India Nuclear News And Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

vera_k wrote:That is Perkovich estimate of reactor grade PU usable in weapons. Pg 430.
I'll go home and check the book, but then it must be OVER AND ABOVE the weapons grade Pu stockpile we have..

BTW maybe I am dense, but how does anyone estimate what is a reactor grade Pu usable in weapons? Given that the basic premise (ie, making bombs out of reactor grade Pu) is a bit of a mystery?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

Del.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 19 Feb 2011 01:15, edited 1 time in total.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10372
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

somnath wrote:
vera_k wrote:That is Perkovich estimate of reactor grade PU usable in weapons. Pg 430.
I'll go home and check the book, but then it must be OVER AND ABOVE the weapons grade Pu stockpile we have..

BTW maybe I am dense, but how does anyone estimate what is a reactor grade Pu usable in weapons? Given that the basic premise (ie, making bombs out of reactor grade Pu) is a bit of a mystery?
Reactor grade is Pu-239 and weapons grade is Pu-240. The US Dept. of Energy (US DoE) classifies that 7% of HWR reactor grade Pu can be recovered as weapons grade Pu-240. The PWHRs as used in India, the heavy water or deuterium-oxide will yield much more Pu-240, as you will have more neutrons from the deuterium. My *guess* is that is that at least 1/3 of the reactor grade Pu from a PHWR yields Pu-240 and depends how efficient they can get Pu-239 to absorb the extra neutron. However, in India's case, this is probably higher since one of the objectives was to create weapons grade Pu. PHWRs have a higher initial cost and are more expensive to operate, but need less enriched U-238.

500 Kg of Pu-240 will make at least 100 weapons with a yield up to 100 KT.

Perhaps our resident physicist AmberG can explain this in more detail.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by vic »

I once read a very detailed thesis written by US Nuclear scientists on internet (cannot locate link now) that Indian PHWR need to take out place/replace fuel bundles for balancing the nuclear flux in a manner that generates weapon grade fuel for first few years of the start up of Nuclear Plant in some portions full nuclear fuel loading.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Sanatanan »

Mort Walker wrote:
. . .
Reactor grade is Pu-239 and weapons grade is Pu-240.
. . .
I found this definition in Wikipedia which seems to indicate (at least a partial) invert of the above quote. WG Pu needs to be have high isotopic concentration (> 93%) of Pu 239, while RG Pu can be a mix having Pu 239 (< 93%) + Pu240 (> 7%) + may be even Pu 241, Pu 242 etc.

[quote]. . .
Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as being predominantly Pu-239 with less than 7% Plutonium-240. Pu-240 is produced when Pu-239 absorbs an additional neutron and fails to fission. Pu-240 and Pu-239 are not separated by reprocessing. Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, which can cause a nuclear weapon to predetonate. To reduce the concentration of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced, weapons program plutonium production reactors irradiate the uranium for a far shorter time than is normal for a nuclear power reactor. More precisely, weapons-grade plutonium is obtained from uranium irradiated to a low burnup.
. . .[/quote]
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Sanatanan »

1. Could this link from Wikipedia refer to the "straight through Graphite moderated reactor supplied by China to Pakistan" indicated by BK in his article? However nothing has been said in the article to indicate proliferation by China into Pakistan.
The Pakistan Atomic Research Reactor or (PARR), are the three nuclear and experimental neutron research reactors located in the PINSTECH Laboratory, Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan. The PARR Reactor is a graphite-moderated, Gas Cooled, nuclear reactor.

It is a type of Very high temperature reactor (VHTR), Thermal-neutron reactor and Pool-type reactor. The research reactors consists of three small nuclear reactors. The first nuclear reactor was supplied and financially constructed by the Government of United States of America in the mids of 1960s. The other two reactors are built and supplied by Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1970s and 1980s, respectively. Supervised by the United States and International Atomic Energy Agency, the first two reactors are subject to IAEA safeguards and its inspections.

Contents
• 1 History of PARR-Reactors
• 2 PARR-I Reactor
• 3 PARR-II Reactor
• 4 PARR-III Reactor (New-Labs)
• 5 Charged Particle Accelerator
• 6 References
• 7 External links

. . .

PARR-III Reactor (New-Labs)
Unlike the PARR-I and PARR-II, the third reactor is not subject to IAEA inspections. The third reacor is completely different from its parent reactors. The third PARR-III Reactor, a plutonium-weapons-grade fuel and plutonium reprocessing reactor, known as "New Labs". The New Labs which is previously known as PARR-III-Reactor, is a pilot 94Pu reprocessing reactor, has a capability to utilize the ~7% 239Pu and has the capability to handle the isotopes and utilize the 86Kr emissions and radiation. A reprocessing reactor for the plutonium fuel to utilize <~7% 239Pu weapons grade fuel into a much heavier but <~7% weapon-grade 240Pu weapons grade fuel. Much of the information about the third reactor is not fully known, however, New Labs were designed and constructed indigenously . . .

. . .
I must admit that the info quoted above about PARR III goes completely over my head. What is a "Plutonium reprocessing reactor" ? in the article, the words "Pu", "reprocessing" and "reactor" are linked to other articles in Wikipedia (all of them different from each other), none of them explaining the words "Plutonium reprocessing reactor" taken together.

Is it that PARR III New Labs comprises of both a graphite moderated reactor for Pu production and an adjoining reprocessing plant? If so, what are the specifications / description of the graphite moderated reactor? Also, the article claims that New Labs were designed and constructed indigenously, and does not acknowledge any foreign collaboration. Definitely I seem to be missing some thing here.

This [url=Labshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Plutonium_infrastructure]link[/url] is slightly more clear in that it says "Plutonium separation takes place at the New Labs Reprocessing Plant" (which I take to be PARR III, from the previous link.)
Plutonium separation takes place at the New Labs Reprocessing Plant, which was completed by 1981 by PAEC and is next to the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH) near Islamabad, which is not subject to IAEA inspections and safeguards.
2. This is a link for an article on Pakistan's Pu production capacity
Pakistan has been increasing its plutonium production capacity over the last decade. A second heavy-water reactor at Khushab is believed to be complete, while construction of a third plant is moving at a faster pace than its predecessor. Islamabad might be ramping up its separation capacity in order to manage the increase in spent fuel rods from these new reactors. the institute said.
I believe all the Pu production reactors at Khushab are heavy-water reactors, none graphite moderated.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Reactor grade is Pu-239 and weapons grade is Pu-240. ...
Perhaps our resident physicist AmberG can explain this in more detail.
:)
FWIW: (With people like Gerard, Guru Prabhu here .. I am no expert in weapons design but from a simple physicist point of view..that is what can be easily looked up or worked out with simple principles)...

- All isotopes of Pu (except, may be, Pu-238) could be (and have been used) used for weapons design. Not to mention "reactor grade" can be (I'm sure it is/will be possible to design a device) used too. Obviously, designing and building an effective weapon using reactor-grade plutonium is less convenient.

- About Pu 240 - most important, is that it has a high rate of spontaneous fission, meaning that the plutonium in the device will continually produce many background neutrons, which have the potential to reduce the yield (by starting the chain reaction prematurely)...One fairly well known fact about the first Pu bomb (Trinity) was that the initial design with gun-type triggering device have to be changed because the initial sample (they got from EM separation in the lab) contained much less Pu-240 than the one they got from the reactor. (BTW that device had 93%- or more - Pu 239)

- Plutonium-238 decays relatively rapidly.. heat generation in the material makes problems. (I think Pu-238 is the only Pu isotope which is not safeguarded as much as other isotopes)

- Americium-241 (which results from decay of plutonium-241) emits penetrating gamma rays, making handling by any personal getting radioactive exposure .

In short, thats why we are told that the preference is relatively pure plutonium-239 for weapons purposes... "weapons-grade" plutonium is typically about 93 percent plutonium-239.

(BTW - handling even Pu-239 - and specially machining it in a shape which can and did go boom, like AK and his team did with machines available to them in 70's, is no small achievement, that is why they get so much respect)
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

somnath wrote:I'll go home and check the book, but then it must be OVER AND ABOVE the weapons grade Pu stockpile we have
Just checked..GP gives out two numbers - 300 kg of weapons grade Pu and 600 kg of reactor grade Pu, in 1998...But the latter number doesnt make intuitive sense - how does he know how much of India's reactor grade Pu can be used for weapons?

I think this ppt gives a better estimate of the fissile material stockpile...
http://www.isodarco.it/courses/andalo11 ... thAsia.pdf
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ First successful test using "reactor grade" Pu was done by US in 1962 (this was declassified in late 70's)

Of course, apart from the yield (20KT) things like the composition of Pu etc still remain classified.

Most of the "estimates" etc are, IMO, just that "estimates".. some things ordinary people know but apart from generalized official definition ("Weapon-grade plutonium is defined as plutonium containing no more than 7 percent plutonium-240)...lot of things, obviously, remain classified. For US and India (and others) the actual/exact isotopic composition of plutonium used in any specific weapon or test is a very closely guarded secret.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

Del.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 19 Feb 2011 01:15, edited 1 time in total.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4484
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by vera_k »

somnath wrote:I think this ppt gives a better estimate of the fissile material stockpile...
http://www.isodarco.it/courses/andalo11 ... thAsia.pdf
Even though the quantities are different, the author has the same conclusion that India is short of fissile material and therefore reluctant to cease production or sign FMCT until later.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Okay, how many people can guess what is it (by just looking at the picture onlee)
Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60278
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramana »

Solid Khandvi!
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Gerard »

How about chemical based processes such as PUREX?
The isotopes have essentially the same chemical properties. The PUREX will isolate Pu from other elements but cannot isolate one particular isotope of Pu.
Centrifuges (used to separate U235 from U238) cannot be used with Pu due to the small mass difference between Pu239 and Pu240. The tunable lasers used in AVLIS could potentially do this but the amounts generated may not make the process viable.

Bear in mind the 'extra' heat and radiation generated from a reactor grade Pu pit. Consider how it may degrade warhead components. Is this desirable for a warhead destined for an SLBM? Clearly not. The USN reportedly uses 'super' grade Pu for its submarine warheads.

The French used their fast breeder to produce weapons grade Pu for their arsenal. In the end, if you're serious about deterrence, dedicated weapons production reactors are needed.
GuruPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Apr 2008 03:32
Location: Thrissur, Kerala 59.93.8.169

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by GuruPrabhu »

Amber G. wrote:Okay, how many people can guess what is it (by just looking at the picture onlee)
In no order of priority, here are my guesses:

1. plastic corks for 500 ml wine bottles.
2. extra large nutri-nuggets as protein aid for RaacketMard
3. good looking yellow cake.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ :D --- Thorium pellets from BARC.. and lot of people are getting more interested in liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) .. Above is from this story:
China enters race to develop nuclear energy from thorium
From above and other stories ...China has committed itself to establishing an entirely new nuclear energy programme using thorium as a fuel, within 20 years...A private company founded by Kazuo Furukawa, designer of the Fuju reactor, called International Thorium Energy & Molen-Salt Technology Inc (iThEMS) aims to produce a small (10KW) reactor within five years. Furukawa is aiming for a retail price of 11 US cents per kWh (6.8p per kWh)...

Here is 16 minutes video of LTFR
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

Amber G. wrote:^^^ First successful test using "reactor grade" Pu was done by US in 1962 (this was declassified in late 70's)

Of course, apart from the yield (20KT) things like the composition of Pu etc still remain classified.
GP also alludes to the fact that the shakti tests might have been done using reactor grade Pu..Going by various estimates, the stocks of the latter are a really huge number..Depending on the amount required for each bomb (GP estimates about 5-6 kg of weapns grade Pu for each bomb), maybe we really have a massive amount of usable fissile material?

the other joker in the pack is HEU stocks..Till now, it was widely speculated that the stocks are used solely for the ATV...With increased capacity, as the ISODARCO ppt says, maybe there is now possibilikty of an HEU-based bomb line as well?
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10372
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

AmberG is correct when he states that the exact combination(s) of Pu isotopes used by India, or any other country, is a closely guarded secret. It is most likely Pu-239 with a mix of Pu-240. I guess it depends on how India wants to manage its neutron flow. Or rather how it wants it managed on the heads of Chinnis and Pakis. :)

If we take conservative estimates, in 1998 there was about 500 Kg of WGPU and 50 Kg/year has been added. Conservatively, India probably has well over a tonne of WGPU.
the other joker in the pack is HEU stocks..Till now, it was widely speculated that the stocks are used solely for the ATV...With increased capacity, as the ISODARCO ppt says, maybe there is now possibilikty of an HEU-based bomb line as well?
I think it may be better to look at the production of tritium and deuterium for use in boosted fission. HEU may have better use as fuel for the military reactors.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Amber G. wrote:Okay, how many people can guess what is it (by just looking at the picture onlee)
Image
Ok. What is this? :)

Image

Options

a: Cement block

b. Uranium pellet

c. Zirconia pellet

d. Thorium pellet

e. Rhenium pellet
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

Ramanaji

If the PFBR is not going to be used for WGPu production, it is ourtright criminal negligence by the govt of national security interests. What are the stocks of WGPu we shall be left with ?
Only the cirus/dhruva stocks ?

Remember that out of the estimated 3.5 tons of RGPu, a big quantity is going to be used for the PFBR. How much will remain for weapons ?

PFBR is useful for WGPu because PFBR spent fuel has a far higher concentration of WGPu/THM (ton of heavy metal) than PHWR spent fuel from low burn mode. Either we use this WGPu for weapons or we need to increase our reprocessing capacity to cater to higher WGPu production from PHWRs operated in low-burn mode. BK himself has alluded to PHWRs having been run in WGPu mode. Would this be done by NPCIL ? Even so, the question here would be how much of this is actually reprocessed.

This is what things look like on the surface at least. BK is right about the need for a transparent, explicit build up if the deterrent is to acheive any credibility. Right now, the focus is on mimimality. Further, there is too much focus on civilian aspects of the nuke program. Right now, the military aspects should be given far higher piority over the civilian side. Unfortunately, the civilian program is eating into precious resources that should be devoted for military purposes only. Having a powerful deterrent but low energy availibility is better than lots of energy/ minimal deterrent. The latter is more or less a semi-Japan case. A TSP+CHN combine can then foce us into a full Japan state with TSP+CHN as masters...
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

One thing I do not understand about BK's article:

Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost.

My understanding is that the full capacity of the reactor cannot be used in low burn up mode because of speed of refuelling, etc. But the reactor itself may be run at lower power and part of this lower power can be used in this mode. If Arun_S's 10% estimate is correct, using 10% of the power available in the 8 reactors in this mode will itself ensure we get what we need.

The economic cost is lower power generation, and these reactors in this mode wont be operating profitably from the financial point of view ( for NPCIL, say). Any other cost to this ? But economic cost should not be a deterrent here.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Hiten »

a presentation made in TIFR about the India-based Neutrino Observatory project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhyYlmWihL4
Last edited by Hiten on 19 Feb 2011 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

ramdas wrote:Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost.
Precisely...And in case they are not to be used for military purposes, why not put them under safeguards?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Kanson wrote: Options
a: Cement block
b. Uranium pellet
c. Zirconia pellet
d. Thorium pellet
e. Rhenium pellet
If one has to guess, I'd say ThO2 Pellets most likely fabricated by Modified Route :) :mrgreen:
GuruPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Apr 2008 03:32
Location: Thrissur, Kerala 59.93.8.169

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by GuruPrabhu »

somnath wrote: I think this ppt gives a better estimate of the fissile material stockpile...
http://www.isodarco.it/courses/andalo11 ... thAsia.pdf
somnath-ji,

it is disappointing see that you turn to R. Rajaraman and his "south asia" analysis. Please note that the numbers he quotes are the gyaan he has obtained from one David Halfbright. The truth of the matter is that these jokers have no clue about Indian stockpile and it gives them major khujli.
GuruPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Apr 2008 03:32
Location: Thrissur, Kerala 59.93.8.169

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by GuruPrabhu »

ramdas wrote:Ramanaji
PFBR is useful for WGPu because PFBR spent fuel has a far higher concentration of WGPu/THM (ton of heavy metal) than PHWR spent fuel from low burn mode.
Can you please explain what this means and your source of this info?
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

http://www.reocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuc ... svol15.pdf

Guruprabhu,

Please see table 2 in the above article. In the blankets we get every year 144kg of WGPu from about 5-6 tons of U+Pu (even if they are in oxide forms, < 7THM for sure),

OTOH, 144kg of WGPu requires us to process about 160 THM of spent fuel from a conventional Pu production reactor whether PHWR or Gas Graphite (PHWRs afaik are as efficient as gas graphite reactors in Pu production) though BK prefers the latter).

Given our reprocessing capacity, this could be a huge resourse that ensures our nuclear superiority vis a vis TSP and credible deterrence vis a vis PRC if used for that purpose. Unfortunately, MKN has made some commitments to use it for civilian purposes only, even though these commitments are only verbal. Fortunately, there are no written commitments against use of this for military purposes. I hope they do with this, what they did with nuclear teachnology as a whole in 1974 i.e, use it for augmenting deterrence even after verbally claiming it to be for peaceful purposes only.

This is why any arms control treaty is against our interests. Once we have a few of these going, with no extra investment, we can rapidly build up a massive arsenal. With 5-6 of these in the military sector, we may even be able to achieve nuclear parity of some sort with PRC. The opportunity should not be let go of for "global interests".

If this is not to be used for mil. purposes, we may as well safeguard it and use the 8 PHWRs solely for military Pu production. We shld not have the worst of both worlds where we abstain from using PFBR for mil fissile production, get some fissile material from the 8 PHWRs and have that consumed by the PFBR.
Last edited by ramdas on 19 Feb 2011 23:21, edited 1 time in total.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Speaking of LTFR here is a story
Nuke-Powered War Bases
Which talks about Darpa’s 2012 budget request “Small Rugged Reactor Technologies” aka ..thorium reactors for powering forward bases (so that one would need less number of trucks going through Pak.).
..Outside of uranium or plutonium, thorium is the only remaining source for generating nuclear fuel. The Indians and now the Chinese have experimented with thorium for their nuclear programs, ....
GuruPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Apr 2008 03:32
Location: Thrissur, Kerala 59.93.8.169

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by GuruPrabhu »

ramdas wrote:http://www.reocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuc ... svol15.pdf

Guruprabhu,

Please see table 2 in the above article. In the blankets we get every year 144kg of WGPu from about 5-6 tons of U+Pu (even if they are in oxide forms, < 7THM for sure),
ramdas,

Thanks. Nice article, even though it is from NPA central. Should we believe their numbers? Anyway, table 2 says that the input is about 9 tonnes.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

these numbers are Ok.

I give you an example of where they could be cooking up numbers:

1) Assuming that all our weapon grade Pu comes from Curis/Dhruva
2) Further assuming that these operated at a lower capacity factor than some of the power stations from 2000 onwards.
3) Assuming that reprocessing plants worked at a capacity factor of 53%
and so on...

Never are these assumptions made for TSP. Or for Israel. For TSP or Israel a very high efficiency is implicitly assumed.

Similarly, they are only now acknowledging that Agni-I is operational. They are yet to admit the same for A-II (probably because of the failed tests in 2009; even though there is a picture on Shiv Aroor's blog of an A-II heading for op-deployment).......

In our case too, BK is right about the fact that too much opacity reduces the credibility of the deterrent. At least, we should explicitly show signs of building the deterrent: more frequent longer range missile tests like A-II A-III (not just developmental tests, but operationaliing trials), more explicit production of separated WGPu, etc

Regarding Table 2, look only at the axial and radial blankets; not the core then the discharge is not 9 THM by any means. The core is RGPu. It has to be treated separately.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11184
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Ramdas, Guru Prabhu,
I just took a quick look at Ramdas link
(http://www.reocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuc ... svol15.pdf)
and I have to say I will take those numbers with, to put it mildly, grain of salt and skepticism...

First, trust me, if one presented a formula like the link presents on pp89 (APPROXIMATE ANALYTICAL ESTIMAT ) even in an undergrad physics home work, one would flunk; if for nothing else, for absurd inconsistency in presenting the result wrt to significant figures. On one hand it uses 6 sig digits value for e (1.6022 x 10^(−19)) on the other hand it uses "200 MeV" (which could be off as much as 10%) and other figures (eg 75%, 90%, 1250 MW per year etc) which are gross estimates. And then it presents a result to 3 sig digits..

You may like to see the fine print printed at the beginning there - it says "a first-order estimate of the magnitude of the net plutonium production".. BTW order of magnitude in physics roughly means number of digits . (IOW 10, 11, 20 or 30 for that matter have same order of magnitude - you can't distinguish between 6 or 9 .. they have the same order of magnitude)

... No, obviously I can not show that everything there is wrong but I will not take those estimates as "accurate" .
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Jarita »

somnath wrote:^^And where does it mention
a) availability of 90% Uranium
b) Union CArbide mining the same

I recently spoke this person from the cuddapah area and he says that Union Carbide is getting contracts for uranium extraction. The contacts were originally through YSR and now have transitioned to other folks in Congress.
This sounds extremely bizarre because I scoured the net and while I found a tonne on Union carbide extraction all over the world, I found nothing on Union carbide uranium extraction in India, AP. But there may be somethings that don't even make it to the net. Who knows?
I have no reason to disbelieve this person.
If there is someone on the ground in AP, could they please verify and let us know.


Some links on Union Carbide Uranium Extraction in other parts of the world

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Unio ... 8feb04.htm

http://www.usec.com/gaseousdiffusion_pad_history.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/01/us/un ... -west.html

http://www.homelanduranium.com/assets/u ... h-2010.pdf
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Sanatanan »

[quote="somnath"][quote="ramdas"]Why does he rule out the 8 PHWRs as a source of WGPu when he himself referred to that being done in before 2008 ?He says economic cost. [/quote]
Precisely...And in case they are not to be used for military purposes, why not put them under safeguards?[/quote]


Perhaps answer to that question may lie in knowing whether, in the context of nuclear deterrence, PHWRs not in the civilian list, besides generating electricity and thus helping to pay for themselves, are useful only for making WG Pu or can they be used also for producing other isotopes required (such as H isotopes, Li isotopes, Be isotopes etc).

I am in line with Gerard's view that for producing WG Pu, dedicated weapons production reactors are needed. In my view, for India, to harvest WG Pu, a low temperature, metallic Nat U fuelled, Heavy Water Moderated, preferably Heavy Water cooled, reactor with high neutron economy would be the best choice. (Ability to have high neutron flux, ability to host many nuclear and neutron related experimental facilities etc., are just added bells and whistles, which might help to "sell the project" to those who are in charge of allocating funds.) India has Heavy Water technology and on-load refuelling technology besides a host of other technologies which might be required for this type of reactor. Low temperature implies low coolant pressure, which would make on-load refuelling even simpler than in a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) which has been optimized for electricity generation. I would believe (on a gut level, since no hard data is available with me) construction of one or even a few such dedicated Pu producing reactor(s) may be cheaper than suboptimal utilisation of electricity generating PHWRs (said to be 8 numbers as of now). Graphite moderator and Gas cooling are not technologies that are already available with India and hence experience would need to be built from scratch - since it is defence related, we would have to go at it ourselves. But while that would certainly be possible, why, when we have superior (or at lest equivalent) Heavy Water + Nat U technology and experience developed over several years available on hand, go for some thing not readily available? When "chakkani raja margam" is available for us to proceed, why go in blind alleys and dark narrow streets?

PS: Original Post edited later to clarify.
Last edited by Sanatanan on 20 Feb 2011 11:59, edited 2 times in total.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

^^^Santananji,

You might be correct..But 8 PHWRs just for isotopes? somehow does not "seem" right....

Edited later: Notwithstanding MKN's assertion (which again makes little intuitive sense), I dont think that the FBR will be purely for civilian applications...Given the amount of focus on the project (every interview of anyone in the establishment has one question on that!), the FBR would probably be our primary source of fissile material...
Jarita wrote:I recently spoke this person from the cuddapah area and he says that Union Carbide is getting contracts for uranium extraction
Curious, as far as I know, FDI isnt allowed in uranium mining..
http://www.wise-uranium.org/upin.html
GuruPrabhu wrote:it is disappointing see that you turn to R. Rajaraman and his "south asia" analysis. Please note that the numbers he quotes are the gyaan he has obtained from one David Halfbright
Guruprabhu-ji, these numbers bring up the "upper end" of the range...Maximalists like BK bring up the lower end (given that they are always "yeh dil maange more) :) ..I guess the actuals should be somewhere in between, in which case the numbers should be pretty adequate...Being an optimist, I tend to go with the former, I feel sometimes we give ourselves too little credit, something that our rivals/adversaries dont necessarily do! :)

Actually, I would tend to go with Perkovich on most counts of data...He is the most balanced of them all, though his estimate of "weapons usable reactor grade Pu" is a big mystery to me - thanks to vera_k for pointing that out...However, point to be noted is that at least on Weapons grade Pu, the estimates of GP and Rajaraman are fairly close to each other...
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

Somnathji,

the Albright nos. Rajaraman quotes are 330-695 kg for 2010. In 2009, it was 760 kg. WAlso, they estimated 6.8 tons of separated RGPu for us in 2009 but now estimate 3.5 tons or so. What do you have to say about this ?

Even if we assume 700kg of WGPu, vs 2.7-3.7 tons of HEU estimated for TSP, our arsenal still works out to be smaller. We must build up. There is one catch however: these estimates assume that cirus and dhruva are the sole sources of WGPu+ first discharges from CANDU's.

If a fraction of power available in the 8 PHWRs is being used for WGPu production (by removing rods faster to ensure lower burn-up), that is not accounted for here. BK says that this has been done since 2001 or so, his source if info being a PMO official in the MMS PMO around 2007-8.
So, what does that say about NPA estimates ?

There is one possibility we should keep in mind: playing down India's capability encourages TSP to drop its opposition to the FMCT. So long as TSP blocks the FMCT from moving, good for us. Once it starts moving, we should make sure that we do not get into this treaty. After all, we havent committed to signing this treaty. We have only committed ourselves to being part of negotiations. If the TSP roadblock to the FMCT is removed, we should, when the time comes, treat the FMCT just as we treated the CTBT.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

ramdas wrote: Even if we assume 700kg of WGPu, vs 2.7-3.7 tons of HEU estimated for TSP, our arsenal still works out to be smaller. We must build up. There is one catch however: these estimates assume that cirus and dhruva are the sole sources of WGPu+ first discharges from CANDU's.
Ramdasji, not "just" the WGPu, you need to account also for the RGPu, given the widely speculated capability of fashioning bombs out of the latter...GP's number (circa 1998) is intriguing in that respect, and he isnt really a certified NPA...

It is right that some of these numbers are manipulated at the margin to suit ideological needs...But another redeeming fact is that people in the establishment, including critics like K Santhanam, choose to completely downplay this numbers equation...

To be honest, it wouldnt be surprising if Pak really "wanted" to have a larger nuke arsenal..Simply, they have to deliver a lot more tonnage on India to inflict "unacceptable damage" than we would have to...Their target list would be far richer than ours....

Having a lager number of "bombs" is not necessarily a proxy for the quality of the deterrence...
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

Somnathji,

Numbers cannot be completely downplayed unless

1. Our own arsenal is actually larger than the NPAs estimate (in that case we can do this for public consumption)

2. Our weapons are of a distinctly higher quality (there is a convincing reason why even critics believe that our TN capabilites are fixed/credible).

Minimum deterrence is of course, a function of the adversarys articles. Taking the "numbers do not matter" statement literally puts us in danger of getting into a situation where a larger TSP arsenal can disarm us in a first strike (modulo 12 or so weapons that are Sub-launched). For that matter, TSP and PRC also chant the slogan of min. deterrence. That dosent stop them from strengthening it at a furious pace. We must do the same.

We probably intend doing the same: there would be no reason to design an A-V with MIRVs otherwise. But bureaucratic "chalta hai" lethargy is something we cannot afford in this field. The deterrent must be operationalized to the envisaged level on a war footing.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Amber G. wrote:
Kanson wrote: Options
a: Cement block
b. Uranium pellet
c. Zirconia pellet
d. Thorium pellet
e. Rhenium pellet
If one has to guess, I'd say ThO2 Pellets most likely fabricated by Modified Route :) :mrgreen:
:D Couldn't be a tough one given the link.

In the artificial light, under different shades, it almost made people to misjudge to think that it is not ThO2 pellets. :) So what is with Indian pellets when is subject is about Chinese LFTR ? And they want to realize it in 5 yrs, interesting! Not having successfully completed the construction of, what they call is their "commercial" HT pebble bed reactor after ten years with all the assistance, from design drawings, data to machinery etc from Germany and SA, they talk about LFTR in five years...? After their hangover with HT pebble bed, they lust after every HT reactor design?.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by ramdas »

onr more thing, Somnathji.

what u say abt TSP wanting a larger arsenal is possibly reasonable if the equation is India vs TSP. Though even that situation will leave us vulnerable to a first strike.

We must however, remember it is India vs TSP+PRC at the very least. Credible deterrence against PRC is not possible with a puny arsenal. We therefore, need adequate numbers. We should not restrain ourselves from getting the credible deterrence we need against PRC for "world welfare". There is no chance that we can match PRC conventionally in the near future. That makes a cred. deterrent all the more important.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: India Nuclear News And Discussion

Post by somnath »

Ramdasji,

I am with you on not letting the ball drop in the matter..

However I do have an issue with this assumption
ramdas wrote:There is no chance that we can match PRC conventionally in the near future. That makes a cred. deterrent all the more important
The question isnt about macro level "edge" numbers...The issue is whether we have enough to prosecute the political objectives of the day..In conventional terms, ORBAT had an interesting article recently about the Indo-China equation - seems we are far better off than is generally given credit for...
Locked