India's Thorium based nuclear power programme
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
liquid sodium is used in fast breeders , it may not react the same way as sodium metal?? Many reactors are designed to shut down if the temperature of the liquid sodium rises to rapidly.
http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Fast Breeder Plant.htm
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/41606
Nuclear weapons and 'fourth generation' reactors
"Integral fast reactors" and other "fourth generation" nuclear power concepts have been gaining attention, in part because of comments by US climate scientist James Hansen.
"We need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimise dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents," Hansen says. "Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimise the others."
Integral fast reactors (IFRs) are reactors proposed to be fuelled with a metallic alloy of uranium and plutonium, with liquid sodium as the coolant.
They're "fast" because they would use unmoderated neutrons like other plutonium-fuelled fast neutron reactors (e.g. breeders).
They're "integral" because they would operate together with onsite "pyroprocessing" to separate plutonium and other long-lived radioisotopes and to re-irradiate nuclear waste.
IFRs would breed their own fuel (plutonium), which means there would be less global demand for uranium mining with its attendant problems, and less demand for uranium-enrichment plants.
Another advantage is that the primary fuel source for IFRs would be large, existing, global stockpiles of depleted uranium (used in IFRs as the raw material to produce plutonium).
Pyroprocessing would not separate pure plutonium suitable for direct use in nuclear weapons. Instead it would keep the plutonium mixed with other long-lived radioisotopes so it could not be used directly in weapons.
Recycling of plutonium generates energy and gets rid of the plutonium that could be used for weapons.
These advantages could potentially be achieved with conventional reprocessing and plutonium use in MOX (uranium/plutonium oxide) reactors or fast neutron reactors.
IFR offers one further potential advantage — transmutation of long-lived waste radioisotopes into shorter-lived waste products.
Good on paper, but...
In short, IFRs could produce lots of greenhouse-friendly energy and while they're at it they can "eat" nuclear waste and fissile materials that might otherwise find their way into nuclear weapons.
Too good to be true? Sadly, yes.
Nuclear engineer Dave Lochbaum writes: "The IFR looks good on paper. So good, in fact, that we should leave it on paper. For it only gets ugly in moving from blueprint to backyard."
Complete IFR systems don't exist. Fast neutron reactors exist but experience with them is limited and they have had a troubled history.
The pyroprocessing and waste transmutation technologies intended to operate as part of IFR systems are a long way from being advanced.
But even if the technologies were fully developed and successfully integrated, IFRs would still fail the crucial test — they could too easily be used to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
Weapons risk
As with conventional reactors, IFRs can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium in the fuel (using a shorter-than-usual irradiation time) or by irradiating a uranium or depleted uranium "blanket" or targets.
Conventional PUREX (Plutonium-Uranium Extraction) reprocessing can be used to separate the plutonium. Another option is to separate reactor-grade plutonium from IFR fuel and to use that in weapons instead of weapon-grade plutonium.
IFR supporters propose using them to draw down global stockpiles of fissile material, whether derived from nuclear research, power or weapons programs.
However, IFRs have no need for outside sources of fissile material beyond their initial fuel load. Whether they are used to irradiate outside sources of fissile material to any significant extent would depend on a combination of commercial, political and military interests.
History shows that non-proliferation targets receive low priority. Conventional reprocessing with the use of separated plutonium as fuel (in breeders or MOX reactors) has the same potential to draw down fissile material stockpiles as IFRs. But they have increased, rather than decreased, proliferation risks.
Very little plutonium has been used as reactor fuel in breeders or MOX reactors, and it is used in reactors that produce more plutonium than they consume.
But the separation of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel continues. Stockpiles of separated "civil" plutonium — which can be used directly in weapons — are increasing by about five tonnes annually. It amounts to more than 270 tonnes, enough for 27,000 nuclear weapons.
IFR advocates demonstrate little or no understanding of the realpolitik imposed by commercial, political and military interests.
These interests have, among other things, unnecessarily created this problem of 270-plus tonnes of separated civil plutonium and failed to take the simplest steps to address the problem.
Such steps would be to either suspend reprocessing or reduce the rate of reprocessing so plutonium stockpiles are drawn down rather than continually increased.
The proposed use of IFRs to irradiate fissile materials produced elsewhere still has a familiar problem. Countries with the greatest interest in weapons production will be the least likely to forfeit fissile material stockpiles and vice versa.
Whatever benefits arise from the potential consumption of outside sources of fissile material must be weighed against the problem that IFRs could themselves be used to produce fissile material for weapons.
No safeguards
Countries intent on keeping nuclear weapons won't use IFRs to draw down stockpiles of their own fissile material let alone anyone else's — they will use them to produce plutonium for their own nuclear weapons.
Some IFR supporters propose initially deploying IFR technology in nuclear weapons states and weapons-capable states. But this ignores the fact that every other proposal for selective deployment of dual-use nuclear technology has always been rejected by the countries that would be excluded.
Some IFR advocates downplay the proliferation risks by arguing that fissile material is more easily produced in research reactors.
But producing fissile material for weapons in IFRs would not be difficult. The main challenge would be to get around safeguards.
Proponents of IFR's acknowledge the need for a rigorous safeguards system to detect and deter using IFRs to produce fissile material for weapons. However, the existing safeguards are inadequate.
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, has noted that the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities" and "clearly needs reinforcement", that efforts to improve the system have been "half-hearted", and that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to that of a local police department".
IFR advocates imagine that a strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation will heavily shape the development and deployment of IFR technology.
But in practice it could easily fall prey to the same interests that are responsible for turning attractive theories into the fiasco of ever-growing stockpiles of separated plutonium.
Under the Bush administration in the US, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposals for advanced "proliferation-resistant" reprocessing became a plan to expand conventional reprocessing. Advanced reprocessing was relegated to "research and development" plans.
A similar fate could easily befall proposals to run IFRs together with advanced reprocessing.
IFR supporters want to avoid the risks associated with widespread transportation of nuclear and fissile materials by co-locating a pyroprocessing facility with every IFR reactor plant. Yet plant owners would much prefer the cost savings associated with centralised processing.
As one final example, the fissile material needed for the initial IFR fuel loading would ideally come from civil and military stockpiles — but that fissile material requirement could be used to justify the ongoing operation of existing enrichment and reprocessing plants and the construction of new ones.
Other 'fourth generation' reactors
IFRs and other plutonium-based fast neutron reactor concepts fail the weapons of mass destruction proliferation test. They can too easily be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.
So do conventional reactors because they produce plutonium and legitimise the operation of enrichment plants that can produce both low-enriched uranium for reactors and also highly enriched uranium for weapons.
The use of thorium, instead of plutonium, as a nuclear fuel doesn't solve the weapons proliferation problem. Irradiation of thorium (indirectly) produces uranium-233, a fissile material that can be used in nuclear weapons.
The US has successfully tested weapons using uranium-233 (and France may have too). India's thorium program must have a nuclear weapons component — as evidenced by India's refusal to allow IAEA safeguards to apply to its thorium program.
Thorium-fuelled reactors could also be used to irradiate uranium to produce weapons grade plutonium.
Some proponents of nuclear fusion power falsely claim that it would pose no risk of contributing to weapons proliferation.
In fact, there are several risks. These include the use of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, as a fusion power fuel. This raises the risk of its diversion for use in boosted nuclear weapons, or, more importantly, the use of fusion reactors to irradiate uranium to produce plutonium or to irradiate thorium-232 to produce uranium-233.
Fusion power has yet to generate a single Watt of useful electricity but it has already contributed to proliferation problems.
According to Khidhir Hamza, a senior nuclear scientist involved in Iraq's weapons program in the 1980s: "Iraq took full advantage of the IAEA's recommendation in the mid 1980s to start a plasma physics program for 'peaceful' fusion research.
"We thought that buying a plasma focus device — would provide an excellent cover for buying and learning about fast electronics technology, which could be used to trigger atomic bombs."
More information on IFRs and "fourth generation" nuclear reactors is posted at www.energyscience.org.au and www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power. A debate on IFRs is posted at http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrUCSresponse.pdf.
[Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.]
Nuclear weapons and 'fourth generation' reactors
"Integral fast reactors" and other "fourth generation" nuclear power concepts have been gaining attention, in part because of comments by US climate scientist James Hansen.
"We need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimise dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents," Hansen says. "Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimise the others."
Integral fast reactors (IFRs) are reactors proposed to be fuelled with a metallic alloy of uranium and plutonium, with liquid sodium as the coolant.
They're "fast" because they would use unmoderated neutrons like other plutonium-fuelled fast neutron reactors (e.g. breeders).
They're "integral" because they would operate together with onsite "pyroprocessing" to separate plutonium and other long-lived radioisotopes and to re-irradiate nuclear waste.
IFRs would breed their own fuel (plutonium), which means there would be less global demand for uranium mining with its attendant problems, and less demand for uranium-enrichment plants.
Another advantage is that the primary fuel source for IFRs would be large, existing, global stockpiles of depleted uranium (used in IFRs as the raw material to produce plutonium).
Pyroprocessing would not separate pure plutonium suitable for direct use in nuclear weapons. Instead it would keep the plutonium mixed with other long-lived radioisotopes so it could not be used directly in weapons.
Recycling of plutonium generates energy and gets rid of the plutonium that could be used for weapons.
These advantages could potentially be achieved with conventional reprocessing and plutonium use in MOX (uranium/plutonium oxide) reactors or fast neutron reactors.
IFR offers one further potential advantage — transmutation of long-lived waste radioisotopes into shorter-lived waste products.
Good on paper, but...
In short, IFRs could produce lots of greenhouse-friendly energy and while they're at it they can "eat" nuclear waste and fissile materials that might otherwise find their way into nuclear weapons.
Too good to be true? Sadly, yes.
Nuclear engineer Dave Lochbaum writes: "The IFR looks good on paper. So good, in fact, that we should leave it on paper. For it only gets ugly in moving from blueprint to backyard."
Complete IFR systems don't exist. Fast neutron reactors exist but experience with them is limited and they have had a troubled history.
The pyroprocessing and waste transmutation technologies intended to operate as part of IFR systems are a long way from being advanced.
But even if the technologies were fully developed and successfully integrated, IFRs would still fail the crucial test — they could too easily be used to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
Weapons risk
As with conventional reactors, IFRs can be used to produce weapon-grade plutonium in the fuel (using a shorter-than-usual irradiation time) or by irradiating a uranium or depleted uranium "blanket" or targets.
Conventional PUREX (Plutonium-Uranium Extraction) reprocessing can be used to separate the plutonium. Another option is to separate reactor-grade plutonium from IFR fuel and to use that in weapons instead of weapon-grade plutonium.
IFR supporters propose using them to draw down global stockpiles of fissile material, whether derived from nuclear research, power or weapons programs.
However, IFRs have no need for outside sources of fissile material beyond their initial fuel load. Whether they are used to irradiate outside sources of fissile material to any significant extent would depend on a combination of commercial, political and military interests.
History shows that non-proliferation targets receive low priority. Conventional reprocessing with the use of separated plutonium as fuel (in breeders or MOX reactors) has the same potential to draw down fissile material stockpiles as IFRs. But they have increased, rather than decreased, proliferation risks.
Very little plutonium has been used as reactor fuel in breeders or MOX reactors, and it is used in reactors that produce more plutonium than they consume.
But the separation of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel continues. Stockpiles of separated "civil" plutonium — which can be used directly in weapons — are increasing by about five tonnes annually. It amounts to more than 270 tonnes, enough for 27,000 nuclear weapons.
IFR advocates demonstrate little or no understanding of the realpolitik imposed by commercial, political and military interests.
These interests have, among other things, unnecessarily created this problem of 270-plus tonnes of separated civil plutonium and failed to take the simplest steps to address the problem.
Such steps would be to either suspend reprocessing or reduce the rate of reprocessing so plutonium stockpiles are drawn down rather than continually increased.
The proposed use of IFRs to irradiate fissile materials produced elsewhere still has a familiar problem. Countries with the greatest interest in weapons production will be the least likely to forfeit fissile material stockpiles and vice versa.
Whatever benefits arise from the potential consumption of outside sources of fissile material must be weighed against the problem that IFRs could themselves be used to produce fissile material for weapons.
No safeguards
Countries intent on keeping nuclear weapons won't use IFRs to draw down stockpiles of their own fissile material let alone anyone else's — they will use them to produce plutonium for their own nuclear weapons.
Some IFR supporters propose initially deploying IFR technology in nuclear weapons states and weapons-capable states. But this ignores the fact that every other proposal for selective deployment of dual-use nuclear technology has always been rejected by the countries that would be excluded.
Some IFR advocates downplay the proliferation risks by arguing that fissile material is more easily produced in research reactors.
But producing fissile material for weapons in IFRs would not be difficult. The main challenge would be to get around safeguards.
Proponents of IFR's acknowledge the need for a rigorous safeguards system to detect and deter using IFRs to produce fissile material for weapons. However, the existing safeguards are inadequate.
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, has noted that the IAEA's basic rights of inspection are "fairly limited", that the safeguards system suffers from "vulnerabilities" and "clearly needs reinforcement", that efforts to improve the system have been "half-hearted", and that the safeguards system operates on a "shoestring budget ... comparable to that of a local police department".
IFR advocates imagine that a strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation will heavily shape the development and deployment of IFR technology.
But in practice it could easily fall prey to the same interests that are responsible for turning attractive theories into the fiasco of ever-growing stockpiles of separated plutonium.
Under the Bush administration in the US, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposals for advanced "proliferation-resistant" reprocessing became a plan to expand conventional reprocessing. Advanced reprocessing was relegated to "research and development" plans.
A similar fate could easily befall proposals to run IFRs together with advanced reprocessing.
IFR supporters want to avoid the risks associated with widespread transportation of nuclear and fissile materials by co-locating a pyroprocessing facility with every IFR reactor plant. Yet plant owners would much prefer the cost savings associated with centralised processing.
As one final example, the fissile material needed for the initial IFR fuel loading would ideally come from civil and military stockpiles — but that fissile material requirement could be used to justify the ongoing operation of existing enrichment and reprocessing plants and the construction of new ones.
Other 'fourth generation' reactors
IFRs and other plutonium-based fast neutron reactor concepts fail the weapons of mass destruction proliferation test. They can too easily be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.
So do conventional reactors because they produce plutonium and legitimise the operation of enrichment plants that can produce both low-enriched uranium for reactors and also highly enriched uranium for weapons.
The use of thorium, instead of plutonium, as a nuclear fuel doesn't solve the weapons proliferation problem. Irradiation of thorium (indirectly) produces uranium-233, a fissile material that can be used in nuclear weapons.
The US has successfully tested weapons using uranium-233 (and France may have too). India's thorium program must have a nuclear weapons component — as evidenced by India's refusal to allow IAEA safeguards to apply to its thorium program.
Thorium-fuelled reactors could also be used to irradiate uranium to produce weapons grade plutonium.
Some proponents of nuclear fusion power falsely claim that it would pose no risk of contributing to weapons proliferation.
In fact, there are several risks. These include the use of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, as a fusion power fuel. This raises the risk of its diversion for use in boosted nuclear weapons, or, more importantly, the use of fusion reactors to irradiate uranium to produce plutonium or to irradiate thorium-232 to produce uranium-233.
Fusion power has yet to generate a single Watt of useful electricity but it has already contributed to proliferation problems.
According to Khidhir Hamza, a senior nuclear scientist involved in Iraq's weapons program in the 1980s: "Iraq took full advantage of the IAEA's recommendation in the mid 1980s to start a plasma physics program for 'peaceful' fusion research.
"We thought that buying a plasma focus device — would provide an excellent cover for buying and learning about fast electronics technology, which could be used to trigger atomic bombs."
More information on IFRs and "fourth generation" nuclear reactors is posted at www.energyscience.org.au and www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power. A debate on IFRs is posted at http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrUCSresponse.pdf.
[Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.]
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-extended-by-20-years/articleshow/7486874.cms
Life of India's 'Fast Breeder Test Reactor' extended by 20 years
MUMBAI: Scientists at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research have successfully extended the life of the 25-year-old 'workhorse' among India's fast breeders -- Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR)-- by another 20 years.
"We have extended the life of the FBTR for another 20 years up to 2030 at 50% operational capacity," said Baldev Raj, director of IGCAR, Kalpakkam.
"The workhorse reactor has completed 25 successful years. It has given confidence to the Indian scientists to go ahead and build the first 500 MW (electrical) Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) which is under advanced stage of construction; and at least four more fast breeder reactors (FBRs) by 2020," he said.
FBTR is also a training ground for the operation and maintenance staff of PFBR and will be the cradle for trained manpower of India's fast Breeder Reactor programme.
"FBTR uses Plutonium-carbide fuel while the PFBR will be using mixed oxide (Plutonium-uranium oxide) fuel. But the future fast breeders will use Uranium-Plutonium alloy or Uranium-Plutonium-Zirconium," he said.
In the coming years, the major thrust of FBTR will be large-scale irradiation of the advanced metallic fuels and core structural materials required for the next generation fast reactors with high breeding ratios, Raj said.
For this, a programme for the fabrication of metallic fuel pins, their irradiation in FBTR, and closing the fuel cycle by pyro-reprocessing was in place.
Once this is successfully done, FBTR would have fulfilled its major mission in the Indian fast breeder reactor programme.
IGCAR is also exploring other applications like production of medical isotopes in FBTR.
"We expect to complete all these tests by 2020 so that we can build a metallic test reactor as a successor to FBTR," Raj said.
The designing of the 300 MW (thermal) metallic fast breeder test reactor will be completed by the end of 12th five-year plan and thereafter both FBTR and the new metallic test reactor will be operational simultaneously for a few years, Raj said, adding FBTR will be later shut down.
IGCAR's vast experience in the fast breeder technologies was also being used to contribute to many issues of designing and materials for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), he said.
Life of India's 'Fast Breeder Test Reactor' extended by 20 years
MUMBAI: Scientists at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research have successfully extended the life of the 25-year-old 'workhorse' among India's fast breeders -- Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR)-- by another 20 years.
"We have extended the life of the FBTR for another 20 years up to 2030 at 50% operational capacity," said Baldev Raj, director of IGCAR, Kalpakkam.
"The workhorse reactor has completed 25 successful years. It has given confidence to the Indian scientists to go ahead and build the first 500 MW (electrical) Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) which is under advanced stage of construction; and at least four more fast breeder reactors (FBRs) by 2020," he said.
FBTR is also a training ground for the operation and maintenance staff of PFBR and will be the cradle for trained manpower of India's fast Breeder Reactor programme.
"FBTR uses Plutonium-carbide fuel while the PFBR will be using mixed oxide (Plutonium-uranium oxide) fuel. But the future fast breeders will use Uranium-Plutonium alloy or Uranium-Plutonium-Zirconium," he said.
In the coming years, the major thrust of FBTR will be large-scale irradiation of the advanced metallic fuels and core structural materials required for the next generation fast reactors with high breeding ratios, Raj said.
For this, a programme for the fabrication of metallic fuel pins, their irradiation in FBTR, and closing the fuel cycle by pyro-reprocessing was in place.
Once this is successfully done, FBTR would have fulfilled its major mission in the Indian fast breeder reactor programme.
IGCAR is also exploring other applications like production of medical isotopes in FBTR.
"We expect to complete all these tests by 2020 so that we can build a metallic test reactor as a successor to FBTR," Raj said.
The designing of the 300 MW (thermal) metallic fast breeder test reactor will be completed by the end of 12th five-year plan and thereafter both FBTR and the new metallic test reactor will be operational simultaneously for a few years, Raj said, adding FBTR will be later shut down.
IGCAR's vast experience in the fast breeder technologies was also being used to contribute to many issues of designing and materials for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), he said.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...eder-nuclear-reactor-to-be-ready-by-2012.html
India's First Indigenous Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor to Be Ready by 2012
India's first indigenously developed fast breeder nuclear reactor will be ready by end of next year, Prabhat Kumar, project director at the state-owned Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd., told reporters at the southern Indian city of Kalpakkam near Chennai today.
The project will cost 56.8 billion rupees, and Bharatiya Nabhikiya plans to raise 20 percent of the funds by selling bonds, he said.
India plans to complete six more fast breeder nuclear reactors by 2023, Kumar said. Each reactor will have a capacity to generate 500 megawatts of power.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ganesh Nagarajan in New Delhi at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Vipin Nair at [email protected]
India's First Indigenous Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor to Be Ready by 2012
India's first indigenously developed fast breeder nuclear reactor will be ready by end of next year, Prabhat Kumar, project director at the state-owned Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd., told reporters at the southern Indian city of Kalpakkam near Chennai today.
The project will cost 56.8 billion rupees, and Bharatiya Nabhikiya plans to raise 20 percent of the funds by selling bonds, he said.
India plans to complete six more fast breeder nuclear reactors by 2023, Kumar said. Each reactor will have a capacity to generate 500 megawatts of power.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ganesh Nagarajan in New Delhi at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Vipin Nair at [email protected]
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
The Hindu : News / National : India ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors
India ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors
The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited is ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors of 220 MWe or 540 MWe capacity to other countries, according to Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Srikumar Banerjee.
These reactors, which use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both moderator and coolant, offered a basket of options for countries looking for cost-competitive and proven technologies in the small- and medium-sized reactors, he said at the 54th general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday.
The Indian industry, he said, was on the way to becoming a competitive supplier in the global market in special steels, large-sized forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services.
India was setting up a global centre for nuclear energy partnership in Haryana's Bahadurgarh district for joint work with its partners in areas of topical interest.
Dr. Banerjee, who gave an overview of the country's atomic energy programme, said work had started on four indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors of 700 MWe capacity each (two at Kakrapar in Gujarat and two at Rawatbhatta in Gujarat), and the first pour of concrete was planned for later this year.
The total installed nuclear capacity now stood at 4,560 MWe from 19 operating reactors, including three that had registered an uninterrupted run of over 400 days. The construction of the fourth one (220 MWe) at Kaiga in Karnataka was over and it was ready for fuel-loading.
Construction of two 1,000 MWe reactors at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, in cooperation with the Russian Federation, was nearing completion. The 500-MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam was in an advanced stage of construction.
"India," Dr. Banerjee said, "is expanding its uranium enrichment capacity, which will meet part of the requirements of light water reactors." This expansion was based on the already established indigenous technology. "Setting up an adequate reprocessing capability has been an important element of our closed fuel cycle-based programme." India recently began engineering activities for setting up an integrated nuclear recycle plant, with facilities for reprocessing the spent fuel and waste management, he pointed out.
The natural uranium deposits at Tummallapalle in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh, where a new mine was recently opened, promised to yield three times the original estimate.
"India is also interested in joining hands with international partners in developing uranium mining opportunities abroad," Mr. Banerjee said. The country was self-sufficient in production of heavy water, zirconium alloy components and other materials for the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors. A new zirconium complex was commissioned at Pazhayakaayal near Tuticorin for producing reactor-grade zirconium sponge.
India ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors
The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited is ready to sell Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors of 220 MWe or 540 MWe capacity to other countries, according to Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Srikumar Banerjee.
These reactors, which use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both moderator and coolant, offered a basket of options for countries looking for cost-competitive and proven technologies in the small- and medium-sized reactors, he said at the 54th general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday.
The Indian industry, he said, was on the way to becoming a competitive supplier in the global market in special steels, large-sized forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services.
India was setting up a global centre for nuclear energy partnership in Haryana's Bahadurgarh district for joint work with its partners in areas of topical interest.
Dr. Banerjee, who gave an overview of the country's atomic energy programme, said work had started on four indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors of 700 MWe capacity each (two at Kakrapar in Gujarat and two at Rawatbhatta in Gujarat), and the first pour of concrete was planned for later this year.
The total installed nuclear capacity now stood at 4,560 MWe from 19 operating reactors, including three that had registered an uninterrupted run of over 400 days. The construction of the fourth one (220 MWe) at Kaiga in Karnataka was over and it was ready for fuel-loading.
Construction of two 1,000 MWe reactors at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, in cooperation with the Russian Federation, was nearing completion. The 500-MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam was in an advanced stage of construction.
"India," Dr. Banerjee said, "is expanding its uranium enrichment capacity, which will meet part of the requirements of light water reactors." This expansion was based on the already established indigenous technology. "Setting up an adequate reprocessing capability has been an important element of our closed fuel cycle-based programme." India recently began engineering activities for setting up an integrated nuclear recycle plant, with facilities for reprocessing the spent fuel and waste management, he pointed out.
The natural uranium deposits at Tummallapalle in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh, where a new mine was recently opened, promised to yield three times the original estimate.
"India is also interested in joining hands with international partners in developing uranium mining opportunities abroad," Mr. Banerjee said. The country was self-sufficient in production of heavy water, zirconium alloy components and other materials for the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors. A new zirconium complex was commissioned at Pazhayakaayal near Tuticorin for producing reactor-grade zirconium sponge.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Eng.Gazeta.kz - Kazakhstan is the leading supplier of uranium to world giants
Kazakhstan is the leading supplier of uranium to world giants
The world uranium production in 2010 increased by 6%, according to the World Nuclear Association, from 50,772 tons in 2009 to 53,663 in 2010. But it is declining in Canada and Australia (-4% and -26%), while in Kazakhstan it has increased to 17,803 tonnes in 2010 compared to 14,020 in 2009, and points to 30 thousand tonnes for 2018.
Despite the Fukushima disaster, the demand for uranium remains high, especially in Russia, China and Japan to the point that the Nomura International institution predicted that by 2015, the production will be insufficient relative to demand. In the world are building 53 new nuclear power plants and a further 500 are planned for 2030. Kazakhstan has 19% of the world's known reserves and is the world's largest producer, it supplies Japan, India, China, USA, South Korea, Canada, France and Russia.
But the country lacks technology and technical experts and is in need of foreign technology to develop production. The state KazAtomProm, third largest world producer of uranium with 8,116 tonnes in 2010, works with foreign companies. Astana, however, now wants to develop new power plants and also produce energy and sell it in neighboring countries such as China and India, which have the necessary technology and are starved of energy.
Kazakhstan is perhaps the most stable country in Central Asia. On 3 April, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who leads the country since 1989 during the Soviet era, was re-elected for another five years with 95.6% of the vote. Foreign investors have invested more than 120 billion since its independence in 1991, and have welcomed his re-election, despite the fact that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has reported numerous irregularities in the vote.
The rest of the country, although it lacks a political pluralism, has grown at an average of 8% over the past 10 years, in 2010 the gross domestic product per capita was more than 9 thousand dollars, 12 times more than in 1994. Although there remain large pockets of poverty, the average monthly salary of 527 dollars is more than 6 times higher than in nearby Tajikistan and unemployment is just 5.5% while in neighboring countries many workers have migrated abroad, to Russia and Kazakhstan itself. It 's true that inflation was 7.8% in 2010 and is expected to remain between 6 and 8% over the next five years, but in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, inflation exceeded 19%.
Astana is being courted by neighboring giants. Russia has difficulties in extracting uranium from its rich deposits, because many are in remote and inaccessible areas. So it buys it from Australia and Kazakhstan and it has agreements to carry out nuclear power stations and provide enriched uranium.
China is the largest investor in Kazakhstan, buying raw materials and energy and uranium and floods the nation with its own factories at low prices: in 2011 the two countries agreed on the supply of 55 thousand tonnes of uranium over the next 10 years.
Japan, before the April tsunami, planned to cover 41% of its electricity needs with nuclear power by 2017 and its companies are involved in the development of major Kazakh oil fields, including the Kharasan-1 and Kharasan-2 that is expected produce 160 thousand tonnes of ore in 2050.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Astana on 15 and 16 April, to discuss cooperation and trade, as the purchase of 2,100 tons of uranium from 2014 for the Indian nuclear facilities. New Delhi alone produces 3,700 megawatt hours of energy through nuclear power and wants to get to 20 thousand. Astana is vital for India, after Australia refused to sell uranium until it signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty against its use for military purposes.
But Astana has the issue of developing nuclear power safely and have limited technical and professional experience. If there are problems, there could be strong popular opposition, because many people are still paying the consequences of the over 450 nuclear weapons tests carried out here during the Soviet era, often with little caution.
Kazakhstan is the leading supplier of uranium to world giants
The world uranium production in 2010 increased by 6%, according to the World Nuclear Association, from 50,772 tons in 2009 to 53,663 in 2010. But it is declining in Canada and Australia (-4% and -26%), while in Kazakhstan it has increased to 17,803 tonnes in 2010 compared to 14,020 in 2009, and points to 30 thousand tonnes for 2018.
Despite the Fukushima disaster, the demand for uranium remains high, especially in Russia, China and Japan to the point that the Nomura International institution predicted that by 2015, the production will be insufficient relative to demand. In the world are building 53 new nuclear power plants and a further 500 are planned for 2030. Kazakhstan has 19% of the world's known reserves and is the world's largest producer, it supplies Japan, India, China, USA, South Korea, Canada, France and Russia.
But the country lacks technology and technical experts and is in need of foreign technology to develop production. The state KazAtomProm, third largest world producer of uranium with 8,116 tonnes in 2010, works with foreign companies. Astana, however, now wants to develop new power plants and also produce energy and sell it in neighboring countries such as China and India, which have the necessary technology and are starved of energy.
Kazakhstan is perhaps the most stable country in Central Asia. On 3 April, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who leads the country since 1989 during the Soviet era, was re-elected for another five years with 95.6% of the vote. Foreign investors have invested more than 120 billion since its independence in 1991, and have welcomed his re-election, despite the fact that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has reported numerous irregularities in the vote.
The rest of the country, although it lacks a political pluralism, has grown at an average of 8% over the past 10 years, in 2010 the gross domestic product per capita was more than 9 thousand dollars, 12 times more than in 1994. Although there remain large pockets of poverty, the average monthly salary of 527 dollars is more than 6 times higher than in nearby Tajikistan and unemployment is just 5.5% while in neighboring countries many workers have migrated abroad, to Russia and Kazakhstan itself. It 's true that inflation was 7.8% in 2010 and is expected to remain between 6 and 8% over the next five years, but in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, inflation exceeded 19%.
Astana is being courted by neighboring giants. Russia has difficulties in extracting uranium from its rich deposits, because many are in remote and inaccessible areas. So it buys it from Australia and Kazakhstan and it has agreements to carry out nuclear power stations and provide enriched uranium.
China is the largest investor in Kazakhstan, buying raw materials and energy and uranium and floods the nation with its own factories at low prices: in 2011 the two countries agreed on the supply of 55 thousand tonnes of uranium over the next 10 years.
Japan, before the April tsunami, planned to cover 41% of its electricity needs with nuclear power by 2017 and its companies are involved in the development of major Kazakh oil fields, including the Kharasan-1 and Kharasan-2 that is expected produce 160 thousand tonnes of ore in 2050.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Astana on 15 and 16 April, to discuss cooperation and trade, as the purchase of 2,100 tons of uranium from 2014 for the Indian nuclear facilities. New Delhi alone produces 3,700 megawatt hours of energy through nuclear power and wants to get to 20 thousand. Astana is vital for India, after Australia refused to sell uranium until it signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty against its use for military purposes.
But Astana has the issue of developing nuclear power safely and have limited technical and professional experience. If there are problems, there could be strong popular opposition, because many people are still paying the consequences of the over 450 nuclear weapons tests carried out here during the Soviet era, often with little caution.
prototype
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 111
- Likes
- 6
Are Fast Breeder reactors safe
The Indian nuclear establishment has long viewed FBRs as a great prize because these are indigenously engineered and can use India's huge thorium reserves , eliminating dependence on uranium.
But it seems there are many risks involved.
1.Conventional reactors are cooled by light or heavy water, but FBRs are cooled by liquid sodium, which is extremely dangerous. Liquid sodium reacts explosively with both air and water. Hence, even a tiny leak of sodium coolant can cause a fire.
2.Sea water was used in Fukishima to bombard the reactors in an attempt to cool it down,but in such a condition that seems impossible in case of FBR.
3.Chances of sodium fire,as happened in Russia and Japan.
This are my views and DFI is not responsible for it.
The Indian nuclear establishment has long viewed FBRs as a great prize because these are indigenously engineered and can use India's huge thorium reserves , eliminating dependence on uranium.
But it seems there are many risks involved.
1.Conventional reactors are cooled by light or heavy water, but FBRs are cooled by liquid sodium, which is extremely dangerous. Liquid sodium reacts explosively with both air and water. Hence, even a tiny leak of sodium coolant can cause a fire.
2.Sea water was used in Fukishima to bombard the reactors in an attempt to cool it down,but in such a condition that seems impossible in case of FBR.
3.Chances of sodium fire,as happened in Russia and Japan.
This are my views and DFI is not responsible for it.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Its the best option for india in terms of being cheap in the long run.
Liquid sodium has very good cooling properties but the risk is there of it burning and exploding. But there are safety measures for it. Water is not an option to use to cool fast breeder reactor.
That apart, nuclear energy is risky anyways.
Liquid sodium has very good cooling properties but the risk is there of it burning and exploding. But there are safety measures for it. Water is not an option to use to cool fast breeder reactor.
That apart, nuclear energy is risky anyways.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Many reactors are designed to shut down if there are any problems like an increased temperature etc..
LurkerBaba
Super Mod
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 8,125
But I thought FBR is just step two in our three step program ? Step three (responsible for actual electricity generation) is different
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
The Hindu : National : Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor ‘has independent safety mechanisms'
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor 'has independent safety mechanisms'
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, is "a unique reactor" which does not require water for emergency cooling of its nuclear fuel core in the case of an accident, said Baldev Raj, who laid down office on Saturday as Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. The 500 MWe PFBR will be commissioned in 2012.
(The PFBR will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel, and liquid sodium as coolant. If sodium comes into contact with water, it will catch fire. At Fukushima in Japan in March, four reactors' nuclear fuel core could not be cooled because the station suffered a black-out after the tsunami, which also knocked out the pumps and the diesel generator sets. So water could not be pumped for cooling the fuel core.)
As the PFBR boasted a number of redundancy systems and independent mechanisms, the reactor would be shut down with minimum problems in the case of any event, Dr. Baldev Raj told a news conference at Kalpakkam. It had nine control and safety rods, and three diverse safety rods which would help in shutting it down quickly.
S.C. Chetal, who took over as IGCAR Director, explained that in the case of sodium fire in an open place, sodium bicarbonate — a dry chemical powder — would be used to douse the fire. If sodium caught fire in an enclosed place, nitrogen would be injected to extinguish it. Sodium fire was milder than oil catching fire, Mr. Chetal said.
The floor level of all equipment related to the PFBR's emergency core cooling had been raised after the tsunami of December 2004 struck the PFBR's foundation pit, Dr. Baldev Raj said. Seismic activity all over the country was monitored from Kalpakkam round the clock. "We don't wait for the national alert," he said. A tsunami protection wall had been built on the shore at the site and the township. Besides the PFBR, two Commercial Fast Breeder Reactors (CFBRs) of 500 MWe each would be built at Kalpakkam and their construction would begin in 2017. The layout of the two CFBRs was finalised and their site was getting readied.
Mr. Chetal said that while the 2004 tsunami wave had a height of 4.7 metres above the mean sea level (MSL) at Kalpakkam, the PFBR's floor level was 9.5 metres above the MSL. "There is no chance of sea water entering the PFBR buildings," he added. The PFBR personnel had been trained in handling the combustible liquid sodium. There was no leakage of sodium for the past 14 years in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam, which was a forerunner to the PFBR. Although 75 kg of sodium was spilled in the FBTR prior to that, there was no fire, Mr. Chetal said.
Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR, said the total investment in the PFBR would be around Rs.560 crore. The cost of construction for a MWe was around Rs.11 crore. The cost was "naturally higher" compared to other electricity generating plants because all the PFBR equipment were manufactured for the first time in India. Electricity from the PFBR would be sold to State Electricity Boards at Rs.4.44 a unit. Mr. Kumar called the PFBR "a robust reactor" and various lessons learnt from the 2004 tsunami had been factored into its construction. The PFBR had a passive heat decay removal system.
Review of safety
After the Fukushima accident, two committees reviewed the safety at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam. Mobile power generation sets had been procured. According to K. Ramamurthy, MAPS Station Director, MAPS' emergency core cooling equipment was relocated to a higher level after the 2004 tsunami.
If power generating plants were set up on inland sites, thermal pollution would be more because the decay heat would have to be conducted into nearby water bodies, said P. Chellapandi, Director, Nuclear and Safety Group, IGCAR.
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor 'has independent safety mechanisms'
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, is "a unique reactor" which does not require water for emergency cooling of its nuclear fuel core in the case of an accident, said Baldev Raj, who laid down office on Saturday as Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. The 500 MWe PFBR will be commissioned in 2012.
(The PFBR will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel, and liquid sodium as coolant. If sodium comes into contact with water, it will catch fire. At Fukushima in Japan in March, four reactors' nuclear fuel core could not be cooled because the station suffered a black-out after the tsunami, which also knocked out the pumps and the diesel generator sets. So water could not be pumped for cooling the fuel core.)
As the PFBR boasted a number of redundancy systems and independent mechanisms, the reactor would be shut down with minimum problems in the case of any event, Dr. Baldev Raj told a news conference at Kalpakkam. It had nine control and safety rods, and three diverse safety rods which would help in shutting it down quickly.
S.C. Chetal, who took over as IGCAR Director, explained that in the case of sodium fire in an open place, sodium bicarbonate — a dry chemical powder — would be used to douse the fire. If sodium caught fire in an enclosed place, nitrogen would be injected to extinguish it. Sodium fire was milder than oil catching fire, Mr. Chetal said.
The floor level of all equipment related to the PFBR's emergency core cooling had been raised after the tsunami of December 2004 struck the PFBR's foundation pit, Dr. Baldev Raj said. Seismic activity all over the country was monitored from Kalpakkam round the clock. "We don't wait for the national alert," he said. A tsunami protection wall had been built on the shore at the site and the township. Besides the PFBR, two Commercial Fast Breeder Reactors (CFBRs) of 500 MWe each would be built at Kalpakkam and their construction would begin in 2017. The layout of the two CFBRs was finalised and their site was getting readied.
Mr. Chetal said that while the 2004 tsunami wave had a height of 4.7 metres above the mean sea level (MSL) at Kalpakkam, the PFBR's floor level was 9.5 metres above the MSL. "There is no chance of sea water entering the PFBR buildings," he added. The PFBR personnel had been trained in handling the combustible liquid sodium. There was no leakage of sodium for the past 14 years in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam, which was a forerunner to the PFBR. Although 75 kg of sodium was spilled in the FBTR prior to that, there was no fire, Mr. Chetal said.
Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR, said the total investment in the PFBR would be around Rs.560 crore. The cost of construction for a MWe was around Rs.11 crore. The cost was "naturally higher" compared to other electricity generating plants because all the PFBR equipment were manufactured for the first time in India. Electricity from the PFBR would be sold to State Electricity Boards at Rs.4.44 a unit. Mr. Kumar called the PFBR "a robust reactor" and various lessons learnt from the 2004 tsunami had been factored into its construction. The PFBR had a passive heat decay removal system.
Review of safety
After the Fukushima accident, two committees reviewed the safety at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam. Mobile power generation sets had been procured. According to K. Ramamurthy, MAPS Station Director, MAPS' emergency core cooling equipment was relocated to a higher level after the 2004 tsunami.
If power generating plants were set up on inland sites, thermal pollution would be more because the decay heat would have to be conducted into nearby water bodies, said P. Chellapandi, Director, Nuclear and Safety Group, IGCAR.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
The Hindu : National : Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor 'has independent safety mechanisms'
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor 'has independent safety mechanisms'
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, is "a unique reactor" which does not require water for emergency cooling of its nuclear fuel core in the case of an accident, said Baldev Raj, who laid down office on Saturday as Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. The 500 MWe PFBR will be commissioned in 2012.
(The PFBR will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel, and liquid sodium as coolant. If sodium comes into contact with water, it will catch fire. At Fukushima in Japan in March, four reactors' nuclear fuel core could not be cooled because the station suffered a black-out after the tsunami, which also knocked out the pumps and the diesel generator sets. So water could not be pumped for cooling the fuel core.)
As the PFBR boasted a number of redundancy systems and independent mechanisms, the reactor would be shut down with minimum problems in the case of any event, Dr. Baldev Raj told a news conference at Kalpakkam. It had nine control and safety rods, and three diverse safety rods which would help in shutting it down quickly.
S.C. Chetal, who took over as IGCAR Director, explained that in the case of sodium fire in an open place, sodium bicarbonate — a dry chemical powder — would be used to douse the fire. If sodium caught fire in an enclosed place, nitrogen would be injected to extinguish it. Sodium fire was milder than oil catching fire, Mr. Chetal said.
The floor level of all equipment related to the PFBR's emergency core cooling had been raised after the tsunami of December 2004 struck the PFBR's foundation pit, Dr. Baldev Raj said. Seismic activity all over the country was monitored from Kalpakkam round the clock. "We don't wait for the national alert," he said. A tsunami protection wall had been built on the shore at the site and the township. Besides the PFBR, two Commercial Fast Breeder Reactors (CFBRs) of 500 MWe each would be built at Kalpakkam and their construction would begin in 2017. The layout of the two CFBRs was finalised and their site was getting readied.
Mr. Chetal said that while the 2004 tsunami wave had a height of 4.7 metres above the mean sea level (MSL) at Kalpakkam, the PFBR's floor level was 9.5 metres above the MSL. "There is no chance of sea water entering the PFBR buildings," he added. The PFBR personnel had been trained in handling the combustible liquid sodium. There was no leakage of sodium for the past 14 years in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam, which was a forerunner to the PFBR. Although 75 kg of sodium was spilled in the FBTR prior to that, there was no fire, Mr. Chetal said.
Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR, said the total investment in the PFBR would be around Rs.560 crore. The cost of construction for a MWe was around Rs.11 crore. The cost was "naturally higher" compared to other electricity generating plants because all the PFBR equipment were manufactured for the first time in India. Electricity from the PFBR would be sold to State Electricity Boards at Rs.4.44 a unit. Mr. Kumar called the PFBR "a robust reactor" and various lessons learnt from the 2004 tsunami had been factored into its construction. The PFBR had a passive heat decay removal system.
Review of safety
After the Fukushima accident, two committees reviewed the safety at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam. Mobile power generation sets had been procured. According to K. Ramamurthy, MAPS Station Director, MAPS' emergency core cooling equipment was relocated to a higher level after the 2004 tsunami.
If power generating plants were set up on inland sites, thermal pollution would be more because the decay heat would have to be conducted into nearby water bodies, said P. Chellapandi, Director, Nuclear and Safety Group, IGCAR.
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor 'has independent safety mechanisms'
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), under construction at Kalpakkam, near Chennai, is "a unique reactor" which does not require water for emergency cooling of its nuclear fuel core in the case of an accident, said Baldev Raj, who laid down office on Saturday as Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam. The 500 MWe PFBR will be commissioned in 2012.
(The PFBR will use plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel, and liquid sodium as coolant. If sodium comes into contact with water, it will catch fire. At Fukushima in Japan in March, four reactors' nuclear fuel core could not be cooled because the station suffered a black-out after the tsunami, which also knocked out the pumps and the diesel generator sets. So water could not be pumped for cooling the fuel core.)
As the PFBR boasted a number of redundancy systems and independent mechanisms, the reactor would be shut down with minimum problems in the case of any event, Dr. Baldev Raj told a news conference at Kalpakkam. It had nine control and safety rods, and three diverse safety rods which would help in shutting it down quickly.
S.C. Chetal, who took over as IGCAR Director, explained that in the case of sodium fire in an open place, sodium bicarbonate — a dry chemical powder — would be used to douse the fire. If sodium caught fire in an enclosed place, nitrogen would be injected to extinguish it. Sodium fire was milder than oil catching fire, Mr. Chetal said.
The floor level of all equipment related to the PFBR's emergency core cooling had been raised after the tsunami of December 2004 struck the PFBR's foundation pit, Dr. Baldev Raj said. Seismic activity all over the country was monitored from Kalpakkam round the clock. "We don't wait for the national alert," he said. A tsunami protection wall had been built on the shore at the site and the township. Besides the PFBR, two Commercial Fast Breeder Reactors (CFBRs) of 500 MWe each would be built at Kalpakkam and their construction would begin in 2017. The layout of the two CFBRs was finalised and their site was getting readied.
Mr. Chetal said that while the 2004 tsunami wave had a height of 4.7 metres above the mean sea level (MSL) at Kalpakkam, the PFBR's floor level was 9.5 metres above the MSL. "There is no chance of sea water entering the PFBR buildings," he added. The PFBR personnel had been trained in handling the combustible liquid sodium. There was no leakage of sodium for the past 14 years in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam, which was a forerunner to the PFBR. Although 75 kg of sodium was spilled in the FBTR prior to that, there was no fire, Mr. Chetal said.
Prabhat Kumar, Project Director, PFBR, said the total investment in the PFBR would be around Rs.560 crore. The cost of construction for a MWe was around Rs.11 crore. The cost was "naturally higher" compared to other electricity generating plants because all the PFBR equipment were manufactured for the first time in India. Electricity from the PFBR would be sold to State Electricity Boards at Rs.4.44 a unit. Mr. Kumar called the PFBR "a robust reactor" and various lessons learnt from the 2004 tsunami had been factored into its construction. The PFBR had a passive heat decay removal system.
Review of safety
After the Fukushima accident, two committees reviewed the safety at the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam. Mobile power generation sets had been procured. According to K. Ramamurthy, MAPS Station Director, MAPS' emergency core cooling equipment was relocated to a higher level after the 2004 tsunami.
If power generating plants were set up on inland sites, thermal pollution would be more because the decay heat would have to be conducted into nearby water bodies, said P. Chellapandi, Director, Nuclear and Safety Group, IGCAR.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
India Seeks Uranium Mines Overseas - Bloomberg
India Seeks Uranium Mines Overseas
India, aiming to increase atomic- energy generation capacity 13-fold in the next two decades, is in talks with Kazakhstan, Niger and Namibia to acquire uranium mines, the head of the nation's nuclear program said.
Negotiations are also being held with Canada for importing the reactor fuel and an accord may be signed "soon," said Srikumar Banerjee, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. India, which buys uranium from France, Russia and Kazakhstan, will push ahead with its nuclear-energy program, he said.
"We want to have a comfortable supply situation, at least for the next four to five years," Banerjee said yesterday in an interview. "It's necessary that we diversify our source of uranium."
India, whose nuclear plants comprise about 3 percent of its electricity capacity, is adding safeguards to its atomic program following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. The accident knocked out power equipment and cooling systems at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant and caused the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl 25 years ago.
India plans to increase its nuclear-generation capacity to 60 gigawatts by 2030, according to the Planning Commission. Nuclear Power Corp. of India, the nation's monopoly atomic- energy producer, said on April 13 it's considering a venture with state-run Uranium Corp. of India to buy mines overseas.
Higher uranium supplies helped Nuclear Power Corp. boost generation capacity 41 percent to a record 26.47 billion units in the year ended March 31, Finance Director Jagdeep Ghai said yesterday by telephone. The company expects to lift capacity to 32 billion units this year, he said.
India's annual domestic uranium production is expected to double to about 800 tons by 2014 from mines in the eastern state of Jharkhand and the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, Banerjee said. The country is developing a new mine in Tummalapalle in Andhra Pradesh with reserves of 49,000 tons, he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Rajesh Kumar Singh in New Delhi at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Amit Prakash at [email protected]
India Seeks Uranium Mines Overseas
India, aiming to increase atomic- energy generation capacity 13-fold in the next two decades, is in talks with Kazakhstan, Niger and Namibia to acquire uranium mines, the head of the nation's nuclear program said.
Negotiations are also being held with Canada for importing the reactor fuel and an accord may be signed "soon," said Srikumar Banerjee, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. India, which buys uranium from France, Russia and Kazakhstan, will push ahead with its nuclear-energy program, he said.
"We want to have a comfortable supply situation, at least for the next four to five years," Banerjee said yesterday in an interview. "It's necessary that we diversify our source of uranium."
India, whose nuclear plants comprise about 3 percent of its electricity capacity, is adding safeguards to its atomic program following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. The accident knocked out power equipment and cooling systems at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant and caused the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl 25 years ago.
India plans to increase its nuclear-generation capacity to 60 gigawatts by 2030, according to the Planning Commission. Nuclear Power Corp. of India, the nation's monopoly atomic- energy producer, said on April 13 it's considering a venture with state-run Uranium Corp. of India to buy mines overseas.
Higher uranium supplies helped Nuclear Power Corp. boost generation capacity 41 percent to a record 26.47 billion units in the year ended March 31, Finance Director Jagdeep Ghai said yesterday by telephone. The company expects to lift capacity to 32 billion units this year, he said.
India's annual domestic uranium production is expected to double to about 800 tons by 2014 from mines in the eastern state of Jharkhand and the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, Banerjee said. The country is developing a new mine in Tummalapalle in Andhra Pradesh with reserves of 49,000 tons, he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Rajesh Kumar Singh in New Delhi at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Amit Prakash at [email protected]
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
How do fast breeder reactors differ from regular nuclear power plants?: Scientific American
How do fast breeder reactors differ from regular nuclear power plants?
Nuclear reactors generate energy through fission, the process by which an atomic nucleus splits into two or more smaller nuclei. During fission, a small amount of mass is converted into energy, which can be used to power a generator to create electricity. In order to harness this energy, a controlled chain reaction is required for fission to take place. When a uranium nucleus in a reactor splits, it produces two or more neutrons that can then be absorbed by other nuclei, causing them to undergo fission as well. More neutrons are released in turn and continuous fission is achieved.
Neutrons produced by fission have high energies and move extremely quickly. These so-called fast neutrons do not cause fission as efficiently as slower-moving ones so they are slowed down in most reactors by the process of moderation. A liquid or gas moderator, commonly water or helium, cools the neutrons to optimum energies for causing fission. These slower neutrons are also called thermal neutrons because they are brought to the same temperature as the surrounding coolant.
In contrast to most normal nuclear reactors, however, a fast reactor uses a coolant that is not an efficient moderator, such as liquid sodium, so its neutrons remain high-energy. Although these fast neutrons are not as good at causing fission, they are readily captured by an isotope of uranium (U238), which then becomes plutonium (Pu239). This plutonium isotope can be reprocessed and used as more reactor fuel or in the production of nuclear weapons. Reactors can be designed to maximize plutonium production, and in some cases they actually produce more fuel than they consume. These reactors are called breeder reactors.
Breeder reactors are possible because of the proportion of uranium isotopes that exist in nature. Natural uranium consists primarily of U238, which does not fission readily, and U235, which does. Natural uranium is unsuitable for use in a nuclear reactor, however, because it is only 0.72 percent U235, which is not enough to sustain a chain reaction. Commercial nuclear reactors normally use uranium fuel that has had its U235 content enriched to somewhere between 3 and 8 percent by weight. Although the U235 does most of the fissioning, more than 90 percent of the atoms in the fuel are U238--potential neutron capture targets and future plutonium atoms.
Pu239, which is created when U238 captures a neutron, forms U239 and then undergoes two beta decays, happens to be even better at fissioning than U235. Pu239 is formed in every reactor and also fissions as the reactor operates. In fact, a nuclear reactor can derive a significant amount of energy from such plutonium fission. But because this plutonium fissions, it reduces the amount that is left in the fuel. To maximize plutonium production, therefore, a reactor must create as much plutonium as possible while minimizing the amount that splits.
This is why many breeder reactors are also fast reactors. Fast neutrons are ideal for plutonium production because they are easily absorbed by U238 to create Pu239, and they cause less fission than thermal neutrons. Some fast breeder reactors can generate up to 30 percent more fuel than they use.
Creating extra fuel in nuclear reactors, however, is not without its concerns: One is that the plutonium produced can be removed and used in nuclear weapons. Another is that, to extract the plutonium, the fuel must be reprocessed, creating radioactive waste and potentially high radiation exposures. For these reasons, in the U.S., President Carter halted such spent fuel reprocessing, making the use of breeder reactors problematic.
The U.S. constructed two experimental breeder reactors, neither of which produced power commercially. The Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan was the first American fast breeder reactor but operated only from 1963 until 1972 before engineering problems led to a failed license renewal and subsequent decommissioning. Construction of the only other commercial fast breeder reactor in the U.S., the Clinch River plant in Tennessee, was halted in 1983 when Congress cut funding. Elsewhere in the world, only India, Russia, Japan and China currently have operational fast breeder reactor programs; the U.K., France and Germany have effectively shut down theirs.
How do fast breeder reactors differ from regular nuclear power plants?
Nuclear reactors generate energy through fission, the process by which an atomic nucleus splits into two or more smaller nuclei. During fission, a small amount of mass is converted into energy, which can be used to power a generator to create electricity. In order to harness this energy, a controlled chain reaction is required for fission to take place. When a uranium nucleus in a reactor splits, it produces two or more neutrons that can then be absorbed by other nuclei, causing them to undergo fission as well. More neutrons are released in turn and continuous fission is achieved.
Neutrons produced by fission have high energies and move extremely quickly. These so-called fast neutrons do not cause fission as efficiently as slower-moving ones so they are slowed down in most reactors by the process of moderation. A liquid or gas moderator, commonly water or helium, cools the neutrons to optimum energies for causing fission. These slower neutrons are also called thermal neutrons because they are brought to the same temperature as the surrounding coolant.
In contrast to most normal nuclear reactors, however, a fast reactor uses a coolant that is not an efficient moderator, such as liquid sodium, so its neutrons remain high-energy. Although these fast neutrons are not as good at causing fission, they are readily captured by an isotope of uranium (U238), which then becomes plutonium (Pu239). This plutonium isotope can be reprocessed and used as more reactor fuel or in the production of nuclear weapons. Reactors can be designed to maximize plutonium production, and in some cases they actually produce more fuel than they consume. These reactors are called breeder reactors.
Breeder reactors are possible because of the proportion of uranium isotopes that exist in nature. Natural uranium consists primarily of U238, which does not fission readily, and U235, which does. Natural uranium is unsuitable for use in a nuclear reactor, however, because it is only 0.72 percent U235, which is not enough to sustain a chain reaction. Commercial nuclear reactors normally use uranium fuel that has had its U235 content enriched to somewhere between 3 and 8 percent by weight. Although the U235 does most of the fissioning, more than 90 percent of the atoms in the fuel are U238--potential neutron capture targets and future plutonium atoms.
Pu239, which is created when U238 captures a neutron, forms U239 and then undergoes two beta decays, happens to be even better at fissioning than U235. Pu239 is formed in every reactor and also fissions as the reactor operates. In fact, a nuclear reactor can derive a significant amount of energy from such plutonium fission. But because this plutonium fissions, it reduces the amount that is left in the fuel. To maximize plutonium production, therefore, a reactor must create as much plutonium as possible while minimizing the amount that splits.
This is why many breeder reactors are also fast reactors. Fast neutrons are ideal for plutonium production because they are easily absorbed by U238 to create Pu239, and they cause less fission than thermal neutrons. Some fast breeder reactors can generate up to 30 percent more fuel than they use.
Creating extra fuel in nuclear reactors, however, is not without its concerns: One is that the plutonium produced can be removed and used in nuclear weapons. Another is that, to extract the plutonium, the fuel must be reprocessed, creating radioactive waste and potentially high radiation exposures. For these reasons, in the U.S., President Carter halted such spent fuel reprocessing, making the use of breeder reactors problematic.
The U.S. constructed two experimental breeder reactors, neither of which produced power commercially. The Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan was the first American fast breeder reactor but operated only from 1963 until 1972 before engineering problems led to a failed license renewal and subsequent decommissioning. Construction of the only other commercial fast breeder reactor in the U.S., the Clinch River plant in Tennessee, was halted in 1983 when Congress cut funding. Elsewhere in the world, only India, Russia, Japan and China currently have operational fast breeder reactor programs; the U.K., France and Germany have effectively shut down theirs.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Exploring Uranium Resource Constraints on Fissile Material Production in Pakistan
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/17-2-3-Mian-Nay-Raj.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/17-2-3-Mian-Nay-Raj.pdf
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Thorium catches world's eye post Japanese nuke disaster - CNBC-TV18 -
Thorium catches world's eye post Japanese nuke disaster
India's development of thorium for nuclear power generation caught world interest in the light of the blasts at Japan's nuclear power stations. CNBC-TV18's Sanjay Suri and Anup Gomen report.
India is considered as the world leader in thorium. The Kakrapar-1 reactor located near Surat in Gujarat is the world's first reactor which uses thorium than depleted uranium for vital power generation. Compated to uranium, thorium has less fissile. The nuclear physicists are now looking at thorium as the safer model.
Ian Hore-Lacy from World Nuclear Association said, "India is the only country in the world that develops thorium fuel cycle. The expertise in India is world class and it is applied very rigorously to the safety of nuclear plants in India."
India has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves and is keen to tap thorium for the growing needs of its population," Hore-Lacy added.
Paddy Regan, Professor of Nuclear Physics from University of Surrey said, "India has a population of a billion people and has massive reserves of thorium. India's nuclear programme, based on the thorium cycle, is slightly different. Indian model thorium based reactors seem to be a very sensible way to go."
Pioneering Indian technology using thorium rather than uranium generated new interest around the world. Thorium is considered less efficient but certainly is much safer. In the light of what has happened in Japan, critics are less inclined to dismiss thorium than they were before.
Thorium catches world's eye post Japanese nuke disaster
India's development of thorium for nuclear power generation caught world interest in the light of the blasts at Japan's nuclear power stations. CNBC-TV18's Sanjay Suri and Anup Gomen report.
India is considered as the world leader in thorium. The Kakrapar-1 reactor located near Surat in Gujarat is the world's first reactor which uses thorium than depleted uranium for vital power generation. Compated to uranium, thorium has less fissile. The nuclear physicists are now looking at thorium as the safer model.
Ian Hore-Lacy from World Nuclear Association said, "India is the only country in the world that develops thorium fuel cycle. The expertise in India is world class and it is applied very rigorously to the safety of nuclear plants in India."
India has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves and is keen to tap thorium for the growing needs of its population," Hore-Lacy added.
Paddy Regan, Professor of Nuclear Physics from University of Surrey said, "India has a population of a billion people and has massive reserves of thorium. India's nuclear programme, based on the thorium cycle, is slightly different. Indian model thorium based reactors seem to be a very sensible way to go."
Pioneering Indian technology using thorium rather than uranium generated new interest around the world. Thorium is considered less efficient but certainly is much safer. In the light of what has happened in Japan, critics are less inclined to dismiss thorium than they were before.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation « Len Bilen's Blog
Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation
Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.
1. Cheap and unlimited raw material.
There is enough Thorium around for many millennia, and not only that, it is a byproduct of mining heavy metals and rare earth metals The price is the cost of refining it, about $40/Kg.
2. 0.01% waste products compared to a Uranium fast breeder.
The Thorium process has a much higher efficiency in fission than the Uranium process. See the figure below.
Note the Plutonium in the Thorium cycle is Pu-238, which is in high demand.
Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation
Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.
1. Cheap and unlimited raw material.
There is enough Thorium around for many millennia, and not only that, it is a byproduct of mining heavy metals and rare earth metals The price is the cost of refining it, about $40/Kg.
2. 0.01% waste products compared to a Uranium fast breeder.
The Thorium process has a much higher efficiency in fission than the Uranium process. See the figure below.
Note the Plutonium in the Thorium cycle is Pu-238, which is in high demand.
