India Nuclear News And Discussion

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 May 2011 18:48

WRT the Nat Geo article on coal, it does NOT say will coal will run out in 20 years. What is says is that the good stuff will peak soon. No one disagrees with this. But there is Trillions of tonnes of worse and worse quality coal in more difficult strata out there. What this means is that for more effort less coal will be produced of less energy content. So how does Uranium replace even 50% of coal production loss. This is simply not feasible.

This is fundamentally the key problem with Uranium ores too. More demand will deplete existing good quality ores faster and faster. Of course we lack Uranium so we will be chasing a global Uranium supply that we do not have guaranteed access to. Other countries too will demand Uranium. What then...

Bji,

Don't let the nuclear proclaimers cause you to commit hara-kiri! Hate to lose you over these pedantic types. Adminullahs are being quite tolerant so..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2011 19:21

Theo ji,
point noted. I have been looking up on the total lifetime carbon-cycle issue. There is a very wide variety in published studies about the values for the nuke reactors - from very low to very high. Moreover studies are not always uniform or consistent in what partof the cycle they look at or choose to highlight. Coal obviously comes at a much higher position than the nukes, but the collective data seems to indicate solar-thermal-wind << nuke <<coal. Do you have any up to date summary on this?

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 May 2011 20:20

Guys.. Guys.. Cut it out. This thread and the Fukushima thread went to the dogs long ago, with objectivity and any sanity whatsoever long dead with basically inanities that would be laughed out of a middle school science class being held up as points of discussion. All this serves nothing but irritating and needling folks who are used to actually using critical reasoning and the grey matter between their ears and used to reasonable argument based on facts.

Either learn to laugh at ridiculousness of it all and enjoy pawning these folks or just quit in disgust if it irritates your olfactory senses that much. No point in getting all worked up and actually trying facts and logic here. An ad jingle is the right response to these types.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 16 May 2011 20:24

Bji,

That is a valid question. Nuclear's carbon footprint is definitely low. Probably not as low as the proponents would claim. It is definitely not zero. One thing to keep in mind is the entire life cycle of nuclear fuel is not yet complete. It is all sitting in pools and casks some where. When those casks decline, new ones will have to be built, etc. The great thing about nuclear is that it is like drugs to a junkie, you get the quick euphoric high early, and then regret the consequences later.

Just energy for mining, processing and disposing off all the ore rock is all fossil fuel energy. Just to give you a comparison, I remember reading in 'The Hindu' in the 90's that Jaduguda alone consumed about 200 MW of energy of all types to just produce ore. This was when India struggled to produce 1,500 MW of nuclear energy. So that is one carbon foot print right there. Of course our ore quality is abysmal so...

Then there is the energy cost of a Fukushima type disaster, where one of the things less appreciated is that energy now flows into the plant continuously, looong term. On the order of about 100 MW per hour at present. This will increase as cleaning and processing work begins in earnest and continues for the next several decades.

If we build Sodium reactors as we plan to, every time it goes down, energy will have to be supplied to keep the Sodium molten and the pumps running. For SuperPhenix, France, shut down in 1997, the pumps and Sodium melting energy is still running and consuming about 300 MW/hr. They don't know what to do about all the contaminated Sodium.

Right now the DOE estimates about 25 tonnes CO2 per MW for normal operations. When the CO2 behind the weapons grade Uranium being used now is factored in, it increases to about 30 Tonnes/MW. As lower grades of Uranium are mined it thinks Nuclear will start approaching 50 tonnes CO2 per MW. Factoring in all the disasters, unknowns, say we double that to 100 tonnes/MW. Long term storage will keep this counter slowly ticking over. In 10,000 years it is anyone's guess.

Keep in mind coal without CCS is at 1000 tonnes per MW. So nuclear in conservative case is about 1/10 of coal for our lifetime, but continuing to slowly tick over...

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 May 2011 20:54

Does anybody here know if the DAE plans to field a MSR like the LFTR? I read that China just started a MSR project. It sounds like it's safer than the sodium cooled route we are taking and cheaper.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 17 May 2011 04:18

X posting from: Intelligence & National Security Discussion

India takes stock of arsenal in Nuclear Command Authority meet

India on Monday took stock of its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems like long-range ballistic missiles, fighter-bombers and warships towards its quest to have an operational nuclear triad -- the capability to fire nukes from land, sea and air -- in the near future.

Sources said the top-level meet held by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was "not just a general security review'' but in fact a full-fledged Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) conference to assess the steps being taken to consolidate and strengthen India's "minimum but credible nuclear deterrence".
:
The status of two crucial but delayed "strategic programmes", the 5,000-km-range Agni-V missile and indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant, is said to have figured in the discussion apart from "overarching strategic issues".

While the three-stage Agni-V is to be tested later this year, INS Arihant is also slated to go for "harbour and sea trials" once its miniature 83 MW pressurized light-water reactor gains "full criticality". The defence establishment is eager to induct INS Arihant, armed with 12 nuclear-tipped missiles, by next year because it will constitute the most effective and difficult-to-detect leg of the nuclear triad.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 17 May 2011 05:11

vina wrote:Guys.. Guys.. Cut it out. This thread and the Fukushima thread went to the dogs long ago, with objectivity and any sanity whatsoever long dead with basically inanities that would be laughed out of a middle school science class being held up as points of discussion.

Vina-ji,

Your are absolutely right. Thankfully the Fuk-D thread is closed.

Either learn to laugh at ridiculousness of it all and enjoy pawning these folks or just quit in disgust if it irritates your olfactory senses that much. No point in getting all worked up and actually trying facts and logic here.

Yes, no point in getting worked up. Quitting the discussion is the sane thing to do. I will summarize with a few points, which I will post without any attempt at a "discussion" with the worthies.

1. Burnup of 50 GW-d/t is routinely being achieved around the world. Just google it. Then compare to the number MVR uses by quoting a 2006 paper. There are other caveats that only a discerning mind familiar with the technology will appreciate.

2. In the PFBR, carbide fuel will be able to achieve burnup of 150 GW-d/t. This was a decision point. If U is plentiful via imports, there is no need to spend the extra effort in making carbide -- MOX is good enough. Recall that carbide was developed before the nuke deal, so neutron economics were different. Now, with plentiful of neutrons flowing in, MOX will be deployed (regardless of MVR's fudge).

3. FBR-M is a different animal. The metal fuel is not based simply on neutron economics but on doubling time. The progress on this R&D is very good. I expect that it will be deployed as scheduled in early 2020's. This is what will accelerate the 3-phase program.

4. India is a leading player in ADR. CAT is helping the US with components and R&D in the accelerator business. Just google it. The nuclear deal is a two-way trade -- India is exporting tech to the US! What kind of a bozo would come in now and say "Stop Import!" -- heck, then the exports will stop as well.

5. India is aggressively marketing PHWR's for export. Khazakhastan is one customer but others are being developed. Again, if we stay Stop Imports, then some countries will come back and say Stop Exports!

6. With respect to points above, consider the liability issues as well. What if NPCIL and DAE are forced to sign $1trillion guarantees?

7. Fusion. Yes, this is a long term project, but recall that India's entry to ITER was facilitated as part of the nuke deal. India now sits at the high table of ITER (which is a much much more select group than NSG).

ok, I will leave gentle readers with this much to chew on. I will not reply to any bait by worthies.

The future for nuke sector in India is bright. India is on its way to becoming a global player. The vuvuzela crowd is holding India back and promoting HR of G.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 09:44

I wish to point out, opposing import of large scale LWRs is not the same as opposing Nuclear import in general. The opposition is restricted to the choice of NPPs and the manner of their acquisition.

A no strings attached nuclear trade is absolutely the right thing for India, however we (I and some others) do not feel that import of LWRs is the path which leads there.

Just to keep the record straight.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 18 May 2011 09:57

Now that things have come a full circle, allow me to set the record straight.

As I had mentioned a long time ago, the evil of the nay-sayers lies in denying private participation in nuke power. You see, if Mukesh Ambani was spending his own money to import LWRs, all the opposition of the vocal crowd will be pointless.

However, now that it is a public sector company doing it, all the opposition finds a voice. Its a catch-22 situation.

And, dare I say, this leads to HR of G.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 May 2011 10:02

What is HR of G?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 10:44

GuruPrabhu wrote:As I had mentioned a long time ago, the evil of the nay-sayers lies in denying private participation in nuke power. You see, if Mukesh Ambani was spending his own money to import LWRs, all the opposition of the vocal crowd will be pointless.

Not quite, there are many existing examples. Gas pricing dispute. POSCO case. Mining issues. Private gas plants in Dadri.

The issues are the same, TEPCOs ownership has made things worse in Japan, not better.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 May 2011 11:15

GP,

Thanks for a cracker of a post which has brought back some sanity to this thread.

Your point:

This was a decision point. If U is plentiful via imports, there is no need to spend the extra effort in making carbide -- MOX is good enough. Recall that carbide was developed before the nuke deal, so neutron economics were different. Now, with plentiful of neutrons flowing in, MOX will be deployed (regardless of MVR's fudge).

is the key. Folks don't realise the nuclear deal was as much about free import of U as it was about import of LWRs and both are linked to India being part of the global nuclear trade. Neutron economics is something that many folks cannot wrap their heads around. But that doesn't stop making it the most vital cog in the whole nuclear sphere.

JMT.

PS: I suggest you ignore all the flames and baits and concentrate on such posts. It's useful gyaan for outsiders (that is folks like me who are not inside the N industry). Thanks.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 11:29

Can GP be kind enough to substantiate and explain the claim that "If U is plentiful via imports, there is no need to spend the extra effort in making carbide "

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 18 May 2011 12:17

GP-ji,
Good summarising post..One quible though..

GuruPrabhu wrote:7. Fusion. Yes, this is a long term project, but recall that India's entry to ITER was facilitated as part of the nuke deal. India now sits at the high table of ITER (which is a much much more select group than NSG).

ITER, as it stands today, is little beyond Intellectual M*...NSG, on the other hand, is the real deal - it is THE policymakers table to decide nuke terms of trade...

amit wrote:Folks don't realise the nuclear deal was as much about free import of U as it was about import of LWRs and both are linked to India being part of the global nuclear trade

And more important than either of the two is to break free of a "pariah" status to take a place in the decision-making tables...For nuke trade (NSG), for missiles (MTCR) - the works....NPP was actually a pretty small reason for the deal, though somehow the govt stmbled into positioning that as the cornerstone..

BTW, GP's point on LWR vis a vis pvt sector is valid...Today, there are tons of uncles, aunties opining on how EPR is "Enron" redux (of course, these guys know preisely zero about Enron, but let that pass - just take the allusion to costs)....If Mukesh Ambani (actually it was anil Ambani whose Reliance Power was ready to "go") went ahead and sought permission for an EPR plant, no one would have given any vishesh tippanis on costs..The moment its GOI, people start having "expert opinions"...We saw something similar recently with DOT's mobile lines deal...It was a large order, and people started screaming "overpriced"! And the deal got cancelled (by Raja

)...No one asks Sunil Mittal any questions when he outsources almost 70% of his company (by # of employees) to Ericsson and IBM! Or place his entire Africa order to Ericsson!

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 May 2011 12:24

somnath wrote:And more important than either of the two is to break free of a "pariah" status to take a place in the decision-making tables...For nuke trade (NSG), for missiles (MTCR) - the works....NPP was actually a pretty small reason for the deal, though somehow the govt stmbled into positioning that as the cornerstone..

+1 to the above.

BTW, GP's point on LWR vis a vis pvt sector is valid...Today, there are tons of uncles, aunties opining on how EPR is "Enron" redux (of course, these guys know preisely zero about Enron, but let that pass - just take the allusion to costs)....If Mukesh Ambani (actually it was anil Ambani whose Reliance Power was ready to "go") went ahead and sought permission for an EPR plant, no one would have given any vishesh tippanis on costs..The moment its GOI, people start having "expert opinions"...We saw something similar recently with DOT's mobile lines deal...It was a large order, and people started screaming "overpriced"! And the deal got cancelled (by Raja )...No one asks Sunil Mittal any questions when he outsources almost 70% of his company (by # of employees) to Ericsson and IBM! Or place his entire Africa order to Ericsson!

Raja redux on this thread!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 13:32

somnath wrote:If Mukesh Ambani (actually it was anil Ambani whose Reliance Power was ready to "go") went ahead and sought permission for an EPR plant, no one would have given any vishesh tippanis on costs..

This has been pointed out before but I will do so again. The above is patently incorrect.

. The EPR has to come up in India, not outside, the liablity laws would have to be even more stringent.

BTW take a leaf from Japan, set a operator liability for 50-100 billion $ + then open the sector to Pvtization.

We have seen multiple issues of cost in courts, such as Ambani/GoI gas price war.

The issue with POSCO.

And of course the shining example of TEPCO and Japan's disgust with Pvtization of Nuclear sector is a ever present reminder which wont go away no matter it attempted to pushed.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 18 May 2011 14:17

Fantastic interview of RK Sinha, Director, BARC, by TSS...This is even better than Shekhar Gupta's interview of Srikumar "this man know nothing" Bannerjee - but the interviewer makes a difference!

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 108500.htm

Loads of info..

The biggest - India is working on a 700 MW LWR! (And one thought LWRs are generically unsafe )..

Will the enriched uranium produced in Chitradurga be used to set up indigenous 700 MWe LWRs or for India's nuclear-powered submarines?

India has now fully mastered uranium enrichment technology. Our new research reactor to come up in Visakhapatnam will make use of low-enriched uranium. For the replacement of the original core of the Apsara reactor, we will have a fuel based on enriched uranium produced in our plant. We have a programme to develop our own LWRs and to build a capability to produce enriched uranium fuel for the imported LWRs as well.

Actually, this is really new (and TSS presents it as if its been around)...Hadnt read about an LWR programme before..It makes eminent sense therefore to import 2/3 different reactor designs, and create a better hybrid indigeneously..Answers the question of why each reactor site was not opened up for bidding...

On imports..

It is clear that for a large country like India, the total demand for nuclear electricity is very large, of the order of 400,000 MWe to 600,000 MWe. What we are talking of today is importing 40,000 MWe of Light Water Reactors [LWRs]. Even the fuel from these LWRs along with our first generation PHWRs will be reprocessed to multiply the capacity fast enough with the help of Fast Breeder Reactors, and subsequently using thorium

On the EPR design..

The EPR belongs, in general, to the Pressurised Water Reactor family of reactors. Its thermal hydraulics is in no way different from any of the existing PWRs in the world. Most of the operating reactors in the world – nearly 60 per cent of them – belong to the PWR category. Within this family, every reactor may have some distinctive design features. In the case of the EPR, particularly, these design features also address to a large extent safety against aircraft impact, and [it has] a provision to contain the core melt in the event of postulated severe accident conditions.

Just because a car is bigger than another car, it does not mean that the bigger car's engine is not safe. It is designed like that. It is designed to produce more power

Cost of power from Jaitapur..

The Chairman and Managing Director, NPCIL [S.K. Jain], has already stated that NPCIL has calculated the costs, and if the reactor is not economically viable, it will not be set up. So you can say that the bottom line is that the unit energy cost of any imported reactor must be competitive against the cost of electricity generated by alternative modes in the region.

The only piece of "bad" news is on AHWR - seems the site is still "under investigation"...Shows how far away the 3 phase programme is to fruition..

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 May 2011 14:31

somnath wrote:On imports..
It is clear that for a large country like India, the total demand for nuclear electricity is very large, of the order of 400,000 MWe to 600,000 MWe. What we are talking of today is importing 40,000 MWe of Light Water Reactors [LWRs]. Even the fuel from these LWRs along with our first generation PHWRs will be reprocessed to multiply the capacity fast enough with the help of Fast Breeder Reactors, and subsequently using thorium

Indeed a very interesting interview. The bolded portion IMO ties in with the neutron economics issue that has been bandied about here.

On the EPR design..
The EPR belongs, in general, to the Pressurised Water Reactor family of reactors. Its thermal hydraulics is in no way different from any of the existing PWRs in the world. Most of the operating reactors in the world – nearly 60 per cent of them – belong to the PWR category. Within this family, every reactor may have some distinctive design features. In the case of the EPR, particularly, these design features also address to a large extent safety against aircraft impact, and [it has] a provision to contain the core melt in the event of postulated severe accident conditions.

Just because a car is bigger than another car, it does not mean that the bigger car's engine is not safe. It is designed like that. It is designed to produce more power

An apt analogy! Never sit in a Merc, always use Nano it's safer because it's smaller and less powerful! All the stories about the Merc's safety features, construction etc are propaganda!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 14:41

Safeguarded U from external imports reprocessed and used in FBRs which are still in strategic space?

We shall see, let them set up Jaitapur in next 10 years first.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 May 2011 14:51

It always helps to read a link instead of just going by highlights.

[Q] You said that building the nuclear fuel capability to support a commercial Fast Breeder Reactor programme would be given high priority. In a conversation with me, former BARC Director A.N. Prasad said he feared research in BARC would take a back seat because India was going to import 36 reactors. Former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Chairman A. Gopalakrishnan also said the same thing.

Our priority is absolutely the same. It is clear that for a large country like India, the total demand for nuclear electricity is very large, of the order of 400,000 MWe to 600,000 MWe. What we are talking of today is importing 40,000 MWe of Light Water Reactors [LWRs]. Even the fuel from these LWRs along with our first generation PHWRs will be reprocessed to multiply the capacity {as in electricity generation} fast enough with the help of Fast Breeder Reactors, and subsequently using thorium.

Now, nowhere in the world is a Fast Breeder Reactor being built using plutonium as fuel [as we are doing in India]. Nowhere in the world have mainly thorium-based reactors been developed to the extent we have done ourselves.

Our priorities are extremely well defined and sharply focussed. The world is not in a position to help us multiply our capability significantly. The initial import of water-cooled reactors will certainly help us build a higher capacity in the near term. However, it will be impossible to reach the level of deployment needed by our country without the benefit of multiplication with Fast Breeder Reactor technology and thorium technology in which India is perhaps the best equipped country today. Our R&D is one of the most advanced in these areas, and we will continue to work in these domains to make these technologies available on a commercial level. Importing reactors in no way affects the programme already chalked out. It is an additionality.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 May 2011 14:57

Since we are discussing the interview here's another portion:

[Q]India is going to build 700 MWe LWRs indigenously. Consequent to the tsunami and the accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, which had LWRs, what are the lessons that have been learnt in building LWRs in particular or any nuclear power plant in general?

The events at Fukushima have been carefully analysed by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited [NPCIL] in the context of our existing and future nuclear power plants. We have confirmed that on account of the specific seismic and tsunamigenic conditions of our region and also the stringent rejection criteria followed in our country, the site selection procedure followed in our country is already very conservative.

Further, the designs of all the reactors in our country and those being built or under proposal to be constructed later incorporate the passive heat decay removal system in some measure, along with availability of a significantly sized inventory of water to serve as a heat sink in a station blackout scenario. Even so, on the basis of a detailed examination of existing design provisions, the task forces of NPCIL have thoroughly reviewed the associated issues and have identified certain areas of improvement and back-fits that will take these reactors to still higher levels of safety.

The LWR technology is already well proven and the current generation [of LWRs] has incorporated all the lessons of the past events. We see no reason why the Fukushima event should significantly alter the acceptability of LWRs or any other nuclear power plants in the country.

We can always second guess the real experts using Gogal Chacha. But apart from timepass I don't think there's much productivity in that exercise. Me, I'd trust what RK Sinha says over what I may read on the Internet. But I guess that's just old fashioned me.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 15:01

Either the FBR is in strat space or it is not. If it is, it cant use LWRs output.

If no then there are other issues of affecting program.

There is no way all the assurances are simultaneously possible. Something will give. Which will be setting up of LWRs itself going by real track record of GoI in the past (not plans and assurances and interviews)

Lets see if they can acquire land for Jaitapur in next three years first.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 18 May 2011 18:42

The PFBR and the next 3 FBR units will be on mil side of the divide. Beyond that the policy is not clear -- either new FBRs move to civil side or the new AHWR takes on this role. This is for the period post 2022. That is when the neutron economics calculations hit the crunch.

The planning for MOX requirements until 2022 is sufficient. My own guess is that in that era, NSG etc will just forget about regulating India, much like how they give China a pass on everything.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 May 2011 19:41

GuruPrabhu wrote: This is for the period post 2022. That is when the neutron economics calculations hit the crunch.
.

Kindly elaborate, and no I am NOT being nasty or sarcastic, I want to understand what you are saying here.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 May 2011 06:37

GuruPrabhu wrote:The PFBR and the next 3 FBR units will be on mil side of the divide. Beyond that the policy is not clear -- either new FBRs move to civil side or the new AHWR takes on this role.

Is this stated policy or "insider" news? All that one does know from stated policy is that the PFBR isnt going to be under safeguards...Whether the PFBR is going to be used for military purposes is a different question (MK Narayanan made some comments that it isnt)...But beyond, PFBR, have we stated that the next 3 FBRs would also remain outside safeguards?

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 May 2011 12:31

Interview with French Amby to India, Jerome Bonnafont. Relevant portion for this thread:

[Q] In the wake of the nuclear tragedy at Fukushima in Japan, there has been opposition from various quarters to the setting up of French EPRs [European Pressurised Reactors] at the proposed Jaitapur nuclear facility on the grounds that EPR is of recent origin and therefore, unproven. There is also a general apprehension the world over about the safety of nuclear installations…

[A] After the accident at Fukushima, it is clear that everybody has to embark upon a very comprehensive review of their safety mechanisms to ensure that what has tragically been striking at Japan does not happen anywhere else. We're doing that, each of us, at the national level, whereas France says we should do it at the international level as well, and discuss international ways to improve nuclear safety worldwide.

We are inviting a conference on June 7 to discuss that among members of governments in charge of nuclear energy in order to see how we can, on the basis of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] in particular, improve worldwide the safety systems and standards [of atomic power plants] and implement those systems. That is critical.

When it comes to Jaitapur, there has been a decision by the Prime Minister of India a few days ago to continue the project. We welcome the decision, which is the sovereign decision of India. And Areva is making sure that they accelerate their discussions with NPCIL [Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited] in order to take into consideration whatever problem NPCIL might want to raise and finalise agreements, knowing that in December [2010] they agreed with NPCIL on the general framework of agreement and early works agreement.

Further, there is a debate in India [on the safety of nuclear plants]. I think there is a debate in every democracy and it is their legitimate right to discuss what concerns them. We absolutely don't want to intervene in this.

However, I'd like to underline that the EPR is designed to have improved energy efficiency and safety systems. EPR is based on reactors which are already functioning. We've more than 50 of these reactors in operation in France. And the safety system [of EPR] has been improved by a double shelter instead of a single shelter, as by definition it is safer to have a double shelter; by a sort of ashtray in case of a melting down of the core nuclear substance to help it cool by way of automatic release of oxygen when there is hydrogen, in order to avoid internal explosion and have water instead.

There are five or six big safety improvements over the existing system [that make it] far more resistant to earthquake or any sort of damage that can happen around or inside. What people have to bear in mind is that EPR is recognised everywhere as the highest in safety, and the new safety system which is being built in France, Finland and China has been co-developed with our safety agency. The [French] government has given the green signal for the construction of EPR in Flamanville on the basis of validation of the concept by our safety agency. The agency is clearing the project step-by-step and it is not going to give the commissioning authorisation before it has been able to see and inspect the full centre in full functioning.

If the thing [the NPCIL-Areva deal] is concluded, which I believe it will be, at the time the Indian EPR will be in operation, the Chinese, the Finnish and the French EPRs will have been functioning for more than five years, which means you will have five years of checking how it works before it works in India. There will be a lot of possibility of experienced learning by that development.

amit · Post by **amit** » 19 May 2011 12:35

Meanwhile Jairam Ramesh turning to the Finns for some gyaan.

STUK director general Jukka Laaksonen has offered to assist India in building up the proposed nuclear regulatory authority and enable it to deal with Areva's reactors at Jaitapur, drawing on Finland's experience over the past decade.

Ramesh, who met with Jukka Laaksonen, during his recent visit to Helsinki , has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about Finland's experience with the EPR reactor and the structure and power of the Finnish nuclear authority.

Laaksonen is also understood to have supported the policy of standardisation of reactor designs in an effort to build up effective regulatory capability. Ramesh had raised this issue also in his earlier letter to the Prime Minister.

STUK is a completely independent body, which is administered by the country's ministry of Social Affairs and Health Administration. The ministry works out the annual budget and performance goals, and nominates the director general for STUK. As head of the nuclear regulator, the director general decides on STUK's organisation, use of financial resources and appointment of staff. At present it has a staff strength of nearly 350.

The Finnish regulator has used the IAEA's integrated Regulatory Review Services to strengthen its effectiveness and regulatory systems. Laaksonen is understood to have advised that India use this programme actively.

The Finnish nuclear regulator is authorised to give binding orders to ensure nuclear safety. It has the veto power. STUK's jurisdiction extends to the entire supply chain and not just the main vendor. As a matter of fact, communication, inspection, and constant interaction with suppliers is given the highest priority in the STUK.

STUK may be a good model for the proposed independent Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 19 May 2011 14:22

^^^Most regulatory authorities have pretty similar mandates..US NRC, the new UK regulator..Suppliers are part of the oversight regime generally..

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 May 2011 20:12

^^^ Amit et al - Also, some lessons for India from Fukushima..

(Just to show, that not everyone is taken in by likes of Busby.. nuclear explosions.. almost virgin meltdowns..dangerous cups and buckets of water with internal energy proving that 1mSV is going to do you great harm ityadi ityadi..)

British, Finnish and German nuclear safety reports

Safety authorities of three European countries have concluded that there is no reason to shut down nuclear plants as a response to the Fukushima accident, despite varying political views on the technology.

The UK nuclear industry and regulatory regime appears in good shape to respond to lessons from the Fukushima accident, the conclusions reached by top nuclear safety regulator Mike Weightman show. Today came an interim report from him that forms a work program for government, the regulator and industry. The responses to this, input related to efforts from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency - as well as from the European Commission's 'stress tests' - will be put into a final report in September.

Weightman's 11 conclusions and 26 recommendations were split between government and industry, which the UK regulatory regime expects to take the "prime responsibility" for learning lessons as well as "ultimate responsibility for the safety of its designs and operations." The regulator's role is to scrutinise plans from industry and "ensure safety provisions are robust and that they minimise any residual risks." He praised industry for reacting "responsibly and appropriately, displaying leadership for safety and a strong safety culture in its response to date."

"In considering the direct causes of the Fukushima accident we see no reason for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK. Once further work is completed, any proposed improvements will be considered and implemented on a case-by-case basis."
Mike Weightman
HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations

Weightman said that analysis of Fukushima "has not revealed any gaps in the scope or depth of the Safety Assessment Principles" on which UK regulation is based, or any weaknesses in the licensing regime. However, one recommendation was for the Office of Nuclear Regulation to undertake a formal review of these Safety Assessment Principles, "to determine whether any additional guidance is needed, particularly for 'cliff-edge' effects" after which it may be impossible to prevent an accident situation worsening.

He said that flooding risks need detailed consideration, and may require special protection and changes to plant layout, but this is unlikely to prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. There is no need to change current siting strategies.

Government should approach the IAEA, Weightman said, to ensure improved arrangements are in place for dissemination of information. And the UK specifically should look again at emergency planning.

The longest list of some 18 recommendations was for industry. As well as re-confirming the design basis for flooding and extreme weather events, industry should review its dependency on off-site infrastructure and enhance self-sufficiency in accident scenarios. The layouts of new and proposed plants may need revision.

Accident preparedness in terms of emergency control, instrumentation and communication set-ups may have to be improved to meet accident sequences on long timescales. Operators will also have to ensure they can cope in the face of severe and longlasting disruption off-site. Particular consideration needs to be given to "physical, organisational, behavioural, emotional and cultural aspects for workers having to take action on-site, especially over long periods."

Bottom penetrations and other syphon risks should be reduced for any fuel ponds close to reactors, while the need for additional cooling supplies (carbon dioxide for most UK reactors) should be reviewed.

Weightman's ideas came on the basis of primary conclusions that the scale of the natural disasters of 11 March were "far beyond the most extreme natural events that the UK would be expected to experience."

Finnish Radiation and Nuckear Safety Agency:

Two days ago, considerations by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency (Stuk) found "no new threat factors or deficiencies that would require immediate safety improvements" at that country's two nuclear power plants. It said "a very powerful earthquake and extremely high tsunami are not considered possible in Finland."

Nevertheless, Finnish firms will have to satisfy the regulator that they have taken proper consideration of potential serious flooding, the need for sustained emergency power provision and improved self-sufficiency.
<snip>

Meanwhile in Germany ...

Meanwhile in Germany, politicians remain convinced of the need to 'exit' nuclear, with the only debate being how quickly this should be done. A knee-jerk reaction to close reactors that started operation in 1980 or earlier for a three-month "period of reflection and action" has already seen eight shutdowns.

The country has now received a report by chairman of the regulator, Rudolf Wieland, covering similar ground to the UK and Finnish reports - but with the notable inclusion of aircraft impact as another category of extraordinary event for which nuclear power plants should be prepared.

A statement from the Environment Ministry stressed minister Norbert Röttgen's point in a press conference that there is no indication that nuclear power should be shut down immediately. "I stick to the premise of sensibly leaving nuclear energy as quickly as possible and replacing it with renewables and energy efficiency," he said. About 14% of the price German citizens pay for power goes to subsidise renewables, while energy-intensive industry largely avoids this tax.

Chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing a new nuclear exit for publication within weeks, after unilaterally scrapping one signed into law only months ago. Separately an ethics commission is to report on the nuclear issue, and the moral rights and wrongs of operating nuclear plants in Germany as well as importing nuclear power from its neighbours.

Read all about it for perspective..

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 19 May 2011 21:10

somnath wrote: Is this stated policy or "insider" news? All that one does know from stated policy is that the PFBR isnt going to be under safeguards...

I don't recall where I read/heard that. I may be wrong -- btw, I am not an "insider".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2011 22:23

GuruPrabhu wrote:The PFBR and the next 3 FBR units will be on mil side of the divide. Beyond that the policy is not clear -- either new FBRs move to civil side or the new AHWR takes on this role. This is for the period post 2022. That is when the neutron economics calculations hit the crunch.

The planning for MOX requirements until 2022 is sufficient. My own guess is that in that era, NSG etc will just forget about regulating India, much like how they give China a pass on everything.

GP more appropriate to say PFBR and next 3 FBRs are not in the civilian side of the divide. This was the stance at time of signing the IUCNA.

You are right.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 May 2011 02:23

Amit, Arnab et al - wrt to carbon foot print vs nuke .. etc...may be of help..
UK proposes fourth carbon budget

The UK government has announced a fourth carbon budget, aimed at halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2027 compared with 1990 levels. Ultimately, the country has set its sights on slashing emissions by 80% by 2050.

<snip>
British prime minister David Cameron said: "The transition to a low-carbon economy is necessary, real, and global. By stepping up, showing leadership and competing with the world, the UK can prove that there need not be a tension between green and growth."

....
In its recommendations for the fourth carbon budget submitted to government in December 2010, the CCC saw nuclear power playing an important role in cutting emissions in the electricity generation sector.

According to the committee, "Nuclear new build is highly likely to be a cost-effective form of low-carbon power generation." However, it said, "Cost-effectiveness will depend on how nuclear is operated, with lower costs when operating as baseload plant, although operation at lower load factors may be viable." It added, "Nuclear could in principle make a cost-effective contribution to baseload and mid-merit generation, assuming an effective strategy for waste and decommissioning, and with the specific role depending on the extent to which it can be deployed in a timely manner."

"Given current projects under development, the first new nuclear plant in the UK could come on the system in 2018, with deployment of more than one plant a year potentially possible from the early 2020," the committee noted.

The CCC concluded, "As a supplier of reliable baseload power, nuclear can make a crucial contribution to a technically secure and diverse low-carbon power system."

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 May 2011 06:53

ramana wrote:GP more appropriate to say PFBR and next 3 FBRs are not in the civilian side of the divide. This was the stance at time of signing the IUCNA

Ramana-ji, there is no such thing, technically speaking as "civilian" and "military", from an IAEA/NSG perspective..Reactors are either under "safeguards" or not...It is safe to assume though that anything that is not under safeguards can be used for military purposes...

I am not sure that the NSG exemption makes any commitment on future reactors...All it says is that India will decide which reactors to put under safeguards and the ones not...Given that we are really far away from the 3 more FBRs, not sure how/why we would make a commitment either ways...

In terms of requirement, not sure why we need to necessarily have 3 more FBRs outside safeguards...With Dhruva, 8 NPPs outside safeguards already and PFBR, one would assume that we would have as much stockpile of Pu as we could fashion bombs out of...

Amber G. wrote:Amit, Arnab et al - wrt to carbon foot print vs nuke .. etc...may be of help..
UK proposes fourth carbon budget

Amber-ji, one of the things that was being feverishly discussed pre-Fukushima was carbon credits for nuke power plants...The economics of NPPs would just get transformed if that happens - suddenly, coal will start looking positively more expensive than nukes....Its gotten a little complicated after Fukushima, but expect that to be resirrected sooner than later...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 09:41

Yes those were not to be under safeguards.
Don't know if that means they are for military use.

The concern at that time was the technology was uniquely developed by India and no need for prying eyes if possible.

Any was confirming GuruPrabhu's recollection.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 May 2011 09:53

ramana wrote:Any was confirming GuruPrabhu's recollection

Is there a source for this? I was pretty certain that we did not give any assurances, one way or another on the "safeguards" status of future reactors..

the point on "prying eyes" is correct - but it was used to keep PFBR out of safeguards, as PFBR is up-and-about-to-run

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 10:03

You can google!
Its not like you are writing a research paper to demand refs for every recollection.

Why don't you prove Guru Prabhu and me wrong?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 May 2011 10:15

ramana wrote:You can google!
Its not like you are writing a research paper to demand refs for every recollection.

Why don't you prove Guru Prabhu and me wrong?

Well, actually I did! Given that either the NSG exemption or the 123 with the US has no mention of it (the future 3 FBRs)...

And what I found out was this..
http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/08/stories ... 811200.htm

Dr. Singh said the Separation Plan does not come in the way of the integrity of India's three-stage nuclear programme, including future use of the country's thorium reserves. "The autonomy of our research and development activities in the nuclear field will remain unaffected. The Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) remain outside safeguards. We have agreed, however, that future civilian thermal power reactors and civilian Fast Breeder Reactors would be placed under safeguards, but the determination of what is civilian is solely an Indian decision."

There was some speculation (in the usual NPA circles), but even they werent sure about that...One here..
http://npolicy.org/userfiles/image/Plut ... al_pdf.pdf

India would appear to have more than
sufficient unsafeguarded plutonium for placing all four
of the planned breeders in the military sector. If these
five breeders are built and all are kept military, then in
about 15 years, India would be able to produce about
500-800 kg per year of weapons grade plutonium from
them.

BTW whats the reason for this hostility?! Since when did references become a 4 letter word?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 20 May 2011 10:24

Here is link given by google chacha regarding mine and Ramana's recollection:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/in ... -us/50556/

A simple way to look at this is that "campuses" were to either be under safeguards or not. IGCAR is not under safeguards and two more FBRs will go there. Here is a pdf that suggests that *six* more FBRs are planned, with location of 4 more to be determined:

http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetings/P ... Chetal.pdf

Here is another that states only 4 more. But it has a quote from Baldev Raj that confirms what I was saying:

http://santosh-pandey.blogspot.com/2007 ... -2020.html

Asked whether DAE has stock-piled enough plutonium for these four reactors in addition to the upcoming PFBR, Raj said "we have enough plutonium already to meet these needs."

and another quote that should make MVR stop and think (if he is capable):

Atomic Energy Department is also in the process of putting up an integrated fuel cycle facility---a reprocessing unit of the irradiated fuel during the 11th five year plan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2011 10:33

Somanth its late where I am.

GP there is another mil reactor to come up somewhere. That will make him puke.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 20 May 2011 10:34

Here is a more recent link that confirms the two FBRs at Kalpakkam.

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2807/stori ... 702300.htm

India is poised to construct a series of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) that will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel and liquid sodium as coolant. The FBRs that will come up subsequently will use metallic fuel. The Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI) will build all the FBRs in India. The 500 MWe Prototype FBR (PFBR) under construction at Kalpakkam near Chennai is expected to go critical in 2012. Two more FBRs will come up at Kalpakkam. A Light Water Reactor of 700 MWe is also under development and it will use enriched uranium as fuel.

Typical DDM issues. I will try to find out whether it is 4 more or 6 more in the planning stages.