India Nuclear News And Discussion

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 17:28

Amit,

Got it hand it to you...Your sarcastic reference to NFU as a precondition has now gotten the entire "nationalist" community really convinced that NFU is a part of 123 obligations

If anything, shows up the absolute and utter ignorance that forms the basis of the debate on nuclear issues at times..So much so that people dont even bother to understand the "terms" that are being used (maybe the result of an overuse of random Google searched terms!)...

BTW, for those suddenly hanging on to the "dangers" of "NFU condition", NFU stands for No First USe...It is not an international obligation under any treaty..It is a doctrinal approach of India w.r.t its nuclear weapons strategy...Its a deliberate posture whose merits have been discussed in many places, incl I am sure in BR...NFU in some ways leaves strategic space for an escalatory ladder of conventional responses..And also acts as a degree of assurance to apprehensive neighbours/rivals...It is also a statement of confidence about second strike capabilities...The rationale is wide and well documented..To be sure, India's NFU per the declared nuclear doctrine has already been modified - people who follow the "area" will know Shiv Menon's speech last year articulating that...Its no longer an unconditional "NFU" anymore....

Second, what the NSG waiver is predicated on is not NFU, but India "not testing, ie, our self-declared moratorium (yes, declared by the "natinalist" govt!) on testing" - refer to my post (and NSG documents) above..And breach of even that, is difficult to "punish", as it would require a global consensus, which would simply never be there for a world so engaged with India...there is no commitment anywhere by India that we wont test...

But that isnt the point..the amusing point is how "NFU" has become part of our "international obligations"!

Its amusing to see people having touching faith in Russia's commitments to India otherwise, but not in terms of scuttling any American effort to reverse the NSG waiver!

But more amusing is to see people quoting absolutely random inacccuracies to build a case of verbose, well, nothing!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 17:48

For those interested, this is Shiv Menon's speech detailing the shift in NFU posture...

http://www.mea.gov.in/mystart.php?id=530116584

The relevant line is this..

The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament.

From an unconditional NFU (original nuclear doctrine), we have now shifted our NFU posture only for non-nuke weapon states...In other words, China, Pak are "fair game" for a preemptive nuclear first strike....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 17:57

When lining pockets are important logic has to be messed up. So the point about contravening "clauses" - which includes testing, has to be overlooked. So doubting consequences of 123 agreement makes one a "nationalist"! Good one - as somehow the inherent sliminess and ego and penchant to "bite" and affiliation to pushing a particular political agenda always comes up in calling anyone disliked or posting anything contrary to pontiff's dogma - a "nationalist" or "uber-nationalist". This is a sign of speaking and keeping things in "context" I suppose, and lauded for being "data-driven" - some "data" indeed!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 18:47

Ahhh - testing now (thankfully, NFU is out of the window!)...Unfortunately some people will still not read the NSG agreement (links to which have been provided)...As GP said, we need to now ask "who is sita"?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 19:29

WRT to dispute resolution it only deals with fuel claw back so useless. NSG can shut us down anytime they feel like it.

I have to say the trust shown on this site towards the US honoring pieces of paper is touching. All past history is conveniently ignored.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 19:57

Theo_Fidel wrote:WRT to dispute resolution it only deals with fuel claw back so useless. NSG can shut us down anytime they feel like it.

I have to say the trust shown on this site towards the US honoring pieces of paper is touching. All past history is conveniently ignored.

Theo-ji, what is this animal, NSG? Is it a monolithic entity? Its just a club of 45 countries, many with no love lost for each other...What would cause ALL of them to gang up against India?

Actually, there is NO faith in the US..Which is why we demanded (and got) a "clean waiver" from NSG...Meaning Us becomes one of the many actors that we can play with...Today, it is the only actor we are NOT playing with!

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 20:01

Jaswant Singh speaks up...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... lear-power

Now is not the time for energy-starved India to increase nuclear dependency

Soaring costs and safety doubts post-Fukushima mean India is unwise to plan a doubling of its nuclear plants

The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.

The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.

A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.

Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.

So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?

At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 20:04

The faith in the NSG too is touching. The majority of countries there bitterly opposed and continue to oppose India's waiver. The only reason we got and keep the waiver is US support. No US, no waiver.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 20:18

Folks,

It is simple math. NSG works on consensus. During the discussion on the waiver, a few countries like Austria, Norway, China et al (if memory serves me) were playing spoilers. When it comes time to revoke the waiver, again a few can play spoilers. All it takes is a few.

Touching or not, are folks saying that India doesn't have even ONE friend among 45? If so, that is indeed sad state of affairs for SDRE.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Apr 2011 20:20

No US, no waiver

True. But then, No US, No NSG and No Sanctions in the first place either!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 20:20

This is perhaps the most comprehensive compendium of facts on the Indian nuke programme in one place..

http://www.cstep.in/docs/CSTEP%20Nuclear%20Report.pdf

Refer to page 46 and 47 for costs - nuke stacks up VERY well against coal and gas...In fact very very well...Purely on costs, some more here (this was posted earlier)...
http://www.igcar.ernet.in/nuclear/alagh.htm

But howsoevermuch data one gives, there is no respite from "unknown knowns"!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Apr 2011 20:22

vina wrote:
No US, no waiver
True. But then, No US, No NSG and No Sanctions in the first place either!

More apprpriately, no US, no waiver...But now, US "no" doesnt mean everyone "no"!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 20:39

It is charming to see the dunce dance of illogicality - or is it rather insidious? The NSG waiver came over and above a "few" "spoilers" - fine! Should those "spoilers" be counted as "enemies" of India? [Since it appears that there is a huge faith in future - about those who are going to be "friends"] Now what made those enemies suddenly turn over sides and become "friends" to allow the "waiver"? if the factor was US pressure [or lets say the big few players in nukommerce] that made them "change" their minds - does it mean that a similar pressure in the future will not however change their minds in the other direction?

So this "unknown" is now "known" for sure by the high pontiff of "unknowable unknowns"?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 20:53

brihaspati wrote: Now what made those enemies suddenly turn over sides and become "friends" to allow the "waiver"? if the factor was US pressure [or lets say the big few players in nukommerce] that made them "change" their minds - does it mean that a similar pressure in the future will not however change their minds in the other direction?

You just don't get it. Those spoilers will now be playing for the revoking the waiver. So, they can't be spoilers. Spoilers would be others who were quiet during the waiver discussion -- these would be new players.

By the way, I thought folks were signing paeans to Ruskies. Ye, of little faith? Nary a wee spoiler friend for SDRE?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 21:06

BTW Ruskie is a slang term that I've been told not all Russians like.

The Russians can't/won't provide fuel for other reactors, just their own. Certainly not in the 10,000 tonne per annum range that we will need.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 21:11

GuruPrabhu wrote
You just don't get it. Those spoilers will now be playing for the revoking the waiver. So, they can't be spoilers. Spoilers would be others who were quiet during the waiver discussion -- these would be new players.

By the way, I thought folks were signing paeans to Ruskies. Ye, of little faith? Nary a wee spoiler friend for SDRE?

^^^tut tut! Aren't we talking in nebulous terms? Non-quantitative? What are the realistic probabilities you will assign to "Rooss"[the acceptable version on the "Rus" side] "spoiling" reversal of "waiver" attempts? Any numbers? I thought speculating on potential negatives of nuke-power nuke-politics was to be trashed as "unknowable unknowns". Now is the spoiling in favour of India in a future "crisis" not an "unknowable unknown" then? Is it a "knowable unknown" then? If so, there must be concrete estimated probabilities at least - or a logical chain of arguments that shows it will be impossible for the Russies not to play a "spoiler" in favour of India? So what are those numbers and what are those incontrovertible chain of arguments?

All we are getting is raising a speculative counter hypothesis in the form of a question - "will not Ruskies come in aid?" !

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 29 Apr 2011 21:54

Brihaspati,

I have no interest in being dragged into this non-issue. Make what you will of NSG rules and pontificate to your heart's content.

Theo,

Your concern for Russian sensitivities is "touching", especially on this forum where every other country gets called names galore.

Over and out for me.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Apr 2011 22:24

Nothing touching, just a heads up from personal experience.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2011 22:57

GuruPrabhu wrote:Brihaspati,

I have no interest in being dragged into this non-issue. Make what you will of NSG rules and pontificate to your heart's content.

Over and out for me.

Is asking for quantitative measures on consequences of nuke-agreements a non-issue now? So there are no "numbers" on future Russian support in case US decides to move against India over contravention claims? Even a minuscule number would have done - something like 10^(-6)?

I thought ridiculing doubts about nuke-energy was the norm based on "numbers" and "estimates" of probability of negative fall outs. Critiques were trashed because they only put up "unknowable unknowns". Now when similar quantitative questions asked about this much touted "inevitability" of spoilers in favour of India - suddenly it becomes a non-issue! Good!

By the way this is the second time you have qualified me - first time it was classification as a poster - now gracious permission to "pontificate"! Is this how you react to anyone who does not agree to your claims or views? Have I qualified you in any such way in my posts?

What suddenly becomes a "non-issue" was apparently the only argument being thrown around about impossibility of waiver being withdrawn in the future at the behest of US - which by the way was a scenario being posted by other posters, and not by me. But they were being ridiculed and only counter-speculations being offered - "will there be not a single friend of India", and "what about Ruskies" - etc.

So what is wrong in asking you for numbers/estimates for such support happening? When you have insisted on similar quantitative measures and ridiculed "fearful" speculations when they could not provide it! At least they did not fly off claiming that it was a non-issue!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Apr 2011 01:32

Wanted to check up on the following :

The DAE was projecting a nuclear-generating capacity of 20GW by 2020 and 275 GW by 2052 or 20% of the total electricity generation capacity projected for that time. The Ministry of Power [2008], projected that, as a result of the US–India nuclear deal, the country will be able to add 40 GW of nuclear power by the year 2020. In the longer run, India’s Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar has promised that nuclear power will contribute 35% of electricity generation by 2050 (2008). Since the DAE has projected that India will have an installed electricity generation capacity of 1300 GW by that time, the 35% prediction implies that installed nuclear capacity would amount to 455 GW by 2052.

Do folks agree on this projection?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Apr 2011 02:05

somnath wrote:For those interested, this is Shiv Menon's speech detailing the shift in NFU posture...

http://www.mea.gov.in/mystart.php?id=530116584

The relevant line is this..
The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament.
From an unconditional NFU (original nuclear doctrine), we have now shifted our NFU posture only for non-nuke weapon states...In other words, China, Pak are "fair game" for a preemptive nuclear first strike....

This has always been true for all NW states. When I stated this some months back, I recall you rejecting this policy and being ridiculed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Apr 2011 02:22

Somanthji and Mort Walker, Lets not discuss SSMji's clarification of NFU.
Thanks for agreeing.
ramana

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 30 Apr 2011 03:43

brihaspati wrote: I thought ridiculing doubts about nuke-energy was the norm based on "numbers" and "estimates" of probability of negative fall outs. Critiques were trashed because they only put up "unknowable unknowns". Now when similar quantitative questions asked about this much touted "inevitability" of spoilers in favour of India - suddenly it becomes a non-issue! Good!

By the way this is the second time you have qualified me - first time it was classification as a poster - now gracious permission to "pontificate"! Is this how you react to anyone who does not agree to your claims or views? Have I qualified you in any such way in my posts?

Yes, you have -- in the paragraph quoted above. I have never used the phrase "unknowable unknowns". Secondly, health effects have been studied and papers published on measurables. How Russia will vote is not a study of measurables. Period.

Whatever your agenda is, leave me out of it. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Apr 2011 04:49

Guruprabhu ji
"unknowable unknowns" was used by another poster, and if "pontiff" was mentioned in that context naturally it goes for that poster and not you. Asking about "knowable unknowns" is not a personal aspersion on you of the same order as suggesting that you "pontificate". But you started off in a previous post to my "above post" by classifying me as a poster with certain characteristics. I asked as to what similar personal ascriptions have I cast on you. I hope it is not a "comprehension" issue.

Anyway, it is good to know that potential support by potential friends of India in preventing withdrawal of NSG waiver - is a non issue, or immeasurable and not quantifiable. However, it is apparently an almost sure non-issue, which means it will happen with probability 1. On the other hand talking about such immeasurable, non-quantifiable, non-issues as de facto guarantees of waiver in permanence is not ridiculous and not mock-able - unlike similar speculations about negative fall-outs of nuke power similarly not backed up with numbers but which are immensely ridiculous and mock-able.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 30 Apr 2011 05:17

brihaspati wrote:It is charming to see the dunce dance of illogicality - or is it rather insidious? The NSG waiver came over and above a "few" "spoilers" - fine! Should those "spoilers" be counted as "enemies" of India? [Since it appears that there is a huge faith in future - about those who are going to be "friends"] Now what made those enemies suddenly turn over sides and become "friends" to allow the "waiver"? if the factor was US pressure [or lets say the big few players in nukommerce] that made them "change" their minds - does it mean that a similar pressure in the future will not however change their minds in the other direction?

So this "unknown" is now "known" for sure by the high pontiff of "unknowable unknowns"?

You win. Thanks for playing. Bye.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Apr 2011 11:32

Mort Walker wrote:This has always been true for all NW states. When I stated this some months back, I recall you rejecting this policy and being ridiculed

MW-ji, not sure what you are referring to...I was simply clarifying to some resident "experts" that contrary to their views, NFU isnt a matter of India's treaty obligation, only a strategic policy orientation...We have no onbligation regarding NFUs to anyone..And no, not all NW states have NFU - US doesnt have one as a prime example..

Saw Ramana's injunction! Didnt understand, but will stop nevertheless!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Apr 2011 17:41

Another question following from my previous question on DAE projections, what proportion of contribution to nuclear power generation capacity is attributed to the breeder reactors - in the future? Or are we now not relying on reprocessing capacity at all - and projecting on the basis of new reactors to be installed by other countries with fuel supplied or sourced from outside the country?

Based on these, there is a possible impact on how much growth can be expected reasonably in nuke power generation. Only after that can we reasonably again sit down and think of "satisfying" projected power demands by nuclear power as a core/mainstay.

If indigenous capacity to reprocess or extract fuel independent of outside supply dependence and associated constraints is sufficient to meet up a large part of projected power demands, that is fine.

If not, and it means dependence, then potential constraints or uncertainties on future supply can no longer be dismissed as "non-issues" if nuclear power is deemed to be an irreplaceable component of our future power generation schemes.

There are some studies on this aspect apparently, so will wait for "resident expert" opinion on this before citing "non-resident experts".

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 30 Apr 2011 19:07

India's first fast-breeder reactor to cost Rs.5,677 crore

The upcoming 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) being built by Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd (Bhavini) in this Tamil Nadu town is expected to finally cost Rs.5,677 crore (Rs.56.7 billion), an official said on Saturday.

"The nuclear power plant will go on stream next year. The total cost of the project by then will be Rs.5,677 crore. The per MW cost will be around Rs.11 crore which compares well with that of PHWRs (pressurised heavy water reactors) costing around Rs.10.66 crore. The cost per unit of power generated by PFBR will be Rs.4.44,” project director Prabhat Kumar told reporters in Kalpakkam, around 50 km from Chennai.

The original cost of the project was estimated at Rs.3,500 crore and the escalation was due to increase in input costs and construction of residential colony for employees, he said.

The cost was high as this was a single unit while the future units will be cheaper due to revised design, said Prabhat Kumar, adding 80 percent of the cost will be funded by the government and rest from borrowing.

According to Baldev Raj, director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), the sites for two more FBRs have already been identified in Kalpakkam while the other two units can be set up anywhere in India.

They would go critical by 2020, he said.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Apr 2011 20:43

One more NPA report...The Nuclear Security Summit report..

http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files ... 11_WEB.pdf

Seems the "gap" between India and Pak in NPA measures has come off! India's now "at par"!

With 80-100 warheads compared to 90-110 of Pak..

But joker in the pack is the fissile material stock..These guys estimate 0.5 tonnes of WgrPu and 3.5 tons of RGrPu...That is HUGE, with a capital H, in case we wanted to crank the production up...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 30 Apr 2011 21:02

^^^ Is the HEU estimate of 1.3 tonnes new? I don't recall seeing that figure.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Apr 2011 22:07

^^^Neither have I before..HEU is generally "dismissed" for India as a nuke sub fuel-producing enterprise, and nothing more...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 May 2011 00:41

Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor ‘has independent safety mechanisms'

The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, is “a unique reactor” which does not require water for emergency cooling of its nuclear fuel core in the case of an accident, said Baldev Raj, who laid down office on Saturday as Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. The 500 MWe PFBR will be commissioned in 2012.

(The PFBR will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel, and liquid sodium as coolant. If sodium comes into contact with water, it will catch fire. At Fukushima in Japan in March, four reactors' nuclear fuel core could not be cooled because the station suffered a black-out after the tsunami, which also knocked out the pumps and the diesel generator sets. So water could not be pumped for cooling the fuel core.)

As the PFBR boasted a number of redundancy systems and independent mechanisms, the reactor would be shut down with minimum problems in the case of any event, Dr. Baldev Raj told a news conference at Kalpakkam. It had nine control and safety rods, and three diverse safety rods which would help in shutting it down quickly.

S.C. Chetal, who took over as IGCAR Director, explained that in the case of sodium fire in an open place, sodium bicarbonate — a dry chemical powder — would be used to douse the fire. If sodium caught fire in an enclosed place, nitrogen would be injected to extinguish it. Sodium fire was milder than oil catching fire, Mr. Chetal said.

The floor level of all equipment related to the PFBR's emergency core cooling had been raised after the tsunami of December 2004 struck the PFBR's foundation pit, Dr. Baldev Raj said. Seismic activity all over the country was monitored from Kalpakkam round the clock. “We don't wait for the national alert,” he said. A tsunami protection wall had been built on the shore at the site and the township. Besides the PFBR, two Commercial Fast Breeder Reactors (CFBRs) of 500 MWe each would be built at Kalpakkam and their construction would begin in 2017. The layout of the two CFBRs was finalised and their site was getting readied.

Mr. Chetal said that while the 2004 tsunami wave had a height of 4.7 metres above the mean sea level (MSL) at Kalpakkam, the PFBR's floor level was 9.5 metres above the MSL. “There is no chance of sea water entering the PFBR buildings,” {pushing it a wee bit too much}he added. The PFBR personnel had been trained in handling the combustible liquid sodium. There was no leakage of sodium for the past 14 years in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam, which was a forerunner to the PFBR. Although 75 kg of sodium was spilled in the FBTR prior to that, there was no fire, Mr. Chetal said.

Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR, said the total investment in the PFBR would be around Rs.560 crore. The cost of construction for a MWe was around Rs.11 crore. The cost was “naturally higher” compared to other electricity generating plants because all the PFBR equipment were manufactured for the first time in India. Electricity from the PFBR would be sold to State Electricity Boards at Rs.4.44 a unit. Mr. Kumar called the PFBR “a robust reactor” and various lessons learnt from the 2004 tsunami had been factored into its construction. The PFBR had a passive heat decay removal system.
Review of safety

After the Fukushima accident, two committees reviewed the safety at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam. Mobile power generation sets had been procured. According to K. Ramamurthy, MAPS Station Director, MAPS' emergency core cooling equipment was relocated to a higher level after the 2004 tsunami.

If power generating plants were set up on inland sites, thermal pollution would be more because the decay heat would have to be conducted into nearby water bodies, said P. Chellapandi, Director, Nuclear and Safety Group, IGCAR.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 May 2011 08:41

I was looking for Reactors cooled by liquid sodium and found this Wiki article

Liquid metal cooled reactor

It seems that a reactor with liquid coolant has higher power density as compared to water cooled unit. Their are disadvantages are well in terms of inspection of the coolant tubes. As it is hard to see through opaque liquid metal.

Sodium-cooled fast reactor

To my street level mind it is a good read. Describing the main operating principles of the reactor.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 01 May 2011 09:11

Pratyush wrote:Their are disadvantages are well in terms of inspection of the coolant tubes. As it is hard to see through opaque liquid metal.

Inspecting coolant tubes is not important, because there are several other techniques to detect any leakage. However, inspection of the volume between the main vessel and secondary vessel will be done with an In-Service Inspection (ISI, sorry!) vehicle that has been developed in collaboration between IGCAR, BARC, IISC and DRHR.

If I knew how to post jpeg's on this forum, I would post something.

By the way, in general, for Bharatiya readers, my plea is to avoid gora websites and refer to BARC/IGCAR for developments. Indian developments are well ahead of gora-lands.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 01 May 2011 11:07

Actually worldwide the problem with Sodium has been keeping such reactors in operation. There is one in Japan that they are still trying to restart 15 years after a leak & fire. Any small incident India's experience with Sodium coolants is extremely light, esp. on a larger scale projects. I suspect this is going to be an expensive paper weight. It made sense when they planned to burn Thorium in it. But there is no plan for that now. There are certain scenario's in which a Sodium reactor can go out of control, options are very limited at that point. A loss of coolant actually makes the fission reaction accelerate under some scenarios.

Even here in India the FBTR actual performance has been extremely disappointing. Yet we have changed even that design for the PFBR. We should keep in mind the first word is Proto-Type. And we have to hope the all of the numerous design bets placed on this reactor all work out perfectly. We are going from a 10 MW reactor to a 500 MW reactor, skipping several stages in between. Historically this has proved to be a mistake.

We should keep in mind that BARC and its founders claimed that we should have ~ 50,000 MW of nuclear power by 2000.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 May 2011 11:32

A loss of coolant actually makes the fission reaction accelerate under some scenarios.

Good question. I have no idea how the control works in a fast reactor. Maybe the Fyzzicists here can throw some light. Per "littrachaw", they use "doppler broadening" (I understand doppler effect with ref to sound, electro mag waves etc very well, dunno what M. Doppler did wrt to neutrons. again would like more info).

So , if the reactor has a negative void coeff by design with "doppler broadening", a LOCA will stop the nuke reaction.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 01 May 2011 13:13

GuruPrabhu wrote:
If I knew how to post jpeg's on this forum, I would post something.

May I suggest the following:

In the post text, one could include the Tag "" where 'URL_of_image' is the full URL of an image file (it could be in .jpg or .gif or, I think, even .png etc format) in the Internet. In other words, the image must already be in the Interet; one cannot include an image that resides only in one's computer.

For example, I thought the following image, which I came across in a (hard copy) report of the Indian National Academy of Engineers, might be interesting to BRF members and so have posted the same here after scanning and uploading it to 'Imageshack' which is a free server for hosting images.

I have combined a url tag and an img tag for the two images (LargeSize and Thumbnail) as follows:

Code: Select all

[url=URL_of_LargeSizeImage][img]URL_of_ThumbnailImage[/img][/url]

Hope it works!!

Please Right Click on the thumbnail below to see the full sized image in a 'New Window' or in a 'New Tab' of your Browser:

Hope above is helpful.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 01 May 2011 16:35

vina wrote: Per "littrachaw", they use "doppler broadening" (I understand doppler effect with ref to sound, electro mag waves etc very well, dunno what M. Doppler did wrt to neutrons. again would like more info).

Doppler broadening refers to enhanced resonant absorption of fast neutrons due to thermal motion of the target nuclei (typically, "fast" refers to neutrons with energies above the resonance region.) Here is a compact reference which addresses some other issues as well:

http://www.nuceng.ca/ep6p3/class/Module ... dJun21.pdf

In the case of a LOCA, Doppler broadening also absorbs some epithermal neutrons.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 01 May 2011 16:37

Sanatanan wrote:For example, I thought the following image, which I came across in a (hard copy) report of the Indian National Academy of Engineers, might be interesting to BRF members and so have posted the same here after scanning and uploading it to 'Imageshack' which is a free server for hosting images.

Thanks. I have to start with Imageshack first. I wanted to post something on the In-Service Inspector which is only on my desktop.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 01 May 2011 17:28

GuruPrabhu wrote:^^^ Is the HEU estimate of 1.3 tonnes new? I don't recall seeing that figure.

Srikumar Bannerjee in a recent interview talked of a vastly enhanced capcity for HEU production..

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/06/stories ... 051300.htm

So total capacity enhancement at Ratnahalli has been done. We are confident of supplying the entire fuel for the set of….

You cannot say anymore that India does not have enrichment technology. India has its own technology and we can produce [enriched uranium]. We have not started doing it for large-scale commercial nuclear power stations, which require a much larger quantity of enriched uranium. We will be able to do that once we go to Chitradurga.