`Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track'
From: zalzon (zalzonishappy_at_zalll.com)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: william mook: "Re: Is Saudi Arabia Running Out of Oil?"
- Previous message: william mook: "Re: Saudi Arabia has 1 trillion barrels?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:24:11 GMT
`Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track'
M. Ramesh
Chennai , Aug. 12
INDIANS are now the world masters of the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor
technology - the country has 12 PHWR units running. With the technology
learnt from the Fast Breeder Test Reactor project - an R&D project - the
nuclear establishment is putting up a 500 MW prototype fast breeder
reactor at Kalpakkam. The `first pour of concrete', which is a milestone
in a nuclear project's implementation, is expected to happen shortly.
Mastering PHWR and FBR are two key issues under India's nuclear rubric.
The first denotes the learning of producing plutonium indigenously and
the second indicates learning of how to use it. The prototype FBR at
Kalpakkam will then show the world that India can produce, use its own
nuclear fuel. Now the country's ambition is to double the installed
nuclear power capacity in four years and reach 11,000 MW by the end
of the 11th Plan.
The man at the helm of affairs today is Dr Anil Kakodkar, Chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission. He spoke to Business Line about how the
future looks. Excerpts from the interview:
How are talks with Russian on the next V VER projects progressing?
See, It is like this. We have all along taken the attitude that
India's energy requirements are large. We must enhance the
contribution of nuclear power. Considering that nuclear power will
help offset emissions, our setting up nuclear power projects will
also be good for the whole world. In that context, if we are able
to add to nuclear power capacity with external inputs - money,
equipment, technology, fuel - to that extent we are able to move
towards the objective faster. As part of our policy, we have no
problems in putting up any project with external inputs under
IAEA safeguards.
I think there is also a lot of goodwill for India. Countries such
as Russia and France are willing to collaborate, but they are all
members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. They have their commitments
to the group. They want the condition of full-scope safeguards to
be met, (which means all the nuclear projects of India should be
put under IAEA safeguards, not just those built with external
assistance).
So, if we get external assistance, we are happy. If it does not
come... .no problem. We still have our programme.
But doesn't the Kudankulam project pave the way for other projects
with Russian collaboration?
The two projects of Kudankulam came on the basis of an agreement
which predated this scenario. So, it was only a fulfilment of an
old agreement.
What are the Russians saying now about the next projects?
They understand our position, but they don't want to be seen
as going back on their international obligations.
Are we then deadlocked on this issue?
Well, at this moment, yes. But as I said, we are happy if
things work out, but we are not unhappy if they don't. We
have a long-term programme. Now that we have mastered the
fast breeder technology, the potential of domestic uranium
which was at 10,000 MW (fifty years ago) has gone up to
500,000 MW. What is working in our mind is, why not we put
this on fast track. We put emphasis on fast reactors. We may
not do much in first 10-20 years, but if you see the long-term
horizon, a few 100,000 MW is no big deal. So our position is:
we will emphasise on growth through FBRs, but if something
comes from outside, it is welcome.
What does `putting on fast track' mean?
We are doing a number of things. For example, the IGCAR
(Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research) developed Prototype
Fast Breeder Reactor project. Normally, the tendency would have
been to say that since IGCAR developed, let it build it, which
it can do. But we realised that Nuclear Power Corporation of
India is strong in project management. So why not synergise
IGCAR's technology with NPCIL's project management strength?
This configuration is showing results. Already BHAVINI (the
company set up to build the 500 MW PFBR unit) is talking about
doing it on a much smaller time frame. I won't be surprised if
the project time is cut by one-and-a-half years.
Secondly, we are sharpening our focus on metallic fuel (Plutonium
in its pure form is used as fuel, rather than as plutonium oxide
or plutonium carbide). Initially, the growth of fast breeder
reactors will be supported by plutonium from PHWRs. This will
go on. But ultimately, we look for doubling time in FBRs.
Therefore, we give much higher emphasis on metallic fuels,
which have much higher breeding. We'll work on oxide fuel and
changeover to metallic fuel at a point in time.
(Fast breeder reactors produce, or breed, more plutonium than
they consume. A mixture of uranium and plutonium is used as
fuel, but over time the reactor converts part of the uranium
into plutonium. Doubling time is the time it takes to produce
twice as much plutonium as it started with. A reactor which
uses plutonium in its pure (metallic) form as a higher breeding
ratio- it produces more plutonium faster.)
When do you think you will switch to metallic fuel?
The PFBR will certainly be oxide fuel. At the moment, the
plan is that we will use oxide fuels in the next three or
four fast breeder reactors and after that change over to
metallic fuel systems. However, the design of these reactors
can accommodate metallic fuels at any point in time. We can
change over to metallic fuels at any time, but we will decide
on that after an assessment, maybe 2-3 years after operating
with oxide fuels.
Please give an idea about the breeding ratio when metallic
fuels are used?
The doubling time with oxide fuel is in the range of 20-30
years. In the case of metallic fuels, it is around 10 years.
But do you have experience in handling metallic fuels?
Well, we certainly don't have large-scale experience,
otherwise we'd have done in it PFBR itself. But we will
learn, as we did in the case of using the carbide fuel
(in the fast breeder test reactor). It was a decision forced
on us because we did not have the enriched fuels (that a
breeder reactor with oxide fuel would need). Today, the
carbide fuel has crossed a burn-up of 130,000 MW and
looks like it will go to 150,000 MW.
Anyway, we are not deciding on metallic fuels today.
Do you see India putting up nuclear plants abroad?
If somebody says "do it" we can always do it. But there
is this barrier of politics. It operates both ways. It
affects supply of technology to India as well as from India.
In this context, do you see the recent co-operation with
Americans bringing results? (Last year, the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission visited India. The visit of US
officials opened up dialogue between the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board of India and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
of US for cooperation in the field of nuclear safety.)
It is good, but I do not think it (Indo-US nuclear
cooperation) will go to such levels. But we must move
in that direction.
What is the update on the site selection committee's report?
The report is with us. That still has a larger process to
go through. We finally have to go to the government.
Existing sites also have a lot of scope to accommodate
additional capacity, but we've also looked at new sites.
How many projects were taken up by the committee?
It is like this. I've to reach 11,000 MW by end of the
11th Plan. Now we are at, taking into account both
operating units and ongoing projects, 7,300 MW which
means we have to go for something like additional 2,700 MW
capacity, to be completed by the end of the 11th plan. Of
them, some have to be initiated in the 10th Plan, some
could be in the 11th. So we are roughly talking about
four reactors, maybe 700 MW each and one AHWR (advanced
heavy water reactor, a 300 MW unit, which uses thorium
as fuel, put up by Bhaba Atomic Research Centre).
When will a decision be taken on the sites?
Between six months and one year.
What is happening on the AHWR project?
We're going through peer reviews. It is conceptually a
different kind of reactor. We want to make sure we don't
miss anything.
The way to go about that is peer review. But we are not
going to rush with the project. After all, it is a
demonstration project - the idea is not to make money.
- Next message: william mook: "Re: Is Saudi Arabia Running Out of Oil?"
- Previous message: william mook: "Re: Saudi Arabia has 1 trillion barrels?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
