor at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, courtesy the nuclear deal with the United States, a third of the weapon-grade plutonium production capacity was lopped off.

The upcoming breeder reactor having been ruled out of the military ambit by former National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, {Is this true? Is BK referring to PFBR under construction now as having been put in the civilian list, or is he referring to any other FBR that might be built in future?} there’s only the 100 MW Dhruva reactor, if the eight power plants are discounted as source owing to the huge economic costs of diverting these from electricity generation to running them on low burn-up mode for plutonium production {I agree with this aspect}. A second Dhruva was approved in the mid-1990s and Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao sanctioned `600 crores for it. But 15 years on, the project is in the doldrums. Moreover, instead of constructing a straight-through graphite-moderated reactor exclusively to output weapon-grade fissile material such as the ones Pakistan has obtained from China, another multi-purpose Dhruva-type reactor (tasked to also produce isotopes, etc) is on the cards.

This last is the result mainly of professional laziness on the part of the Indian nuclear engineers who would rather duplicate something old than design and build an altogether new, efficient and militarily more useful plutonium reactor.

. . .
[/quote]

[somnath]

^^^Extremely interesting article...

Usully BK is very thorough

The upcoming breeder reactor having been ruled out of the military ambit by former National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan

I think he is referring to this..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nsa-s ... e/554768/0

"Keeping it out of military ambit", but wont put it under safeguards! Why?

The Department of Atomic Energy had insisted that the programme be not brought under safeguards. This was among the biggest sticking points before US President George W Bush’s arrival in India in March 2006.

Washington, finally, did agree to keep the FBR programme out of the civilian list.

However, the Separation Plan does state that in case of future reactors, civilian fast breeder reactors will be placed under safeguards. At the same time, the document emphasizes that India “retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian”.

To me this sounds more like a "Peaceful Nuclear Explosion" redux!

BK also ignores reprocessing reactor grade Pu into weapons grade - we have a stockpile of the former...

[Pranav]

The upcoming breeder reactor having been ruled out of the military ambit by former National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan

The Department of Atomic Energy had insisted that the programme be not brought under safeguards. This was among the biggest sticking points before US President George W Bush’s arrival in India in March 2006.

Washington, finally, did agree to keep the FBR programme out of the civilian list.

However, the Separation Plan does state that in case of future reactors, civilian fast breeder reactors will be placed under safeguards. At the same time, the document emphasizes that India “retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian”.

All this sounds really ridiculous.

Breeder reactor is not under safeguards but still cannot be used for any military purpose.

Future breeder reactors must be under safeguards, but India retains the right to declare them as military.

Why would we ever want to put our military facilities under safeguards!!??

BK also ignores reprocessing reactor grade Pu into weapons grade - we have a stockpile of the former...

That window will be closed once FMCT comes into effect.

[somnath]

Breeder reactor is not under safeguards but still cannot be used for any military purpose.

Future breeder reactors must be under safeguards, but India retains the right to declare them as military

#1 is really ridiculous - doesnt mak sense..If it is not to be used for military purposes, then why not put it under safeguards?

#2 - you misreading it..What is said is this

in case of future reactors, civilian fast breeder reactors will be placed under safeguards

So there is no commitment to put ALL FBRs under safeguards..

That window will be closed once FMCT comes into effect

?How? a) FMCT is nowhere near coming into effect, and b) there is no consensus on dealing with "legacy"..In fact it seems that legacy will be kept out of the purview, which is Pak's bigest gripe..

[Pranav]

#2 - you misreading it..What is said is this

in case of future reactors, civilian fast breeder reactors will be placed under safeguards

So there is no commitment to put ALL FBRs under safeguards..

Aah, that's a relief.

That window will be closed once FMCT comes into effect

?How? a) FMCT is nowhere near coming into effect, and b) there is no consensus on dealing with "legacy"..In fact it seems that legacy will be kept out of the purview, which is Pak's bigest gripe..

Any links discussing FMCT position on reprocessing? Thanks.

[ramana]

If we go back to the nuke threads the PFBR is not under safeguards as the technology was unique and didn't want it lost via inspections.

Anil Kakodakar had stated it in some interview then.

Future FBRs will be in civilian side. The 8 PHWRs are also out of scope.

When deal was signed it was understood CIRRUS will be closed down
1) It didn't have much life any way

2) Makes the Canadians happy

There was supposed to be replacement reactor in place. BK is complaining its dual use. Well if your FM needs are being met by the 8 PHWRS and you have a Minimum deterrent it doesn't make sense to have weapons only reactor. What to do SDRE only!

Anyway once Arihant gets underway we can expect the debate will die down.

[arnab]

US push for nuclear club entry

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110217/j ... 594863.jsp

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao yesterday obtained a commitment from the Obama administration that India and the US will together “devise a road map for simultaneous movement” on New Delhi’s full membership of four multilateral export control regimes, the next logical step towards global recognition of India as a nuclear weapons state and an emerging military power.

The four multilateral export control regimes from which India is excluded are: the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

A January 25 notification also ended the bracketing of India along with China and Pakistan in US “Export Administration Regulations” and placed New Delhi along with MTCR members, altogether removing export licence requirements in key areas of strategic cooperation.

[somnath]

Ramanaji,

Agree with most of what you say..Though I was never quite convinced with this "knowledge leakage" argument on the FBRs...If it is so exotic, can a few inspectors glean away IP?

And the big elephant is legacy stockpile of reactor grade Pu...

But didnt understand what you meant by the point on Arihant - its a delivery platform, the gripe here is about not havin enough "bombs"...

[Sanatanan]

BK also ignores reprocessing reactor grade Pu into weapons grade - we have a stockpile of the former...

In the context of the discussion, I believe that the idea quoted above was meant to convey that reactor grade Pu can be reprocessed into weapons grade Pu by some means other than using it once again in the same or another fast or a thermal neutron reactor as input fuel.

Is this possible?

[somnath]

In the context of the discussion, I believe that the idea quoted above was meant to convey that reactor grade Pu can be reprocessed into weapons grade Pu by some means other than using it once again in the same or another fast or a thermal neutron reactor as input fuel.

What I meant was this..http://www.reocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuc ... svol15.pdf
and this..http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm

On top, there is also the issue that George Perkovich has discussed in some detail - did PokII involve use of reactor grade Pu? If yes, and it has been widely thought to be possible, the effective stockpile is MUCH higher..

[Sanatanan]

There was supposed to be replacement reactor in place. BK is complaining its dual use. Well if your FM needs are being met by the 8 PHWRS and you have a Minimum deterrent it doesn't make sense to have weapons only reactor. What to do SDRE only!

I agree.

I would be interested to know what technical reason(s), if any, might BK have for preferring a "straight through Graphite moderated reactor supplied by China to Pakistan", over a metallic fuelled Nat U, Heavy Water Moderated (preferably Heavy Water cooled), low temperature reactor with high neutron economy for use in Pu production application. What is wrong if as an added attraction, such a Heavy Water reactor can also produce radio-isotopes as a by-product without affecting its weapons grade Pu production capacity? Perhaps some "spare" neutrons are available for this which can not otherwise be used in Pu production!!

I would think, as the British and later the Russians found out, a Graphite moderated reactor might be less safe than a Heavy Water reactor, due to fire hazard. I feel it might be more difficult now to license in India, a graphite moderated reactor.

[Gerard]

Reprocessing cannot convert the reactor grade Pu into weapons grade. Of the various enrichment technologies only laser enrichment (AVLIS) would be potentially feasible (though cost, efficiency etc may preclude this).
The fast breeder of course could use the reactor grade Pu to create weapons grade Pu from the U238 in the breeder blankets. It would thus convert or launder the reactor grade stockpile into weapons grade.

[vera_k]

On top of which, the circa. 1998 estimate of weapons-usable reactor grade PU was 600kgs. So the PU stockpile is not as large as is thought to be.

[somnath]

On top of which, the circa. 1998 estimate of weapons-usable reactor grade PU was 600kgs. So the PU stockpile is not as large as is thought to be.

dont quite understand what you mean by this..George Perkovich estimated total weapons grade Pu stockpile to be 500 kg in 1998..That has been confirmed by many..

And reactor grade Pu stockpile is estimated to be between 3-5 tons..

A good ppt on the status here..
http://www.isodarco.it/courses/andalo11 ... thAsia.pdf

the FBR should drastically increase the production of weapons grade Pu, notwithstanding MKN's rather confusing claims...

The other big daddy, and Perkovich analysed that in some detail, is use of reactor grade Pu to make bombs...If that has been "cracked", then, well.........

[vera_k]

That is Perkovich estimate of reactor grade PU usable in weapons. Pg 430.

[ShauryaT]

I would be interested to know what technical reason(s), if any, might BK have for preferring a "straight through Graphite moderated reactor supplied by China to Pakistan", over a metallic fuelled Nat U, Heavy Water Moderated (preferably Heavy Water cooled), low temperature reactor with high neutron economy for use in Pu production application. What is wrong if as an added attraction, such a Heavy Water reactor can also produce radio-isotopes as a by-product without affecting its weapons grade Pu production capacity? Perhaps some "spare" neutrons are available for this which can not otherwise be used in Pu production!!

I would think, as the British and later the Russians found out, a Graphite moderated reactor might be less safe than a Heavy Water reactor, due to fire hazard. I feel it might be more difficult now to license in India, a graphite moderated reactor.

I am no techie, but it seems a graphite reactor is better for low burn as it is easier to change the fuel rods compared to a PWR? Also, it seems to be the preferred reactor of such safety cautious nations such as the old SU, DPRK, PRC and now TSP! I guess safety is less of a concern.

[ShauryaT]

Reprocessing cannot convert the reactor grade Pu into weapons grade. Of the various enrichment technologies only laser enrichment (AVLIS) would be potentially feasible (though cost, efficiency etc may preclude this).
The fast breeder of course could use the reactor grade Pu to create weapons grade Pu from the U238 in the breeder blankets. It would thus convert or launder the reactor grade stockpile into weapons grade.

How about chemical based processes such as PUREX?