India Nuclear News And Discussion

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 24 May 2011 16:15

Somnath,

If the reactor is on the civil side, I suppose that a pvt co should be allowed to set up a reprocessing unit on the campus itself. If not, surely, they could purchase some adjacent land. I don't think that the fuel will have to travel long distances.

Neela,

The radioactivity in thorium activation products is more severe than for uranium, but India already has capabilities for re-processing such maal. See the report at the bottom of the previous page.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 24 May 2011 16:35

^^^
GP, thanks. it matches with what I heard.
Apparently getting that out of the prototype into a product is where the safety challenges lie. The lack of private players is hurting the development of equipment for handling high-gamma stuff.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 May 2011 17:20

ashkrishna wrote:@sanku :

I havent finished the entire book, but, here are a few points:

1) The Indian nuclear program though (initially) admittedly civilian in nature with the setting up of the AEC, was nonetheless shrouded in secrecy. This may be construed as an indication that the objectives of the nuclear program weren't entirely peaceful (something which JLN admitted , albeit in an obtuse manner).

2) The powers vested in the AEC and the immunity from interference that was guaranteed to it may have reasons that aren't strategic or national-security based. Homi Bhabha may have desired complete autonomy over the atomic sector and associated research and the absence competition from other civilian institutions engaged in the same effort. There is an interesting argument regarding the presence of two separate scientific axes in the Indian Establishment during the formative years of the nuclear program - The Kolkata-Allahabad (Saha and Bose) axis and the bangalore axis (Bhabha). Saha may have felt slighted at the fact the JLN handed bhabha control of India's atomic future and thus vigorously contested the secrecy of the atomic program. The bangalore axis finally won.

3) The AEC had specifically offered to barter monazite sands in exchange for reactor designs. Control over export of strategic minerals rested with the AEC and Bhabha was using it in negotiations with other canada, UK, France , Khan et.al.

4) Most importantly, the shift in focus from building power reactors to building bombs seems to have occured because the AEC believed that it had failed in its primary objective (a tad unrealistic) of self reliance and indigenisation in nuclear power. The AEC was fast losing support and needed a new support base......

Askkrishna-ji, if this is what the book says, I am afraid most of this is plain wrong..We have now most of this info cross verified across sources in multiple works - GP (George Perkovich!), Raj Chengappa..

1. The "strategic" nature of the programme was pretty clear from day 1...When Homi Bhabha himself wanted to barter away the right to make weapons for tech, JLN asked him to "leave the politics" to him (JLN)...

2. The Bose-Bhabha issues were more to do with format of science administration rather than specifically of the nuke establishment...SN Bose wanted a university-led effort on science, while JLN veered towards an effort based on creation of new bureaucracies (like CSIR, BARC etc)...Obvsiouly the latter won, but the primacy of Bhabha on matters nuclear was never in doubt..

3. This is true, and in fact was carried out ina limited way as well..

4. Not true at all...The "bomb" was always a national security paradigm, and acquired urgency in 1964 when China tested...It was never to do with creation of a different "lobby" to justify anything...The bomb was in our policymakers' minds from day 1...

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 24 May 2011 17:40

@somnathji:

I am just parroting what I read. I am however, interested in knowing more about Itty Abraham , he is Texas now. Itty

Another thing to note is that Uneven Cohen seems to have given some inputs to this work.

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 24 May 2011 17:57

@somnathji:

I dont agree with the author on multiple fronts, but I do find his idea of a dormant "pragmatic-realist nuclear lobby" interesting. Here are two parliamentary exchanges that I am quoting from the book...

KRISHNAMURTHY RAO vs JLN on the Atomic Energy bill (1948)

Rao: May I know if secrecy is insisted upon even for research for peaceful purposes?

Nehru: Not theoretical research. Secrecy comes in when you think in terms of the production of atomic energy. That is the central effort to produce atomic energy.

Rao: In the bill passed in the United Kingdom, secrecy is restricted only for defence purposes.

Nehru: I do not know how to distinguish between the two [peaceful and defence purposes]

SHIBBAN LAL SAKSENA - (I believe that this basically underlines the current policy of credible minimum deterrence - a line of thinking that the author calls "convoluted" yet "realistic")

Unless we are in point of military strength [sic] a very big nation and unless we can have a say in world affsirs, I do not think we can make the world pacific. Our national genius being pacific I would then like to tell the world that we must ban the use of atomic energy for warfare and even outlaw war. But we cannot do it by preaching and good wishes alone. Unless we have the capacity to use atomic energy for destructive warfare, it wil have no meaning for us to say that we shall not use atomic energy for destructive purposes

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 24 May 2011 18:19

ashkrishna wrote:SHIBBAN LAL SAKSENA
Unless we have the capacity to use atomic energy for destructive warfare, it wil have no meaning for us to say that we shall not use atomic energy for destructive purposes

Who is Saksena-ji? My knowledge of history is weak.

The quote above is excellent -- and also the part about "our national genius is in being pacific".

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 24 May 2011 18:30

GuruPrabhu wrote: Who is Saksena-ji? My knowledge of history is weak.

The quote above is excellent -- and also the part about "our national genius is in being pacific".

Not sure...Member of Constituent assembly(INC) and a professor
Check

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 May 2011 18:37

ashkrishna wrote:@sanku :
I havent finished the entire book, but, here are a few points:
.

Thanks for sharing the insights AshKrishna, certainly provides perspective. Speaking for myself, the points you have talked about certainly seem believable in the sense of how we know of divergent view points and individual egos and conflicting pulls and pushes.

The human aspects of the hero's makes them even more attractive.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 May 2011 19:02

chaanakya wrote:
Meanwhile all your predictions about japan NE disaster case true. Plant 1,2,3 all suffered meltdown.

Thank you Chaankya San, some of the simulation work out of US (who have intimate knowledge of the LWR plants) very early pointed to this (but was rubbished). Also a knowledge of how these plants work, does help understand what are the conditions they can and can not handle (again rubbished)

Meanwhile I am glad that Japan is asking hard questions about how its going forward in future.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 May 2011 19:26

ashkrishna wrote:@somnathji:

I dont agree with the author on multiple fronts, but I do find his idea of a dormant "pragmatic-realist nuclear lobby" interesting. Here are two parliamentary exchanges that I am quoting from the book..

I havent read the book, but it is quite clear from ltos of open source literature now that the entire programme was "pragmatist" to the core...Starting from JLN...The only "moral hiccup" was during Lal Bahadur Shastri's time - he seemed to have a genuine Gandhian disdain for nuke weapons...(I suspect part of that also stemmed from the class difference between him and our key nuke czar, Homi Bhabha

)...

ashkrishna · Post by **ashkrishna** » 24 May 2011 19:36

somnath wrote:(I suspect part of that also stemmed from the class difference between him and our key nuke czar, Homi Bhabha )...

You must definitely have a look at it. Apparently, Homi Bhabha caused a considerable amount of takleef amongst the TFTA's at cambridge.....

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 May 2011 21:53

ashkrishna - Thanks

FWIW, some personal observations ...

I have met Homi Bhabha (when I was quite young

) and some of his students were my prof(s).. so there are quite a few of anecdotes and many stories. ( Some stories of "takleef amongst" are pretty well known and classic.. some famous names in physics did not get along with Bhaba but I think his contribution to Indian Nuclear Science is huge.)

.

Somnath - wrt to Bose/Bhabha/Shaha/ (and science/politics in India) .. Chandra's biography (By Wali) gives quite a bit of insight. Worth a read, if you have not read it (U of Chicago press)

Also:

The "strategic" nature of the programme was pretty clear from day 1...When Homi Bhabha himself wanted to barter away the right to make weapons for tech, JLN asked him to "leave the politics" to him (JLN)...

Agree with that, actually in scientific circles this was quite well known.

The "bomb" was always a national security paradigm, and acquired urgency in 1964 when China tested...It was never to do with creation of a different "lobby" to justify anything...The bomb was in our policymakers' minds from day 1

One story I heard (IIRC it was in Times or Newsweek) 1971 was a turning point (for demonstration of a device).. A USSR army big shot met his counter part in China and issued a blunt warning to China to "stay out" ( this was when US was directly supporting Pak and Henry K was telling china that US will look the other way if China caused some trouble).. IG realized then (if not right from the beginning) that an actual test will be necessary at some time. (Anyway that was what the story claimed)..

The ability for India to make an actual bomb on a very short notice, at least in scientific circle (of US, India), was not in doubt since mid-late 60's and everyone had a fairly good estimate of how much fissionable material we had separated.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 May 2011 00:17

GuruPrabhu wrote:The radioactivity in thorium activation products is more severe than for uranium, but India already has capabilities for re-processing such maal. See the report at the bottom of the previous page.

Just because we can do something dangerous doesn't mean we should. It seems like we can't think beyond what was laid down 50 years ago.

Neela,

I have one question. Where are all the reprocessing facilities going to come up. DAE has been very quiet about this. We are going to need 1000's of tonnes in capacity. Why haven't they started yet or have they. Any hints on locations and capacities?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 25 May 2011 01:09

Just because we can do something dangerous doesn't mean we should.

Chemical industry is exceedingly dangerous. Maybe we shouldnt be doing it at all. How about driving? India has the highest auto accident rates in the world. Even more dangerous is building nuclear weapons. Maybe we should not build them eh?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2011 01:13

Lal Bahadur Shastri was the one who allowed the "fast" reactor program.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 01:24

Amber G. wrote:Somnath - wrt to Bose/Bhabha/Shaha/ (and science/politics in India) .. Chandra's biography (By Wali) gives quite a bit of insight. Worth a read, if you have not read it (U of Chicago press)

Also:
The "strategic" nature of the programme was pretty clear from day 1...When Homi Bhabha himself wanted to barter away the right to make weapons for tech, JLN asked him to "leave the politics" to him (JLN)...

I have a copy of this and the views of S.Chandrasekhar about CV Raman his uncle, reveals quiet a lot about the politics even between stellar and productive scientists of those times. Indian institutions unlike else where in the world were built ground up by towering personalities. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the rot in later times has to do as much with the nature of the origins of these institutions itself. Individual scientists in the western world had no such sweeping powers, they remained largely confined to lead their individual labs doing productive work and passing it on to the next generation of leaders they nurtured.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 01:34

Tanaji wrote:
Just because we can do something dangerous doesn't mean we should.
Chemical industry is exceedingly dangerous. Maybe we shouldnt be doing it at all. How about driving? India has the highest auto accident rates in the world. Even more dangerous is building nuclear weapons. Maybe we should not build them eh?

Lot of things in nature are equally dangerous and we still live around them. Take Tornadoes for example, this year alone the phenomenon has killed 400 people or so in the US. Whose fault is it, but the people who choose to live in Tornado alley. There should be laws prohibiting settlements in wide swaths of the country to avoid this yearly disaster. But, no such thing. Only workarounds like better monitoring and shelter in place strategies are used. Even improving building codes beyond a certain limit allowed by economics, is not possible to dodge 200km/hr highly localized and unpredictable induced (till last hour or so) wind stress.

But we carry on still !

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 May 2011 01:44

Tanaji wrote: How about driving? India has the highest auto accident rates in the world.

We can't think beyond what was laid down 100 years ago.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 May 2011 02:29

Well we have eliminated several lethal and even mildly dangerous chemicals. TEL in petrol recently. We avoid danger all the time. We should think about it a heck of a lot more WRT Nuclear.

Several pages back there was a suggestion that a MSR/LFTR type reactor would be a lot safer than the hard core liquid sodium type. But it appears there is a sense of bravado over making the Sodium PFBR work when the rest of the world has had serious difficulties with it.

We still seem to be following what Nehru, etc laid down while they have been discredited in so many other areas.

Annoyingly the reason for our fissile material starvation and all the shenanigans since, including the 123 deals, was our effort to be too clever by pretending we did not have the bomb. We should have tested in the 60's and ended that confusion. Yet here we are following the rest of the script to the letter with all the crazy twists and turns involved. For all the failures of the nuclear program in nuclear energy, our supposed primary focus remember, there should be a lot more question of our Atomic scientists and founders not this blanket of secrecy.

Simple question, does anyone know what the PFBR has cost so far. Or even Kodankulam. Would we allow this with any other agency? Even ISRO is regularly taken to the mat and they have a successful space program to show.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 25 May 2011 03:19

^^^
Humans are notoriously poor at gauging risks. We will make absurd tradeoffs for perceived risks, when the risk itself is small. Case in point is child abuse by strangers. Children are drilled to be wary of strangers when research shows that children are more likely to be abused by someone they know rather than strangers. A lot of effort is spent in "stranger danger" programs that have little to show for them. Americans spend a lot on TSA, but the single largest thing that has made aircraft safer is not TSA, but bulletproof cockpit doors that are locked from the inside. Research shows money spent on unglamorous police work yields far more useful leads than expensive body scanners that prevent little.

My point is nuclear belongs to the same category as above: people perceive it as a risk, when it is far more likely that in India a person will die of a road accident, a train accident or be subjected to poisoning by adulterated food. Yet, talk about putting a nuclear plant causes visions of them blowing up in a mushroom cloud.

As far as questioning BARC is considered, no arguments there. But how does that translate to lets rule out nuclear energy completely as a part of our future energy mix?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 06:41

ramana wrote:Lal Bahadur Shastri was the one who allowed the "fast" reactor program.

Not sure what is a "fast" reactor programme, he did inaugurate the reprocessing reactor..And GP (Perkovich!) mentions how he said in the inauguration that it will be used for "other countries" as well, causing a lot of red faces all around! But it wasnt his baby though, he was simply inaugurating it..

It was during LBS's time that Bhabha publicly articulated the ability to (and costs of) fashion nuke weapons..And positioned it as a "cheaper" alternative to conventional weapons..Caused a huge uproar in Parliament, and LBS was at pains to justify why we should keep off weapons...

Bade wrote:Indian institutions unlike else where in the world were built ground up by towering personalities. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the rot in later times has to do as much with the nature of the origins of these institutions itself. Individual scientists in the western world had no such sweeping powers, they remained largely confined to lead their individual labs doing productive work and passing it on to the next generation of leaders they nurtured

Not quite accurate...Oppenheimer had sweeping power, and an ego to go with it as well...The establishment of diferent national laboratories in the US was testimony to the clashes he had with other worthies in the US science setup..

Though one must say that the loss of the SN Bose viewpoint (to JLN) killed Indian science R&D for 40-50 years...

Amber G. wrote: Somnath - wrt to Bose/Bhabha/Shaha/ (and science/politics in India) .. Chandra's biography (By Wali) gives quite a bit of insight. Worth a read, if you have not read it (U of Chicago press)
-----------------
The ability for India to make an actual bomb on a very short notice, at least in scientific circle (of US, India), was not in doubt since mid-late 60's and everyone had a fairly good estimate of how much fissionable material we had separated

Thanks, will try to look up! Yes, some of the stories are quite hilarious - I rmember reading something about SN Bose's referrance to "nightsoil" in a discussion on secrecy of the nuke programme!

And yes, by the '60s the capability was pretty well advanced - Bhabha went on air on AIR to say that, he even quantified a cost in fairly precise terms..

There is a confusing train of though here on BR..Some people think that nuke power is too expensive, especialy in the hands of BARC/DAE and their "ineficiencies"...The answer to that should be to allow imports, isnt it? (which is what happened in a range of industries post reforms)..No, but the same people denounce all imports as "snake oil" from satan etc..Now obvioulsy cost cannot be the only issue here, given the number of countries that have significant nuke power bases - cant asume for example, that France is screwing itself by generating 70% of its power from NPPs..

Net net, these people seem to oppose nuke on environmental grounds only - which means they are the "greens" lobby...In which case they should be clamouring for a shutdown of the weapons programme as well, no?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 May 2011 06:50

somnath wrote:
There is a confusing train of though here on BR..
Net net, these people seem to oppose nuke on environmental grounds only - which means they are the "greens" lobby...In which case they should be clamouring for a shutdown of the weapons programme as well, no?

Yes fascinating isn't it?

The mysterious 'other factors' which make LWRs less safe than PWRs - makes a come back.

In the mean-time the realities of of energy economics begins with a German backdown

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 42712.html

'Not Responsible' to Ditch German Nuclear Power .

BERLIN—German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said Tuesday that a scientific review of the country's 17 nuclear reactors found that the power plants meet high safety requirements, with the report being "no argument for an immediate" exit from atomic electricity production.

"In light of this report, it's not responsible to abandon nuclear power immediately," Roettgen said. The findings of the report could lend some support to the German nuclear energy industry, which has long argued that its reactors are among the world's safest.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 07:15

Not quite accurate...Oppenheimer had sweeping power, and an ego to go with it as well...The establishment of diferent national laboratories in the US was testimony to the clashes he had with other worthies in the US science setup..

It would not be correct to characterize the US weapons program under Oppenheimer which had a wide variety of players, with even larger name and fame than himself as similar to the Indian nuclear program under Bhabha. One cannot think of any other name than Bhabha who has the same aura from the beginning days of the Indian nuclear program. Oppenheimer's fall from grace in the corridors of DC is another story which has no parallel either. His sweeping powers if any were limited to the Manhattan project largely.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 07:20

^^Bade-ji, look at the scale as well! US in 1940 compared to India in 1950 - obvioulsy the establishments were different..That said, Bhabha's influence too was limited to the nuclear domain, there were others like SS Bhatnagar who ran the other parts of the science establishment...To be honest, given the paucity of talent, the rise of one individual as a one-point czar in the nuke area isnt a surprise..

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 07:31

That was the point I was making earlier too. Paucity of talent definitely was there, and hence someone had to build from the ground up. Bhabha, Sarabhai, Saha, Raman all did what they could within their means. I am not willing to pillory them for that. But it also has its shortfalls. The Science Renaissance in the west was not based on individual leadership and institutin building efforts, it was broad based and developed over many hundred years. The track record is very different, with the exception of USA perhaps. But then even US was a mirror image of Europe and they transplanted people both ways as needed. So if I were to guess US did have a broader home grown setup well before the 1940's and going forward it resulted in an explosion in science research and technological development with further human resource accumulation from the rest of the world including Europe.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 May 2011 08:03

arnab wrote:The mysterious 'other factors' which make LWRs less safe than PWRs - makes a come back.

I will try to be objective here and post what I make of this statement that finds resonance in unlikely quarters.

I believe what is being stated is that an LWR has a higher energy density in its fuel rods because it uses enriched uranium as compared to a PHWR. This is absolutely correct. However, the entire suite of safety measures has so many other components that this basic point is dwarfed in comparison.

So, it is "mysterious" only in the light of how it is used. But it had a basic argument when it originated. Fuku-D highlighted it with its LOCA. However, the problem was not about the energy density, but about the prolonged LOCA. In such a prolonged event, even PHWR rods would have overheated.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 May 2011 08:21

GuruPrabhu wrote:
I will try to be objective here and post what I make of this statement that finds resonance in unlikely quarters.

I believe what is being stated is that an LWR has a higher energy density in its fuel rods because it uses enriched uranium as compared to a PHWR. This is absolutely correct. However, the entire suite of safety measures has so many other components that this basic point is dwarfed in comparison.

So, it is "mysterious" only in the light of how it is used. But it had a basic argument when it originated. Cheers.

Like 240 v electricity at home is more dangerous than a 1.2 v AA battery? Yes I do agree about the high energy density - but the argument was that there were 'other factors' (beyond enriched uranium angle) that made LWRs less safer - presumably design related.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 May 2011 09:03

Bade wrote:Individual scientists in the western world had no such sweeping powers, they remained largely confined to lead their individual labs doing productive work and passing it on to the next generation of leaders they nurtured.

This is not necessarily true. You should read up on Alvin Weinberg & Hyman Rickover and why the US has the nuclear program it does. Esp. why Thorium was abandoned.

One of the reasons there are so many accidents is that the thought processes prevalent back in the 50's is still in effect with little improvement.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 May 2011 09:33

The differences between PWHR and LWR fundamentally have been explored in great detail, it is a pity that some folks tend to ask the same basic question after all the effort that has gone in.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2011 09:38

Theo, my comment was general in nature and not necessarily limited to the nuclear field. Each narrow field of research or something more applied like nuclear engineering and design can have lasting influence by decisions made by individuals. But those are not sweeping powers like Institution builders have and gets passed on down the generations.

What you are alluding to perhaps is something different.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 May 2011 09:40

Sanku wrote:The differences between PWHR and LWR fundamentally have been explored in great detail, it is a pity that some folks tend to ask the same basic question after all the effort that has gone in.

'differences' yes - but we are asking about 'deficiences'

google better this time.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 09:48

GuruPrabhu wrote:So, it is "mysterious" only in the light of how it is used. But it had a basic argument when it originated. Fuku-D highlighted it with its LOCA. However, the problem was not about the energy density, but about the prolonged LOCA. In such a prolonged event, even PHWR rods would have overheated

PRecisely, if there is a prolonged LOCA in (say) Narora, the fallout is not going to be terribly different from Fukushima...Then there was this bizarre claim that PHWRs somehow "inherently" have "100% passive" cooling systems, compared to LWRs that dont...Again flies in the face of common sense - if it were possible to cool reactor cores through passive means indefinitely, why bother with active systems at all?!

the way I see it is this, the argumetn of BR warriors:

BARC is inefficient - domestic nuke is bad...Imports are snake oil - imports are bad...Ergo, nukes are bad per se...Hence, say the friendly neighbourhood NPA - please eliminate your nuke weapons!

In the meanwhile, India moves closer to that NSG membership..
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... up_1547157

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 May 2011 11:15

somnath wrote:BARC is inefficient - domestic nuke is bad...Imports are snake oil - imports are bad...Ergo, nukes are bad per se...Hence, say the friendly neighbourhood NPA - please eliminate your nuke weapons!

A very good assessment Somnath.

However, there is hesitancy here to move to the next logical step and join the elite company of folks like Purefool and Vandana Shiva. And that's why there is so much khujli when I ask the logical question - especially on this thread - to wit, if Fukushima showed nuclear power is so unsafe and the nuclear industry so badly managed and worse, then what should India do?

I mean if I were convinced that something is inherently dangerous for my fellow Indians, I would be shouting from the roof tops saying so. (One reason why I keep on saying abandoning nuclear would be tantamount to committing energy security suicide).

But here folks refuse to take that final step and say unequivocally that India should abandon nuclear. Yet they keep on harping about how bad the nuclear industry is and present reams and reams of data about Fukushima. Do we conclude that the silence despite the conviction of the dangers of nuclear power is because these folks don't care if fellow Indians are put to harm?

Actually one poster did take the leap. His solution was to downsize the Indian nuclear industry, that is the civilian part and make it subjunctive to the military side. I found the concept fascinating because that would make the Indian nuclear establishment a mirror image of Pakistan's without actually increasing "safety" because we'd still be running "dangerous" reactors on the military side which would not be under any sort of oversight. I scratched my head and tried to figure out which country/countries could benefit the most from such downsizing. The tubelight moment came when I though of ChinPanda.

In the meanwhile, India moves closer to that NSG membership..
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... up_1547157

This is good news, lets see what comes out of this. But I suspect China is propping up the Paki request for membership as a sort of poison pill to kill India's bid. Chinese quid pro quo for allowing India's bid to go through... Let's see how this pans out.

Hindu has a more detailed report.

Meanwhile here's the Ayotollah take on the issue.

I think you'll notice a slight softening of the stand. Fiat accomplice is a powerful harbinger of change. Even the NP Ayotollahs understand you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 11:31

amit wrote:Meanwhile here's the Ayotollah take on the issue.

I think you'll notice a slight softening of the stand. Fiat accomplice is a powerful harbinger of change. Even the NP Ayotollahs understand you can't put the genie back in the bottle

Amit, not a softening of stand, but wistful "man see what has been done" wail...It drips from every single NPA commentary one reads on the Indian deal...

Just look at this section..

In agreeing to export nuclear items and technologies to India, the NSG should have required India to accept formally at least the obligations of the five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the NPT. The NSG also should have entitled India to less cooperation from the supplier states than that made available to NPT non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS).2 Instead, the NSG exemption failed to commit India to a responsible nonproliferation policy. Moreover, the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Trade Agreement frees India to develop further its nuclear weapons program,3 grants India a generic consent to reprocess transferred nuclear material,4 and guarantees India fuel supply assurances that have never been offered to the NNWS, all of which agreed to disavow nuclear weapons programs in order to access civil nuclear technologies.

I wont be too concerned about the Chinese sponsorship of Pak...If you remember there was, in the wake of the Idnian deal, a clamour by Pak to get a similar deal out of the US..When Pranab Mukherjee was asked (then), he simple said, yes why not, everyone has a right! He (and the Indian establishment) knew what could happen - no proposal on Pak would go past even the initial scrutiny...Ditto with NSG - if NSG is not willing to incorporate Pak as a full trading member of the club, then how is it going to bring them in as a rules-setting member of the club?!

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 May 2011 11:52

somnath wrote:Amit, not a softening of stand, but wistful "man see what has been done" wail...It drips from every single NPA commentary one reads on the Indian deal...

True but do note CRE has gone off the table for now. Which means NPA's have been reduced to just showing their indignation at being shown the middle finger by the dhoti-clad SDREs!

I wont be too concerned about the Chinese sponsorship of Pak...If you remember there was, in the wake of the Idnian deal, a clamour by Pak to get a similar deal out of the US..When Pranab Mukherjee was asked (then), he simple said, yes why not, everyone has a right! He (and the Indian establishment) knew what could happen - no proposal on Pak would go past even the initial scrutiny...Ditto with NSG - if NSG is not willing to incorporate Pak as a full trading member of the club, then how is it going to bring them in as a rules-setting member of the club?!

Again hope you're right. But wouldn't change in the rules require consensus? Which is why I bought up that point about poison pill. It's a given NSG members, sans the Chinis would say No to Pak, but if China makes that the price for its consent? Let's see how it goes. But eventually NSG will have to get India inside the tent. And I think there's a realisation that at the moment India is requesting entry. But very soon NSG will have to persuade India to get into the tent - if you get what I mean!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 May 2011 13:43

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:The differences between PWHR and LWR fundamentally have been explored in great detail, it is a pity that some folks tend to ask the same basic question after all the effort that has gone in.
'differences' yes - but we are asking about 'deficiences' google better this time.

You would not understand how differences lead of deficiencies. Just keeping the record straight.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 May 2011 13:45

GuruPrabhu wrote: but about the prolonged LOCA..

There is a marked difference in degree of tolerance w.r.t. time for LOCA. Fuk-D had nearly none (it was known before) PWHRs have higher level of tolerance w.r.t. LWRs employing same safety systems.

Therefore if you have a given level of safety, coupling it with a PWHR approach makes more sense than with a LWR.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 May 2011 17:42

arnab wrote:'differences' yes - but we are asking about 'deficiences' google better this time.

It would be good if the major points were teased out succinctly. So far, what we have seen are massive cut&paste jobs.

Also, design improvements such as more passive cooling are common to all approaches. So, we need to look at the *inherent* deficiencies as are claimed.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 19:24

amit wrote:Again hope you're right. But wouldn't change in the rules require consensus? Which is why I bought up that point about poison pill. It's a given NSG members, sans the Chinis would say No to Pak, but if China makes that the price for its consent?

It will be tough for China, simply for appearances sake, to be the odd one out opposing India..Which is what happend during the NSG exemption deal as well...With the US wielding its political capital, all the regular naysayers fell in line, China was left "alone", and fell in line too...Lets see, but I dont see how Pak can climb into the club without gettign some sort of an exemption first...Mind you, not just NSG, India is priming for all 4 groups - MTCR et al...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 26 May 2011 07:45

somnath wrote:
ramana wrote:Lal Bahadur Shastri was the one who allowed the "fast" reactor program.
Not sure what is a "fast" reactor programme, he did inaugurate the reprocessing reactor..

somnath-ji, FBRs are "fast" reactors because they use fast neutrons (>1MeV) as opposed to thermalized neutrons (~<eV).