India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[KL Dubey]

A lot of the India-USA negotiations are tantalizing, very few details yet. Some rumors about collaboration on SMR deployment. Do you know anything about it?

[pravula]

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/

I am curious about the tradeoffs between a large reactor with large transmission footprint vs small reactor with smaller transmission footprint. I can think of transmission losses and associated risks (wildfires like California), high infra cost for transmission lines, etc...Any open source info on this?

[KL Dubey]

OK, the news is out!

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 826549.cms

Holtec (US SMR company promoted by KP Singh) has received DOE approval to manufacture SMRs in Bharat in collaboration with L&T and Tata.

https://holtecinternational.com/product ... vices/smr/

It sure looks like Indian negotiators have driven a strong bargain instead of just approving imports.

Also Bharat has allocated $2.5bn this year for 3 types of indigenous SMR, including the BSMR-200 designed for captive power applications.

[Amber G.]

OK, the news is out!
<snip>

Thanks. I may make few comments later. (Hope this thread too does not get hijacked with usual trollingby usual suspects..).

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.
<Snip>

( See links like https://www.power-technology.com/news/i ... tors-2032/

I am curious about the tradeoffs between a large reactor with large transmission footprint vs small reactor with smaller transmission footprint. I can think of transmission losses and associated risks (wildfires like California), high infra cost for transmission lines, etc...Any open source info on this?

Regardin open source infoi, some resources to explore:

- India’s National Electricity Plan (NEP) by CEA (Central Electricity Authority) outlines transmission and generation strategies, including nuclear power’s role.

Reports from DAE and NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India) discuss nuclear expansion plans and potential reactor deployment strategies.

IAEA's SMR reports provide insights into global small reactor development, including potential transmission advantages.

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) publications have insights into India’s potential SMR roadmap.

---
FWIW - Few comments: (Warning long message - not interested in technical details may ignore this)

Large Reactors vs. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in India -- Trade-offs and Transmission Considerations:

India’s energy strategy currently emphasizes large reactors, with ambitious plans to increase nuclear capacity to 63 GW by 2032. As said, Key projects include:

Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (Maharashtra): 9.9 GW (six 1,650 MW EPRs)

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (Tamil Nadu): Expanding to 6.8 GW

Kovvada Atomic Power Project (Andhra Pradesh): Planned 6.6 GW capacity

While SMRs are being developed globally, India’s current focus - from what I know - remains on large units. However, the tradeoff involves multiple considerations.


- Transmission Losses & Risks
Large nuclear plants, often built near coastlines for water access, require extensive transmission infrastructure to supply power to inland demand centers. Key issues include:

- Long-distance transmission can lead to 2-5% losses per 1000 km, depending on voltage level. India uses 765 kV AC and ±800 kV HVDC
- A few large power plants feeding into congested grids can cause instability. Transmission infrastructure is also vulnerable to extreme weather, theft, and land acquisition disputes.
-Large reactors provide stable baseload power. However, a distributed SMR network could help in:

Reducing transmission burdens by supplying power directly to cities or industrial clusters.

Supporting renewable energy ...

Enhancing resilience by preventing regional blackouts if a single large power failure..
---
Changes (SMR's) -

- ndia's Atomic Energy Act currently restricts private sector participation in nuclear power, making SMR deployment difficult.

- While countries like the US (NuScale), Canada, and Russia are actively developing SMRs, India has yet to build a full-scale prototype.

- While SMRs reduce transmission costs, their capital cost per MW is higher than large reactors, making them less attractive in the short term.

But things are in a flux..our current nuclear policy currently emphasizes large plants, SMRs could play a role in decentralized power generation, particularly for industrial zones, remote regions, and military applications. If transmission concerns grow or modular deployment matures, SMRs might gain traction. We will see.

[KL Dubey]

^^Captive power in India is about 50% the size of utility power. BSMR-200 is touted as being targeted for captive power, in which case transmission is not an issue.

Yes, modularity has many advantages. Perhaps this also links to pink hydrogen production for industrial use. L&T is already manufacturing good old robust alkaline electrolyzers (no membrane) and is also going to get SMR technology....perhaps low cost manufacturing in India will allow these electrolyzers to be economical enough.

[pravula]

Thank You Amber G.

[SRajesh]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Y9SJnCa3sL
Just came across this while reading up on SMR.
What is the use of SMR in Marine applications??
Is this report true that there is potential for SMR for clean Marine Transport??

[Amber G.]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Y9SJnCa3sL
Just came across this while reading up on SMR.
What is the use of SMR in Marine applications??
Is this report true that there is potential for SMR for clean Marine Transport??

^^^ Thanks. The article above discusses the potential of SMRs in marine applications, highlighting their advantages + challenges + and prospects. The information is quite reliable... citing IAEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

It mentions the benefits of SMRs, including their compact design, safety features, scalability, and potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions . It also acknowledges the challenges, such as regulatory hurdles, public perception, and economic viability etc..

I will say SMRs have tremendous potential in marine applications, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean marine transport. SMRs can be used to power ships, providing a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels .

- SMRs produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation.
- SMRs are smaller and more compact than traditional reactors, making them ideal for ships and offshore platforms.
- SMRs offer a reliable and efficient source of power.

Note that in India's contxt - Holtec International (also GE Hitachi) are developing SMR designs suitable for marine applications .

[Amber G.]

^^Captive power in India is about 50% the size of utility power. BSMR-200 is touted as being targeted for captive power, in which case transmission is not an issue.

Yes, modularity has many advantages. Perhaps this also links to pink hydrogen production for industrial use. L&T is already manufacturing good old robust alkaline electrolyzers (no membrane) and is also going to get SMR technology....perhaps low cost manufacturing in India will allow these electrolyzers to be economical enough.

Nice point.

[ernest]

I will say SMRs have tremendous potential in marine applications, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean marine transport. SMRs can be used to power ships, providing a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels .

- SMRs produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation.
- SMRs are smaller and more compact than traditional reactors, making them ideal for ships and offshore platforms.
- SMRs offer a reliable and efficient source of power.

Note that in India's contxt - Holtec International (also GE Hitachi) are developing SMR designs suitable for marine applications .

How do SMRs compare to traditional marine Nuclear Reactors like those powering Nimitz class CVNs? What are the pros / cons of SMR vis-a-vis such traditional nuclear designs. One (I'm guessing) might be the requirement of lower fuel enrichment levels.

PS: this is my favorite thread. Makes me happy to see new activity here.

[Amber G.]

I will say SMRs have tremendous potential in marine applications, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean marine transport. SMRs can be used to power ships, providing a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels .

- SMRs produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation.
- SMRs are smaller and more compact than traditional reactors, making them ideal for ships and offshore platforms.
- SMRs offer a reliable and efficient source of power.

Note that in India's contxt - Holtec International (also GE Hitachi) are developing SMR designs suitable for marine applications .

How do SMRs compare to traditional marine Nuclear Reactors like those powering Nimitz class CVNs? What are the pros / cons of SMR vis-a-vis such traditional nuclear designs. One (I'm guessing) might be the requirement of lower fuel enrichment levels.

PS: this is my favorite thread. Makes me happy to see new activity here.

What I will say: Pros / cons - Key Differences -
Fuel Enrichment & Refueling:

Marine reactors (like those on U.S. Navy ships) typically use, as you say, highly enriched uranium (HEU), about or more than 90% U-235. (Allows for long core lifetimes -potentially the entire lifespan of the ship).

Most civilian SMRs use low-enriched uranium (LEU), below 20% U-235, to comply with non-proliferation treaties. (This often means more frequent refueling -- though some advanced SMR designs aim for long-life cores )

Size & Modularity

Marine reactors are compact and custom-designed for their vessels, prioritizing power density and maneuverability.

SMRs are standardized and modular, designed for scalable deployment, easier manufacturing, and transportability.

Also obviously -

Military reactors operate under different regulatory frameworks than commercial reactors, allowing more flexibility in design. Also prioritize high power density ((e.g., a Nimitz-class carrier’s A4W reactor produces ~550 MW thermal).

SMRs must adhere to civilian nuclear regulations, making certification and deployment slower despite their safety innovations.
SMRs are optimized for grid power or remote/off-grid applications, typically producing 50–300 MW electrical per unit.

SMRs incorporate advanced passive safety features , (which modern naval reactors also integrate but with different priorities) ..Military reactors are designed for combat survivability, ensuring redundancy and resilience in extreme conditions.

Basically ..SMRs are more flexible, modular, and viable but require more frequent refueling and regulatory approvals. while naval reactors prioritize high power density, and combat resilience, are limited to military applications and use highly enriched fuel...

( Some SMR designs, like the U.S. DOE’s MARVEL microreactor, take inspiration from naval reactors for remote or off-grid applications.)

P.S. Like discussions like this! ..always great to see more nuclear enthusiasts...

[Tanaji]

Some ports will not let ships with nuclear reactors berth. There is bound to be a limitation on what destinations a ship with SMR can visit. Then there will be a complication of insurance and what routes will such a ship be allowed to take: going near Arctic waters, far southern waters, routes with piracy all are going to be verbotten.


Does the military have different standards on amount of permissible radiation per person in a given period than civilian ones? If so that affects staffing levels. I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits..

[Amber G.]

.. Does the military have different standards on amount of permissible radiation per person in a given period than civilian ones? If so that affects staffing levels. I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits..

We talked about ‘permissible radiation’ in other nuclear dhaga and Fukushima dhaga etc..(Dozens of messages from me alone ).. my favorite unit using BED (Banana Equivalent Dose).. amount of radiation from eating K40 from one banana – roughly what you get if you live near a nuclear power plant

Any way:

Yes, the military often has different radiation exposure standards than civilian regulatory bodies, largely because of operational needs and risk acceptance levels. In the U.S., for example, civilian radiation exposure limits are set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DOE) establish separate guidelines for military and nuclear weapons-related personnel.

In India, radiation exposure limits for occupational workers and the public are established by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), adhering to principles recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
aerb.gov.in

In USA:
Civilian Workers:
Annual occupational dose limit: 50 millisieverts (mSv)
General public limit: ~1 mSv/year
Military Personnel:
Higher permissible exposure levels in emergency or combat situations
U.S. DoD emergency exposure guidance: up to 250 mSv for life-saving operations

In India:
Occupational Workers:
Effective Dose: 20 mSv/year (averaged over 5 years), 30 mSv in any single year
Equivalent Dose: Lens of the Eye (150 mSv/year), Skin, Hands, and Feet (500 mSv/year)
Public Exposure:
Effective Dose: 1 mSv/year
Equivalent Dose: Lens of the Eye (15 mSv/year), Skin (50 mSv/year)
Pregnant Radiation Workers:
Dose to the embryo/fetus: not to exceed 1 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy
(For Military some info is classified - guide lines are < 250 mSv / year)

---

Here are some radiation doses in millisieverts (mSv) for perspective:

Typical Nuclear Plant: A typical nuclear power plant worker receives an average annual dose of around < 1mSv
Fukushima:
The estimated annual effective dose from cesium-137 in Fukushima City is around 0.9 mSv .
(In areas with high levels of contamination, the annual effective dose can be as high as 10 mSv ).

Average annual background radiation dose: around 2.4 mSv
Round-trip flight from New York to Mumbai : around 0.1 mSv
Chennai and parts of Kerala have some of the highest natural radiation levels in the world. In some areas of Kerala, the annual dose can reach as high as 50 millisieverts (mSv) due to the presence of thorium-rich monazite sands
- The average annual background radiation dose worldwide is around 2.4 mSv.

(Nuclear power plants have *less* radiation than typical coal plants - Thorium etc in coal produces about 100x time more radiation per GW than nuclear power plant. .and Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

[Amber G.]

Some ports will not let ships with nuclear reactors berth. There is bound to be a limitation on what destinations a ship with SMR can visit. Then there will be a complication of insurance and what routes will such a ship be allowed to take: going near Arctic waters, far southern waters, routes with piracy all are going to be verbotten.

.

You’re right—there are multiple regulatory, logistical, and geopolitical challenges for ships powered by small modular reactors SMRs.

Some nations and ports outright ban nuclear-powered vessels, primarily due to political concerns, public perception, and regulatory issues.

That said, military nuclear vessels (submarines, icebreakers, aircraft carriers) have operated under strict protocols for decades. If commercial SMR-powered ships can demonstrate exceptional safety, there might be gradual regulatory adaptation, but overcoming public and political resistance will be a major challenge...

[SRajesh]

AmberGJi
One question regarding Civilian Marine applications:
Given High Sea Piracy involving peacefuls around Horn of Africa and Arabian peninsula, wont these civilian ships will need heavy security!
Clean energy and Carbon neutral energy is great news but security concerns! wont they trump clean energy.

[Amber G.]

AmberGJi
One question regarding Civilian Marine applications:
Given High Sea Piracy involving peacefuls around Horn of Africa and Arabian peninsula, wont these civilian ships will need heavy security!
Clean energy and Carbon neutral energy is great news but security concerns! wont they trump clean energy.

< Long post >

Valid - Security concerns are indeed a significant issue for civilian ships However, this does not necessarily "trump" clean energy. Both issues—security and sustainable energy—can and should be addressed simultaneously.

My take -

- Civilian ships already employ various security measures, including armed guards, naval escorts, and advanced tracking systems.

- Clean and carbon-neutral energy initiatives for shipping—such as hydrogen fuel, ammonia, and electrification—do not inherently increase security risks. In fact, new propulsion technologies could reduce reliance on traditional fuel supply chains that sometimes pass through unstable regions. One use of SMR (or nuclear generated power) is to use the energy to produce green H2 etc – as India is considering - or BRF is having debate in other dhaga - recommend strongly read some posts by Dubeji)

As you say using nuclear materials do have its own risks ( With context to India’s use) -

- SMRs use enriched uranium, which could become a target for theft or diversion by non-state actors. (But HEU is low percentage – not easy to produce a bomb)
- Rogue entities could attempt to hijack a vessel powered by an SMR for access to nuclear materials.
- Increased Target Value for Pirates & Terrorists
- Even if an attack does not lead to nuclear theft, a damaged SMR could cause radiological contamination in maritime areas.
- SMR control systems could be vulnerable to cyberattacks, leading to potential reactor sabotage or loss of operational control.

Ityadi Ityad …

That said – IMO -

- Modern SMRs use passive safety systems, meaning that even in case of an attack, they are designed to shut down safely.
- Reactors could be built with self-contained, tamper-resistant shielding to prevent unauthorized access.
- The use of LEU or thorium(In India’s case) instead of highly enriched uranium HEU would reduce proliferation risks.
- SMR-powered ships would need advanced air-gapped systems to prevent remote hacking attempts.


SMRs offer significant environmental benefits, such as zero-carbon propulsion and long operational life without refueling. However, they would introduce new security challenges that require global coordination, regulatory frameworks, and advanced safety protocols – I think India is ready for this.

[Cyrano]

I think SMRs for commercial ships is an overkill. They can use modern computer controlled sails to reduce fuel consumption. The tech has been available for many years now. Somehow it never got really popular.

AFAIK only Russia uses nuclear powered ice breakers in the Arctic to create a navigable channel among ice sheets in the Arctic ocean.

India's priority is to increase conventional commercial ship building by 10x. That's what the government is rightly focusing on.

[Cyrano]

BTW, in all this enthusiasm our gyanis haven't touched upon the life cycle cost of an SMR driven commercial ship vs. Cost of the ordinary marine diesel ship to build, fuel, maintain and decommission, and what it will do to shipping costs. Which shipping company giants like Maersk or CMA-CGM etc can afford how many such SMR powered ships based on their current revenue and margins they make. How much will it cost to insure such a N powered ship that can sink in a storm, get stuck in Suez or Panama, run aground if the captain had one too many, get struck by a Houthi rocket etc etc.
Looking forward to some Gyan on this oh so irrelevant and mundane monetary aspect as well.

[Cyrano]

I asked grok3: How many SMRs are operational in the world as of today?

Ans :
As of today, April 4, 2025, there are a small number of operational small modular reactors (SMRs) worldwide. Based on available data, only China and Russia have successfully deployed operational SMRs. Specifically, Russia has the Akademik Lomonosov, a floating nuclear power plant with two 35 MW SMRs, which began commercial operation in May 2020. China has the HTR-PM, a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor with two 105 MW modules, connected to the grid in December 2021. This suggests that, as of now, there are at least four operational SMR units (two in Russia and two in China) if counting individual reactor modules. However, some sources may refer to these as two operational SMR "plants" rather than counting the modules separately.

Beyond these, no other countries are widely recognized as having fully operational commercial SMRs as of this date, though many designs are under development or in the construction phase globally. Given the rapid pace of nuclear technology development, the exact number could shift soon, but based on the most current and reliable information, the total stands at around four operational SMR units worldwide.

Q: What is the cost of building a SMR?

Grok3: The cost of building a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) varies widely depending on the design, location, regulatory environment, and specific project details. Based on available data, here’s a breakdown of some key examples and estimates:

- **NuScale Power’s SMR Project (U.S.)**: One of the most cited examples is the NuScale project with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). Initially estimated at $5.3 billion for a 462-megawatt (MW) plant (12 modules, later scaled to 6), the construction cost rose to $9.3 billion by 2023. This translates to approximately $20,130 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity. However, this figure includes significant cost overruns due to inflation, commodity price increases, and higher interest rates. With over $4 billion in U.S. federal subsidies (including a $1.4 billion Department of Energy contribution), the effective cost to ratepayers is reduced, but the unsubsidized price reflects a steep investment.

- **General Estimates**: SMRs are often touted for lower upfront capital costs compared to traditional large reactors. Some projections suggest costs could range from $2,500 to $6,000 per kW for future designs if economies of scale and modular construction efficiencies are realized. For instance, the Energy Impact Centre’s Open100 blueprint for a 114-MW SMR estimates a total cost of $303 million, or about $2,653 per kW. However, these are theoretical and unproven at scale.

- **Rolls-Royce SMR (UK)**: Rolls-Royce has proposed a 470-MW SMR with an estimated cost of under AUD $5 billion (approximately USD $3.3 billion as of current exchange rates), equating to roughly $7,000 per kW. This is a vendor estimate and assumes regulatory approval and construction efficiencies, which remain untested.

- **Westinghouse AP300**: Westinghouse has suggested that later units of its 300-MW AP300 SMR could cost around $1 billion, or $3,333 per kW, though the first unit’s cost was not disclosed and is likely higher due to initial design and licensing expenses.

- **Real-World Context**: Globally, only a few SMRs are operational (e.g., Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov at 70 MW and China’s HTR-PM at 210 MW), and detailed cost data is scarce. Critics argue that SMRs may not achieve cost savings without mass production (e.g., thousands of units), as construction costs per kW can rival or exceed those of large reactors (like the Vogtle project in Georgia, at $15,000+ per kW).

Key factors driving costs include:
- **Design and Licensing**: First-of-a-kind projects face high engineering and regulatory expenses.
- **Construction**: Modular fabrication promises savings, but supply chain issues and inflation can offset this.
- **Scale**: Smaller output (typically 10-300 MW) means less power per dollar compared to gigawatt-scale reactors, unless mass-produced.
- **Subsidies**: Government support often masks true costs.

In summary, current SMR construction costs range from $3,000 to over $20,000 per kW, with real-world projects like NuScale’s leaning toward the higher end due to early-stage challenges. Optimistic projections below $5,000 per kW hinge on future standardization and deployment at scale, which has yet to be demonstrated. For a specific project, costs could fall between $1 billion and $9 billion, depending on capacity and circumstances.
***

There you have your sweet little business case for cutting CO2 emissions from shipping industry using SMRs.

[Y I Patel]

Modern data centers are 24/7 energy hogs. SMRs could address that demand

[Cyrano]

Q: What is the average cost for a big container ship?
Grok3 : The average cost of a large container ship can vary widely depending on factors such as its size (measured in TEU, or Twenty-foot Equivalent Units), age, condition, construction location, and specific features like fuel efficiency or advanced technology. As of recent data up to April 2025, here’s a breakdown based on available information:

For a **new large container ship**, such as those in the range of 15,000 to 24,000 TEU (common for modern mega-ships), prices typically fall between **$100 million and $200 million USD**. For example:
- A 15,000 TEU neo-Panamax ship built in China might cost around **$150 million**, while the same ship from a South Korean shipyard could be closer to **$160 million**. Adding dual-fuel capabilities (e.g., methanol or LNG) can increase costs by 20-25%, pushing prices toward **$180 million to $200 million**.
- Larger ships, like those exceeding 20,000 TEU, often built by top shipyards in South Korea or Japan, can reach **$200 million or more**, especially with high-spec equipment or eco-friendly designs.

In contrast, **U.S.-built container ships** are significantly more expensive due to factors like labor costs and maritime regulations (e.g., the Jones Act). Recent estimates suggest a new U.S.-made ship could cost around **$333 million**, though these are outliers compared to global standards, where foreign-built ships dominate the market at lower prices.

For **used large container ships**, costs depend heavily on age and condition. A 10-year-old ship with a capacity of 6,500 to 12,000 TEU might range from **$50 million to $100 million**, while older or smaller vessels (e.g., 500 TEU) could drop to **$10 million or less**.

These figures reflect global market trends as of early 2025, influenced by supply chain dynamics, shipyard capacity, and demand for greener vessels. Costs can fluctuate with steel prices, fuel costs, and geopolitical factors, so exact prices require real-time quotes from shipyards or brokers. For a precise figure tailored to a specific ship type or region, more detailed specifications would be needed.
***
There you have your sweet little business case for cutting CO2 emissions from shipping industry using SMRs.

[Cyrano]

Modern data centers are 24/7 energy hogs. SMRs could address that demand

Yes, if the business case holds up. Right now we seem to be in a very nascent stage with wildly varying cost/kW estimates as grok3 points out.

[Vayutuvan]

Modern data centers are 24/7 energy hogs. SMRs could address that demand

Right now better chip designs and simulation tools are being developed. Power consumption can be cut by factor of 2 or even 5.
Better algorithms also reduce the power consumption. That orange has juice for many more squeezes.

[Cyrano]

I'll spare you all the grok3 dialogue, net net globally we are 5-10 years away for first prototypes of SMR powered container ships coming out. And an unknown number of years after that to make them in sufficient numbers to make them profitable.

Given India's troubled track record of producing a viable gas turbine (Kaveri derivative), indigenous SMR powered commercial ship seems like a tall order. If we do make one it should perhaps go into IAC2 when ever that comes.

[Cyrano]

OK, the news is out!

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 826549.cms

Holtec (US SMR company promoted by KP Singh) has received DOE approval to manufacture SMRs in Bharat in collaboration with L&T and Tata.

https://holtecinternational.com/product ... vices/smr/

It sure looks like Indian negotiators have driven a strong bargain instead of just approving imports.

Also Bharat has allocated $2.5bn this year for 3 types of indigenous SMR, including the BSMR-200 designed for captive power applications.

This deal looks shady. Holtech doesn't have even a working prototype of an SMR. Their expertise has traditionally been in equipment supply and decommissioning, not in reactor design.

Holtec (US SMR company promoted by KP Singh) has received DOE approval to manufacture SMRs in Bharat in collaboration with L&T and Tata.

what exactly are they bringing to the table?
If India is not careful, they will try to siphon off our r&d budget, not share any resulting IP and we will end up getting a haircut I'm afraid.

[Cyrano]

https://stratnewsglobal.com/china/holte ... -reactors/

May be Kakodkar Ji knows a thing or two more than we do..?!

[Amber G.]

Following wise counsel to ignore trolls, attempts to hijack the thread, clickbait, and other distractions, here are some current news headlines about nuclear power...

Nuclear energy crucial in Viksit Bharat's energy mix: Nirmala Sitharaman

BSRs offer several advantages over conventional large-scale nuclear plants:
- In her Budget 2024 speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced plans to develop Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs) as part of India's push to expand its nuclear energy capabilities.
- They are more flexible in terms of siting, can be deployed faster
- They are potentially more cost-effective



Design Stage of Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Completed: Union Minister Jitendra Singh
Summary:

India has reached a significant milestone in its nuclear energy program by completing the concept design of the Bharat Small Modular Reactor (BSMR-200). This indigenous project, jointly developed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), aims to provide clean energy to remote areas and energy-intensive industries .
The BSMR-200 is a 200 MWe pressurized water reactor that incorporates passive safety features and engineered systems to ensure nuclear safety. It's designed to use slightly enriched uranium fuel and will undergo a rigorous regulatory licensing process.

Here are some key highlights of the project:

- Lead Demonstration Unit: Expected to be completed within six years after financial approval, with commissioning and regular operation feasible by the seventh year.
- Cost: The estimated cost of the lead unit is Rs 5,700 crore.
- Collaboration: The Department of Atomic Energy plans to collaborate with indigenous private vendors for manufacturing critical components.
- Deployment: BSMRs are intended for captive power generation in industries like steel, aluminum, and cement, and providing electricity to off-grid locations.

The BSMR initiative aligns with India's broader energy transition goals, including achieving 100 GW of nuclear power by 2047. This project will position India as a leader in advanced nuclear technology while supporting decarbonization efforts and meeting growing energy demands .

[vera_k]

Hadn't realized that these SMR type reactors run on enriched uranium.
Looks like large amount of enriched uranium fuel (imported?) will be needed for these reactors.
Since this type will produce about the same output as the earlier 220MW PHWR reactors, is it correct to say that the use of enriched uranium in the key improvement enabling more efficient reactors?

I also wonder if this is a fundamental change in course for the 3 stage nuclear program driven by discovery of ample uranium resources within India. Since the lack of uranium resources was what led to the justification of the long gestation 3 stage program.

[Amber G.]

Hadn't realized that these SMR type reactors run on enriched uranium.
Looks like large amount of enriched uranium fuel (imported?) will be needed for these reactors.
Since this type will produce about the same output as the earlier 220MW PHWR reactors, is it correct to say that the use of enriched uranium in the key improvement enabling more efficient reactors?

I also wonder if this is a fundamental change in course for the 3 stage nuclear program driven by discovery of ample uranium resources within India. Since the lack of uranium resources was what led to the justification of the long gestation 3 stage program.

Good question!

Yes, given India's historical emphasis on utilizing domestic resources, the requirement for enriched uranium, potentially imported, raises important questions.

My take: for India the use of enriched uranium in SMRs might be seen as a departure from the country's traditional approach. The three-stage nuclear program, initially driven by limited domestic uranium resources, focused on:
-PHWRs (using natural uranium.
- FBRs to generate more fuel than they consume.
-Thorium-based reactors to utilize India's abundant thorium reserves.

That said, IMO:

The discovery of significant domestic uranium deposits might allow India to reassess its nuclear strategy, potentially incorporating enriched uranium-based reactors like SMRs.( However, this would also necessitate a re-evaluation of the three-stage program's priorities and timeline).

The implications of this shift would be far-reaching, influencing India's nuclear energy landscape, fuel sourcing strategies, and the role of thorium in the country's long-term nuclear plans.

We will see.

SMRs using LEU) or thorium are being researched and developed. Thorium-based fuel with uranium-233 has shown promising results, achieving high neutron multiplication factors and fuel burn up.

Some benefits of using thorium in SMRs: (using basic physics)
- Thorium fuel has a higher conversion ratio than low-enriched uranium fuel, making it a more efficient option .
I- Thorium-based fuel cycles have inherent safety advantages due to the lower production of long-lived radioactive waste.
-: Thorium is more abundant than uranium in India , providing a potentially sustainable source of nuclear energy .

Bottomline: Researchers are exploring various SMR designs that incorporate thorium or low-LEU fuels. eg *MSR, LW-SMRS
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs): These reactors use liquid fuel and can operate with thorium or low-LEU fuels ³.
Light Water Small Modular Reactors (LW-SMRs - ) These reactors can use thorium-based fuel with uranium-233, offering improved performance and safety .
(While these developments show promise, obviously further research and testing are needed to commercialize these technologies... I think we are ready for it)

[Amber G.]

For the record and reference - posting here:

This authorisation permits Holtec, with conditions, to transfer unclassified small modular reactor (SMR) technology” to three firms in India: its regional subsidiary Holtec Asia; Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd; and Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

[Cyrano]

What does this prove Amber Ji? That Holtech has a working SMR?

[vera_k]

More info here. Looks like a large effort by India to build smaller reactors is starting up. Holtec must have some IP that was identified as saving time for implementation, since the ET article says this is about design and manufacturing activities, rather that importing entire reactors.

India working on 3 types of small modular reactors

three reactor technologies -- 200 MW and 55 MW Pressurised Water Reactors and 5 MW Indian Gas Cooled Reactors -- were being developed

US approves Holtec to build nuclear reactors in India, reviving Indo-US nuclear deal

[Cyrano]

The press headlines are misleading I feel. I'd rather go by Kakodkar's assessment at this stage. If we have an indigenous BSR design, which I think we are capable of, and want to have Holtech provide certain components or subsystems then assuming Holtech is not over selling their capabilities then this may work out.

It's founder Krishna P Singh is a PIO and seems legit.

But my trust in the US letting India get it's hands on a pioneering and restricted, sensitive tech like SMR which has huge potential and which they haven't mastered themselves with highly experienced companies like GE, Westinghouse etc is quite low. I suspect that Holtech under the guise of partnership/tech transfer will deliberately delay the delivery of the components/subsystems it's contracted for, for years and even decades. What better way to scuttle competition than this?

It's pure speculation on my part, but there have been so many tech denials by unkil in the past that I find it difficult to be more optimistic than this.

[Vayutuvan]

Bharat should be weary of any entreaties the great khan whispers in their ears. Trust but verify. Unfortunately in this case, verification is all but impossible as Holtec itself has not demonstrated their technical capabilities.

[Vayutuvan]

I don't want to throw shade on Holtec but consider the following: https://www.propublica.org/article/meet ... ch-brother

You ask who is ProPublica? Here is a small extract from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica#History

At the time ProPublica was set up, Steiger responded to concerns about the role of the left-leaning political views of the Sandlers, saying on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer:

Coming into this, when I talked to Herb ... rt on.[11]

ProPublica had an initial news staff of 28 reporters and editors,[12] including Pulitzer Prize winners Charles Ornstein, Tracy Weber, Jeff Gerth, and Marcus Stern. Steiger was reported to have received 850 applications[13] upon ProPublica's announcement. The organization appointed a 12-member advisory board of professional journalists.

The newsgroup shares its work under the Creative Commons no-derivative, non-commercial license.[14]

On August 5, 2015, Yelp announced a partnership with ProPublica to bring improved healthcare data into Yelp's statistics on healthcare providers.[15]

I like their CC-ND-NC which as "open source" as it can get. I would believe ProPublica over that NJ democrat Congressman Norcross and Holtec (which is for profit) any day of the week.

[Vayutuvan]

On the other hand, ProPublica might be playing ideological games in that they are driven by the conviction that nuclear power is dirty, as dirty as or even dirtier than fossil fuel.

Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica#Funding

Funding
While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it also has received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Atlantic Philanthropies.[16] ProPublica and the Knight Foundation have various connections. For example, Paul Steiger, executive chairman of ProPublica, is a trustee of the Knight Foundation.[17] In like manner, Alberto Ibarguen, the president and CEO of the Knight Foundation is on the board of ProPublica.[18] ProPublica, along with other major news outlets, received grant funding from Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX.[19]

Some people call any skepticism as "trolling and derailing the thread". If you want to kill a dog, call it mad first. SOP of the progressive elite left liberals of CA.

[vera_k]

Posting a couple of features that will help immensely and explains why this type of reactor is being considered. They don't mention proliferation concerns, but if those are handled, most towns should be able to host one or more of these reactors.

USG Authorizes Holtec International Under 10CFR810

our SMR-300™ checks every box relevant to India’s needs and circumstances, such as a standardized design that is seismically competent to be deployed anywhere in India, one that requires only 25 acres (and no exclusion zone!) of land to house two reactors (600 MWe power output), one that can be operated using air (in lieu of water) as the “waste heat sink” in a water-challenged region

[Cyrano]

Vera_k Ji, from the same link you posted from Holtech's website:

However, to realize a rapid build-out of nuclear plants, India still needs to remove the legal barriers that stand in the way because of previously enacted laws that:

Prohibit ownership of nuclear plants by private industry, and
Expose the private sector reactor suppliers to unlimited liability.
We understand that the GOI is actively working on legislation to permit private sector investment in the nuclear sector and to align the suppliers’ financial exposure with global norms.

This is a big red flag.

Similar strategy was adopted by Pfizer for selling COVID vaccines to India, and a huge media and vested interests storm was raised. At that time, despite the grave situation GoI gave them the finger.

The more I learn about Holtech the more incompatible it looks for India's interests.
The fact that this privately held company which has never built a N reactor is headed by a PIO should not let the GoI lower it's guard.

[SRajesh]

Amber Gji and Cyranoji
Given some reports of new deposits discovered but in Jharkand and AP/Telengana border areas how easy for these mining operations to be held hostage like the Vedanta/tuticorn project
And all BSR projects hten held hostage to US veto
My second question (sorry please indulge me);
How much of a set back (both interms of investments and project fructification/maturation) to the Thorium based or FBR type projects if the BSR is given green light over and above these projects??
I ask because there is no unlimited pot of money and Trumpwa is stirring that pot vigorously!!

[Cyrano]

I only have a lay man's understanding of U mining. Typically an open cut mine, a giant hole in the ground. Extraction will lead to risks of ore dust blown by wind and contaminate near by areas depending on %U content in the ore. Ore enrichment is also risky as U concentration increases. Very different from sterilite copper. Environmental impact can be managed given the criticality of U there will be required govt funding. And for the same reasons govt will not allow activism to go out of hand.

World over anti N activism is declining because everyone is now focused on CO2 emissions and suddenly N power seems not so bad !

I'll leave the second question to Amber G. He is far more knowledgeable than me.


Here is a helpful resource:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... g-overview

UCIL is the sole agency in India for understandable reasons.