India Nuclear News And Discussion

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 15 May 2011 02:32

What is amusing is the sheer amount of FUD being spread about Fukushima and previous accidents in general, all of a sudden. Why the sudden banging of drums, pots and pans? Shouldn't Chernobyl have kept us from ever using videshi nuclear maal, particularly Russian? I seem to remember a fairly different reaction in the thread when the NSG waiver was finally announced and formalized.

Of course, the banging of drums, pots and pans is coming from a very few posters, so perhaps it isn't so mysterious.

Of course, all official death toll figures are fake onlee. So I won't bother linking to them, it's pretty easy to use google. However, I will say that any honest examination of the casualties that have resulted from nuclear power would determine that it is several orders of magnitude less harmful than any fossil fuel. Sure, there are very valid dangers to keep in mind and be guarded against constantly. With those guards in place, we have empirical evidence of the track record of the nuclear industry vis a vis the other energy sources.

What disturbs me is those who rely on large amounts of innuendo and quoting the occasional "lonewolf" outside the mainstream community. It's a very common tactic used by pseudoscientific melodramatics everywhere- trash the mainstream scientific community through CTs, snark and dark little hints, and hold up the one or two voices who lend some vague support to your position- even ridiculous sources such as Greenpeace- as being heroes. Everyone from the anti-vaccination movement (vaccination causes autism!) to the anti-retroviral therapy movement- uses this exact same strategy- heavy on emotional inflammatory rhetoric, low on everything else. Many commentators have rightly said that the hysteria associated with the evil spirit that is "radiation"- promoted by loads of media sensationalism, movies, animated films, everything- is often more dangerous than the radiation itself.

Absurd.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 May 2011 06:42

ok, let's get back on track with more meaningful discussions. Here is something to think about:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam was set up in 1971. Two civil research reactors here are preparing for stage two of the thorium cycle. BHAVINI is located here and draws upon the centre's expertise and that of NPCIL in establishing the fast reactor program.

The 40 MWt fast breeder test reactor (FBTR) based on the French Rapsodie FBR design has been operating since 1985. It has achieved 165 GWday/tonne burnup with its carbide fuel (70% PuC + 30% UC) without any fuel failure. In 2005 the FBTR fuel cycle was closed, with the reprocessing of 100 GWd/t fuel - claimed as a world first. This has been made into new mixed carbide fuel for FBTR. Prototype FBR fuel which is under irradiation testing in FBTR has reached a burnup of 90 GWd/tonne. As part of developing higher-burnup fuel for PHWRs, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is being used experimentally in FBTR, which has been operating with a hybrid core of mixed carbide and mixed oxide fuel (the high-Pu MOX forming 20% of the core).

In 2011 FBTR was given a 20-year life extension, to 2030, and IGCAR said that its major task over this period would be large-scale irradiation of the advanced metallic fuels and core structural materials required for the next generation fast reactors with high breeding ratios (the PFBR uses MOX fuel, but later versions will use metal.).

A 300 MWt, 150 MWe fast breeder reactor as a test bed for using metallic fuel is envisaged once several MOX-fuelled fast reactors are in operation. This successor to FBTR will use U-Pu alloy or U-Pu-Zr, with electrometallurgical reprocessing. Its design is to be completed by 2017.

Also at IGCAR, the tiny Kamini (Kalpakkam mini) reactor is exploring the use of thorium as nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. It is the only reactor in the world running on U-233 fuel, according to DAE.

A Compact High-Temperature Reactor (CHTR) is being designed to have long (15 year) core life and employ liquid metal (Pb-Bi) coolant. There are also designs for HTRs up to 600 MWt for hydrogen production and a 5 MWt multi-purpose nuclear power pack.

The burn-up figures should give some heart-burn to MVR and his fan club.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 May 2011 07:23

Bade wrote: On a lighter note, isn't it surprising to see how science is being twisted by the attempts to achieve what some believe, and are trying to rectify where diplomacy failed, in keeping imported evil technology out.

Bade-ji,

There is much that India can learn from imported technology. The nuclear physics and engineering aspects of BARC are solid. However, there are also the components of mechanical, civil and electrical engineering wherein India lags behind.

To be specific, we need to have the technology to build large pressure vessels. Right now, for >1 GW level reactors, we have to import them. hence, the Russian collaboration. We also are behind in control systems. Those technologies need to be imported and then made indigenous. On the civil side, we are probably up to par but what needs to be done is to have private industry in India catch up with best practices.

As an aside, I find it impressive that the shrill voices of "no import" do not apply the same tone to other sectors. Car technology was imported large scale -- else we would only have Ambassadors. Software tech was imported, else we would have the jokes of software packages written by DOT. Code coolies are making a living by licking American boots, but that is somehow good!

Nuclear is one technology (probably the ONLY technology) where India can be proud of its achievements. So that is the one place where the Fan Club wants to diss India. [Space tech and missiles is another one, but in that sector we have not yet shown a "world first" like we have in Nuclear]

So, bottomline is this. Assorted jokers can take away India's achievements and shut down BARC etc. We will return to a hindu rate of growth -- so be it.

But, fortunately, no one really cares about what BRF thinks and BARC and IGCAR are gung-ho on nuke power.

Add CAT to the mix, and yes sir, we will make ADS happen as well. Jai Ho.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 May 2011 07:58

GuruPrabhu, it is true that India has always imported technology to jump-start various programs, nuclear included. There was probably even more interaction during the early days of BARC with western scientists and engineers. I have heard of anecdotal accounts in conversations with people who are no more. Post Pok-II there is more of an expectancy from the public (BRF included) of further local components use and to have less dependency. But it can be wishful thinking.

Same is true for the Space programs too, at least the launch aspect. But this mismatch of engineering needs of the country and dearth of skills within the industry is quite amazing, given that GoI has always invested heavily in creating institutions more geared towards engineering than the sciences. The Russian dependence after almost half a century is glaring in large engineering projects that you mention or in building a launch complex for Space programs. Even satellite tech was largely US imported but is heavily Indianised by now. Even then there are glaring holes in full spectrum of capabilities. It is not a leading role player though there are exceptions. For Chandrayan-I there were some really local only payloads which were trendsetters (ChACE payload is one such). But there seems to be a general lack of sophistication in creating International collaborations where equal partnership is achieved. This is probably true also from little of HEP programs that I had the chance to see closely.

You are right in that, overall we are not there yet to be trailblazers in technology and the gaps need to be filled with active open collaboration from outside. I have seen this need for at least two fields that I have worked in. Wishful thinking alone will not fill those wide gaps.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 May 2011 08:20

Bade,

The problem lies in the deterioration of the Indian University system. The research component is truly mediocre. Bhabha and Sarabhai did not face this issue because the Universities were still producing well-trained talent. The problems started surfacing in Raja Ramanna's time. Coincidentally enough, this coincided with the sanctions regime.

Ramanna took the problem head-on and instituted all forms of training programs, summer schools etc to make sure that Indian under-graduates and post-graduates were kept up to speed. However, that was not enough.

The biggest reason that was not enough is that Indian talent started migrating to Massa Land. Besides the "brain drain" it also created a division in terms of "us and them" between those who left and those who stayed behind. Very unfortunate, but easy to understand.

The time has come to get over those issues.

[by the way, HEP in India is a joke. IMO, the Rs 1,200 crores sanctioned for INO can be better spent in dozens of different places.]

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 May 2011 08:42

Your INO observation is disheartening in that it would in the least be a training ground for the next generation to build the requisite skills for a wide array of science programs.

The reverse migration in the IT field, at both the general industry and for r&d within an industry setup shows us that money can be a mass mover, if not the only one to attract top talent. Both are needed in appropriate measures for overall success of new programs.

Didn't BARC training school attract good students from science as well as engg streams to fill their needs ? Maybe, the late 90's IT ramp up may have had a bigger impact on BARC. Even 20 yrs ago, BARC training school was competitive and it was not easy to get in to those summer research programs at tifr/iisc/rri/prl/ipl etc. Many who did not get in also left for far shores.

But the drain of engg talent from places like the IITs to US probably had a bigger impact in large project execution capabilities.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 May 2011 08:57

Bade wrote:Your INO observation is disheartening in that it would in the least be a training ground for the next generation to build the requisite skills for a wide array of science programs.

Yes, in principle. However, if you look at the details, the training is going to be done in yesterday's tech. INO is a political animal at this point.

Didn't BARC training school attract good students from science as well as engg streams to fill their needs ? Maybe, the late 90's IT ramp up may have had a bigger impact on BARC. Even 20 yrs ago, BARC training school was competitive and it was not easy to get in to those summer research programs at tifr/iisc/rri/prl/ipl etc. Many who did not get in also left for far shores.

Boss, the sad truth is that even after attending the training school the students migrated. There just weren't enough incentives for them to stay.

Compare this to IIT as you have posted. In nuke field, staying back was considered "patriotic". For IIT graduates, immigrating was considered "glamorous". There was no stigma.

Now, we have this situation where IT-Vity types are poo-poo'ing the nuke sector.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 May 2011 10:27

UBanerjee wrote:What is amusing is the sheer amount of FUD being spread about Fukushima and previous accidents in general, all of a sudden. Why the sudden banging of drums, pots and pans? .

Needed for wake up DiE's, MUTUs and Dhimmi's. Who safely categorized Chernobyl as "oh those russians" and pretended they knew better.

All the suppressed truths are now coming out, and muzzling scientific voices by personal attacks (calling them lone wolf or whatever) is not working anymore.

Any way I am surprised that people are using mob tactics (number of people supporting a view) as a scientific tool. Science and engineering are based on ability to correctly model and predict outcomes and not the ability of money to control the level of noise as a tool. Also it is clear that a whole bunch of people were basically colluding with commercial intrests (mostly US based) to falsify science (in Japan and elsewhere)

We can see those tactics here, if you question the stability of western LWR based tech, you are accused of being against BARC.

On the other hand the same people use terms like "Hindu rate of growth rate" and claim "there is no option for India but to import LWRs"

If people had a shred of honesty, the above behavior itself would be telling. However, it appears that the focus is not Indian intrests but commercial intrests (not Indian commercial intrests, even that would be fine)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 May 2011 10:31

negi wrote:Is it only me; looks like parallel discussions are going on this this dhaga and the Fukushima dhaga . The Japanese themselves have moved on, I wonder then what the halla is all about ? Who is the Bredator in charge ? A serious clean up and couple of hell phyrrs are needed, if it helps you can send one my way .

You have been missing the fun Negi-ullah. Some people made rather pathetic attempt to whitewash the situation at Fukushima and got their butts handed to them on a plate (you did you bit in educating them with wave propagation dynamics) -- they are now taking out their frustrations on this thread to close down the three cycle program since their much vaunted loving LWR program was shown to be shoddy.

Agar Bhestern nahi to kuch nahi (if not western nothing)

Not being a boot licker MUTU means we will return to Nehruivan rate of growth, according to them.

And oh, the breadators threw up their hand. If they actually cracked down, a whole bunch of people would end up getting banned which I think they are reluctant to do.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 May 2011 17:16

Glass houses... stones... fond memories of N3's one click ban button

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 May 2011 17:38

Sanku wrote:Any way I am surprised that people are using mob tactics (number of people supporting a view) as a scientific tool. Science and engineering are based on ability to correctly model and predict outcomes and not the ability of money to control the level of noise as a tool. Also it is clear that a whole bunch of people were basically colluding with commercial intrests (mostly US based) to falsify science (in Japan and elsewhere)

ok, it is clear to you. So, go ahead and name the names of who is colluding with commercial interests.

Don't hide behind generalities -- if you are accusing someone, go ahead and put it in plain English. Else you are a coward.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 15 May 2011 20:08

GP,

Just for your opinion, where do you think the Rs. 1,200 crore for the INO could be better spent? There is a significant amount of in-house HEP specific engineering that will have to be done for the INO. This in itself is a great boon for future experimental HEP.
You are right about the IT-vity types disparaging nuke sector as we can see it right here in this forum.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 May 2011 20:28

Sanku boss I thought the debate over the import of reactors West/Ru was done and dusted with when nuke deal was signed; I for one don't see ANY ALTERNATIVES to import; specially when buying reactors was a PART of the deal, for a moment if everyone were to agree with you and not generate power from 'untested' reactors we will still have to buy them and construct them, it's as simple as that. Finally as far as nuclear power generation is concerned nothing has changed after Fukushima even the unlucky Japanese (small country, limited natural resources, located near the volcanic belt and pretty high on seismic hazard map) have only momentarily shutdown their other reactors to incorporate what would hopefully prevent another Fukushima type accident. They haven't closed the door shut on N power despite being well aware of the fact that they can be struck by another earthquake measuring 7+ on richter on any given day. Sanku maharaj you are in Dilli which sucks power from rest of the neighboring states to maintain it's claim as a capital of India, to be honest it is Dilli which needs a dedicated nuclear power-plant in outskirts of Noida/Gurgaon; let the other states stop supplying electricity (I am sure they can consume all that on their own) to Dilli and then we shall see how genuine this concern is for so called 'safety' and 'radiation'.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 May 2011 21:31

Gerard wrote:Glass houses... stones... fond memories of N3's one click ban button

Gerard, with all due respects, I think you know whats happening here, I know what your views on many of these issues are, but still clearly it is possible that people who disagree may not be at fault.

negi wrote:Sanku boss I thought the debate over the import of reactors West/Ru was done and dusted with then nuke deal was signed;

Why for buddy? That was the first step. Do you think the opposition would die down so quietly? If so I must say you were mistaken as were others who thought the matter ended in parliament on the day of "cash for votes" issue. The opposition for many of these issues comes not from loose canons but insiders too. At political, strategic and technical levels within the establishment as well as in general public space.

The opposition is quite strong and is not going to go away. In fact I am quite certain that large NPPs have been doomed forever because of the backlash in the hamhanded way the matter is sought to be pushed down.

The manner GoI handled it, has created its own opposition in addition to the ones existing earlier.

I for one don't see ANY ALTERNATIVES to import; specially when buying reactors was a PART of the deal, for a moment if everyone were to agree with you and not generate power from 'untested' reactors we will still have to buy them and construct them, it's as simple as that.

Well let us just say that there is a lot of opposition to that school of thought. Time for us to stand up and say that the deal was not a favor and we will do just what makes most sense for us, thank you very much.

Finally as far as nuclear power generation is concerned nothing has changed after Fukushima ......

They haven't closed the door shut on N power despite being well aware of the fact that they can be struck by another earthquake measuring 7+ on richter on any given day.

No Negiullah, things have changed. As of today 2/3 reactors are shut down without any clue as to the bring up time, and the plan to go from 30% to 50% nuclear power share has been publicly scrapped. Some of the changes that are asked for during the "temporary" shut down, can take anywhere from 2-3 years (large sea walls, duplicate power sources etc etc). And 2-3 years is optimistic.

Nato Kan has publicly asked Japan to rejig its power mix, that process has started and we will see the results when it comes.

Sanku maharaj you are in Dilli which sucks power from rest of the neighboring states to maintain it's claim as a capital of India, to be honest it is Dilli which needs a dedicated nuclear power-plant in outskirts of Noida/Gurgaon; let the other states stop supplying electricity (I am sure they can consume all that on their own) to Dilli and then we shall see how genuine this concern is for so called 'safety' and 'radiation'.

You are mistaken sir, I do not live in Delhi on a sustained basis for that charge to be made against me.

I also live in delhi sometimes. I live with a diesel genset at times and also live at places where I use solar lighting for some times in a day, and do BRF on a laptop with battery packs charged when their is power using data card access.

I have seen it all, and lived in those conditions. I am fully aware what power means and in what forms it is needed.

And oh good luck with trying to acquire land for a Nuclear plant today in NCR jat-gurjar-mnc land.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 May 2011 22:22

Diesel gen-sets ? Good for you Sanku maharaj; sasura kind of reminds me of Lahore.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 May 2011 22:34

negi wrote: Diesel gen-sets ? Good for you Sanku maharaj; sasura kind of reminds me of Lahore.

I wouldn't know Negi, I haven't been to Lahore, do you speak from first hand experience or tv news etc? Anyway, I dunno about Lahore, but diesel gen-sets are not that unusual over large swaths of NI (including Punjab/Uttrakhand et al)

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 May 2011 22:42

^ And despite all this you are crying hoarse against NP. To be honest you are arguing just for the sake of it , you are being very stubborn boss nothing else. I have nothing more to add/say.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 May 2011 23:22

negi wrote:^ And despite all this you are crying hoarse against NP. To be honest you are arguing just for the sake of it , you are being very stubborn boss nothing else. I have nothing more to add/say.

Negi when did I cry hoarse against NP? I was very clear in a checklist that Ramana asked me to present on my views which I have posted more than once? None of it is anti-NP.

I am against imports of LWRs of questionable tech and large number of LWR reactors at one site with no clear plans for waste disposal and many safety issues. Lack of bidding and transparency on those. Low liability amounts etc.

That however is not the be all and end all of NP. Like Sanatanan, I support many small PWHRs. I support the division of civil and strategic sectors for PWHRs for external uranium with reprocessing. I support setting up of two parallel nuclear structures, with one being responsible for oversight (this seems to have been sanctioned in the pressure on GoI post Fukushima) etc etc etc.. Its a long list.

I support acquiring external mines in Africa producing uranium. I support import of uranium with no strings attached. (No monitoring, no restrictions on reproc)

Since we have been able to interact and agree/disagree for a long time without rancor, I have no hesitation is putting up the list again if there is confusion, but kindly do not mis-understand/mis-represent my position.

I have no problem if you disagree with my stated position, since that is your prerogative, but I do feel a little upset if I feel you have not got what I am trying to say.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 May 2011 06:37

negi wrote:^ And despite all this you are crying hoarse against NP. To be honest you are arguing just for the sake of it , you are being very stubborn boss nothing else. I have nothing more to add/say.

There are sensible points that go against nuke power, but they arent being made by the usual suspects in BR...

The biggest of them is simple - why bother? In countries with large legacy reactors and declining power demand, it makes sense to tackle the lowest hanging fruits - optimising consumption, "smart" grids etc...Getting into nuclear power and confront the huge political issues that (now and also before) are so symptomatic of the area did not seem a great effrt-reward equation...Especially true for Europe with its hugely influential Greens movement, but also in the US...

The same reason is simply absent in India (and China) - we have a fast growing demand with even existing demand not being met...More critically, our coal reserves are getting stretched even at current levels, with Coal India looking for overseas assets to feed Indian needs!

Therefore, every single source becomes crucial...Something that has the potential to have multiple externalities 25 years later, even more so...Go back to that Planning Commissoin document on India's energy scenario I posted - we are expecting coal to go down in the energy mix (by about 5%), and hydro by about 2-3%...The slack is completely being expected to be taken up by nukes...And guess what? Even at a lower "contribution", coal production needs to quadruple...

In this scenario, what do we have as so-called "scientific" arguments?
1. India doesnt "need" nuke power..This is the most eggegious argument made...One glance at the Planning Commission report mentioned earlier should answer that fallacy - but then whoever said that reading (and comprehension) are strengths of certain people!

2. Indian PHWRs "safe", western LWRs not...How exactly? No answer beyond the rhetoric, given that by the same definition Indian 700 MW PHWR is not "safe", nor is our AHWR or FBR!
3. LWRs are "harmful" to the Indian 3 phase programme...The biggest red herring of them all..GP made the point on neutron economics, which should answer the question on its own...But on top of that, till the time our 3 phase programme is mature, should we plan for living in the vedic age? Or parts of the country be doing that, in light of projected power demand? The LWRs would support the 3 phase progamme to its maturity, which science tells us otherwise?
4. Our reprocessing capacity is not enough to feed the FBR...We had MBs of bandwidth wasted on this inanity, and it remains the biggest inanity of them all - not even Praful Bidwai makes that point...And we still dont have an answer to the basic question (that should tickle any common-sensical mind) - why is lack of reprocessing capacity a hindrance today, when FBRs are a peripheral part of the programme for the next 20 years?

Initially, there were a couple of people making the usual "European" points - its too dangerous, too risky, even if in perception terms, why bother? Now that is a different line of thought - and can be discussed in terms of science...But here, people quickly backtracked from this line, and went ahead with a bunch of non sequitor as above...No science, no economics - just hot air...(Wht more though can be excpected of people who base their thoughts on "airlines being mass ransit", or "reprocessing increasing waste"(!))..

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 07:21

Sanku wrote:That however is not the be all and end all of NP. Like Sanatanan, I support many small PWHRs. I support the division of civil and strategic sectors for PWHRs for external uranium with reprocessing. I support setting up of two parallel nuclear structures, with one being responsible for oversight (this seems to have been sanctioned in the pressure on GoI post Fukushima) etc etc etc.. Its a long list.

I support acquiring external mines in Africa producing uranium. I support import of uranium with no strings attached. (No monitoring, no restrictions on reproc)

And I suppose Uranium is like coal and can be sold and exported without any restrictions?

I support setting up a giant 100000000 sq mile solar panel at the Lagrangian point to generate electricity for India. That makes me anti-nuke and officially a member of the group which is not "colluding with commercial intrests (mostly US based)."

I support... remedial classes for some basic understanding.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 07:21

Aha - now "burn up" "claims" from BARC and IGCAR, "which should burn MVR fans" and it is so tempting to repeatedly go for the favourite pastime of "Hindu bashing" by inserting the "Hindu rate of growth" at every post! If such a great ideological hatred for the "Hindu" is the obsession, and it is claimed that the same obsessed expert also is "familiar" with the working of BARC, maybe it explains a lot!

Is this "burn-up" claim independently verifiable? Possibly not. There are possibly "draconian security" clauses as excuse for "non-verifiability"! Why the question? Well there seems to be publicly available pieces by three gents, P.K. Iyengar - "a former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission; Director, BARC; Deputy to Ramanna in the Pokhran-I (P-I) test of May 18, 1974", Ashok Parthasarathi "a former S&T Adviser to late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and one who was deeply involved in P-I", K. Santhanam - "a former Chief Adviser (Technologies) and Special Secretary, Defence R&D Organisation; and Programme Director, Pokhran-II of 1998" - who questioned the truthfulness of "data"-claims from BARC and DAE. Are we going to be spat back that they were all spiteful, they were all lying, they had vested or commercial interests? But then their designations all connect them to the same establishment that pushed the "high yield" claims. So if we tar and feather them, we also open the possibility that people connected to BARC once can be spiteful, lying, or having vested or commercial interests!

Maybe, just maybe - these non-independently-verifiable "high" "burn up" claims are also characteristic of people who are more busy proving their loyalty to p-sec political masters by sneering "Hindu rate of growth" in every post, but not really having enough time to do their own job? So it may become necessary to ramp up the numbers on paper and claim them as "achieved"? Something that illustrates a "dhimmi rate of growth" - tall on claims but short on actual delivery?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 07:27

^^^ it is clear from your comments that you don't understand the physical variable called "burnup". You are confusing it with what was touted as "partial burn". Vastly different concepts.

This is physics not politics -- try to read and educate yourself. Over and out.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 07:31

Maybe deliberately, you are also confusing that the main issue is not about terminology - but about the reliability of "claims" from BARC which cannot be independently verified. According to consensus here, if once a someone's claims become unreliable/speculative all of the other claims from the same source also become suspect and unreliable. Moreover, using "Hindu rate of growth" in every post is apolitical and scientific, isnt it!

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 07:36

^^^ try not to make a fool of yourself. I pointed out the error and you are too stubborn to realize that you are wrong. What is with you?

Hindu rate of growth is a phrase that has been around for a long time. It is colorful, yes, but it conveys the meaning very clearly.

Your problem is that you are clueless about science but feel pompous enough to intervene in technical discussions where you are over your depth.

Just have a final word and go the hell away. I have better things to do than to educate you. Final over and out to the cheese-ball.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 16 May 2011 07:37

GuruPrabhu wrote: . . .
There is much that India can learn from imported technology. The nuclear physics and engineering aspects of BARC are solid. However, there are also the components of mechanical, civil and electrical engineering wherein India lags behind.

To be specific, we need to have the technology to build large pressure vessels. Right now, for >1 GW level reactors, we have to import them. hence, the Russian collaboration. We also are behind in control systems. Those technologies need to be imported and then made indigenous. On the civil side, we are probably up to par but what needs to be done is to have private industry in India catch up with best practices.

As an aside, I find it impressive that the shrill voices of "no import" do not apply the same tone to other sectors. Car technology was imported large scale -- else we would only have Ambassadors. Software tech was imported, else we would have the jokes of software packages written by DOT. Code coolies are making a living by licking American boots, but that is somehow good!

Nuclear is one technology (probably the ONLY technology) where India can be proud of its achievements. So that is the one place where the Fan Club wants to diss India. [Space tech and missiles is another one, but in that sector we have not yet shown a "world first" like we have in Nuclear]

So, bottomline is this. Assorted jokers can take away India's achievements and shut down BARC etc. We will return to a hindu rate of growth -- so be it.

But, fortunately, no one really cares about what BRF thinks and BARC and IGCAR are gung-ho on nuke power.

Add CAT to the mix, and yes sir, we will make ADS happen as well. Jai Ho.

Fellow Forumites,

First, a preamble:

I have found publications such as BARC News Letter (BARC), Nuclear India (DAE), IGC News Letter / IGC Annual Reports (IGCAR) and Nu-Power (NPCIL) etc which can be accessed from their respective web sites, useful for knowing about the developments taking place in India in the nuclear field, from time to time. I am sure other Units of DAE (such as Heavy Water Board, Uranium Corp. Of India, ECIL, NFC, etc) have their own web sites too; it is just that I have not had, for one reason or the other, a chance to access them -- I am sure, to my loss. However, it appears that NPCIL and DAE have been remiss in updating their web sites with their respective publications. NPCIL web site is not terribly user-friendly when it comes to accessing issues of Nu-Power. One thing common amongst all these publications is that they generally avoid hi-fi equations, and mathematical expressions and derivations. Instead, the articles are usually accompanied by photos and illustrations -- a bit more easy to understand.

Now, specific to the post as quoted above:

In this post, I have tried to list a few article references in respect of some (from the wide range) of the disciplines covered in the above quote, which might indicate the extent of progress that has been made in nuclear and related technologies India. This list is neither complete nor exhaustive. May I suggest that, if and when you get the time, have the inclination and the interest, perhaps you could peruse through these references? (I have assumed that you may not have already come across these articles; in case you have, please ignore this post.)

In the list below,
Ref. 1 = Nu-Power, Vol. 19 No. 1- 4 (2005). This issue, having 18 articles, is a treasure trove of information about the 540 MWe PHWRs at Tarapur 3 & 4.
Ref. 2 = Nu-Power, Vol. 18 No. 2-3 (2004)
Ref. 3 = Nu-Power, Vol. 18 No. 4 (2004)
Ref. 4 = Nu-Power, Vol. 13 No. 3 (2000)
Ref. 5 = BARC News Letter, Oct 1999.

1. Civil Engineering for NPPs:

In Ref. 3, Article titled "Design Issues Related to Containment Structures of Indian PHWRs". (Along with a brief review of nuclear reactor containment design approach adopted globally, various issues pertaining to the indigenous design and construction of containment structure of PHWRs have been discussed in this article.)

2. Mechanical Engineering and Robotics:

a) In Ref. 1, in Article #18 about indigenously designed and built fuel rod changing robotic systems, particularly the photo after page 1, and photos in pages 5 and 6.

b) In Ref. 1, in Article #19, on the same topic, photo before page 1 and photo in pages 3 and 4 showing another view of the fuel rod changing robot and its control console.

In my opinion, Canadians will not sell this technology to India for love or money, deal or no deal, NSG or no NSG, in view of IPR issues. If at all, they would want to sell the entire equipment and spares as manufactured (or got manufactured) by them.

c) In Ref. 5, Article titled "BARC Channel Inspection System".

3. Industry participation in NPP construction:
Ref. 2 has articles about the contribution to PHWR technology by several industrial organisations.

4. Nuclear Engineering, NPP design, Safety Aspects, R&D etc

a) In Ref. 1, Article #2 titled "Tarapur Atomic Power Project - 3&4 : Design Innovations". This article has some jargonised technical terms. One could ignore them, if one is not comfortable with them. Nevertheless, figures and photographs in the article, may give an idea of the technological developments that are taking place.

b) In Ref. 1, Article #3 titled "Safety Aspects of TAPP - 3&4".

c) In Ref. 4, Article titled "Role of Indigenous R&D in setting up Pressurised Heavy Water Nuclear Power Reactors in our Country", by Y.S.R Prasad, former CMD, NPCIL. (Although there used to be an electronic version earlier, it seems it is now not available from NPCIL's web page. One may have to look for a printed copy from the friendly neighbourhood library! Or, perhaps there is a "cached" copy in some search-engine server - I have not checked that.)

5. This view-graph, from Nuclear India, Jul-Aug 2000, portrays in a simplified manner, various technologies that go into the making of a PHWR NPP. Of course, one could go to deeper and deeper levels of itemisation in respect of each of those areas listed in the Figure. You can judge for yourself which items can now be made in India and which may need to be indigenised yet.

6. Finally, you may like to take a look at this article about a milling machine published in Nuclear India, Feb 2005. In my opinion, an important parameter, namely the number of axes of the machine, has been left unsaid in the article, for obvious reasons. For the audience in this Forum, there is no need to give any gyan as to where the item described may be used and why this particular development effort might have been taken up. When such a thing could be developed indigenously, why the clamour for importing NPPs, "couvercle, corium and container"? When broad boulevards fit for majestic Royal processions are available to reach a destination, why try to take short cuts through unreliable narrow lanes and possibly end up in a cul de sac?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 May 2011 07:38

Sanku wrote: Needed for wake up DiE's, MUTUs and Dhimmi's. Who safely categorized Chernobyl as "oh those russians" and pretended they knew better.

But saar - the "oh those russians" argument (don't know who made it - but if you could provide links) still stands. Chernobyl was a nuke accident / explosion. Fuk is not. Hence the Russians are also puzzled at the 7 rating assigned. One can argue that it is because Japs are more concerned about their citizens than the Russians but then it goes back to the "oh those russians" kind of argument again.

Second, is that despite the nuke catastrophe the Russians did not give up on LWR technology. They are increasing their nuke energy mix from 15 to 25 % over the next two decades (Oh those Russains) and exporting the same to India

Third, there is no evidence to tell us that local PHWR is safer than the imported LWR. In fact the Indian PHWRs have a passive cooling capacity of about 13 hours (compared to 72 hours for the 3rd generation Westinghouse reactors and 8 hours for Fuk). So there is no reason to believe that had Indian PHWRs been installed in Fuk instead of LWRs, the situation would have been any different.

I think the problem is that you conveniently skip from 'Anti nuke power' (e.g health concerns of radiation) to 'Anti imported nuke power' (e.g nuke liability clause) depending on the arguments being made

I think such problems are termed cognitive dissonance - but Shiv ji would know better

Fourth, you seem to be making a vague point about 'consequences of operation' vs consequences of accident' vis a vis coal and nuke. I think it has been categorically proved that 'consequences of operation' of coal are worse than the 'consequences of accident' of nukes.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 07:42

brihaspati wrote: Civilian components should be protected in as much as they provide inputs to the military nuclear programme.

Isn't it interesting that there are three countries in the world which follow this model. They are in order of their importance/threat to India are:

1) Iran;

2) North Korea; and (drum rolls please)

3) Pakistan.

Can there be a better case of equal:equal? All the hard work of the past 60 years, the dreams of Vikram Sarabhai, Homi Bhabha and countless other Indian patriots need to be consigned to the dustbin since Tepco allegedly screwed up at Fukushima and the entire global nuclear industry operates as a "cabal".

Actually I can understand the khuji at the mention of uber-nationalist. It is perhaps not justified. Rather this is a scheme that only could be thought up at AKG Bhavan.

You will win much greater support for your position, if you do not undertake such snide personal remarks against your opponents.

If you choose to continue to bring in "rottweilers analogies" - even if covered by a logical excuse that really doesn't pass, or bring in completely unrelated but hoped to be pricking enough expressions like "Hindu rate of growth",

I fully understand. For some no amount of logic, facts etc really doesn't pass. Even rudimentary comprehension/logic would have shown that the analogy was to the noise not animal.

But I fully understand the logic behind linking by "rottweiler analogy" with the Hindu rate of growth which was in passing mentioned in a thread in the economic forum in the context of how India has shown that the Hindu rate of growth has morphed from an anemic 3 per cent to the robust more than 8 per cent - a singular achievement. (This is for some poster who may not know what this carping about Hindu rate of growth is all about).

Carry on gentlemen, the more NPBA-giri shouts and shows its vicious fangs of personal comments, the more you will pushover the middle-roaders into the opposite camp... If you carry on in this mode, you will force more people on to the other side, and a great service you would have done to India's core strategic needs.

I'm sure that is happening as we speak. All the posts in the last few pages seem to indicate that, after all a lot of posters who were not actively participating have jumped in.

If your position has inherent merit, it is pushed better with verbal and linguistic restraint. But you seem to have set yourself against the reality of the political and social process of formation of opinions.

This is rich. One of the esteemed members called me an habitual liar.

Another esteemed poster writes this about GP in the Fukushima thread which had to be locked:

Well I would hardly be surprised if Srikumar, Chetal or Radhakrishnan comes and takes lunch in a while? But if you are there then I would not be surprised at the slow pace in indigenous technological development which is being derided by like ilks as "Hindu Growth Rate". They have an uphill task with such close minds.

The pot calling the kettle black.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 07:51

GuruPrabhu wrote:^^^ try not to make a fool of yourself. I pointed out the error and you are too stubborn to realize that you are wrong. What is with you?

Hindu rate of growth is a phrase that has been around for a long time. It is colorful, yes, but it conveys the meaning very clearly.

Your problem is that you are clueless about science but feel pompous enough to intervene in technical discussions where you are over your depth.

Just have a final word and go the hell away. I have better things to do than to educate you. Final over and out to the cheese-ball.

Your problem seems to be refusing to acknowledge that you are deliberately refusing to accept that my post was about unreliability of claims by BARC. If BARC's claims about thermonuclear yields could be suspected by ex-members of its own, why should we rely on your claims about BARC's claims about high burn-up rates achieved in reactors designed under it?

Your problem is that you try to cover up your lack of logic [everything is based on claims by you or the org you are "familiar" with] with claims of "knowing the science". But what you are doing now is a simple diversion from the actual point of "unreliability" of "claims". You will probably still try to veer towards "partial burn" and "burn up" and avoid the real point of "unreliability".

But then again I agree with the "colourfulness' of Hindu-rate-of-growth! It is a good excuse to be political under the burqa and please p-sec political masters while pretending "neutrality". I guess there should be no problem with using "dhimmi rate of growth" for all claims of "high yields" which remain claims and cannot be independently verified - possibly a paper-work!

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 07:51

Sanatanan wrote: When such a thing could be developed indigenously, why the clamour for importing NPPs, "couvercle, corium and container"? When broad boulevards fit for majestic Royal processions are available to reach a destination, why try to take short cuts through unreliable narrow lanes and possibly end up in a cul de sac?

I am beginning to appreciate that your only problem is "import". Why is that such a dirty word in your thinking? "import" does not mean a loss of H&D, does it? India imports in just about every other technical field, so why is it such a dirty word in the nuke field.

Sure, given enough time, everything can be re-invented in India. So, why did we import car technology? Why did we not just allow Ambassador to evolve to a BMW over time?

Why did we import mobile phone technology? Surely, one day DOT would have come up with a mobile phone of its own.

Why are we importing plastics tech, petro tech, electronics tech, ityadi ityadi?

What is so special of nuke power plants that makes it an H&D issue. India is probably 20 years away from making 1.6 GW NPP. Why not import and learn and make it indigenous?

This is one point I just don't understand, so your explanations would be welcome.

However, please do realize that putting up (untested) 700 MW reactors rather than 1600 MW reactors would just mean more land acquisition and more Jaitapur type problems.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 07:58

brihaspati wrote:Your problem seems to be refusing to acknowledge that you are deliberately refusing to accept that my post was about unreliability of claims by BARC.

Wonderful. You think BARC claims are unreliable. Yet you want:

Every research and production facility in India dealing with the military side is of national importance. Civilian components should be protected in as much as they provide inputs to the military nuclear programme.

The above would presumably be under BARC. You are perfectly happy with that despite the fact that you think BARC is unreliable.

Interesting. The only way I can think that's possible is if the above scenario is temporary in nature part one of a two step process.

The first would be to kill the robust civilian programme and the second? Well CRE is a many headed hydra.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 07:59

When I asked my question about the future of nuclear power in India according to the Fukushima chi chi group, nobody was willing to give a direct answer. But I guess the answer will tumble out, even if inadvertently.

I'm willing to wait. Patience has many virtues.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 08:03

amit wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Civilian components should be protected in as much as they provide inputs to the military nuclear programme.
Isn't it interesting that there are three countries in the world which follow this model. They are in order of their importance/threat to India are:

1) Iran;

2) North Korea; and (drum rolls please)

3) Pakistan.

Can there be a better case of equal:equal? All the hard work of the past 60 years, the dreams of Vikram Sarabhai, Homi Bhabha and countless other Indian patriots need to be consigned to the dustbin since Tepco allegedly screwed up at Fukushima and the entire global nuclear industry operates as a "cabal".

Actually I can understand the khuji at the mention of uber-nationalist. It is perhaps not justified. Rather this is a scheme that only could be thought up at AKG Bhavan.

You will win much greater support for your position, if you do not undertake such snide personal remarks against your opponents.

If you choose to continue to bring in "rottweilers analogies" - even if covered by a logical excuse that really doesn't pass, or bring in completely unrelated but hoped to be pricking enough expressions like "Hindu rate of growth",
I fully understand. For some no amount of logic, facts etc really doesn't pass. Even rudimentary comprehension/logic would have shown that the analogy was to the noise not animal.

But I fully understand the logic behind linking by "rottweiler analogy" with the Hindu rate of growth which was in passing mentioned in a thread in the economic forum in the context of how India has shown that the Hindu rate of growth has morphed from an anemic 3 per cent to the robust more than 8 per cent - a singular achievement. (This is for some poster who may not know what this carping about Hindu rate of growth is all about).

Carry on gentlemen, the more NPBA-giri shouts and shows its vicious fangs of personal comments, the more you will pushover the middle-roaders into the opposite camp... If you carry on in this mode, you will force more people on to the other side, and a great service you would have done to India's core strategic needs.
I'm sure that is happening as we speak. All the posts in the last few pages seem to indicate that, after all a lot of posters who were not actively participating have jumped in.

If your position has inherent merit, it is pushed better with verbal and linguistic restraint. But you seem to have set yourself against the reality of the political and social process of formation of opinions.
This is rich. One of the esteemed members called me an habitual liar.

Another esteemed poster writes this about GP in the Fukushima thread which had to be locked:

Well I would hardly be surprised if Srikumar, Chetal or Radhakrishnan comes and takes lunch in a while? But if you are there then I would not be surprised at the slow pace in indigenous technological development which is being derided by like ilks as "Hindu Growth Rate". They have an uphill task with such close minds.
The pot calling the kettle black.

Yeah - good diversionary tactics! But I did not "link" the two - if you read again the sentence you have yourself quoted. Are you used to twisting others words in interpretation so suavely? Amazing!

By the way, if "Hindu rate of growth" was doing its rounds in the economics thread, what was and is it doing in almost every alternate post by a certain poster on this thread - and not only for "economic" items, but more abstract things like "fault finding"? Or is it so that if you support the poster's position - everything becomes relevant and appropriate? Are you suggesting that it was the "high growth" version that was being intended in the posts here? better check out the posts - for some of them could be difficult to twist around even for someone with the amazing skills shown as by you!

No - no khujli in being called "uber nationalist". Was wondering as to how it became so relevant for the topic under discussion in post after post! Maybe if both "uber nationalist" and "hindu rate of growth" are both so relevant for this thread, there should be no problems with "uber p-sec uber p-nationalists" or "dhimmi rate of growth" (tall claims of high growth on paper but not verifiable in reality) either.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 08:07

If BARC has made unreliable claims before, does not mean it should continue to do so. So I see no problem in my position that indigenous research should be supported. What exactly is your problem in desiring better performance for the future from them? Are you saying that supporting indigenous research in the future cannot be done if past or present performance is questioned?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 08:09

arnab wrote: I think the problem is that you conveniently skip from 'Anti nuke power' (e.g health concerns of radiation) to 'Anti imported nuke power' (e.g nuke liability clause) depending on the arguments being made I think such problems are termed cognitive dissonance - but Shiv ji would know better

I am beginning to see that as well. The entire problem is about "import" and nothing fundamental.

Fourth, you seem to be making a vague point about 'consequences of operation' vs consequences of accident' vis a vis coal and nuke. I think it has been categorically proved that 'consequences of operation' of coal are worse than the 'consequences of accident' of nukes.

While this is clear to you and me, it will take a lot more education to get the opponents to see the light.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 08:11

amit wrote:When I asked my question about the future of nuclear power in India according to the Fukushima chi chi group, nobody was willing to give a direct answer. But I guess the answer will tumble out, even if inadvertently.

I'm willing to wait. Patience has many virtues.

Now, its my turn to let you know that you are a patient man.

When things like "burnup" versus "partial burn" become political debatable points, what sort of patience can one have?

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 08:13

brihaspati wrote:Yeah - good diversionary tactics!

I do note you did not respond to the first part of my post.

Let me repeat because I found it breathtaking.

What you are proposing doing to the Indian nuclear power industry is a model taken straight out of Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

Since you have no problems wearing a uber-nationalist badge, can I suppose that's the agenda for uber-nationalists?

Is talking about equal:equal with Pakistan by dragging the Indian nuclear accident to the Puke level also considered a diversionary tactic?

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 May 2011 08:17

GuruPrabhu wrote:When things like "burnup" versus "partial burn" become political debatable points, what sort of patience can one have?

Oh don't worry these things have a way of coming out. Don't you see we've already had a vision for Indian nuclear industry articulated (ignore the fact that it was done inadvertently).

The Indian Nook needs to become a mirror image of Pakistan's industry which has a civilian veneer over its military programme.

Do note that would make one power very happy and that is China. Which is why I didn't find it surprising that the moment I mentioned AKG Bhavan, we had this comment: "no khujli in being called "uber nationalist""

Yeah right! No khujli.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 May 2011 08:18

While our "intellectual academics"

argue themselves in knots on what they are trying to say (nuke is bad, imports is bad, BARC is incompetent or whatever else), this is what China is doing...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-1 ... -says.html

Nuclear plants “under construction are still undergoing construction as planned. There’s no impact on those,” Xu Yuming, vice secretary general of the China Nuclear Energy Association, said in an interview before a conference in Beijing today. “There will probably be some delays in new projects waiting for approval but the impact will be small.”

Critically,

As a developing nation, China faces power shortages and we need to change our energy mix. To resolve these two issues, we must develop nuclear.”

Thankfully, in India the GOI too has taken a pretty similar approach (till now)..But political grandstanding continues..

Sharad Pawar concerned about "fishermen" in Jaiptapur

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ue/435705/

GP, the question of "burn up" is entirely moot, IMO...We need to insist (to MVR, chances of a rational repsonse is higher than in an anonymous blog!) on how reprocessing capacity for FBRs is critical to the NP programme today...If it isnt, then why diss the programme on that basis?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 16 May 2011 08:20

Folks,

This brihaspati wouldn't go away, so I will repeat my offer:

1. I point out the error in MVR's paper that he was touting provided that he apologizes for being such a pompous ass and accepts that he was wrong.

2. I will keep providing hints so that he can find the error on his own.

believe me, the only reason I play this game is that because we need a way to shut his trap. He has no clue about issues but pontificates wildly. He confuses "burnup" with "partial burn" and now it is the forum's pronblem to educate him while he moves on to his new rant.

so, brihaspati, are points # 1 and #2 acceptable to you? What is your choice?

I will appreciate a fair set of rules so I don't have to keep responding to your nonsense.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 May 2011 08:22

arnab wrote: Fourth, you seem to be making a vague point about 'consequences of operation' vs consequences of accident' vis a vis coal and nuke. I think it has been categorically proved that 'consequences of operation' of coal are worse than the 'consequences of accident' of nukes.

This is plain and simple pure BS; unsubstantiated claims like these make the argument for NP weak , you are only playing into the hands of those who are hell bent against NP. NP was never about replacing coal.