Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

[abhijitm]

Every human has weaker side to his/her personality. Prof APJ Kalam is no exception. People dont talk about it because of all the good sides of his personalty, but that hides not take away personal follies.

Prof APJ Kalam is known to not correct or reprimanded reporter or hosts when they introduce and glorify him as country's top nuclear scientist. Are only DDM and editors responsible for dorkiness?

every human has weaker side but that doesnt make AK any less of a person. I very much respect you, your analysis. But this time you crossed the line.

This is a lame reason to criticise a very respectable former president, a great engineer and a visioner. There must be something else in your head. Throw some light please.

[Gerard]

Vocal US critic of Indian nuclear programme dead

As the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms had expressed "astonishment" over the Indian nuclear tests in May, 1998.

"I am astonished that the Indian government was able to catch the US intelligence capability sound asleep at the switch, revealing the stark reality that the Clinton Administration's six-year cozying up to India has been a foolhardy and perilous substitute for common sense," Helms had said in a curt statement on May 13, 1998.

"By conducting five nuclear tests, India has made a major miscalculation, not merely about the United States, but about India's own capability.

"I have tried to be a friend to India. But, as long as there is breath in me, I will never support the lifting of the Glenn amendment sanctions on India unless they abandon all nuclear ambitions," he had said while expressing his "understanding" on Pakistan's position after the Indian nuclear tests.

[shetty]

I will post it here for the discussion since this is an opputune time

COUNTERPOINT Karate Chop

From the above link

Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power...
Rajinder Puri on Prakash Karat

[ldev]

Are slides 13 and 14 some kind of hints? "FBR Using spent fuel from LWR" and right below that "LWR (Imported)". So, he seems to be expecting FBRs to come to the civilian side of the fence around 2023, and then use the reprocessed mal from imported LWRs in these FBR. He seems to have set the goal for imported reactors.

He wants to use the spent fuel from the 40GW imported LWRs to kickstart a largescale FBR program. Given the scale of India's population and requirement, he realizes that pussyfooting around with 1-4 FBRs is like trying to put out a wildfire with a bucket of water. But 40GW of imported LWRs done in a 8 year period from 2012-2020 will ensure that large scale FBR construction can begin from 2020 onward. He also states that 30 years from the introduction of the FBRs on a large/commercial scale, AHWRs on a large/commercial scale can/will begin operation. This will also wipe out the projected 412GW deficit between demand and supply projected for 2050 using just domestic uranium. Slide 14 projects what will happen in the event of a 10 year delay in the purchase of the LWRs.... to the 2022-2030 time frame... the deficit of 412GW will not be wiped out but will stay at 178GW.

He has also wisely capped the use of domestic coal at about 300GW... realistic because of ash content in domestic coal and the sheer transportation (railway) bottlenecks. Has anyone calculated, how much coal needs to be transported daily by the Indian railways to meet a requirement of 300GW at the average Indian TPP consumption of 0.715kg/kwh? And also translate that into how many freight trains of 60 coal boxcars each that requires, heading out of the two primary coal mining areas of Dhanbad/Asansol in the East and Nagpur in the Centre. 90 trains will need to leave those two areas every hour, 24hoursX365days, just to meet the thermal power station requirements of coal continously. There is no such capacity currently in the Indian Railways.

[rajrang]

Lecture by Dr Anil Kakodkar at the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore
04-July-2008
Evolving Indian Nuclear Programme:
Rationale and Perspectives
http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

Folks should go through the slide presentation. It gives a snapshot of India's electricity requirements over the next 60 years and where in AK's opinion imported fuel/reactors fit into the overall scheme of things.

Thanks for sharing this presentation. I wonder what prevents the Domestic 3 stage program from bridging the 400+ GW deficit?

[Amber G.]

Every human has weaker side to his/her personality. Prof APJ Kalam is no exception. People dont talk about it because of all the good sides of his personalty, but that hides not take away personal follies.

Prof APJ Kalam is known to not correct or reprimanded reporter or hosts when they introduce and glorify him as country's top nuclear scientist. Are only DDM and editors responsible for dorkiness?

every human has weaker side but that doesnt make AK any less of a person. I very much respect you, your analysis. But this time you crossed the line.

.

To add to abhijitm -
Excuse me Arunji, but what is this " " (In Ramanaji's original post) and bold and colored part here. Sure, I would not address him as "nuclear scientist" .(not because, in my book, he isn't one. He IS one of the best nuclear scientist I know) or even address him as 'Prof. Kalam' (as you did), It would be too inappropriate for my taste. I would use, much more honorific term, like "Bharat-Ratna" or President Kalam.

BTW, President Kalam, is known to ask hosts not to use unnecessary titles when addressing him. ..For example, he has asked his students, just to use 'Prof'.

What is this, sudden urge to through innuendos and stuff like that? I honestly would like to know.

A less generous person than me would think along the line "Thou does protest too much"

[ramana]

Appeal to authority

Dr Kalam's views should be quoted for their merits and not because of his being a 'nuclear scientist' which he is not. The shock was for the press report and not at the person.

Please look up logic fallacies.

[enqyoobOLD]

Good question, AmberG. I wonder too.

***********
Different question. Will some expert kindly illuminate me on this elementary question - I honestly don't know enough to figure it out.

Facts:

Iran is a signatory to NPT. Iran says it needs nuke plants for electric power. Iran is known to have 3000+ centrifuges running to enrich U. This is the crux of the standoff.

Random facts I have picked up:
1. Modern nuclear power reactor technology requires only Uranium so low-enriched that it poses absolutely no threat. Like.. 1 to 2 orders of magnitude luffess enriched than the dangerous stuff that poses huge threat if bad guys get it.

In fact all US power plants are under pressure to switch to this kind. Research reactors and other things were more enriched U was present for any reason, are getting shut down systematically. Except for the weapon plants, of course.

2. NNWS signatories to the NPT are entitled to get the latest and greatest nuclear technology like for power plants, shared to them, of course at a price. Iran has no lack of money to buy the technology.

Question:
Why isn't the West just selling low-enriched uranium reactors to Iran and calling their bluff?

For that matter, are Indian civilian reactors going to be of this low-enriched variety? Please explain, thanks.

[ramana]

I am not an expert but have read some stuff for donkeys years. About ten in the power plant business.

Question:
Why isn't the West just selling low-enriched uranium reactors to Iran and calling their bluff?

For that matter, are Indian civilian reactors going to be of this low-enriched variety? Please explain, thanks.

1) The fear is what will they do with the waste which has poo low grade but poo nevertheless. No one wants to take back reprocessed fuel back tot he country of origin.
Secondly the suspicion is Iran has a bomb design and plans to acquires the fissile material to operationalize that bomb program.

2) Indian PHWRs use natural uranium not enriched. India's Tarapur BWR and Russian LWRs use enriched Uranium. All LWRs need that fuel. Its 2-3% enriched. Only Canada and India have PHWRs which use natural uranium. So if the new reactors are from abroad, other than Canada they are LWRs and will use low-enriched Uranium. India doesnt make LWRs.


hope it clarifies.

[ldev]

Thanks for sharing this presentation. I wonder what prevents the Domestic 3 stage program from bridging the 400+ GW deficit?

You must be familiar with the concept of compounding? Can you reach an amount of 1 lac starting with 10,000? Sure, you can. However, will you reach an amount of 1 lac if your starting amount is 50,000 much faster? Definitely. Because if you start with 10,000 it will take you anywhere from 25-50 years to reach 50,000 depending on your rate of compounding. That is what the FBR does with spent fuel. Demand however continues to grow with the passage of time and a gap appears. That is the gap of 400+ GW in 2050 if you start with 10,000 as opposed to 50,000.

[rajrang]

Thanks for sharing this presentation. I wonder what prevents the Domestic 3 stage program from bridging the 400+ GW deficit?

You must be familiar with the concept of compounding? Can you reach an amount of 1 lac starting with 10,000? Sure, you can. However, will you reach an amount of 1 lac if your starting amount is 50,000 much faster? Definitely. Because if you start with 10,000 it will take you anywhere from 25-50 years to reach 50,000 depending on your rate of compounding. That is what the FBR does with spent fuel. Demand however continues to grow with the passage of time and a gap appears. That is the gap of 400+ GW in 2050 if you start with 10,000 as opposed to 50,000.

What limits the compounding rate? If you compound at a faster rate, then, you will reach the target sooner.

[ldev]

What limits the compounding rate? If you compound at a faster rate, then, you will reach the target sooner

The fuel. Oxides double roughly every 30 years. Metallic fuels double in roughly 10 years. India is working on metallic fuels for its FBRs now.

[rajrang]

What limits the compounding rate? If you compound at a faster rate, then, you will reach the target sooner

The fuel. Oxides double roughly every 30 years. Metallic fuels double in roughly 10 years. India is working on metallic fuels for its FBRs now.

In stage 3 of India's nuclear programme (slide 12) Thorium is the fuel. Again, what is the limit then to a more rapid growth rate? My apologies for my ignorance.

[ldev]

Rajrang,

The problem is the gap in the early years, before the beneficial effects of compounding in the FBRs begins to kick in. The thorium cycle (3rd stage) cannot commence, according to the presentation, for about 30 years after the large scale introduction of FBRs, that would make it 2050 at the earliest. The problem is that there is a growing gap in the decades prior to that, reaching an amount of 412GW by 2050.

[rajrang]

Rajrang,

The problem is the gap in the early years, before the beneficial effects of compounding in the FBRs begins to kick in. The thorium cycle (3rd stage) cannot commence, according to the presentation, for about 30 years after the large scale introduction of FBRs, that would make it 2050 at the earliest. The problem is that there is a growing gap in the decades prior to that, reaching an amount of 412GW by 2050.

Thanks Idev - But on slide 12, I see Thorium reactors in significant capacities by 2030 (purple color). Am I missing something?

[enqyoobOLD]

What is an oxide fuel (rusted Uranium?) and what is a metallic fuel? I thought any fuel had to be refined through a gazillion steps so that it takes 1,000,000,000,000 tons of "pitchblende" or whatever to give 100 kg of U235, which may have about 1% U235 and 0.2% U233?

But I don't understand what a metallic fuel is.

[John Snow]

N guru
MOX IS OXIDE FUEL
read here

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep423/FALL99/lecture3.pdf

http://www.rertr.anl.gov/Fuels98/Bonini.pdf

[Arun_S]

Every human has weaker side to his/her personality. Prof APJ Kalam is no exception. People dont talk about it because of all the good sides of his personalty, but that hides not take away personal follies.

Prof APJ Kalam is known to not correct or reprimanded reporter or hosts when they introduce and glorify him as country's top nuclear scientist. Are only DDM and editors responsible for dorkiness?

every human has weaker side but that doesnt make AK any less of a person. I very much respect you, your analysis. But this time you crossed the line.

This is a lame reason to criticise a very respectable former president, a great engineer and a visioner. There must be something else in your head. Throw some light please.

Sir, I am only stating a fact/truth, not analyzing anything. I would gladly correct my stand if you can show me wrong.

What line have I crossed? Pls enlighten me.

Where in my post did I say anything to make Prof Kalam any less of a person? Please do not attribute to me something I have not said.

To add to abhijitm -
Excuse me Arunji, but what is this " " (In Ramanaji's original post) and bold and colored part here.

What about?

Sure, I would not address him as "nuclear scientist" .(not because, in my book, he isn't one. He IS one of the best nuclear scientist I know)

Amber G please list anything that Prof Kalam has done in nuclear science field! I will be highly obliged to be educated on nuclear research done by the best nuclear scientist that you know of. Anything in public domain will do, even his education, training or professional experience.

I ask with all humility to be educated.

or even address him as 'Prof. Kalam' (as you did), It would be too inappropriate for my taste. I would use, much more honorific term, like "Bharat-Ratna" or President Kalam.

Prof APJ Kalam does not want to be called "Dr." he prefers to be called "Professor" and that is the reason I referred to our respected Ex-President as Prof. Kalam.

BTW Prof Kalam has a honorary degree of Doctorate (not an academic Doctorate), he is a humble man who does not covet nor hide behind high degrees or ivy schools. His "Wings of Fire" is a good autobiography that IMHO should be a recommended reading book at all Indian schools.

[ldev]

Thanks Idev - But on slide 12, I see Thorium reactors in significant capacities by 2030 (purple color). Am I missing something?

They are not thorium reactors. India's program is referred to commonly as its 3 stage program. What you see in slide 12 is not "stage 3", but stage 1 and 2 of the 3 stage program.

[John Snow]

Just to fill in a little He (Prof Kalam) is Bsc, and a graduate of MIT ( in those days Madras Institute of Technology, IIRC a 3 yrs course with specialization in Electronics or Aeronautical, or Instrumentation, aka majors, It was one of the first and very good institute with 50 students intake in a year. Very practical degree and any graduate frm that institution was very well sought after, what was JIPMER/AFMS/AAIIMS for Docs)

[NRao]

N^3,

One gets more in return using "metallic" than "oxide". However, oxide is a far lesser challenge - one that India has overcome.

[vina]

Thanks Idev - But on slide 12, I see Thorium reactors in significant capacities by 2030 (purple color). Am I missing something?

They are not thorium reactors. India's program is referred to commonly as its 3 stage program. What you see in slide 12 is not "stage 3", but stage 1 and 2 of the 3 stage program.

All this Nookelear Fizzics stuff just flies over my head.. Can someone explain here in layman's terms, why do we need the 3 stage process and why we can't burn Thorium directly in nuclear reactors today..

My understanding is that the 3 stage stuff is like this.

1). PHWR /LWR reactors burn natural uranium /enriched uranium /MoX generating Plutonium (Poo) as by product.
2) Now Poo gets burnt with uranium and thorium in Breeder to generate U 233
3) U 233 and Thorium get burnt , exploiting the Thorium resources in India ?.

So, what is the bottleneck here.. Is it the availability of Poo in sufficient quantities ? . Cant we short cut that by importing Poo (under full safeguards..) from excess weapons stocks / separated from LWR spent fuel from abroad etc and then jump straight to stage 2 and then on to stage 3 ?.

Obviously to import poo, we need the 123 agreement .. But point is , why import the LWR to get to Poo ?. Why dont we import Poo and get started on the breeder. Is it because we are not there yet in terms of technology and we are still in pilot stage ?

[ldev]

N3,

The article appeared in the Hindu in 2002. But still useful in understanding the fuel concepts from India's standpoint:

THE FAST Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam reaching 100,000MWday/tonne burn up may a great milestone achieved. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is happy but have bigger challenges and taller peaks to conquer. The debate is now on the kind of fuel to be used in future breeder reactors.

"We need to look at advanced fuels like nitride and metallic for the breeder reactors," said Anil Kakkodkar, Chairman of DAE. This comes at a time when the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) coming up at Kalpakkam is to use mixed oxide fuel.

The FBTR has used mixed carbide fuel of a unique composition. So why use an oxide fuel when all data generated in the FBTR is from a carbide fuel? And now why talk of using advanced fuel when the PFBR is to use an oxide fuel?

Oxide with a fuel ratio of 30 per cent plutonium oxide and 70 per cent uranium oxide is a well-proven fuel world over. The uranium used here is natural uranium (with fissile U {+2}{+3}{+5} comprising only 0.7 per cent). U{+2}{+3}{+5} enriched to 85 per cent was required for FBTR as it has a smaller nuclear core.

As a rule, smaller the core larger is the neutron leakage and vice versa and so to sustain the breeder reaction enriched uranium is mandatory explained S.M. Lee, Director, Safety Research, Health Physics, Information Services, Instrumentation and Electronics group. India had to import enriched uranium if it wanted to go ahead with the FBTR programme using oxide fuel.

"The Pokran adventure made this impossible. So we had to look at other alternatives," said C. Ganguly, Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad. Alternatively plutonium rich oxide fuel could have been used but it had its own share of problems. Hence DAE was left with little choice but look at mixed carbide fuel for FBTR.

Here again DAE had to settle for 70 per cent plutonium carbide and 30 per cent (natural) uranium carbide to take advantage of the plutonium availability and to achieve high neutron emission as required by a small core.

Things have changed with PFBR as it has a large core and hence needs no enriched uranium. The debate was whether to use mixed carbide or mixed oxide fuel for PFBR. "We had to settle for oxide fuel due to inherent problems associated with carbide fuel," Dr. Ganguly explained.

Carbide fuel is very difficult to fabricate on a large scale as it is highly pyrophoric and is highly susceptible to oxidation and hydrolysis. Moreover, reprocessing the spent carbide fuel is difficult as it is difficult to dissolve in nitric acid and leaves behind organic complexes. Moreover, carbide fuel has attained a burn up value of just 100,000MWday/tonne. Compare this with nearly 200,000MWday/tonne achieved with oxide fuel in France.

Cost of power production comes down with increased burn up value. Also, oxide fuel is easy to fabricate as it is not phyrphoric and hence needs no inert atmosphere during fabrication. Data on oxide unlike other fuels is available and is very vital for India making a foray into breeder power plants.

Reprocessing possesses no problem either as is the case with carbide fuel. In short, the technology for mixed oxide fuel is very similar to that of uranium oxide used in thermal (nuclear) reactors. "Using oxide fuel will help us to fine tune and perfect other areas of the breeder reactor technology," said S.B. Bhoje, Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam.

Breeding ratio


If oxide fuel is better than carbide in all respects then why the debate about using advanced fuels like nitride and metallic in future? The answer is simple. It has to do with breeding ratio. Breeding ratio is the amount of extra plutonium produced in a reactor to start a new one.

Breeder technology works on the principle of self-sustenance and ability to produce more plutonium than it actually consumes to produce power. The breeding ratio is 1.1 in the case oxide fuel while it 1.2-1.3 in the case of carbide and nitride fuels. It is maximum in the case of metallic fuel (1.4-1.5). Hence the doubling time (surplus plutonium produced to start a new reactor) is short in the case of metallic, carbide and nitride fuels compared to oxide fuel.

The doubling time becomes paramount when the country goes on an overdrive to commission new reactors. Hence the stress on using advanced fuels. But Dr. Bhoje feels otherwise. "The PHWR and the new reactors coming up would be able to provide plutonium to commission breeder reactors of 40,000MW capacity. Will we be able to commission reactors in time to utilize even this plutonium? he asked.

He cites the example of coal. Nearly 50 billion tones of coal are available for mining and hundreds of thermal plants can be commissioned to utilize them. But we are not in a position to do so. Similar will be the situation with breeder reactors where more plutonium will be produced using advanced fuel than will be utilized.

"The disadvantage of the lower breeding ratio with oxide fuel is not very critical for the next 30-40 years," Dr. Bhoje said. "We must look at survival first then think about growth. I personally think that we may not use nitride or metallic fuel for breeder programme." According to him the availability of technology, producing power at cheaper cost, gaining expertise and earning public acceptance are vital to breeder programme. And using oxide fuel does just that.

The carbide fuel used in FBTR achieved a burn up of 100,000MWday/tonne. A commendable burn up indeed but at less than 400 watts/cm linear heat rating for most part. A commercial reactor has to have a linear heat rating of 700-800 watts/cm. "We may not be able to achieve this with the present carbide fuel," Dr. Bhoje stressed. The end result — lower burn up when using carbide fuel. "It is not economical to have lower burn up. Also the fabrication and reprocessing would increase the cost of power production," he added.

But the long-term strategy does call in for fuels with shorter doubling time. Plans are to have a few subassemblies with nitride fuel in PFBR. This will help study the fuel behaviour firsthand and collect relevant data to help commission reactors with this fuel in future. Dr. Ganguly is convinced that advanced fuels have to be used at the earliest. But will the reprocessing of the advanced fuels consume more time than oxide fuels? If that be so the advantage of shorter doubling time is compromised.

Using advanced fuel in lieu of oxide fuel can halve doubling time. "But is the country prepared to commission breeder reactors at the same rate? Dr. Bhoje wondered. If not then producing more plutonium and paying more cost for power produced using advanced fuel may not be to India's advantage he felt.

Finally optimising certain parameters like increasing the pin diameter, increasing the density of oxide fuel from 82 to 88 per cent and reducing the stainless steel thickness (which absorbs neutrons) will help increase the breeding ratio to 1.2-1.25 and reduce the doubling time. "Already Russia has been able to shrink the doubling time to ten years and U.S. to 15 years," Dr. Bhoje said.

Metallic fuel uses 70 per cent enriched U{+2}{+3}{+5} (weapon grade). This makes it a costly fuel. Moreover, high swelling is seen limiting the burn up to 10,000MWd/t.

The Angonne National Laboratory in the U.S. has achieved higher burn up of 100,000MWd/t by using low density (70 per cent) fuel inside the clad. On swelling the fuel instead of touching and cracking the clad actually becomes soft due to the presence of high porosity. This has made fuel swelling a non-issue.

Nitride and carbide belong to the same family and have similar thermophysical and thermodynamic properties. It is more stable than carbide asthere are no higher nitrides unlike in the case of carbide.

But nitride fuel is not a panacea either. It has its own share of drawbacks too. It is more stable and easily soluble in nitric acid unlike carbide fuel and hence causes fewer problems at the reprocessing stage.

Also, it is susceptible to oxidation and hydrolysis and is pyrophoric though less in magnitude than carbide fuel. But the biggest drawback with nitride is N{+1}{+4} produces C{+1}{+4} a beta emitter. And large quantities of C{+1}{+4} can posse problems at the reprocessing stage. Enriching N{+1}{+4} to N{+1}{+5} can be done but again involves additional expenditure.

"Some trade off is needed," admits Dr. Ganguly. "In science one needs to be very aggressive and advanced fuel is the solution in the long term if India is serious about nuclear power and want to increase the number of breeder reactors." And the debate goes on.

[ldev]

But point is , why import the LWR to get to Poo ?. Why dont we import Poo and get started on the breeder. Is it because we are not there yet in terms of technology and we are still in pilot stage ?

Firstly, global stocks of Pu (mainly Russian surplus maal) are just about finished by now.

Secondly, right now, DAE wants to keep the FBR on the non civilian side. This could be due to 2 reasons. The decision as to what to breed in the breeder is not yet made or they want to run the existing stockpile of reactor grade Pu through the breeder without "inquiring" eyes looking over the process.

Thirdly, this will involve building a dedicated reprocessing plant agreed to as part of the 123 agreement and this will take some time.

Fourthly, the countries facilitating this 123 process for India through the IAEA and NSG need a commercial quid pro quo, hence the Russkies, French and the US will get reactor orders for the 40GW capacity India plans on installing.

[John Snow]

Japan has huge Pu stock it can and is importing Thoorium fro Kerala why no Nippon Fast breeders?

[ldev]

Japan has huge Pu stock it can and is importing Thoorium fro Kerala why no Nippon Fast breeders?

See this wiki article on Monju the Japanese fast breeder and its possible successor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju

[vina]

Interesting.. Advanced Heavy Water Reactor.. What would be the cycle efficiency of such a system.. ie. % of fission energy generated , converted into electrical energy ?. I would estimate it at around 20%..ok. 25% at best. This has no super heating.. (just separating wet steam to dry steam and water), and of course the heat transfer loss from heavy water to normal boiling water which is the coolant.. So I guess 750 MW Thermal would translate to around 150 MW to 190 MW electrical.. Dont know man.. That sounds too small in the era of UMPPs with 4000 MW outputs.. We need to increase efficiency in the AHWR... to around 33% efficiency, so that we get atleast 250MW electricity out of the 750MW Thermal generated.

Fyzzics gurus.. What are the other new generations reactor designs out there that increase the efficiency.. I guess reactor designs that generate superheated steam and /or don't have the primary to secondary loop transfer would be the benchmarks. Can that be done at all, given safety and other considerations ?.

[ldev]

The design goal for the AHWR is 300MWe.

[Rishi]

Too much hot air in nuke deal - Bhrama Chellaney

The partisan rancour over the Indo-US nuclear deal has helped obscure facts, allowing shibboleths and fantasies to substitute for an informed debate on a critical issue. Several myths continue to be repeated untiringly. The biggest of them draws a meretricious link between nuclear energy and soaring oil prices to justify the proposed import of high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent power reactors from overseas.

India ought not to confuse its electrical generation problem with transportation fuel problem. Also, India cannot correct its oil-import dependency on the Gulf region by fashioning a new dependency on a tiny nuclear-supply cartel made up of a few state-guided firms

[vina]

The design goal for the AHWR is 300MWe.

Nah.. Not possible. Even top notch coal fired plants with fluidized bed combustion and other stuff would find it difficult to reach 40% thermodynamic efficiency.. 300 MWe out of 750 MW Thermal (40% efficiency) is extremely aggressive and I don't see anything in the design (I mean the heat transfer and engineering part, not the nuclear part (where I am clueless)) that will take it there.

[negi]

Japan has huge Pu stock it can and is importing Thoorium fro Kerala why no Nippon Fast breeders?

Aargh... we all debate all day long on the deal and future of nuclear energy for insuring our future energy demands; I don't get this exporting Thorium business where does it fit into our scheme of things ?

[John Snow]

FBRs usually use a mixed oxide fuel core of up to 20% plutonium dioxide (PuO2) and at least 80% uranium dioxide (UO2). Another fuel option is metal alloys, typically a blend of uranium, plutonium, and zirconium. The plutonium used can be supplied by the reprocessing from reactor outputs or 'off the shelf' dismantled nuclear weapons.

In many FBR designs, the reactor core is surrounded in a blanket of tubes containing non-fissile uranium-238 which, by capturing fast neutrons from the reaction in the core, is partially converted to fissile plutonium-239 (as is some of the uranium in the core), which can then be reprocessed for use as nuclear fuel. Other FBR designs rely on the geometry of the fuel itself (which also contains uranium-238) to attain sufficient fast neutron capture.

The ratio between the Pu239 (or U235) fission cross-section and the U238 absorption cross-section is much higher in a thermal spectrum than in a fast spectrum. Therefore a higher enrichment of the fuel is needed in a fast reactor in order to reach a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

Since a fast reactor uses a fast spectrum no moderator is required to thermalize the fast neutrons.

All current fast reactor designs use liquid metal as the primary coolant, to transfer heat from the core to steam used to power the electricity generating turbines. Some early FBRs used mercury, and other experimental reactors have used NaK. Both of these choices have the advantage that they are liquids at room temperature, which is convenient for experimental rigs but less important for pilot or full scale power stations.

Sodium is the normal coolant for large power stations, but lead has been used successfully for smaller generating rigs. Both coolant choices are being studied as possible Generation IV reactors, and each presents some advantages.[1] A gas-cooled option is also being studied, although no gas-cooled fast reactor has reached criticality.

Water cannot be used as the primary coolant since it acts as a moderator, slowing neutrons to thermal levels and preventing the breeding of uranium-238 into plutonium-239. However a heavy water moderated thermal breeder reactor, using thorium to produce uranium-233, is theoretically possible (see Advanced Heavy Water Reactor).

********************
The Monju reactor, with a power output capacity of 280 megawatts, began generating power in August 1995. But it was shut down due to a fire on Dec 8 of that year caused by a sodium coolant leak from a worn-out thermometer.

****

Monju (もんじゅ, Monju?) is Japan's only fast breeder reactor. Located in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture in Japan, the reactor began construction in 1985 and first achieved criticality in April 1994.

Monju is a sodium-cooled, MOX-fueled loop type reactor with 3 primary coolant loops, producing 714 MWt / 280 MWe. 39% NOTE Vina Garu JSMonju was closed in 1995 following a serious sodium leak and fire. It is expected to reopen in 2008.

The successor to Monju is expected to be a larger demonstration plant that will be completed around 2025, built by the newly formed Mitsubishi FBR Systems company.[1]

http://www.thoriumpower.com/files/Busin ... 0_2008.pdf

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3 ... _nuke.html

[vina]

Monju (もんじゅ, Monju?) is Japan's only fast breeder reactor. Located in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture in Japan, the reactor began construction in 1985 and first achieved criticality in April 1994.

Monju is a sodium-cooled, MOX-fueled loop type reactor with 3 primary coolant loops, producing 714 MWt / 280 MWe. 39% NOTE Vina Garu JSMonju was closed in 1995 following a serious sodium leak and fire. It is expected to reopen in 2008.

The successor to Monju is expected to be a larger demonstration plant that will be completed around 2025, built by the newly formed Mitsubishi FBR Systems company.[1]

Ah.. Snow garu.. No.. no.. Monju and the Advanced Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor from NPCIL /DAE that we are talking about are very different. For one, Monju is a Fast Breeder and APHWR is a thermal reactor (that much Nook Fyzzics I can understand) and power densities are very different as well. . On top of that the heat transfer properties of the coolants are very different as well. So not equal equal. The liquid metal cooled reactors can easily generate superheated steam ,which can then be efficiently used to do the conversion from thermal to electrical..

APHWR is actually thermodynamically very similar to Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and from the technical data , we have the following.

TECHNICAL DATA
POWER

Net electrical output 1356 MWe
Gross thermal power 3926 MWt

Which is 1356/3926 which is around 34 to 35% , which is roughly in the ballpark of 33% that I think the APHWR will actually achieve, given that APHWWR too is a BWR (with the coolant being boiling water), but with the additional heat transfer loss from moderator (heavy water) to coolant (light water)..In traditional BWRs and ABWR, light water is the coolant AND moderator..

[John Snow]

Agreed Saar I was thinking of the upper limit of lquid metal (system) Heat excahnge and the efficencies achieved. Dont read more tha that. Me Nuke Nood. Browsing BRF at 3.00 am during long week end . Pathetic life indeed, but silver lining is listening to Carnatic music and that too Annamacharya kritis, when every thing is silent , (The Night Chicago died)

Oops I forgot my steam table charts in 1977, but have been taking heat (super Heat making Idly'd in reactor vessel with a calendula of its own, last I had chernobil in kitchen when the water in the reactor vessel went bone dry and the last row fuel rods that is idly's were reduced to Carbon nearly Graphite moderator from normal water reactor ) And SHQ ordered to clean it shining new the outer core of the vessel)

[K Mehta]

To those who thanked for for sharing, thats what we are here for, to share the info we get.
The slides and the paper dont cover the question answer session. so I will give you guys a gist of it.
1)Nuclear Waste question: Ours is a closed cycle like France, and not an open cycle like US, so we generate 1% waste for the same amount of energy generation. By open cycle, he meant we reprocess fuel to get back U and Pu. He also said that the other byproducts like Actinides can also be used for energy generation and that long half life products could be used as target to produce short half life compounds which can then be used as fuel. This is being researched in India as well as abroad. The nuclear energy production in US is as much as the total energy production in India. That combined with open energy cycle is what is leading to the 10,000 tonnes of nuclear waste what the questioner was talking about (and he emphasized that those were US figures). It is because of this that the Yuca mountain is getting filled up and now they need another Yuca mountain. Recently even US has now started to use a mixed cycle i.e some part of the fuel is being reprocessed, they havent done away with the open cycle completely, but have started shifting towards closed cycle. We have sites for waste storage at all our power stations but the waste we generate is very less as compared to the US.

2)How this would help the fossil fuel requirement question: We are working on high temperature reactors, which can be used for hydrogen production, which in turn can be used as a liquid fuel. Also we are researching fuel cells so these two combined will lead to reduction in fossil fuel requirement.

3)Why only nuclear and not solar power which is cheaper question: He said that Dr. Banerjee is working on a solar tower in Vizag (There in the photos at the end of the presentation) and we were working on these aspects as well. But that the energy production by nuclear reactors is cheap and we were working to make it cheaper. And making it more efficient is just a technical hurdle which is not insurmountable. But most importantly for India's energy security it was essential that we didn't just limit ourselves to this resource or that resource, but utilize every resource available to us.

4)The production of U in India is less due to neglect by authorities: He said I would not say there has been a neglect. I would say that we (By we I mean the authorities, politicians, scientists, people everybody) have a very myopic point of view. Few years back we were accused of stockpiling yellow cake and our reactors took 15 years to build, and our reactors were running at 40%-50% efficiency, so we reduced the procurement. Now our reactors are built in 4-5 years and they run at >90% efficiency (I think he mentioned Kondakoolam). So there has been a gap in perception, that is what I would say, but that is not because of neglect. Also in a democracy like India, to get a permission to start a Uranium mine and it to start production takes about 7-8 years, because of bureaucracy and other issues because it is a free state and all the requirements for safety have to be completed.

He also said that the import of U at the stage he mentioned was essential and that if we failed in doing that the coming generations will not forgive us for not securing the energy future of India. He said that the planning commission had done a similar report with a 30 yr timeline which expected the energy requirements to be higher than what the grower report has expected. Again he said that there were assumptions like India was supposed to grow at the rate projected, there may be some breakthroughs in other energy fields, etc etc.
He also mentioned twice or thrice climate change as a major factor. I think it is a serious issue that they have tried to factor in. I may have missed some part of the questions as well as answers. It was an enlightening talk to say the least.
Notes in Italics are my additions
Back to hibernate mode.

[rajrang]

Thanks Idev - But on slide 12, I see Thorium reactors in significant capacities by 2030 (purple color). Am I missing something?

They are not thorium reactors. India's program is referred to commonly as its 3 stage program. What you see in slide 12 is not "stage 3", but stage 1 and 2 of the 3 stage program.

Thanks Idev

[NRao]

Thanks Mehta, lucky devil.

He also mentioned twice or thrice climate change as a major factor. I think it is a serious issue that they have tried to factor in. I may have missed some part of the questions as well as answers. It was an enlightening talk to say the least.

It is a very serious issue. IF nuclear energy cannot fill the deficit, then it has to be filled with oil/coal - both are expensive and/or polluting alternatives. And, if you look at the graph, it will be equal to what India pollutes today, so the pollution, from India, would double.

However, I would like AK to promote the non-proliferation factor in using Thorium, etc.

One encouraging issue in this presentation is that the imports stay at 40 GWe over time.

However, IF he is proposing to use leftovers from LWR for the FBRs, then two things are a given: 1) India needs to get reproc techs (not just building), and 2) India will have to bring the FBRs to the civilian side of the fence and hence under IAEA safeguards. R&D would still remain off limits and some FBRs would still be on the "military" side of the fence - thus off limits to the IAEA lap dog.

I think the two slides 13 and 14 are his way of saying sign the deal now. Any delays would reflect in elec production down the road.

[enqyoobOLD]

Snow garu, Supreme HQ here approves transfer of the following advanced reactor technology to you, per your signing ITAR (idli technology for advanced reactors), NPT and instituting full-scope safeguards: Use solid-state, amorphous H2O (not the crystalline version in your user name), place in reactor vessel and shake a bit, leave for some time, shake again, etc. (no stirring unlike 007 martini recipe). Graphite shell will come off and can be reprocessed, but make take a bit of gentle scraping with wooden spatula. Says DO NOT use liquid H2O, neither Heavy nor Light.

So if I understand the usual 0.01% of the above articles and discussions, using "metal" fuel in FBRs implies high enrichment of U to weapons-grade (over 70 percent), adding Pu and stabilizing it using zirconium. Somehow I feel an urge to be far away from any place where they process or transport that stuff.

Does this also mean that the "new" American (I got this from a Prof. of new clear engg) reactor technology that uses only low-enriched U, is not compatible with this "closed cycle" and thus leaves dumps of lo-glo residue?

If this is the explanation for concern about the Iran programs, then why is a similar concern not present about other NNWS reactor programs? Seems that all reactors produce residue with Pu content? What is Iran's explanation for why they have to enrich further?

[CRamS]

Too much hot air in nuke deal - Bhrama Chellaney

Vina, why the rush to sign the deal? Even NYT says the same thing albeit for different reasons.

[vina]

Too much hot air in nuke deal - Bhrama Chellaney

Vina, why the rush to sign the deal? Even NYT says the same thing albeit for different reasons.

Precisely because of what the NYT says and also very studiously omits to say. Most importantly, because this deal is vital to India's national interests and future, the window of opportunity is open and if you dont do it now, there is no certainty that this can get done again ever in the near term.What if the next election throws up a hung parliament and you have political uncertainty for the next 3 years.

What the NYT , echoing and egged on by the NPA is actually saying is that the this deal is too good for India and should not be offered , especially when a new administration comes to power. The Commies don't care about the merits of the deal, for them it is a visceral hatred of America and GW Bush (Indrajit Gupta's , the CPI fuddy duddy's, reason for opposing the deal, his own words on NDTV, "I hate George Boosh" , so no deal, with such worthies like him around, who doesn't know where personal prejudices end and public good begins, India doesn't need enemies). The deal might not be available after another 3 months and maybe never.

Consider the flip side. You have possibly the entire deal to lose by waiting. What do you gain if you wait. Will you get a better deal ? Any deal at all ?

Also think about what NY Times studiously avoids saying. China, the country that actually gave material and designs to Pakistan, violating everything in the NPT, NSG and CTBT, and which Pakistan opened Xerox Khan's Wal Mart with and hawked it to all the bad apples in the world, gets away scot free, and freely imports reactors and material from all over the world, including US, Russia, France and Japan!. Why should India bear the cross for the NPT and CTBT or whatever the NPA's fetishize about. We never even signed up in the first place. What do they do about China which broke every rule there was to break and actively proliferated!. India succeeded in getting out of that idiocy of such an arrangement and the straitjackets imposed on it.

More importantly, with the nuclear thing out of the way, the obstacles to India's engagement with the rest of the world and open the taps to technology and closer enagement with the rest of the world is open. That is alone is a good enough reason to do the deal in haste!