Bharat Rakshak

Does the US provide liability waiver or cap for private companies involved in it's civil nuclear industry?

Yes, the United States does provide a liability cap and indemnification for private companies involved in its civil nuclear industry -- called the Price-Anderson Act.

Tanaji wrote: ↑14 Jun 2025 13:43 No fair AmberG , I deserve at least partial credit for Q2. FBTRs are an explicitly required step for thorium cycle as we never had enough Pu stock required for step 3. I guess I misunderstood the question, now that you explained it.

AHWR based Thorium utilization, by using enriched U from internal or imported enriched fuel, was always a option. After IUCNU deal that made most sense for Bharat, an opportunity lost to be ready with field tested design, so that when national economic development demands it ( geopolitical risk mitigation) Bharat can build cookie cutter plants.

As of now, with tremendously inexpensive yet highly automated fuel reprocessing robots have further made AHWR very attractive. Specially with imported LEU, without requiring FBR.

BARC is looking at energy efficient generation of neutron beam source that could be supplementary close loop implementation option.

@Amber ji, thanks for keeping interest of newbies on, and educating in interesting ways.

Amber G. wrote: ↑14 Jun 2025 00:36

Tanaji wrote: ↑12 Jun 2025 03:53 Without looking :
Q1: either a or b. Saha was an astrophysicist and Kosambi was a mathematician I think

Thanks. (After seeing your answer, I realized my question might have been a little imprecise )..

Q was:

Q1 Which Indian physicist, played a key role in applying nuclear physics to national planning, and was instrumental in the early conceptualization of India's atomic energy program — before Homi Bhabha formalized it?

(a) D.M. Bose
(b) K.S. Krishnan
(c) D.D. Kosambi
(d) M.N. Saha

Correct Answer: (d) Meghnad Saha — but K.S. Krishnan also deserves partial credit for his later institutional role.


Short Answer & Perspective (from a physics-savvy lens):
Let’s be honest — both Saha and Krishnan made major contributions, but in different phases. So depending on what you mean by “key role” and “early conceptualization,” Saha takes the crown — but Krishnan wasn’t far behind when it came to building the actual system.

Why Saha Wins (for this question):

Meghnad Saha was talking about atomic energy in the 1930s–40s, before most people in India even knew what a nucleus was.

He saw science — including nuclear power — as essential to national development.

He pushed hard for state-led planning, wrote extensively on using science for public good, and even served in Parliament doing exactly that.

So while he wasn’t running labs, he was laying the intellectual groundwork and urging political investment.

Krishnan’s Timeline — and Real Contribution:

K.S. Krishnan came into the atomic energy picture more after Independence, late 1940s and 1950s.

He was co-discoverer of the Raman effect, had a strong background in experimental physics (solid-state, magnetism).

He joined the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and helped build its institutional base.

Nehru briefly considered him to head the atomic effort, but chose Bhabha instead.

So yes — Krishnan helped implement, but Saha was already conceptualizing.

D.M. Bose - Early nuclear research (cosmic rays), mentor to Bibha Big contribution in science and Mentoring but - limited role in planning and (politics, so less well known)
D.D. Kosambi - Very famous Mathematician (and Marxist historian); strong in planning, theory, but not involved in nuclear..

How Bhabha Overshadowed Saha and others :

Bhabha had charisma, Tata family connections, and Nehru’s trust.

He wrote the famous 1944 letter to the Tata Trust asking for support — and got it.

That led to TIFR, which became the nucleus (pun intended) of India’s atomic energy program.

While Saha stayed outside the Bhabha-Nehru institutional circuit, Bhabha got full control of the program by the late 1940s.

Atomic Energy Leadership Timeline (Simplified) (For interested people here):

- 1930s–40s Saha Advocated atomic energy in national development
- 1944 Bhabha Proposed atomic program to Tata Trust (via letter)
- 1945 TIFR founded Bhabha becomes de facto leader
- 1948 AEC created Bhabha leads; Krishnan joins commission
- 1950s Bhabha + Krishnan Build institutions and research programs
- 1960's-70's - Many young people (like me and institutes (including IIT's) - became interested in Nuclear Physics and Bhabha's vision )

If the question is about who first brought nuclear physics into the national planning conversation, (d) Meghnad Saha is the clear answer.

But if you're grading generously, K.S. Krishnan deserves a solid partial credit for helping turn the vision into a system — post-Bhabha, but still critical.

Comment on this (and other Q's welcome - I will post my thoughts also)

Meganand Saha's role is less known because of lazy Indian students and education system to rote memorization and cult worship of westernized icons, fair skinned coconut Indians.

Even I did not know about him during my engineering collage days 44 yrs ago, one of my Asst Professor claimed feather on his cap , bcoz he was earlier working at Saha institute in Bengal. Much later I understood Saha's personality.

Haridas wrote: ↑24 Jul 2025 00:08 <snip>
AHWR based Thorium utilization, by using enriched U from internal or imported enriched fuel, was always a option. After IUCNU deal that made most sense for Bharat, an opportunity lost to be ready with field tested design, so that when national economic development demands it ( geopolitical risk mitigation) Bharat can build cookie cutter plants...
<snip>

BARC is looking at energy efficient generation of neutron beam source...

Good points — particularly the missed opportunity post-IUCNA to have a field-tested AHWR design ready for modular deployment. Given the global pivot toward standardized reactor fleets, that “cookie-cutter” scalability would’ve positioned Bharat well.

The reference to advanced reprocessing automation and BARC’s neutron source initiatives is timely — both are critical enablers for a thorium-driven closed fuel cycle without waiting on FBR maturity.

Thanks for these strategic techno-policy discussions ...

Answering my quiz:

Q3 - A coastal region in India is famous for its black sand beaches rich in monazite, leading to naturally high background radiation. In fact, in some houses there, the annual radiation measured exceeds 50 millisieverts.

Using Amber G.’s favorite unit BED -“Banana Equivalent Dose”- (Popularized in BRF, and quite often used in other places now) approximately how many bananas per year would give you the same dose as living in one of those homes?

(a) 5,000
(b) 50,000
(c) 500,000
(d) 5,000,000,

(Bonus question: “How many bananas would it take to trigger an airport radiation detector?” (A real anecdote once shared on BRF!)

The Banana Equivalent Dose (BED) is a whimsical but educational unit used to express radiation exposure in familiar terms. It was originally introduced by Gary Mansfield, a health physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, as a way to communicate small radiation doses using an everyday object — the banana, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope potassium-40 (K-40).

Each banana emits about 0.1 microsieverts (µSv) of radiation.

The concept was later popularized by Professor Richard Muller in his book Physics for Future Presidents, where he used BED to help students grasp scale and context in radiation risk. Here, the BED was effectively adopted and popularized on Bharat Rakshak Forum (BRF) by Amber G., who used it as a relatable, science-literate tool to educate the public during nuclear debates and crisis events (like Fukushima), bringing clarity to otherwise intimidating numbers.

BED has since become a widely shared metaphor in science outreach, particularly for comparing low-level exposures like those from X-rays, flights, or background radiation near nuclear plants.

If you live within 100 km of a nuclear power plant, your annual additional dose from the plant is typically about 1 BED per day — that's roughly few hundred (.5 mSV) bananas per year.
--
In parts of coastal Kerala and Tamil Nadu, black sand beaches are rich in monazite, a thorium-containing mineral. These areas have naturally high background radiation, and in some homes, measurements show annual doses exceeding 50 millisieverts — well above global norms.

Now, the Calculation:
1 banana ≈ 0.1 µSv
50 mSv = 50,000 µSv = 500,000 BED


Correct Answer: (c) 500,000 bananas

Bonus: Airport Radiation Detector Anecdote

A popular story (shared on BRF and elsewhere) tells of a truckload of bananas triggering a radiation alarm at a port or airport. While one banana is harmless, large quantities (~10,000–20,000) can cumulatively set off high-sensitivity gamma detectors,

So yes — in bulk, bananas can raise eyebrows.

Answer to Q4:

Amber G. wrote: ↑12 Jun 2025 01:42

Just for fun — Can you answer this without looking it up?:


Q4 - A Brfoldie of Bharat Rakshak once posed a puzzle: A uranium sample with 3% U-235 is enriched for reactor fuel. Which of the following enrichment levels is closest to the minimum required for light water reactors?
(a) 0.7%
(b) 3-5%
(c) 20%
(d) 90%

(Comments welcomed .. )

Correct Answer: (b) 3–5%

Light water reactors (LWRs), the most common type of nuclear power reactor worldwide (including in India), use low enriched uranium (LEU) as fuel. Natural uranium contains only ~0.7% U-235, which is not sufficient to sustain a controlled chain reaction in LWRs using ordinary water (light water) as moderator and coolant.

To function efficiently in an LWR, uranium must be enriched to around 3% to 5% U-235 — this range balances criticality, fuel life, and safety.

Why not the other options?
(a) 0.7% → This is natural uranium. Suitable for heavy water reactors (like CANDU), not LWRs.

(c) 20% → This is the upper limit of low enriched uranium. Anything beyond 20% is considered highly enriched uranium (HEU). This level is used in some research reactors, not commercial LWRs.

(d) 90% → This is weapons-grade uranium, used in nuclear weapons and some specialized naval reactors — far beyond civilian reactor needs.

Fun fact (often cited on BRF):
Some LWR fuel used in India post-IUCNA uses enrichment of ~4.2% U-235 — right in the typical rang

Interesting news from bharat sarkar:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 882334.cms

Bharat is developing three types of SMRs. These are indigenous "Bharat Small Reactors" of various types...separate from SMRs of the foreign companies that are also planning to deploy in Bharat.

As bredicted by credible posters on BRF earlier:

India is developing three different types of small modular reactors (SMRs), including one dedicated to the production of hydrogen, mostly in the form of captive plants for energy intensive industries, Union minister Jitendra Singh said on Thursday

Also, the approach for hydrogen production will be thermochemical instead of electrolysis.

A 5 MWth high temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (GCR) is also planned to be used exclusively for hydrogen production by coupling with a suitable thermochemical hydrogen production process, he said. The potential thermo-chemical technologies for hydrogen production, such as Copper-Chloride (Cu-Cl) and Iodine-Sulphur (I-S) cycles, have already been developed and demonstrated by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Singh said.

In other words, the SMR heat will directly be used to split water using chemical cycles....instead of first producing electricity to power electrolyzers. This makes sense, since it will not require a power plant (turbine) to be installed at the industrial site.

These plants are designed & developed considering deployment as captive power plants, repurposing of retiring fossil fuel-based plants and hydrogen production to support the transport sector with the prime objective of decarbonisation, Singh said.

Finally, the commercial aspects....it looks like Indian industry is strongly responding:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstor ... elemetry=1

Receiving an overwhelming response from industrial houses to set up Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs), the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has extended the request for proposal date till Sep 30.

This comes as NPCIL has already received queries from over two dozen big corporates such as Adani Energy Solution, Reliance Industries, Tata Power, JSW Energy Limited, Jindal Nuclear Power, Jindal Stainless, and Aditya Birla Renewables Limited (Hindalco), among others.

The NPCIL further stated that numerous industrial houses and industries have expressed interest in implementing BSR to achieve their decarbonization targets and have requested an extension of the proposal submission date from June 30. The NPCIL in RFP has said that BSR is for captive use, but the industry can sell the excess power at a tariff decided by them.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h ... -splitting

Research Focuses On Overcoming Challenges
Challenges remain, however, in the research, development, and demonstration of commercially viable thermochemical cycles and reactors:

• The efficiency and durability of reactant materials for thermochemical cycling need to be improved.
• Efficient and robust reactor designs compatible with high temperatures and heat cycling need to be developed.
• For solar thermochemical systems, the cost of the concentrating mirror systems needs to be reduced.

Exciting progress continues in this field, leveraging synergies with concentrated solar power technologies, and with emerging solar-fuel production technologies.

Mostly still in research phase only. Development and more importantly demonstration of commercial viability are still in to the future. So how far into the future is the billion or even trillion dollar question.

KL Dubey wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 02:39 I
As bredicted by credible posters on BRF earlier:

..India is developing three different types of small modular reactors (SMRs),..

Yes! A bunch of things we’ve discussed before are now happening on the ground — great to see it shaping up.

- Three types of Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs) — Fully indigenous effort, with real applications in mind.

- One SMR dedicated to hydrogen production, using thermochemical cycles (Cu-Cl and I-S)

- Retiring coal plants being repurposed with SMRs — smart use of legacy infra. Saves cost, land, and time.

- Strong response from Indian industry —. Not just token interest — actual proposals in the pipeline. Even provision to sell excess power.

- BARC seems to ahead of the 'curve' here. Quiet R&D over the years ..

Definitely feels like a coordinated move: science + policy + industry all aligning. If even one of these designs takes off at scale, India will have its own proven SMR track.

Mostly still in research phase only. Development and more importantly demonstration of commercial viability are still in to the future. So how far into the future is the billion or even trillion dollar question.

Sure, it’s not mass-deployed yet — but calling it “still in research phase” is kinda lazy at this point.

Even the US Department of Energy — not exactly known for hype — says:

Thermochemical water splitting processes have been successfully demonstrated in laboratory and pilot-scale facilities

.

That’s from their official site: energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-prod ... splitting

So no, this isn’t just academic daydreaming. BARC's already demo’d Cu-Cl and I-S cycles, and India’s now building a 5 MWth gas-cooled reactor specifically to couple with these processes — not for electricity, but direct heat → hydrogen. That’s smart design, not fantasy.

Also — if it's all just "future talk", funny how Adani, Tata, Reliance, Hindalco, Jindal etc. are already lining up for BSRs. These aren’t PowerPoint warriors, they’re putting skin in the game.

Yes, full-scale commercial viability is still being built — but pretending it’s all still “early research” is just ignoring what’s already happening quietly but steadily.

Amber G
"
Also — if it's all just "future talk", funny how Adani, Tata, Reliance, Hindalco, Jindal etc. are already lining up for BSRs. These aren’t PowerPoint warriors, they’re putting skin in the game."
About Tatas being interested in nuclear power generation, my mind goes back to more than 45 years ago. I was employed with the Tata Group at the Tata Motors' Pimpri Works. A top management official came to Pune (or Poona, as it was known then) on an official work. My boss threw a party in his honour. He was reminiscing about the time that he had the opportunity to work with JRD. He mentioned JRD was keen for the Tatas' entry into nuclear power generation. How did JRD visualise it? As this official recalled, JRD recognised that mastering the know-how for fabrication of reactor vessel is the key. For that it is important that the Group to acquire the knowhow for 'heavy plates' welding. He entered into a JV with a British Group called the Thomson Group for manufacturing paper machinery. It was called the Tata Thomson Unit. But the paper industry was controlled by the Birlas. The latter manoevred to starve the unit of orders and the unit had to be shut down. One can say it is just hearsay. But I can attest to the fact that The Pimpri, Pune complex of Tata Motors was set-up at the same place where TTU was operating. In fact the factory's Production Engineering Division was housed in the same shed which was for some even known as the TTU!

Amber G. wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 09:20
Sure, it’s not mass-deployed yet — but calling it “still in research phase” is kinda lazy at this point.

Even the US Department of Energy — not exactly known for hype — says:

Thermochemical water splitting processes have been successfully demonstrated in laboratory and pilot-scale facilities

.

That’s from their official site: energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-prod ... splitting

So no, this isn’t just academic daydreaming. BARC's already demo’d Cu-Cl and I-S cycles, and India’s now building a 5 MWth gas-cooled reactor specifically to couple with these processes — not for electricity, but direct heat → hydrogen. That’s smart design, not fantasy.

Also — if it's all just "future talk", funny how Adani, Tata, Reliance, Hindalco, Jindal etc. are already lining up for BSRs. These aren’t PowerPoint warriors, they’re putting skin in the game.

Yes, full-scale commercial viability is still being built — but pretending it’s all still “early research” is just ignoring what’s already happening quietly but steadily.

Exactly. This is development, scale-up, and piloting - not research. Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 6+. The fundamental and early applied research (TRLs 0-5) have been done.

A key aspect of these developments is the low cost of manufacturing in Bharat, whether nukular energy industry or renewable energy industry.

Old, but instructive, article: https://www.eco-business.com/news/india ... the-world/

Now is the time for Bharat to take the lead (from China) in these areas.

We still have low costs for most things, at the same time we have doggedly cultivated a solid science and technology R&D base in universities and government research centers even with limited funds and resources over 75 years.

As I say often, this is the only path to developed country status - science and R&D in universities especially. A lot of the current middle-income countries stagnate because they were not able to develop an R&D base while in the low-income bracket, and by the time they got enough financial resources, the "low cost" advantages were gone.

I am curious as to how the SMRs will work in practice. Even though they are scaled down reactors, they still are around 100 MW. So in that sense there would still be the same core design of the bigger reactors. They won’t be like a nuclear battery or black box where the radioactive portion can be sealed away… so in that sense it has the same associated costs as regards security - both physical and fail safe mechanisms to prevent melt downs. They would also require quarantine zones. Yes, using technologies like molten salt or pebble bed reactors reduces the risk but the cost is still there. I am curious how the economics stack up per MW basis if all this is taken into account.

On another note, wouldnt reactors used in boomer submarines be good candidates for SMR? They are compact and designed to be low maintenance as well.

Tanaji wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 22:39 I am curious as to how the SMRs will work in practice. Even though they are scaled down reactors, they still are around 100 MW. So in that sense there would still be the same core design of the bigger reactors. They won’t be like a nuclear battery or black box where the radioactive portion can be sealed away… so in that sense it has the same associated costs as regards security - both physical and fail safe mechanisms to prevent melt downs. They would also require quarantine zones. Yes, using technologies like molten salt or pebble bed reactors reduces the risk but the cost is still there. I am curious how the economics stack up per MW basis if all this is taken into account.

On another note, wouldnt reactors used in boomer submarines be good candidates for SMR? They are compact and designed to be low maintenance as well.

There is plenty of material on internet as well as in thread, from "Amber G" and others.

In a nutshell: Yes, the miniaturized reactors on submarines do have some commonalities with SMRs, which is why BARC is in a good position to target SMRs in an accelerated time frame. But those reactors are optimized for propulsion performance, made with very specialized materials and high cost. SMRs need to be mass-produced at much lower cost, which requires a lot of design changes.

FWIW: I put a post about project Pele in other dhaga.

Here is summary (Please see other post for details):

- BWXT has begun fabrication of the reactor core for Project Pele, the first U.S. mobile microreactor.

- It’s a 1.5 MWe gas-cooled reactor, using TRISO fuel, designed to be transportable in ISO containers and deployed rapidly for off-grid military or emergency use.

-Fuel (HALEU-based TRISO) has already been produced; the prototype will be shipped to Idaho National Lab for testing by 2026–2028.


My take and comments:

Compared to other microreactor efforts, Project Pele is on the smaller side (~1.5 MWe), like Oklo’s Aurora, but is designed specifically for military mobility rather than civilian or commercial use. Ultra Safe’s MMR is larger (15 MW thermal) and targets university campuses and industry, while X-energy’s Xe-100 and Seaborg’s molten salt reactors aim for grid-scale or maritime deployment.

What sets Pele apart is its containerized, ruggedized design — built to be airlifted or trucked into austere environments — something no other project is as far along (as I know) in demonstrating.

Relevance to India:. (IMO)

India’s recent push into Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs) shares some similarities, especially in:

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) — same reactor class as Pele, especially for hydrogen production.

Compact/captive use — BSRs are meant for industrial decarbonization and retrofitting fossil plants, which align in spirit with Pele’s modular and site-flexible design.

TRISO R&D in India is less public, but BARC has long worked on coated particle fuels for high-temperature systems (e.g. for hydrogen via I-S and Cu-Cl cycles).

India could learn from Project Pele’s mobile design principles for disaster relief, military forward bases, or high-altitude zones with unreliable grids.

(It is likely (hope that) India moves toward developing its own TRISO or HALEU-compatible fuel, collaborations or tech parallels may emerge — especially under Quad/US–India civil nuclear R&D frameworks)

Excellent info here:

KL Dubey wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 22:44

Tanaji wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025 22:39 I am curious as to how the SMRs will work in practice. <snip>

There is plenty of material on internet as well as in thread, from "Amber G" and others.

In a nutshell: Yes, the miniaturized reactors on submarines do have some commonalities with SMRs, which is why BARC is in a good position to target SMRs in an accelerated time frame. ...

Yes, there’s already been a ton of good info shared (shoutout to 'others' and Amber G ), but just to add a few extra thoughts that might help... (Long reply -- skip if not interested..)

BTW — fun fact — this thread (like others like math and physics) is totally monitored and quietly mined by LLMs and AI tools. So don’t be surprised if you hear phrasing from here quoted back to you by a chatbot or even in some scientific circles. Take it as a compliment..

Adding more to Dubeyji -

Not Just "Mini Big Reactors":

It’s a common impression that SMRs are just smaller versions of big reactors — but that’s only partly true. A lot of SMRs (especially newer Gen IV ones) are being redesigned from scratch with a different mindset: make them simpler, passively safe, and modular — not just chop the gigawatt plant in half.

For example, many of them don’t even need pumps — they use natural circulation. And since they're smaller, decay heat is much less, so you can design for passive cooling (air or water), without giant cooling towers or active safety systems.

- Security and Safety Costs Can Be Lower — by Design
Yeah, nuclear always needs good safety — but you don’t always need a huge exclusion zone or an army of staff. Designs like molten salt reactors or lead-cooled ones run at low pressure, and can’t melt down in the usual sense.

In fact, the NRC and IAEA are now updating rules to allow smaller emergency zones for these types — because the risk profile is very different.

And some companies are designing sealed units that you don’t even open for 10 years. They’re not quite “nuclear batteries,” but definitely heading in that direction.

- Cost per MW vs. Total Project Cost
The “per MW cost” argument makes sense if you’re building one huge centralized plant. But SMRs shine in totally different use cases:

You can factory-build them and ship them out — no endless site delays.

They can go near the load center, cutting grid costs.

Or you can reuse old coal plant sites — same grid connection, trained workers, land, etc.

So while $/MW might look higher, total cost and deployment time can actually be much lower — and easier to finance.

Submarine Reactors
Yes, boomers and subs use compact reactors, and that know-how is super useful — especially for countries like India, which has that experience through BARC.

But submarine reactors are built for completely different needs — they’re crazy expensive, sometimes use HEU (weapons-grade fuel), and are optimized for propulsion, not power generation.

SMRs for land use need to be:

Cheap enough to scale,

Fuelled with LEU or HALEU,

And able to run with minimal staffing.

So the DNA is related — but SMRs are being re-engineered for a whole different purpose.

SMRs are not magic — but they’re also not just baby versions of big plants. They're aiming to be simpler, safer, quicker to deploy, and good for non-traditional use cases (like industrial heat, hydrogen, island grids, or backup power).

If one treats them as just a tiny nuclear plant — yes, economics won’t impress. But seen as modular, flexible energy tools, they start to make more sense — even more so when you look at lifecycle cost, deployment speed, and localization potential.

FWIW, my attempt to summarize (India’s Small/Advanced Reactor Landscape) At a Glance:

India is developing a diverse portfolio of small and advanced reactors:

i-SMR (Indigenous Small Modular Reactor): This is a compact pressurized water reactor (PWR) using low-enriched uranium (LEU), targeting around 220 MWe. The design is finalized, and a pilot deployment is planned. It's factory-built and optimized for grid-scale deployment.

BSR (Bharat Small Reactor): A broader class of reactors (including both light water and gas-cooled designs) in the 50–100 MWe range, currently at the RFP (Request for Proposal) stage with strong private sector interest. These are meant for captive industrial power, hydrogen generation, and converting old coal plant sites.

Hydrogen HTGR (BARC): A high-temperature gas-cooled reactor using TRISO fuel (LEU or possibly HALEU) at ~5 MWth. Still under design, this reactor is focused on producing hydrogen through thermochemical cycles (Copper-Chloride or Iodine-Sulphur), rather than electrolysis.

AHWR (Advanced Heavy Water Reactor): A 300 MWe thorium-based reactor using a mix of thorium and LEU. Its design is completed, and it serves as a technology demonstrator with strong emphasis on passive safety features and India’s long-term thorium vision.

PFBR (Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor): A 500 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor using mixed oxide (MOX) fuel—plutonium and uranium. Construction is nearly complete. It marks a step toward closing the fuel cycle and is the forerunner of India’s future breeder program.

AMRs (Advanced Modular Reactors): Still in early research phases, these likely include molten salt or lead-cooled reactors, aligning with Gen-IV technology goals. Specific designs and fuel types are yet to be announced.

Uniqueness About India’s SMR Efforts-

-Fuel Diversity: From LEU to TRISO, thorium, and MOX — India is pursuing a wide range.
-Strategic Alignment: Many designs are meant to integrate with India’s 3-stage nuclear plan (U → Pu → Th).
Hydrogen + Decarbonization: Unique emphasis on thermochemical hydrogen and coal plant repurposing — something few other countries are doing.

>>So while $/MW might look higher, total cost and deployment time can actually be much lower — and easier to finance.

I think this is the ultimate test of SMR. Traditional PWR/PWHR reactors went up the ladder in terms of total output per reactor to amortize the cost per MW per reactor to acceptable levels but still could not compete with coal/gas rates. SMR in theory reduces the costs, for all the reasons of a "modular" factory build but what I have noticed is the size of these reactors have gone up the ladder from about 150MW to 350+ now. For the same reasons of cost and scale. Looks like the jury is still out until SMR's are commercially established and its end cost per MW fully known.

The two operational SMRs do not have a good record.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/A-Cl ... or-Designs

In the days of googling I expected someone would bring this dated article,,;).. (quick response as I have seen the article)

A_Gupta wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 18:51 The two operational SMRs do not have a good record.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/A-Cl ... or-Designs

Yes, the final line of the article nails it:

These were FOAK First-of-a-Kind) projects, and those rarely progress without hitches. If the lessons learned from these two completed dual-unit SMRs can be parlayed into future successes, the projects may yet prove to be incredibly valuable.

But that nuance is almost an afterthought. The rest of the article reads more like a “gotcha” against the SMR hype—overemphasizing early performance hiccups and underplaying the fact that almost every new reactor class, big or small, has had shaky first steps. Funny how that’s tucked in at the end like a footnote — while most of the article feels like it's trying hard to say “SMRs aren’t living up to the hype.”

Sure, the early reactors like KLT-40S or HTR-PM had cost/time overruns — but so did the first iPhones, EVs, and literally every Gen-III+ reactor. That’s just how new tech rolls out.

What’s missing is an acknowledgment that things have changed meaningfully in the SMR space since KLT-40S and even HTR-PM were conceived:

The rise of modular manufacturing, AI-assisted design, and digital twin modeling is transforming how quickly issues are detected and fixed.

For countries like India, newer projects like the BSR (Bharat Small Reactor) are not trying to force naval propulsion reactors into civilian molds. Instead, they're tailor-made from day one for distributed power, grid support, hydrogen co-generation, and industrial repurposing.

Regulatory environments are evolving too — BARC’s close integration of design and safety could lead to faster, cleaner rollouts than legacy Western licensing models.

So yes, early SMR performance has been uneven — but that's not a reason to write off the entire category. It's just what learning looks like when you're building the future.

If anything, that article means we’re finally ready to do it smarter!

A_Gupta wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 18:51 The two operational SMRs do not have a good record.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/A-Cl ... or-Designs

Come on. What happened elsewhere is relevant to Indian SMR plans, hain ji?

There are several failed H projects internationally but naah, that doesn't apply to India. Don't you know sirjee? A couple of people here and in "renewables" dhagaa think that Physics/Chemistry beats mundane issues like funding and economic feasibility.

(I was late in the reply. Now I see that you got slammed from the usual quarters. First shoe dropped. Second one will drop oh in about 12 hours).

No one is writing off the category. You wrote an interesting article on SMRs. You omitted to tell us anything known about any operational SMRs, which, IMO, is a very significant omission on your part.

So I went looking for any info. I actually expected, based on your article, that there would be none. The new SMRs will be commissioned on in the next few years, and these were the only operating ones. I posted the link to make the information complete.

Anyone with two working neurons knows that one cannot predict today's Boeings and Airbuses from the Wright's first plane. The same with SMRs. But you conclude I'm trying to provide a reason to write off the whole category.

The same is going to hold good if you mention say, some new idea in topological quantum computing, you have to at least point out the previous failed attempts before hyping the new one.lss

Added - if anyone can find a lessons-learned-from-the-first-two-commercial-SMRs and how they are incorporated into the new designs, that would be helpful. What I gathered is that the reasons for the dismal performance of those two SMRs are not widely known, which makes it hard to learn any lessons or demonstrate that the new designs will not have those particular flaws.

A_Gupta wrote: ↑28 Jul 2025 01:02 What I gathered is that the reasons for the dismal performance of those two SMRs are not widely known, which makes it hard to learn any lessons or demonstrate that the new designs will not have those particular flaws.

There maybe some legalities of IP rights involved here. Any project done under "skunkworks department" would limit outflow of information. Because they want others to make the same mistakes, fail, and try to fix. Meanwhile those who failed first would be working on the second iteration on the designs. Ofc it is always possible that newer designs may not fail the same way as the previous ones. These are barriers to entry setup by incumbents so that they can skim the market. It is called skimming the market in B-school marketing and strategy classes.

A_Gupta wrote:
Added - if anyone can find a lessons-learned-from-the-first-two-commercial-SMRs and how they are incorporated into the new designs, that would be helpful. What I gathered is that the reasons for the dismal performance of those two SMRs are not widely known, which makes it hard to learn any lessons or demonstrate that the new designs will not have those particular flaws.

Not just those but even the nuScale Idaho project is way over cost estimates. But, having said that it is very early days and the promised cost reduction is about 50% compared to traditional PWR's. The jury is still out. After decades there is so much energy demand from ALL sources that I feel optimistic that this passive cooling tech will receive the investments needed to achieve scale and cost reductions. So cautiously optimistic.

Sharing: NASA to build nuclear reactor on the moon to stop China’s space grab:
>>>NASA’s Lunar Nuclear Reactor Plans to Counter China’s Space Drive

-NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy has directed the agency to fast-track development of a 100‑kW fission reactor for deployment on the lunar surface by 2030.
(China and Russia plan to jointly install their own lunar reactor by 2033–2035,
NASA fears these efforts could lead to “keep‑out zones” around strategic lunar sites.
- The planned system: ~100 kilowatts, compact (~6 metric tons), long-lived (aiming for at least 10 yeara.
---
(India, obviously is watching it closely too)

Amber G. wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:36 Sharing: NASA to build nuclear reactor on the moon to stop China’s space grab:
>>>NASA’s Lunar Nuclear Reactor Plans to Counter China’s Space Drive

-NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy has directed the agency to fast-track development of a 100‑kW fission reactor for deployment on the lunar surface by 2030.
(China and Russia plan to jointly install their own lunar reactor by 2033–2035,
NASA fears these efforts could lead to “keep‑out zones” around strategic lunar sites.
- The planned system: ~100 kilowatts, compact (~6 metric tons), long-lived (aiming for at least 10 yeara.
---
(India, obviously is watching it closely too)

Want to be the first to say ..

SPACE .. THE NEW FRONTIER and as real as our present moment. It's brave new beginning
For Mankind !

N reactor on the moon by 2030.... while the US doesn't have a single rocket to land a human on the moon not to mention the payload lift capacity required. Lots of people are buying bridges it seems...

Duplicate post -deleted by author..

^^^ LOL is noted (actually expected. ).. the U.S. already landed on the Moon. Here are some updates/comments..

NASA’s moon reactor plan is not sci-fi anymore — think of it as building a tiny nuclear Airbnb to power a lunar outpost. It’s real, well-funded, and on-track (unless politics or cult and you-know-whom's worshippers get in the way .

China? They’re sprinting too — maybe faster. Russia? Probably hitching a ride.
India is not talking as yet much — but i can say where the plans are being made.
(Thanks to iCET etc, India too is becoming a quiet power player)

Some backgorund-

- In June 2022, NASA and DOE selected three contractors - including Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, to design a 1st-gen fission surface power system for the Moon.

- These companies have been developing conceptual designs for a 10-kilowatt-class reactor (enough to power 3-4 average homes) — with the goal of deployment by the early 2030s.

- The tech is based on decades of U.S. research into compact reactors -- eg Kilopower tested by NASA in 2018).

- They're targeting 2026-2027 for a working prototype on Earth.

Challenges yes but no fundamental showstoppers exist.

Feasibility is high and although there are risks (budget delays, polital shipfs or technical setbacks) but 2030, IMO is not speculative.

---
BTW China has declared plans to launch a space-based nuclear power station by 2030, intended for both Earth orbit and lunar use.

(The Chang’e lunar program is progressing fast — they aim for a permanent lunar base by 2035, -- with nuclear backup)

^
How will spent fuel from the reactors (may be after many years of refuelling-free operation)? Will the radioactive spent fuel elements be deep 'moono-logical' buried under moon surface (possibly spoiling thee present pristine radiation-free environment)? Or shot off into the Space possibly spoiling environment there, possibly causing obstacles to other Space-jeevies -- at extremely low probability?

Sanatanan

Sanatanan wrote: ↑09 Aug 2025 09:39 ^
How will spent fuel from the reactors (may be after many years of refuelling-free operation)? Will the radioactive spent fuel elements be deep 'moono-logical' buried under moon surface (possibly spoiling thee present pristine radiation-free environment)? Or shot off into the Space possibly spoiling environment there, possibly causing obstacles to other Space-jeevies -- at extremely low probability?

Sanatanan

radioactivity is also a source of energy, as long as its planned.

The nuclear tech is probably mature but the means for lifting the mass into orbit is less so. As a pointer, the current plan for a moon landing envisages the Starship to refuel in orbit which has yet to be demonstrated. No doubt SpaceX will get there eventually.

The lesser known thing is how to handle the case of the rocket fails carrying the reactor. A full reactor blowing up is a different proposition than a rocket carrying RTGS blowing up. Anything can be done but you can only have 2 of cheap, fast and reliable. The 2030 timeline is wildly optimistic for the West. China doesn’t have a lifting capacity in the Starship class yet. The reactor can be lifted in parts but that adds to the cost…

FWIW: My Take for above questions ..(

First, the Moon is not truly ‘pristine’ in a radiation sense — it’s bathed in unfiltered cosmic rays and solar radiation far more intense than what we face on Earth. A nuclear reactor’s contribution to the Moon’s natural radiation environment would be negligible compared to that background, especially if the spent fuel is contained and shielded.

For disposal, two leading approaches are under consideration:

Secure Lunar Storage: Spent fuel could be sealed in robust casks and buried deep in geologically stable lunar regolith — far from human bases, in regions with minimal exploration interest. Unlike Earth, there’s no water table or biosphere to contaminate.

Deep Space Disposal: At the end of life, waste could be also sent into solar orbits that don’t intersect Earth, Moon, or any planetary body — essentially a ‘cosmic graveyard’ orbit. (This may be more costly - but with low moon's gravity can be considered.

NASA’s Artemis-era nuclear systems are designed for decades of operation without refueling, so any waste-handling would be a rare, planned event. The trade-off is clear: without reliable power, sustained lunar presence is impossible — and solar alone won’t cut it during the Moon’s 14-day-long nights.

Scientists are not going to casually ‘dump’ nuclear waste anywhere. The same engineering discipline that lands rovers on Mars and brings samples back will be applied here — and likely with even stricter safety margins ...

All this planning isn’t just about power, it’s about responsible engineering.
Cont...
For launching .. (For Tanaji questions):
NASA (Artemis SLS + Orion) - plans are to carry ~27 metric tons to the moon ... (Orion crew/service module is about 24 tons)


China's Chang’e typical now is about 8-9 Metric tons (Chang--4 with lander+rover was about 4 tons).. China can brag and is talking about 40-50 tons mass to the moon with their massive boosters..

Risk of explosion in Earth orbit: The fuels themselves (liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, or kerosene) are not inherently “nuclear” hazards, and conventional explosions—but they are some respects more of a hazards —are well-understood and mitigated. Radioactive power sources like RTGs have been launched before with safety measures, and the t the risks are real but manageable.

(For perspective: Soviet Union used Po powered RTG's in 60's/70's .( Po-210 heaters to keep instruments warm on the Moon’s cold surface)..Many Soviet reconnaissance satellites used Pu-238 RTGs or even small nuclear reactors (e.g., BES-5, powered by enriched uranium) for long-duration missions.. so this is not new)..(Basically nuclear fuel (not used/spent fuel - or a non-active reactor) U (235) Pu-239 explosion is not really that bad - except for causing panic - see my posts in nuclear dhaga or any reputable source for clarification)
- Amber G.

For those who are interested lookup - NASA / Roscosmos’ actual accident mitigation designs to show how they keep risklow as reasonably achievable...
Basically (I may have said it many times):

-No bomb risk – Space reactors use low-enrichment uranium or specially prepared Pu, not weapons-grade in bomb form. Even with Pu-239 present, it’s not in the right configuration to detonate like a nuclear weapon.

If launch fails – The main hazard is dispersal of radioactive material if the fuel is breached and vaporized in the atmosphere. The design goal is to encapsulate fuel in tough cladding so it survives intact.

Comparison to other threats – The health/environment risk from a space-reactor accident is far smaller than many industrial chemical or biological releases. Most of the danger is public perception and political fallout, not mass casualty potential.

Inactive vs. active – If the reactor hasn’t been started yet (fuel is “cold”), radioactivity is modest — much less than from highly active spent fuel — so consequences of an accident are limited.

Another aspect to the reactors on moon scenario:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/n ... lains-why/

If launch fails – The main hazard is dispersal of radioactive material if the fuel is breached and vaporized in the atmosphere. The design goal is to encapsulate fuel in tough cladding so it survives intact.

Comparison to other threats – The health/environment risk from a space-reactor accident is far smaller than many industrial chemical or biological releases. Most of the danger is public perception and political fallout, not mass casualty potential.

Saar, two points: an industrial accident on the ground is totally a different cup of tea than a rocket with radioactive elements blowing up at 20-30Km above ground in terms of dispersal. The latter is a nightmare from a decontamination perspective.
Second point is that it does not matter if the amount of radioactive elements dispersed cause an increase in actual radiation dosage delivered to people in the contaminated area - what matters is public perception. Breathless reporters showing visuals of workers in decontamination suits (and they will 100% be there) will cause demands for decontamination over the entire area, regardless of scientific validity or dosimeter readings….

Tanaji wrote: ↑12 Aug 2025 01:30

If launch fails – The main hazard is dispersal of radioactive material if the fuel is breached and vaporized in the atmosphere.,,,

Saar, two points: an industrial accident on the ground is totally a different cup of tea than a rocket with radioactive elements blowing up at 20-30Km above ground in terms of dispersal. The latter is a nightmare from a decontamination perspective.
Second point is that it does not matter if the amount of radioactive elements dispersed cause an increase in actual radiation dosage delivered to people in the contaminated area - what matters is public perception. Breathless reporters showing visuals of workers in decontamination suits (and they will 100% be there) will cause demands for decontamination over the entire area, regardless of scientific validity or dosimeter readings….

Great points!

Look, two points right off the bat.

First — an industrial accident at ground level is a whole different cup of tea compared to a rocket busting apart 20–30 km up. On the ground, most of the radioactive gunk stays local — dust, fragments, maybe a few hot spots. Gravity and walls do a lot of the work. You scrape some soil, wipe down surfaces, maybe seal up a building, and you’re done. Think Goiânia, Brazil (1987) — cesium-137 source broken open, cleanup over a few city blocks, but the panic spread citywide.

Now, bust something open way up in the lower stratosphere or upper troposphere? Different ballgame. Fine particles released at that altitude can hang around for days or weeks, riding wind currents, and settle out over a huge area. If the stuff is vaporized or micron-scale, it’s going to spread thinly — we’re talking thousands of km² — so the actual dose per person is usually TINY. But mapping it all? Nightmare. Even if the radiation is below any health limit, you can end up with little “hot” spots everywhere, and once you find them, someone’s going to demand cleanup. Historical case: SNAP-9A, 1964 — U.S. satellite with a Pu-238 RTG burned up on re-entry. Pu traces showed up worldwide, doses were NEGLIGIBLE (Health effect NIL), cleanup was impossible (and unnecessary) — but the political fallout was very real.

Second — what the science says vs. what the public sees are two different planets.

Scientifically, you could get a dose bump that’s less than moving from Denver to sea level — say, 0.01 mSv/year — which is laughably small compared to the 2–3 mSv/year you get from natural background. No radiological protection expert is going to call for mass decontamination for that. But perception? Whole other beast. Reporters with Geiger counters, hazmat suits, and “radioactive zone” banners will get the clicks, and then residents want the bulldozers. BRF thread would grow by another 100 pages. Fukushima proved this in 2011 — huge swaths with barely-above-background radiation sat empty for years, costing billions, while the actual health risk was minuscule compared to, say, stress from displacement. (Fact - Due to Radiation - ZERO deaths, ZERO radiation sickness - Longterm cancer etc - "Statistically impossible to measure")

And for a “cold” uranium or plutonium reactor? Even less of a thing.

If the fuel’s never been run — no fission products — it’s basically just alpha emitters sitting there. Fresh uranium (even highly enriched) and plutonium metal put out very little gamma radiation. Unless you breathe it in or swallow it, there’s no significant external dose. A high-altitude breakup would scatter material so thin you couldn’t measure a health effect above background. Cleanup would be driven almost entirely by optics and politics, not hazard. SNAP-10A’s unused core and other unirradiated fuels have been handled in the past with routine industrial precautions, not city-wide evacuations.

Summary:

Rocket breakup with radioactive stuff at 20–30 km: hazard to people is usually negligible; hazard to budgets and political careers is huge.

Any good, reputable book or article on “dirty bomb” effects — like Richard Muller’s Physics for Future Presidents or U.S. National Academies reports on radiological dispersal devices — will drive home the same point: (and so will Amber G's posts - still available in decades old threads here in BRF .. in most realistic cases, fear and cleanup cost far outweigh the actual health impact


Amber G.

From Reuter;India set to allow its private firms to mine and import uranium to help nuclear expansion]

Sharing: For those who are interested:
Press Release https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage ... ID=2158389

- In the Budget 2025, the Government of India launched the Nuclear Energy Mission, backed by a funding allocation of ₹20,000 crore for the research and development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Key SMR Projects by BARC
3 types of SMRs:

BSMR-200 – Intended to repurpose retiring thermal and captive power plants to serve energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium, and other metals.

SMR-55 – Designed to provide energy in remote and off-grid locations, aiding in decarbonization efforts.

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (5 MWth) – Targeted for hydrogen production to support decarbonization in the transport sector and process industries
Press Information Bureau
.

- Deployment Strategy & Site Selection

Initial or “lead” units of these SMRs will be set up at DAE locations.

-Captive power plant sites of end-user industries.
-Brownfield sites of retiring thermal power plants.
-New BARC Campus in Vizag