Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **10 Jan 2025 18:14**

I'm surprised that the following news about ANEEL fuel for Indian CANDU type PHWRs didn't attract attention of this forum

Explained: What NTPC’s Thorium Fuel Partnership With US Firm Can Mean For India’s Nuclear Future

Posted: **10 Jan 2025 20:13**

Lisa wrote: ↑10 Jan 2025 17:59 ^ https://gulfbusiness.com/fake-enron-egg ... attention/
April Fool’s comes early as fake Enron Egg grabs attention

oops. my bad.....

Posted: **11 Jan 2025 02:44**

JTull wrote: ↑10 Jan 2025 18:14 I'm surprised that the following news about ANEEL fuel for Indian CANDU type PHWRs didn't attract attention of this forum

Explained: What NTPC’s Thorium Fuel Partnership With US Firm Can Mean For India’s Nuclear Future

Thanks for relevant topic.

As I said before - post after posts about "enron eggs" and talking about, "doing another round of tests" after every post or dismissing progress by claiming "Jake S. is part of Biden's lame duck admin" miss the mark ...

The article above talks about -
- A partnership between NTPC Limited and Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE), a US-based company founded by an Indian-origin entrepreneur. This collaboration aims to develop and deploy ANEEL, a thorium-based nuclear fuel designed for Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs). ANEEL, named after Dr. Anil Kakodkar (familiar here in BRF), combines thorium and HALEU (High Assay Low Enriched Uranium) to deliver cleaner, safer, and more efficient energy with reduced waste and enhanced proliferation resistance.

ANEEL’s design aligns with India’s PHWR technology, requiring no major modifications to reactor systems, and offers a remarkable improvement in fuel efficiency, drastically reducing the number of fuel bundles needed over a reactor's lifespan. Additionally, it provides a practical pathway to harness India’s vast thorium reserves, supporting the country’s three-stage nuclear program.

While subject to government approval, the NTPC-CCTE partnership represents a strategic shift in India’s nuclear policy, emphasizing foreign collaboration to meet the country’s growing energy demands. With its potential for indigenized manufacturing and a robust local supply chain, this initiative marks a critical step in ensuring energy security and autonomy for India’s nuclear future.

Some other links/Details:

TPC Limited, India's largest integrated power company, has entered into a strategic partnership with U.S.-based Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE) to explore the development and deployment of ANEEL a thorium-based fuel designed for Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs).
https://ntpc.co.in/media/press-releases ... fuel-phwrs

The partnership also focuses on localizing the ANEEL fuel production process and establishing robust supply chains for thorium and High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) within India.
https://egov.eletsonline.com/2024/12/nt ... technology

For more detailed information, you can refer to the official press release by NTPC.
https://ntpc.co.in/media/press-releases ... fuel-phwrs

Posted: **11 Jan 2025 03:02**

ANEEL achieves a remarkable burn-up of 60 gigawatt-days per metric ton, compared to just 7,000 MW-days per tonne with conventional NU fuel.

Does this make FBR projects redundant?

Since -

PFBR

A fuel burnup of 100 GWd/t is expected.

Posted: **11 Jan 2025 15:52**

JTull wrote: ↑10 Jan 2025 18:14 I'm surprised that the following news about ANEEL fuel for Indian CANDU type PHWRs didn't attract attention of this forum

Explained: What NTPC’s Thorium Fuel Partnership With US Firm Can Mean For India’s Nuclear Future

Elephant in the room, what happens to the spent fuel?

Posted: **11 Jan 2025 20:58**

Lisa wrote: ↑11 Jan 2025 15:52
JTull wrote: ↑10 Jan 2025 18:14 I'm surprised that the following news about ANEEL fuel for Indian CANDU type PHWRs didn't attract attention of this forum

Explained: What NTPC’s Thorium Fuel Partnership With US Firm Can Mean For India’s Nuclear Future
Elephant in the room, what happens to the spent fuel?

if the reactor is not under safeguards, India can reprocess it to whatever requirements it wants, unless there is some specific restrictions.. unlikely though

Posted: **11 Jan 2025 22:14**

Will the spent fuel even be worth reprocessing? Article indicates that it will not have viable weapons level of elements of interest (Pu?)
Will it have significant level of U-233? In that case wouldn't it be used in the current reactor itself?

Thanks

Posted: **15 Jan 2025 09:48**

FWIW - some general comments (for detail see good reference etc):
In general, spent fuel from thorium-based fuels for PHWRs is primarily composed of U-233 , which is produced by the neutron-induced reaction of Th-232.
(It also contains other actinides, fission products, and residual thorium)

- The spent fuel is typically stored in a spent fuel pool or a dry storage facility for a period of time to allow the radiation levels to decrease.
- It can then be reprocessed to extract the remaining uranium and thorium, which can be reused as fuel.
- The remaining waste is typically disposed of in a deep geological repository.

Thorium-based fuels produce less long-lived radioactive waste compared to traditional uranium-based fuels.It is also less likely to be used for nuclear proliferation.

The spent fuel from thorium-based reactors can be reprocessed using various techniques, MSR or AHWR process.
(The reprocessed fuel can then be recycled and reused in the reactor)

Posted: **16 Jan 2025 02:59**

ernest wrote: ↑11 Jan 2025 22:14 Will the spent fuel even be worth reprocessing? Article indicates that it will not have viable weapons level of elements of interest (Pu?)
Will it have significant level of U-233? In that case wouldn't it be used in the current reactor itself?

Thanks

FWIW: In addition to what I said above, adding/clarifying to explicit question(s):
1. Will the spent fuel even be worth reprocessing? -
ANEEL design intentionally avoids producing significant quantities of weapons-grade isotopes like Pu-239. This is a safety and proliferation-resistant feature inherent in thorium fuel cycles. In thorium reactors, thorium-232 absorbs neutrons to eventually breed U-233, which is fissile but designed to be denatured by co-producing U-232, an isotope that complicates handling due to its strong gamma radiation.

Worth for reprocessing? - Even if not weaponizable, the spent fuel still contain valuable fissile materials, like U-233, which could make reprocessing worthwhile. (It all depends on many other factors -- viability of reprocessing depends on the recovery cost versus vs importing new fuel. -- In general If the reactor is designed to minimize waste and maximize burn-up, the incentives for reprocessing could decrease)

- Will it have significant levels of U-233?
Yes, ANEEL fuel is designed to breed U-233 from Th-232. Depending on the reactor's operating conditions (neutron flux, burn-up rates, etc.), the spent fuel could have significant amounts of U-233.. but as said , U-233 may be mixed with U-232, which emits high-energy gamma rays, complicating its handling etc.
( The production of U-233 is a cornerstone of thorium fuel cycles, and its quantity in spent fuel is expected to be enough for consideration in reprocessing .. in my thinking)

- Wouldn’t the U-233 be used in the current reactor itself?
Yes, in a closed fuel cycle or advanced reactor designs like the ANEEL, U-233 produced in the reactor can be recycled as fuel. This aligns with thorium's primary advantage—creating a self-sustaining fuel cycle.

If reprocessing is performed, the recovered U-233 could either be recycled back into the same reactor or used in another reactor designed for U-233 fuel, such as molten salt reactors (MSRs) etc...

Hope the info. is useful.

Posted: **16 Jan 2025 04:13**

xpost :
Breaking News: United States has removed 3 Indian entities from its restrictive list to spur civil nuclear cooperation. Indian Rare Earths, Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Center (IGCAR) & Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC).

This is a Major development after NSA Ajit Doval met US NSA Sullivan.

IMO, This move is a significant positive development for the US-India relationship:

- Enhances cooperation in energy security - The removal of these entities will facilitate closer cooperation between the US and India in securing resilient critical minerals and clean energy supply chains.
- With these entities no longer on the Entity List, joint research and development activities will have positive impact.

Strengthens bilateral ties (politically good) - US commitment to strengthening its partnership with India.

The removal of these Indian entities from the Entity List is a deliberate effort by the US to incentivize cooperation and reinforce the strategic partnership.

Posted: **16 Jan 2025 09:47**

Thanks, Amber G for the answers. Looks like only commercial/non-military use reprocessing will be viable.

On the removal of IREL from entities list, I think this is good economic decision from US. The demand for rare earths for all applications is rising. US being able to access sources outside of China/Russia will be crucial for their reindustrialization in related/dependent technologies. IIRC the Nd magnet plant/pilot project coming up in UP by IREL will be of interest. We need to ensure that we also benefit from exchange of technology and trade in this domain.

Posted: **28 Jan 2025 13:48**

NPCIL's continuous (trip free) operation statistics.
Continuous safe operation of 365 or more days has been achieved by NPCIL in its various reactors so far 50 times.
Kaiga 1 held the World Record of 962 days from 31/12/2018 to 15/09/2020 when Darlington 1, CANDU clocked 963 days to take the No 1 position, pushing Kaiga 1 to 2nd place which it still holds.

Posted: **30 Jan 2025 04:54**

xpost - Year End Review of the Department of Atomic Energy

Posted: **30 Jan 2025 20:57**

Rosatom ships reactor vessel for Kudankulam Nuclear power plant Unit 6 to India

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 198664.cms

- Stream generators for NPP 6th unit in TamilNadu will be shipped in 2025

- Kudankulam has 2 * 1000 MW operational & 4 * 1000 MW under construction

Also same thing here:

https://x.com/TnInvestment/status/1884830042758271151

Posted: **01 Feb 2025 12:47**

FM Nirmala Sitharaman, in her Budget 2025 presentation on February 1, announced the launch of Nuclear Energy Mission with an alocation of ₹20,000 crore.

Five indigenously developed reactors will be operationalised by 2030,

100 GW by 2027 from Nuclear!

Posted: **02 Feb 2025 18:48**

Forgive my laziness, what is the total electricity generation capacity planned by 2027?

I read somewhere that we in India might need around 300 gigawatt (Gw) by 2027.

So if this thing works out then roughly 33 percent of the energy will come from Nuclear ?

Added later - my mistake.

Seems India is around 450 GW now at start of 2025.

If we reach say 500 GW in 2027 then roughly 20% of it will be nuclear.

Posted: **02 Feb 2025 19:57**

It's 100 gw nuclear by 2047 not 2027. 2027 will be impossible because currently nuclear is 8.5 gw . Even if all under construction reactors miraculously become operational (many aren't even critical yet ) than by 2027 we ll get to 20 gw nukular .

Posted: **02 Feb 2025 21:25**

gakakkad wrote: ↑02 Feb 2025 19:57 It's 100 gw nuclear by 2047 not 2027. 2027 will be impossible because currently nuclear is 8.5 gw . Even if all under construction reactors miraculously become operational (many aren't even critical yet ) than by 2027 we ll get to 20 gw nukular .

Would not 100 gw by 2047 be too low - I mean percentage wise.

Posted: **02 Feb 2025 21:50**

it would be around 5%. the total capacity is estimated to go to 2 TW by then . But it's hard to achieve faster because the construction - criticality -operational phase is atleast 5 years and usually more. i don't know if small modular reactors will change that..

Posted: **02 Feb 2025 23:44**

I can't edit my typo ... it is 100GW by 2047!
--
For perspective .. (Along with many many such posts in earlier dhaga(s))
A single nuclear plant powers may be around 700,000 homes while emitting less CO₂ than a hybrid car... At present nuclear is about 3% (8GW) of totoal.

Posted: **03 Feb 2025 07:10**

^ so nothing ground-breaking really.... Currently about 5℅... And will be about the same in 2047.

That's disappointing.

Posted: **03 Feb 2025 07:36**

What private initiatives can be done in building nuclear industry ecosystem in India. There is growing thought process that solar is far more scalable and safer than nuclear power. However I have a lingering feeling that Nuclear has a major role given that Nuclear Fusion program may become successful by 2040 given China's recent 1000+ seconds tokomak operation demonstration. Nuclear fission for energy may still be quite competitive and in terms of climate change far more acceptable. If not energy there is a huge demand for radio isotopes for various niche applications. Persistent power packs to power infrastructure in hard to reach and service places, satellites etc

Nuclear energy India suffers from lack of competitive private Industry participation. AETB/BARC is way behind even DRDO in seeding the nuclear ecosystem. ISRO is perhaps a bit more successful. However none of Indian Institutions like ISRO, DRDO, AERB/BARC have managed to seed the private industry ecosystem like USA and China have done.

Posted: **03 Feb 2025 09:38**

Tandav ji, solar might be scalable and safer but I doubt it will provide enough to make a big enough impact given how more and more devices get energy intensive.

India is urbanising fast, more people are getting more aspirational (ACs, electric Cars). Solar would be challenging in cities where most people live in apartment buildings.

We need Nuclear to bridge the gap. It should be at least 25 to 30 percent.

I envy the French in this area. 80℅ from nuclear.

Posted: **04 Mar 2025 04:41**

I stumbled upon this patent while reading up on limitations to shrinking nuclear reactors down further.
Why did this not get developed further?

Apparatus for direct conversion of radioactive decay energy to electrical energy

Posted: **05 Mar 2025 12:25**

vera_k wrote: ↑04 Mar 2025 04:41 I stumbled upon this patent while reading up on limitations to shrinking nuclear reactors down further.
Why did this not get developed further?

Apparatus for direct conversion of radioactive decay energy to electrical energy

The patented nuclear battery converts energy from radioactive decay into electricity using an LC circuit with a radioactive core that enhances oscillations. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, it directly harnesses alpha particle energy instead of thermal conversion. While compact and long-lasting, its power output (9.2 kW) is far too low to replace large-scale nuclear reactors, which generate around 1 GW.

Note that 9.2KW is good enough for a small electric furnace or space heater .. while 1GW can power about 100,000 homes...A large city or major industrial facilities

While the device is an interesting concept for low-power, long-duration applications (e.g., space probes or remote sensors), it cannot replace nuclear reactors due to its low energy output, lack of self-sustaining reactions, and inefficient use of radioactive materials.

Posted: **05 Mar 2025 12:34**

Thinking more in terms of installing one or a handful of these in each apartment. Should be sufficient for running an AC, a cooktop and a tank water heater.

Posted: **05 Mar 2025 13:30**

vera_k wrote: ↑05 Mar 2025 12:34 Thinking more in terms of installing one or a handful of these in each apartment. Should be sufficient for running an AC, a cooktop and a tank water heater.

The issue is that with such a readily available radioactively decaying source that is under their control, someone will use it to create a bomb. Not a fission bomb, but a dirty bomb is easily possible.

Posted: **06 Mar 2025 00:07**

vera_k wrote: ↑05 Mar 2025 12:34 Thinking more in terms of installing one or a handful of these in each apartment. Should be sufficient for running an AC, a cooktop and a tank water heater.

Sorry.. this is not viable .. using basic physics.. (Putting my physics professor's hat

)

The nuclear battery described in the patent, despite achieving 9.2 kW (23A at 400V), (or any other similar device) is not a viable solution for apartment-scale energy needs due to fundamental physics constraints:

Radioactive Material Requirements - The device relies on alpha-emitting isotopes, which have low power density (VERY low - compared to fission in nuclear reactors - or even simple gas/petrol generator etc). To sustain long-term 9.2 kW output, the required mass of radioisotopes would be so large - making it impractical for apartment use.

Basic math/physics:

A conventional nuclear reactor extracts energy from fission, releasing ~200 MeV per reaction.
Alpha decay releases much less energy per decay (~5 MeV), meaning enormous amounts of material would be needed to sustain multi-kW outputs.

Beside - decay rate .. Alpha-emitting materials do not produce high continuous power—they decay slowly over years or decades. Unlike reactors, which control reaction rates for sustained power, a nuclear battery’s output is limited by natural decay rates.

It will NOT scale- Even if one device could power a single apartment, scaling up for an entire building would require hundreds or thousands of such units, concentrating radioactive material in a way that poses shielding, safety, and regulatory challenges.

While theoretically interesting, this nuclear battery is fundamentally limited by low power density, slow decay rates, and impractical material requirements. It cannot match the high, sustained energy demands of home appliances like AC units, electric cooktops, and water heaters, which require steady multi-kW power for extended periods...

Here is some basics of the material needed (Check out any standard source, how easy or difficult to acquire such materials

to get some idea.. >>

Polonium-210

Decay energy: ~5.4 MeV per alpha particle
Half-life: ~138 days (short-lived, impractical for long-term power)
Power density: ~140 W/g (very high but depletes quickly)

Radium-226

Decay energy: ~4.8 MeV per alpha particle
Half-life: ~1,600 years (long-lasting but lower power density)

Americium-241
Decay energy: ~5.5 MeV per alpha particle
Half-life: ~432 years
(Used in RTGs for low-power applications by USA and India)

Curium-242 or Curium-244
Decay energy: ~6 MeV (²⁴²Cm), ~5.8 MeV (²⁴⁴Cm)
Half-life: ~162 days
Power density: ~120 W/g (²⁴²Cm), ~3 W/g (²⁴⁴Cm)
(Etc..)
--
How Much Material Is Needed?
The power output of the battery is stated as 9.2 kW (9,200 W). Given that:

Polonium-210 ... it would take ~66 grams to generate 9.2 kW. Howeve Po’s short half-life means frequent replacement is required.
Americium-241,,,, ~92 kg for the same output.
Curium-244, ... would require ~3 kg.
Practical Issues
Alpha decay produces heat; a large mass of isotope would require cooling.
Isotopes like Polonium-210 are rare and dangerous. (used in spy novels for poisoning

Handling such materials requires extensive radiation shielding and containment.
...
For continuous high-power applications, the required amount of radioactive material makes this battery impractical...

Posted: **06 Mar 2025 00:16**

Tanaji wrote: ↑05 Mar 2025 13:30
vera_k wrote: ↑05 Mar 2025 12:34 Thinking more in terms of installing one or a handful of these in each apartment. Should be sufficient for running an AC, a cooktop and a tank water heater.
The issue is that with such a readily available radioactively decaying source that is under their control, someone will use it to create a bomb. Not a fission bomb, but a dirty bomb is easily possible.

MOST of these radioactive sources are extremely expensive (some hospitals get it) and are very difficult to get (even if you are a big lab and has governmental support)..

For example ,the estimated cost of Po-210 is around $100,000 per gram ..(assuming I can get it)

For a 9.2 kW nuclear battery, requiring ~66 grams, the raw material cost alone would be around $6.6 million -- (and you have to replace it fairy often!) making it completely impractical.

Posted: **06 Mar 2025 08:47**

Tanaji wrote: ↑05 Mar 2025 13:30 The issue is that with such a readily available radioactively decaying source that is under their control, someone will use it to create a bomb. Not a fission bomb, but a dirty bomb is easily possible.

I highly recommend reading Muller's article about Dirty Bomb (Link given below). The article's back ground is USA but it is quite valid for India too. Richard Muller is a renowned physicist - very well known - (And he was the main adviser to US govt about this threat - during Obama era).

The Dirty Bomb Distraction

Summary (Please read the link above):
The article argues that dirty bombs are more about psychological impact than physical destruction. He explains that while radioactive materials can be hazardous, the actual health risks from a dirty bomb are often exaggerated.

Key Points from the Article:
Al Qaeda Abandoned the Dirty Bomb Idea – They realized conventional explosives (e.g., a gas explosion) would cause more death and destruction than a radiological weapon.
– Dirty bombs don’t create a nuclear explosion; they just disperse radioactive material. Historical examples (like Saddam Hussein's tests and the Chechen rebels' attempt) showed they were ineffective as weapons.
- The real danger of a dirty bomb is mass panic and economic disruption rather than immediate casualties.
It calculates that even a large cesium-137 dirty bomb wouldn’t cause immediate deaths from radiation, though long-term cancer risks could slightly increase.
– Strict radiation exposure laws could force unnecessary evacuations, causing more harm through panic than the bomb itself.
– Biological agents (like anthrax) or attacks on nuclear facilities pose much greater risks than dirty bombs.
---:
Dirty bombs are weapons of mass disruption, not destruction. Their success depends on public fear rather than actual damage. Muller warns that overreacting to a dirty bomb attack would do more harm than the bomb itself.

I thought I will put this as a reference - in this thread.

Posted: **06 Mar 2025 09:42**

An efficient nuclear battery would be ideal for submarine AIP.

Posted: **14 Mar 2025 09:58**

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/scien ... 9.ece/amp/

Design stage of small modular nuclear reactor completed
Once the project is sanctioned, it will take 60-72 months for the reactor to be constructed, Union Minister of State for Science and Technology informs Lok Sabha

extracted

BSMRs are modified versions of India’s existing Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PWHR) and will each have a capacity of 200 MW (Megawatt). They will be fuelled by “slightly enriched uranium” and are being jointly designed and developed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

Manufacturing and delivery of equipment and components will be carried out through various indigenous nuclear vendors developed by the Department Of Atomic Energy (DAE). “Critical items”, such as low alloy steel forgings required for manufacturing the reactor pressure vessel and reactivity control drive mechanisms, will be procured by domestic private vendors. These BSMRs will be used by energy intensive industries such as steel, aluminium, and cement for captive power and can be set up by repurposing thermal power plants that are to be decommissioned. They can also provide electricity in remote places.

The BSMR was based on the “globally proven” pressurised water reactor technology. It was equipped with passive safety features as well as several engineered safety systems to ensure nuclear safety during accidents. Systems were planned to handle spent fuel and its storage in-situ.

In her Budget speech in July 2024, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the government would be partnering with the private sector for setting up Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs), research and development of BSMRs, and research & development of newer technologies for nuclear energy. BSR refers to smaller (55 MW) reactors and are in a nascent stage of design

Posted: **16 Mar 2025 13:52**

Nuclear battery that could last for 100 years created in China using radioactive carbon

https://interestingengineering.com/ener ... oup=test_b

Posted: **17 Mar 2025 04:22**

^^^Don't know if it is just sloppy reporting ..(or posters are not here for any serious discussion..)

...The radioactive decay of carbon-14 is weak and has a half-life of 5,730 years.....which generated a power output of 433 nanowatts.

For perspective, the nuclear battery's power output of 433 nanowatts (nW) is roughly 1/100,000th the power consumption of a small LED flashlight!!
(Eg Pu-238), a commonly used isotope in RTGs, (discussed many times here) has a power density of 0.57 watts per gram (half life 87 years)
Po-210 ) has an impressive power density of 140 W/g due to its high decay rate, but its short half-life of 138 days limits its use ).
Am-241 has a power density of about one-fourth that of Pu-238 (Half life 432 years)

Posted: **17 Mar 2025 22:20**

Meanwhile:
700 MW nuclear power plant connected to northern grid NPCIL

India has successfully connected its indigenous 700 MW nuclear power plant, Unit 7 of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project (RAPP), to the northern grid. This achievement marks a significant milestone in India's nuclear energy program.

Key Highlights:
- The total installed capacity of nuclear energy in India now stands at 8,880 MW.
- The 700 MW Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) is an indigenous design, showcasing India's advancements in nuclear technology.
- These reactors boast advanced safety features, making them among the safest in the world.
-700 MW reactor can generate approximately 5.2 billion units of clean electricity annually, reducing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by about 4.5 million tons.
- India aims to achieve 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047, with NPCIL planning to launch more reactors in the future.
- NPCIL currently operates 25 reactors with a total capacity of 8,880 MW, with an additional 13,100 MW capacity under implementation.

Posted: **17 Mar 2025 23:28**

Are there plans for higher capacity nuclear plants ., more than 700 mw ? the largest operational single unit reactors in the world are around 1500 mw, I know the preference for SMRs but isnt there a logic for higher capacity reactors ?

Posted: **18 Mar 2025 03:30**

drnayar wrote: ↑17 Mar 2025 23:28 Are there plans for higher capacity nuclear plants ., more than 700 mw ? the largest operational single unit reactors in the world are around 1500 mw, I know the preference for SMRs but isnt there a logic for higher capacity reactors ?

Yes, as said (see some of the post above) we do have plans for higher capacity nuclear plants beyond 700 MW. In fact, the country aims to increase its nuclear power capacity to 63GW by 2032.

Some of the planned projects:

Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project: This project in Maharashtra will feature six European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) with a total capacity of 9.9 GW. Each reactor will have a capacity of 1,650 MW (among the largest in the world).

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant: This plant in Tamil Nadu already has two operational reactors with a capacity of 1 GW each. Four more reactors are planned, which will increase the total capacity to 6.8 GW.

Kovvada Atomic Power Project: This project in Andhra Pradesh is planned to have a total capacity of 6,6 GW .

While SMRs are being developed, there is indeed a logic for higher capacity reactors. They can provide a significant amount of power from a single unit, making them more efficient and cost-effective in the long run.
( See links like https://www.power-technology.com/news/i ... tors-2032/

Posted: **18 Mar 2025 04:53**

Amber G. wrote: ↑17 Mar 2025 22:20 Meanwhile:
700 MW nuclear power plant connected to northern grid NPCIL

Posted: **18 Mar 2025 12:42**

Amber G. wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025 03:30
drnayar wrote: ↑17 Mar 2025 23:28 Are there plans for higher capacity nuclear plants ., more than 700 mw ? the largest operational single unit reactors in the world are around 1500 mw, I know the preference for SMRs but isnt there a logic for higher capacity reactors ?
Yes, as said (see some of the post above) we do have plans for higher capacity nuclear plants beyond 700 MW. In fact, the country aims to increase its nuclear power capacity to 63GW by 2032.

Some of the planned projects:

Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project: This project in Maharashtra will feature six European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) with a total capacity of 9.9 GW. Each reactor will have a capacity of 1,650 MW (among the largest in the world).

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant: This plant in Tamil Nadu already has two operational reactors with a capacity of 1 GW each. Four more reactors are planned, which will increase the total capacity to 6.8 GW.

Kovvada Atomic Power Project: This project in Andhra Pradesh is planned to have a total capacity of 6,6 GW .

While SMRs are being developed, there is indeed a logic for higher capacity reactors. They can provide a significant amount of power from a single unit, making them more efficient and cost-effective in the long run.
( See links like https://www.power-technology.com/news/i ... tors-2032/

thank you !.. very good explanation

Posted: **31 Mar 2025 08:08**

Amber G. wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025 03:30Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant: This plant in Tamil Nadu already has two operational reactors with a capacity of 1 GW each. Four more reactors are planned, which will increase the total capacity to 6.8 GW.

Unit 3 will be commissioned mid-2026 and Unit 4 thereafter, by early 2027.
Units 5 & 6 are being built and would reach 50% construction by end 2025.

Bharat Rakshak

India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011