India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
bala
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3699
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by bala »

One of the things I noted in Pallava Bagla and Sreekumar Pillai interview was that IAEA is not overseeing kalpakkam and this must upset the rest of the bigwigs of the world, since the engineering of molten sodium throws up many challenges. India seems to have addressed all safety issues, fire issues and handling issues with the AERB breathing down the neck of BARC scientists / engineers at Kalpakkam. There is reasonable confidence in the group that they have most things under control and are awaiting for 2nd stage to fully yield results. BTW according to Lt. Gen P R Shankar YT there are many nuances in the way India is going about FBTR design. Should be a successful program that India is embarking and we should see fruits of the labor (U233) in the next decade or so. I think Sreekumar Pillai said that for around 700 yrs India can reap low carbon electricity production and with Solar during daytime that would be one handsome return on investment.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12812
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

The news about a new salt-cooled reactor breaking ground in Oak Ridge feels less like a breakthrough than a return to an old, half-finished story. Back in the 1960s, work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory had already demonstrated the fundamentals with the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment—a system that ran stably at low pressure, even touching on the thorium fuel cycle via U-233. The physics was elegant and, in many ways, ahead of its time. But history took a different turn: the U.S., with abundant uranium and a rapidly scaling light-water reactor ecosystem tied to naval propulsion, chose the pragmatic path. Molten salt, especially in its more ambitious thorium form, was left as a technically promising but institutionally orphaned idea.

From an Indian perspective, that divergence was always striking. Under Homi J. Bhabha, India built a long-term strategy around scarcity—limited uranium but vast thorium reserves—leading to its well-known three-stage program.


I remember one of my guru/mentor putting it bluntly: if you (India) wanted thorium or advanced cycles to work, it would have to do the heavy lifting itself. There would be little to “import” intellectually or industrially from the U.S., which had neither the resource pressure nor the incentive to move beyond LWRs. That advice carried a certain clarity: the path was open, but largely unpaved.

What’s unfolding now in the U.S. isn’t quite a revival of that older vision, at least not yet. Today’s designs, like those being developed by companies such as Kairos Power, step back from the full molten-salt fuel concept. Instead, they use solid fuel (often TRISO-based) with molten salt as a coolant—retaining the safety advantages (low pressure, high temp margins) while avoiding the formidable challenge of online reprocessing. It’s a more cautious, engineering-first approach: prove constructability, cost, and deployment before reopening the deeper fuel-cycle questions.

So the arc is subtle but telling. The U.S. proved much of the science early, then optimized around what was economically and strategically sufficient. India, driven by necessity, kept alive the longer, harder route toward thorium utilization. And now, decades later, the U.S. is circling back—not to where it left off, but to a more incremental waypoint. The underlying lesson hasn’t changed much: the physics may be elegant, but the real barrier has always been engineering, scale, and sustained commitment.
Post Reply