Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 01:47

ShibaPJ.. yes, I heard him.. it was in CSPAN, meeting with Rice (the first time they agreed after separation talks was done). Rice was answering to his question, in what way USA is benefited.. and further, he wanted to know if America can get to know what India has been doing for nuclear spent fuel storage and its technologies open to americans. Rice, said YES!~. Its a video presentation.

They want ToT tit for tat, is what I read.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 25 Jul 2007 01:49

Siddharth Vardarajan in Hindu

US Knew India had no flexibility

[quote]
‘U.S. knew India had no flexibility’

Siddharth Varadarajan


NEW DELHI: India and the United States were able to finalise the text of their nuclear cooperation agreement — also known as the 123 agreement — largely because Washington understood the Indian side had no more flexibility and shifted gear to accommodate India’s concerns, senior Indian officials told The Hindu.

The officials said the fact that the United Progressive Alliance government had no more room for manoeuvre was underlined by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his meeting with President George W. Bush at Heiligendamm and Under Secretary Nicholas Burns in Delhi last month. “The law of unintended consequences also operated,â€

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 25 Jul 2007 01:51

ShibaPJ wrote:
My hope is that the existing stocks are not to be treated similar to NSG sourced fuel. Hopefully there is some clause which allows to reprocess this in our existing facilities.

Our existing stocks are our own, their utilization sole preserve of GoI/ DAE. IAEA/ US/ NSG don't have anything to do with how they are used/ processed.


Agreed that it is OUR stock and we can do whatever we want, but I assume we didn't reprocess that stock because of the perception that it will violate the treaty.

With this agreement, what happens to the stock considering that we are de-facto NWS. Does this mean that it is implicit that we can reprocess it ?
I'm trying to understand how this has been resolved. I bet this was extensively discussed during the negotiations.

Since it appears that we prevailed on most of the negotiation items. What did we give in return? I'm hoping that we didn't agree to reprocess this stock using the yet to be built IAEA manned facility. That could be a definite give-way. This concession might satisfy COTUS folks knowing that we will not use the stock for strategic use.

It will be interesting when we see the details of 123 act that needs to be passed by COTUS.

Mind u this is all speculation on my part.

Apart of the US Geo-Political considerations, I'm trying to picture what might have been put on negotiating table by us that made this deal possible so fast.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 25 Jul 2007 01:51

vnadendla wrote:
We should share and we should place our own conditions - both nuclear and geo strategic


It would be pretty silly and self-defeating for India (or any country, really) to undercut its own edge over others....Remember that once the knowledge has been transferred, all the conditions mean diddley-squat. What is India going to do if the conditions are also violated after that? It cannot yank back all the knowledge and create ignorance once more.

India holds the cards only as long as the knowledge gained by decades of hard work remain only in Indian hands and strengthens our ability to sell energy tech all over the world. All our competitors need to spend decades or how much ever time they take, depending on their technical abilities, to find out what India already knows. And while the competitiors walk over known territory, India can continue to chart its own course over unknown territory.


Assisting and Aiding competitors is not very smart.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 01:57

imho.. I don't read permanent fuel supply is a done deal.. I read it as, they have agreed to keep supplying as long as the spent fuel and the sent fuel remains within close doors under the american inspection raaj! [iaea].

I think, there is a great deal of information yet to be presented in full form text. We all are speculating till then.

What happens when our FBRs get ready at a future date to be donated to them [command & control], is when we would further need to negotiate on using the spent fuel.

kinda john perry's pay as you go!~ chew us the most, when we really want that damn fuel.. in the future, we would have little option to send it back, at a rate that will chew our balls anyway we do it, economic wise. call it manmohanomics eh!~ :idea:

btw.. (speculating) we still not heard about the 40% business offset claws that would say, appoint only americans as inspectors, and technicians, yadi yada.. plus bigo nuke daddys westinghouse, etc.

The french areva would be soon seeking such quota system. after all, we have that mentality in our blood for such type of negotiations.

of course its all my speculations and assumptions.
Last edited by SaiK on 25 Jul 2007 02:05, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2007 02:02

Just thought a visit to our friendly GNEP 'hood is appropriate at this time:

GNEP Strategic Plan

1.2 Principles
To enable the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and make a major contribution to global development into the 21st century, the United States seeks to pursue and accelerate cooperation to:

· Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in an environmentally sustainable manner

· Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that do not separate plutonium, with the goal over time of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating excess stocks of civilian plutonium and drawing down existing stocks of civilian spent fuel. Such advanced fuel cycle technologies would substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and help to ensure the need for only one geologic repository in the United States through the end of this century

· Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel

· Establish supply arrangements among nations to provide reliable fuel services worldwide for generating nuclear energy, by providing nuclear fuel and taking back spent fuel for recycling, without spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies

· Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions

· In cooperation with the IAEA, develop enhanced nuclear safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities, to ensure commercial nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes.


Is this a negative of the Hyde Act?

Does 123 it fit into this?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 02:09

imho, India can only say "balls" to GNEP. They can't even get pakis or iranians to agree for those light water reactors. of course, we can sell such reactors to places of IAEA interest in business terms as a registered GNEP product supplier, that does not compromise on our strategic policies.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 25 Jul 2007 02:15

Folks, Please get hold of yourselves. No point in getting worked up over non information. Wait or go to the Nukkad Thread.

Thanks, ramana

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 02:35

Protecting India’s interests

Although the text of the draft nuclear cooperation agreement settled in negotiations with the United States has not yet been made public, official accounts of its contents indicate that the assurances provided to Parliament by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have been fulfilled virtually in their entirety. These assurances revolved round three sets of concerns articulated by the scientific community, the Opposition parties, including the Left, and sections of the media and t he strategic community. The first concern was that the implementation of the U.S.-India civil nuclear initiative should not have an adverse impact on the country’s strategic programme. Secondly, the integrity of the indigenous three-stage civil nuclear programme should not be compromised. Thirdly, the autonomy and independence of foreign policy must be preserved under all circumstances. After last week’s agreement, it does seem that the first two concerns have been adequately addressed. The last concern is more open-ended, requiring continuous vigilance. Nevertheless, the upfront inclusion of reprocessing rights has probably reduced the vulnerability of the country to future pressures.

The reason these concerns came to the fore last year was the repeated attempt by Washington to dilute its own commitments. These commitments stemmed from the agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation contained in the U.S.-India joint statements of July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006. Indeed, when the Henry Hyde Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2006, it seemed that the terms of the original bargain had been unilaterally recast to shift the balance of obligations and benefits to India’s disadvantage. For example, when the negotiations for the bilateral agreement — known as the ‘123 agreement’ — began in earnest in 2007, Washington attempted to persuade or pressure New Delhi to forgo the cast-iron fuel supply assurances that had been negotiated as part of the commitment to place civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in perpetuity. A potential deal-breaker was Washington’s insistence on a ‘right of return’ provision that would nullify these assurances if India were to conduct a nuclear explosion in future. Aside from this, U.S. negotiators did not want the 123 agreement to give India the right to reprocess the spent fuel produced by U.S.-supplied reactors. A determined effort was also made to build an additional layer of bilateral ‘fall-back’ safeguards on top of IAEA safeguards for any nuclear facilities or materials India imported from America. Finally, the U.S. was unwilling to allow India to import reprocessing, enrichment, or heavy water-related technology or equipment for use in safeguarded national fuel cycle facilities.

After several rounds of difficult negotiations, the two governments managed to break the deadlock on these issues. Washington ended up conceding ground but New Delhi cannot claim to have had its way wholly either. It appears to have won the crucial prior consent for reprocessing, but the specific arrangements are yet to be agreed upon. Insofar as the parameters for these arrangements relate strictly to IAEA safeguards and protocols, there is little ambiguity about the character of the subsidiary agreement. Yet the U.S. can point out that it has got the Indians to step away from their earlier demand for the detailed reprocessing conditions to be spelt out upfront. On the vital issue of fall-back safeguards and fuel supply assurances, a similar linguistic exercise has closed the gap between the two sides. The U.S. will have the right to demand the return of any material supplied by it — including nuclear fuel — in the event of an Indian nuclear test. However, this right is tempered by the American commitment to ensure the continuous operation of any reactor supplied by it.

This newspaper, and others who have closely followed the course of the protracted nuclear negotiations, will be able to judge how watertight these arrangements are from India’s standpoint only when the text of the 123 agreement is available. If it is confirmed that India has succeeded in protecting its interests, credit must be given not just to the officials of the Ministry of External Affairs, the Department of Atomic Energy, and the Prime Minister’s Office for their negotiating skills — but to all those who took part in the robust and, at times, no-holds-barred debate inside and outside Parliament. The United Progressive Alliance government must place the document in the public domain as soon as the Cabinet approves it. Nothing will be gained by delaying release until the monsoon session of Parliament, which is weeks away. It may also be prudent for India to make an early request under the agreement for consultations on reprocessing arrangements. It will make little sense to do this after billions of dollars have been invested in U.S. reactors.

The next steps towards the completion of a nuclear deal that will end decades of technology denial will not be easy. India needs to negotiate a country-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group needs to amend its guidelines to permit civilian nuclear commerce with India. Washington must ensure that the NSG rule change is a clean and swift affair and that no extraneous conditionalities are imposed on India in the process. While the non-proliferation warriors in the U.S. might gear up for one last fight when the 123 agreement is put to an up or down vote in Congress, the fact that the NSG would have by then made an exception for India will be a powerful disincentive to those tempted to scuttle the deal. From now on, the sequence of reciprocal actions needed to make the July 2005 agreement a reality can be said to favour India.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/25/stories ... 121000.htm

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7084
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 25 Jul 2007 03:11

www.deccan.com

Centre reluctant to disclose 123 text
New Delhi, July 24: The Manmohan Singh government has gone into overdrive to allay public opinion by “leakingâ€

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 25 Jul 2007 04:55

Rahul Shukla wrote:
enqyoob wrote:For all those who sneer at the bus driver as source, remember that it was the barber shop outside Kahuta that provided final, irrefutable confirmation of the nook-nood reality... There hadn't been any fissile material inside Kahuta in more than 6 months.

N^3 saa'r,

Bad karma made me miss out on the info. Can you, or other relatives of the chaiwala where the barber goes to have tea in the afternoon please refresh the lost gyan for this forever ignorant kafir.

Much appreciated.

Still waiting for gyan. Somebody pleez enlighten this ignorant kafir! :cry:

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 25 Jul 2007 05:04

The picture seems to get murky. I, as did John Snow, thought India squeaked past with a draw on the 'deal'. As more leaks come to light, looks like the rain Gods intervened (the Lords test analogy), and the last wicket was taken :-).

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 25 Jul 2007 05:13

ShibaPJ wrote:SaiK, Arun_S had clarified the first Q couple of pages earlier. FBR is the 'goose that lays the Golden egg'.. Just like Coke's 121 year old secret formula. Never to be shared with anyone.


I would reemphasize that reprocessing of 3rd stage is the pivitol technology (I.e. Reprocessing Thorium fuel pins that has been cooked a longtime). Reprocessing FBR spent fuel becomes even more easier.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 25 Jul 2007 05:37

Quote form a ref document:
IAEA-TECDOC-1155
Thorium based fuel options for thegeneration of electricity: Developments in the 19990s
May 2000
"CANDU-type reactor - In this reactor type a self sufficient equilibrium theorium cycle (SSET) appers possible. This cycle is initited using Th/HEU or LEU, or Th/Pu fuel and stockpiling the U233 until sufficient to start the SSET. Then the reactor acts as a converter of thorium with a conversion ratio of 1.0"

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 25 Jul 2007 05:52

This article is the most informative and authentic to understand Thorium based AHWR that I have used for many years.

AN OVERVIEW OF R&D IN FUEL CYCLE ACTIVITIES OF AHWR. B. Bhattacharjee. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai – 400 085

It answeres the design enrichment for AHWR startup and equilibrium mode:
TABLE 2: Initial Core Characteristics
Fuel for Initial Core (Th, Pu) MOX
Average Plutonium enrichment 3.0-3.5%
Average Discharge Burn-up 20,000 MWd/Te
Core Loading : Heavy Metal 54 Te; Pu ~ 1.75 Te
Annual consumption of Pu ~ 500 Kg
Annual production of U233 ~ 110 Kg

TABLE 3: Equilibrium Core Characteristics
• Fuel for Equilibrium Core : (Th, Pu) MOX in outer array, (Th, U233) MOX in inner and middle array
• U233 required for the equilibrium core to be bred in-situ
• Time for transition to equilibrium core ~ 10 years
• Average Uranium –233 enrichment = 3.5%
• Average Plutonium enrichment = 3.25%
• Average Discharge Burn-up = 24,000 MWd/Te
• Core inventory: Pu ~ 500 kg; U233 ~ 1050 Kg
• Annual consumption of Pu ~ 230 Kg
• Pu composition – Initial ~ 75% fissile; Discharge ~ 25% fissile
• U233 nearly self sustaining

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 25 Jul 2007 06:07

[quote="Muppalla"]Visibly reluctant to release the agreement in full, the government has sought time from the political parties with the plea that it has to get the agreement through the Cabinet Committee for Security (CCS) :idea: first.

[b]This has, however, not stopped the top officials fielded by the Prime Minister’s Office from holding select briefings in which parts of the agreement are released to the invited journalists in an effort to show that Indian concerns about the civilian nuclear energy deal have been met. “It is all very fishy, the government has clearly something to hide,â€
Last edited by Tilak on 25 Jul 2007 06:13, edited 1 time in total.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 06:12

Rye wrote:vnadendla wrote:
We should share and we should place our own conditions - both nuclear and geo strategic


It would be pretty silly and self-defeating for India (or any country, really) to undercut its own edge over others....Remember that once the knowledge has been transferred, all the conditions mean diddley-squat. What is India going to do if the conditions are also violated after that? It cannot yank back all the knowledge and create ignorance once more.

India holds the cards only as long as the knowledge gained by decades of hard work remain only in Indian hands and strengthens our ability to sell energy tech all over the world. All our competitors need to spend decades or how much ever time they take, depending on their technical abilities, to find out what India already knows. And while the competitiors walk over known territory, India can continue to chart its own course over unknown territory.


Assisting and Aiding competitors is not very smart.

Aren't you giving good arguements in favour of Indo-US nuke deal? You are right in saying once the knowledge has been transferred, all the conditions mean diddley-squat.

But you underestimate others in implying others maynot catch up - technology in itself is not a competative advantage in long run .... others may leapfrog.

The biggest advantage US has is its Capital availability. And its capital UK stole from India. And its $$$$$ that India needs to acquire....

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 25 Jul 2007 06:25

vnsdendla wrote:
But you underestimate others in implying others maynot catch up - technology in itself is not a competative advantage in long run .... others may leapfrog.


Then it would be prudent to not assist them in such leapfrogging by handing them Indian IP on a platter, yes?

The biggest advantage US has is its Capital availability. And its capital UK stole from India. And its $$$$$ that India needs to acquire....


So India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by handing out its potential billion-dollar IP to its competitors? Makes absolutely no sense to me, but then what do I know.

Ideas and knowledge translate to $$$$ pretty much directly, especially in the realm of advanced tech.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 25 Jul 2007 08:02

I was reading on another forum on India's proposed Compact High Temperature Reactor:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/ ... .php?t=297

What are the most likely applications for this kind of reactor? On a submarine or naval vessel? I'm thinking that on a naval vessel it could be used to also fuel landing vehicles, although it doesn't seem optimized to serve as a steam-propulsion powerplant.

Another discussion I noticed was on "Electro-breeding":

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/ ... c.php?t=67

How difficult would it be for India to do this? You'd need a conventional powerplant to drive a thorium electrobreeder, but after awhile it would pay off, no?

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 25 Jul 2007 08:14

Here, read about this new breakthrough advance in proton beam generation, called "dielectric-wall accelerator" (DWA):

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... id=9537553

Everybody's talking about it:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19084/

http://www.physorg.com/news103909668.html

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/531547/?sc=swhr

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/833-2.html


http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/248965.html

The dielectric wall accelerator (DWA) is a new accelerator concept particularly suited for short pulse (<50 ns) and high currents (>1 kA).


Apparently, it's suited for high proton beam currents, which I'd imagine would be favorable for accelerator driven reactor applications. Seems to be a cheaper device to use anyway, which could bring the cost of R&D down.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Kasturirangan on the deal

Postby Sanatanan » 25 Jul 2007 09:09

Fellow BRFites may like to read this (and perhaps gnash their teeth) pro-deal Op-Ed by K Kasturirangan, former ISRO Chairman, published in Indian Express, 25 July 2007. I believe this has not been posted in BRF so far.

‘123 Agreement preserves India’s right to reprocess spent fuel... should set at rest concerns of political & scientific communities’

Former chairman of ISRO and Rajya Sabha MP K. Kasturirangan on the many ways in which the draft 123 Agreement will work for India

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Jul 2007 09:12

the chtr intention is great as we are going to focus in the future on the h-economy. its high temps are supposed to produce h2 from water., as the turbines are being run with the same heat.

should be very interesting times for barc. strategically, we could go for 100kw that could produce enough hydrogens for hydrogen fuel cell ATVs. should be super duper silent sub for nfu purposes.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 25 Jul 2007 09:39

Condoleezza Rice to visit India

The United States' Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will soon be visiting India to finalise the nuclear deal and pave the way for an official visit of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington.

In the aftermath of the marathon negotiations between Indian and the US negotiations teams last week on the 123 Agreement, there has been this perception that Rice will be travelling to India soon.

The two negotiating teams came to a final understanding on the divisive issues separating them on Reprocessing and the "Right of Return" of fuel, equipment and materials in the event that India conducted another test.

The details of the agreement have not been disclosed as it would have to be cleared by higher political authorities in Washington and New Delhi.

she looks forward to travelling to India again," the Spokesman added.

Indications are that Rice might be in India in August or September to give further finality to the 123 Agreement which is expected to fully materialise during a meeting between the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the US President George W Bush.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 25 Jul 2007 09:50

Not exactly indian nuclear stuff, but see how the inner club makes quiet deals with global companies for the latest and greatest nuclear tech.

Westinghouse to build four nuke power plants in China

Westinghouse Electric Co. has been selected to build four new nuclear power plants in China with the US giant agreeing to transfer core technologies for third-generation AP1000 reactors.

China now has 11 nuclear reactors in operation. China's installed capacity of nuclear power stands at eight million kilowatt. These operating reactors were built based on second-generation technologies. Three were built with Chinese technology, others used Russian, French and Canadian technologies.

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 25 Jul 2007 10:56

I am really at a loss. No one has seen the full text yet people are singing and dancing even on BRF.
Dr. Prasad is supposed to have supported the agreement - which he has denied.
Only bits and pieces of the agreement or what is purported to be the agreement are revealed to "slect" people AFTER drinks.
Whats happening. This secrecy makes me think there is something very very wrong somewhere.
Maybe I am bein paranoid.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 25 Jul 2007 11:04

Situation is far from hunky-dory. All this business of selective leaking, speculation, intelligent guesses, uninformative statement after negotiations in US, selective briefing to senior journalists, attacks by the likes of Prasad and BK - there is something fishy about the deal. I wish I am proved wrong, but right now I can't help feeling uneasy about the deal.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 25 Jul 2007 11:11

Meanwhile, the GoI cabinet approves the 123 agreement.

Cabinet approves Indo-US nuke pact

New Delhi, July 25: India's cabinet approved on Wednesday a bilateral agreement paving the way for civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States, days after the two nations concluded controversial talks to sew up the pact.

"They approved the agreement," Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters, after a joint meeting of the cabinet committees on security and political affairs. "All concerns of India have been reflected and have been adequately addressed."

The deal, first agreed in principle two years ago, aims to give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years to help meet its soaring energy needs.

jaybee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 22:55

Postby jaybee » 25 Jul 2007 11:21

If this deal allows us buy 'stuff' from other countries because of NSG clearance, what do we care about american uranium supplies or its reprocessing ? 'in-principle' means US won't (can't ?) stop others from doing business with us as they have agreed in principle that we have reproc rights and rights for lifetime fuel supplies, based on separate agreements we sign with each supplier, including the US.

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 25 Jul 2007 11:30

i am going for the refrain "lets read the agreement". till then SILENCE.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:01

1. Depleted uranium, containing less than 0.71 per cent 235U.
2. Natural uranium, containing 0.71 per cent 235U.
3. Low-enriched uranium, containing more than 0.71 per cent and less than
20 per cent 235U.
4. Highly enriched uranium, containing more than 20 per cent 235U.
5. Weapon-grade uranium, HEU containing more than 90 per cent 235U.
2 The isotope 233U, which is derived from neutron capture in thorium-232, has chemical properties
similar to 235U, but a critical mass similar to that of 239Pu. It has been evaluated as a nuclear weapon
material in the USA and possibly elsewhere. However, the thorium fuel cycle has not progressed beyond
the R&D stage (it received most attention in the 1950s and 1960s), and the quantities of 233U that have
been produced are very small. The thorium fuel cycle has been most actively researched in India, which
has large deposits of ores containing thorium.
3 It also contains 0.006% of 234U.
4 ‘Thermal’ implies neutron velocities akin to the velocities of molecules in gases at room temperature

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:03

A distinction is therefore commonly made between three different grades of
plutonium. The following definitions are widely used:
1. Weapon-grade plutonium, containing less than 7 per cent 240Pu.
2. Fuel-grade plutonium, containing from 7 to 18 per cent 240Pu.
3. Reactor-grade plutonium, containing over 18 per cent 240Pu.
‘Super-grade plutonium’ is sometimes used to describe plutonium containing
less than 3 per cent 240Pu. The term ‘weapon-usable plutonium’ has no precise
definition. It has been adopted on occasion to convey the message that most
isotopic mixtures of plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons, or to imply that
a given quantity of plutonium is in separated form and can thus be quickly
introduced into weapon manufacture.
8 The most authoritative discussion of weapon design and grades of plutonium is Mark, J. C., Reactor-
Grade Plutonium’s Explosive Properties (Nuclear Control Institute: Washington, DC, Aug. 1990). See
also Sutcliffe, W. G. and Trapp, T. J., Extraction and Utility of Reactor-Grade Plutonium for Weapons,
UCRL-LR-115542, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., 1994; and National
Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control, Management and Disposition
of Excess Weapons Plutonium (National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1994), pp. 32–33.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:04

Instead, the nuclear weapon producers have achieved the desired isotopic
content of plutonium mainly by controlling the extent to which uranium fuel
elements are irradiated with neutrons in nuclear reactors. This is known as the
fuel burnup, whose unit of measurement is megawatt-days per tonne (MWd/t)
of uranium fuel. Weapon-grade plutonium is produced by operating reactors at
low burnups—400 MWd/t is typical—so that insufficient time elapses for a
substantial buildup of 240Pu and other plutonium isotopes.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 16:05

Rye wrote:vnsdendla wrote:
But you underestimate others in implying others maynot catch up - technology in itself is not a competative advantage in long run .... others may leapfrog.


Then it would be prudent to not assist them in such leapfrogging by handing them Indian IP on a platter, yes?

The biggest advantage US has is its Capital availability. And its capital UK stole from India. And its $$$$$ that India needs to acquire....


So India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by handing out its potential billion-dollar IP to its competitors? Makes absolutely no sense to me, but then what do I know.

Ideas and knowledge translate to $$$$ pretty much directly, especially in the realm of advanced tech.


You are not getting me. Ideas and knowledge don't directly translate to $$$$. Commercialization, mass marketing, competition, work arounds, mass production, capital and labor availability, political power and what not (also called luck by people who don't understand) influence the $$$$.

Even then after you sell it people can reverse engineer.

All said I am saying India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by Selling its billion-dollar IP to its competitors.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 25 Jul 2007 16:06

Rye wrote:vnsdendla wrote:
But you underestimate others in implying others maynot catch up - technology in itself is not a competative advantage in long run .... others may leapfrog.


Then it would be prudent to not assist them in such leapfrogging by handing them Indian IP on a platter, yes?

The biggest advantage US has is its Capital availability. And its capital UK stole from India. And its $$$$$ that India needs to acquire....


So India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by handing out its potential billion-dollar IP to its competitors? Makes absolutely no sense to me, but then what do I know.

Ideas and knowledge translate to $$$$ pretty much directly, especially in the realm of advanced tech.


You are not getting me. Ideas and knowledge don't directly translate to $$$$. Commercialization, mass marketing, competition, work arounds, mass production, capital and labor availability, political power and what not (also called luck by people who don't understand) influence the $$$$.

Even then after you sell it people can reverse engineer.

All said I am saying India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by Selling its billion-dollar IP to its competitors. and it requires more than a single idea / item to become a rich country - just look at Saudis
Last edited by vnadendla on 25 Jul 2007 16:19, edited 1 time in total.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:07

I
n terms of nuclear physics, plutonium is more suitable for recycling in fast
reactors than in thermal reactors. The fission and capture cross-sections of an
isotope are the technical terms used to indicate the probability of neutron
absorption by an atomic nucleus. As they imply, the former indicates the probability
that absorbed neutrons will fission nuclei, while the latter indicates the
probability that neutrons will be captured without fissions occurring. Whereas
the fission cross-sections of 239Pu and 241Pu irradiated with thermal neutrons are
slightly higher than those of 235U, this uranium isotope is the better fuel in thermal
reactors because the isotopes of plutonium have considerably higher capture
cross-sections (see table 2.2). In a thermal reactor, around 85 per cent of
the neutrons absorbed by 235U cause fissions (the remainder are captured to produce
236U), while the proportion for 239Pu is 74 per cent.1

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:10

Plutonium-239 is produced in a nuclear reactor when 238U is irradiated with
neutrons. Neutron capture turns 238U into 239U, which decays via neptunium-239
in a matter of days to 239Pu. While 239Pu has a half-life of 24 000 years, and is
thus a relatively stable isotope, it is readily fissioned by both thermal and fast
neutrons. It also absorbs neutrons, in addition to being fissioned by them,
resulting in the formation of the isotope 240Pu. Subsequent neutron captures lead
to accumulations of the higher-numbered isotopes 241Pu, 242Pu and 243Pu.
Plutonium-239 and 241Pu are more susceptible to fissioning than the other
plutonium isotopes, and are alone in being fissionable by thermal neutrons.
They are therefore usually referred to as the ‘fissile’ isotopes of plutonium. In
plutonium commerce, quantities are often expressed in terms of the amount of
these fissile isotopes in a particular batch of material. The combined weight of
239Pu and 241Pu is then recorded as Pufiss, as distinct from Putot which refers to
the total weight of plutonium isotopes in the batch. For safeguards purposes,
however, quantities are always measured in terms of total plutonium.
While the plutonium used in nuclear weapons usually contains very small
quantities of 241Pu, this is not the case with the plutonium derived from most
power reactor fuels. The presence of 241Pu can cause serious problems in plutonium
handling since it decays to americium-241 (241Am), which is an intense
emitter of alpha particles and X- and gamma-rays. Plutonium-241 has a halflife
of 13.2 years so that substantial quantities of 241Am can quickly accumulate
in plutonium separated from reactor fuels,

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Jul 2007 16:14

For many years, HEU from spent submarine and research reactor fuels has been
recovered by chemical reprocessing.7 It has either been used as a fuel for plutonium
production reactors, as in the cases of domestic and foreign spent HEU
fuels reprocessed at the Savannah River and Idaho National Laboratory facilities
in the USA; or it has been blended with depleted uranium, to produce lowenriched
uranium which can be used in power reactors. The latter option has
been followed by the former Soviet Union (FSU) in providing uranium fuel for
the high-power channel-type reactors (RBMK—Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosti
Kanalniy/Kipyashchiy).
What is now in prospect is that very large amounts of HEU, mostly containing
more than 90 per cent of 235U, will be released from dismantled nuclear
weapons taken from the arsenals of the USA and the FSU. If this were diluted
with depleted uranium, it would give rise to substantial quantities of lowenriched
uranium, which could be used to fuel power reactors. A deal has been
struck between the Russian and US governments whereby a substantial proportion
of the former Soviet Union’s stockpile of HEU will be purchased by the
USA (Kazakhstan sent a much smaller stock of less than 600 kg of HEU to the
USA in November 1994). After dilution, it will be introduced into the civil fuel
cycle.
The point to be stressed here is that recycling HEU is relatively straightforward,
at least in technical terms, providing it is sufficiently ‘pure’. Steps have
to be taken to limit the proportion of the 234U isotope in the diluted product (as
234U is also concentrated by the enrichment process, HEU tends to be rich in
this isotope). In the case of the Russian HEU, this is being achieved by using
1.5 per cent enriched uranium rather than natural or depleted uranium as the
diluting material. It is also necessary to ensure that the HEU has not been badly
contaminated with other metals used in nuclear weapons. Otherwise, there are
no technical obstacles to reducing stocks of this weapon material. Moreover,
there is a ready commercial market for the resulting uranium fuel. If there is a
problem, it is that introducing HEU to the world market when there is already a
surfeit of enrichment supply will tend to depress the prices of natural and
enriched uranium, or at least keep prices at their present low levels (

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 25 Jul 2007 17:39

vnadendla wrote:

You are not getting me. Ideas and knowledge don't directly translate to $$$$. Commercialization, mass marketing, competition, work arounds, mass production, capital and labor availability, political power and what not (also called luck by people who don't understand) influence the $$$$.



Yes, yes, but there will be no mass marketing and all the other jazz without the seed of the IP. Once you provide some crucial inputs (and you may or may not know which part of your knowledge is worth stealing), your competitors WILL leapfrog..handing over IP to competitors is typically an exercise in self-destruction.

Competitors are not your friends or enemies, but they will whatever it takes to gain an edge over you, so giving away your edge to them for free will get you nothing.


Even then after you sell it people can reverse engineer.


That is why you do R&D to move to the next step while your competitors are reverse engineering your stuff. Of course, if the general strategy is to be sitting on your laurels,then the competitors can leapfrog you.


All said I am saying India needs to get back all the capital stolen during the colonial era by Selling its billion-dollar IP to its competitors.



IP won't get you a billion dollars if you hand it over to your competitors.
You only get a billion dollars by selling the end product well ahead of your competitors. Once you IP leaves your hands, you can say goodbye to your billion dollar dreams.

IP is usually narrowly defined, so you hand over your idea, and it can be tweaked into a "different" idea, and then you get nothing for giving your idea away. Selling goods and end products based on your IP/knowledge is what builds local industry and generates revenue.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 25 Jul 2007 17:52

I have a question, I didn;t know where else to post it.

How feasible is it for a country that wants to use a nuclear weapon with a plausible deniability to load it into a ship container, lined with lead walls, and send it to the destination?

Is such a scenario possible? Are there any reliable methods to catch the radiation of a bomb, behind such shielding? etc etc

Thanks in advance for the answer.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7979
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 25 Jul 2007 18:00

abhischekcc wrote:I have a question, I didn;t know where else to post it.

How feasible is it for a country that wants to use a nuclear weapon with a plausible deniability to load it into a ship container, lined with lead walls, and send it to the destination?

Is such a scenario possible? Are there any reliable methods to catch the radiation of a bomb, behind such shielding? etc etc

Thanks in advance for the answer.


You may be able to block out nominal neutrons, gammas & alphas. But, you simply scan for something very dense, like lead lined containers and then inspect them more closely. I believe one of the methods for scanning is to look for something dense using short wavelength RF.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests