What's new

DefenseIndia building reactors for nuclear submarines

RPK

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
-6
Country
India
Location
United States
India building reactors for nuclear submarines | Defense | RIA Novosti

160482009.jpg

Work is in progress on India's nuclear steam reactors for its first nuclear powered submarine, Srikumar Banerjee, head of the country's Atomic Energy Commission, said.

Last year, India floated out its nuclear-powered submarine, the Arihant, to be powered by a light water reactor (LWR) using enriched uranium as fuel.

In an interview with The Hindu published on Monday, Banerjee said the "nuclear steam supply system" was 100% ready.

"We are only waiting for other systems to become operational so that we can start the commissioning activity of the reactor. I really do not know when the harbor trials will be done."

The Indian Navy needs three or four nuclear-powered submarines to be a viable force.

Enriched uranium for these submarines will come from the Rare Materials Plant at Ratnahalli, near Mysore, Banerjee said.
 
. . . . .
How is arihant powered now ?

It is still to undertake harbor trials -- so in all probability it has to be either steam or urgent battery power for short range displacement. Once reactor and all sub components are ready then Hull will be cut open and the reactor placed inside.
 
. . .
arihant might b presently running on sum alternate power source
 
.
they might have bought a russian one:whistle:

Where did you got such information? The chief of Atomic energy commission say this....

INS Arihant is an Indian design: Anil Kakodkar


‘It has been done by Indians and it is something which is not available for the asking, whatever money you want to pay.’

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh unveiled the country’s highly classified nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant. But no details were made available, either about the submarine or about its heart, the nuclear reactor, which powers this indigenous effort. India became the sixth country after Russia, America, France, the U.K. and China to have its very own nuclear submarine, an essential requirement for India’s second-strike capability. In an exclusive interview to Pallava Bagla, Science Editor for NDTV and correspondent for Science, Chief of India’s Atomic Energy programme Anil Kakodkar reveals how the “baby” reactor was put together. The reactor has been working for several years and has been in the making for more than a decade. But due to the secrecy of the project, it was kept under wraps.

This nuclear submarine for which the reactor has been made by your team, how significant an achievement is that?

Well, we have a compact propulsion reactor which has been tested at Kalpakkam for the last three years and this is an exact prototype of what has been installed in INS Arihant which was launched soon. So it’s a major achievement of new reactor technology which incidentally will also be required for the larger power programme because this is based on pressurised water reactors (PWR). So this signifies both. We have a compact power plant for propulsion but we also have PWR technology which can be used for electricity production through indigenous route in future.

So why should Indians be proud of this?

Well, one has to be proud because it has been done here, it has been done by Indians and this is something which is not available for the asking, whatever money you want to pay. There is no way to acquire that unless you do it yourself and not many countries have such a capability. So it is certainly a matter to be proud of.

So how different is a reactor in a nuclear submarine as compared to, say, a reactor you see at Narora or Kakrapar or by way of scale?

There are several very distinguishing features and very important challenges. First, it’s a moving system and particularly it’s a ship so we have to have a reactor which would work in spite of the different kinds of rolling, pitching motions. It could also be subjected to attacks supposing there’s a depth charge near by. It should be able to withstand the kind of acceleration loads that will be seen on the components. So this is one important challenge. We do design reactors for withstanding earthquakes. This is one, it has to be able to withstand motions and forces which are of a much larger magnitude. Then, the compactness is another feature within the space that you can occupy for a given power. A submarine reactor is extremely small compared to the corresponding case in a power station. Third is in terms of the energy density — again it arises out of the compactness but to be able to realise that, you should be able to exchange a large amount of power in a small volume in a small surface area. There are also requirements of the rapid response. In a land based reactor, we can live with a somewhat slower response in terms of change of power in a given time. But this being a propulsion system, particularly for the kind the navy people will be required to work on, you require a reactor which can have a very fast response. So that means the nuclear fuel has to be of that kind, the reactor systems have to be of that kind. So there are several such challenges which have been successfully overcome, quite apart from the fact that this is a PWR technology and that itself has its own challenges.

But people say or have constantly said that India doesn’t have the expertise in enrichment. So does this criticality of the ‘PRP,’ as it is called, lay to rest the controversy that India does not have the full capability of enrichment?

Yes, we have an enrichment plant at Mysore, the Rare Materials Plant and that plant has sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of this programme. This reactor is now running for three years. So obviously, we had got the fuel earlier than that.

Was this completely made in India?

Yes.

Designed, fabricated and executed in India?

Yes, that’s right, by Indian industries.

And by Indian scientists?

Yes.

At Vizag, the Prime Minister went out of the way and thanked the Russians, and the Russian Ambassador was also present. What was the role of the Russians? India had leased a Russian nuclear submarine?

I would also like to thank our Russian colleagues. They have played a very important role as consultants, they have a lot of experience in this, so their consultancy has been of great help. I think we should acknowledge that.

Consultancy for what?

For various things, as you go along when you are doing things for the first time — with a consultant by your side, you can do it more confidently and these are difficult time-consuming challenges. So you have to do this without too much of iterative steps and consultancy helped in that.

So this is not a Russian design?

It is an Indian design.

Indian design, made in India, by Indians?

Yes, that’s right.

You have had the system running here in Kalpakkam for several years. Has it functioned smoothly?

Yes, it is working extremely well.

No outages, no issues?

Well this is run in a campaign mode because this is run in the same way as one would expect in the real situation. So it is running in a campaign mode because I think the important thing is to be able to ramp up and come down and it is really doing extremely well.

It is believed that it will also carry some things which the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has developed [the nuclear bombs]. So will it really give India the second strike capability because we have a no-first-use policy?

Yes that is the purpose of such a platform.

And this platform will ensure that?

Yes.

Are you confident of that?

Of course, I am confident. It has been designed with a lot of care.

I am told it is about ten times smaller than a normal power reactor, is that correct?

Well if you want to construct a power reactor of a similar power capacity, it would happen that way, yes.

So would it be fair to call it a baby reactor?

It is a small reactor compared to, say, for example a commercial power station, 1000 MW (electric) would generate more than 3000 MW of heat, which is about 30 times what we produce here. Of course, such reactors are huge in size and dimensions and all. But it is a small compact reactor. And that’s the challenge about it.

So, when can one expect to have criticality on the sea-based reactor in the INS Arihant?

This will be essentially decided by the Navy, as I said they have a fairly elaborate sequence of activities through these trials and whenever they are ready for going through the criticality, I am sure our people will facilitate that to happen quickly.

Nuclear reactors for submarines are used normally for increasing the endurance. What is the kind of endurance you are being able to provide to INS Arihant?

Well it will be, in fact, in terms of the actual use for a nuclear submarine. The endurance is dictated more by human endurance rather than the energy of the power pack endurance. Power pack endurance is usually much larger. So it’s the human endurance — it can remain submerged depending upon the human endurance.

And will this submarine leave radioactive trace behind it because you have some kind of shadow shielding?

No, none at all. Because that has been factored into the design and there will be absolutely no trace left behind.

So, once the vessel dives it can remain hidden from Vizag to Mumbai all through?

Yes, as long as it is submerged it will remain hidden and it can remain submerged for a long time.

Is the noise level comparable to other submarines of this class, since that is one way of detecting submarines?

Yes, I think so. You have seen the inside. Tell me if you felt some sound there?

Compared to a power reactor the sound was minimal.

Compared to machinery running in any other place, did you hear much sound? I think this is a very quiet system.

Source : the Hindu
 
. . . .
It is still to undertake harbor trials -- so in all probability it has to be either steam or urgent battery power for short range displacement. Once reactor and all sub components are ready then Hull will be cut open and the reactor placed inside.

There is no way you can launch or trial your first nuke submarine without reactor inside it. Its commonsense. Dr. Kakodkar clarified it.
 
.
May be news is about New design or improved design

You are rite. Details and actual interview....

‘In the event of a nuclear incident, victims must get prompt compensation'

T. S. Subramanian

September 6, 2010


Interview with Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.

While the Lok Sabha passed the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, on August 25, the Rajya Sabha passed it five days later. In this context, Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), spoke to T.S. Subramanian on September 2 in Chennai. Dr. Banerjee answered questions about the Bill, India's nuclear-powered submarine programme, the uranium enrichment capability and so on. Excerpts.

It is a year since India's nuclear-powered submarine, Arihant, was launched. Has the Light Water Reactor (LWR), using enriched uranium as fuel, on board the submarine been started up?

Our nuclear steam supply system is ready 100 per cent. From our (DAE) side, everything is ready. We are only waiting for other systems to become operational so that we can start the commissioning activity of the reactor. I really do not know when the harbour trials will be done.


The Navy will need three or four nuclear-powered submarines for this arm to be a viable force. Will you build more LWRs for these submarines?

We are already doing that. I will not be able to tell you the number, but it is a fact that we are in that game. The next nuclear steam generating plants are getting ready for future applications.


Where will the enriched uranium for these boats come from? There is only one Rare Materials Plant at Ratnahalli, near Mysore, to produce enriched uranium. Will the proposed Special Material Enrichment Facility in Chitradurga district in Karnataka be helpful?

Chitradurga will come a little later, not immediately. Our Ratnahalli plant capacity has been enhanced. But more than that, there is significant improvement in our technology. Usually, a term called Separating Work Units (SWUs) defines the technology level that we have achieved in this, and I can assure you that there has been considerable improvement in SWUs of our next generation caskets of centrifuges. The separating capacity of our centrifuges has improved. So total capacity enhancement at Ratnahalli has been done. We are confident of supplying the entire fuel for the set of….

You cannot say anymore that India does not have enrichment technology. India has its own technology and we can produce [enriched uranium]. We have not started doing it for large-scale commercial nuclear power stations, which require a much larger quantity of enriched uranium. We will be able to do that once we go to Chitradurga.

There is an impression that the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of the Indian Industry (CII) were scaremongering that the American companies would not give India nuclear reactors and that the Indian companies would not provide components and equipment to them if clause 17(b) of the Civil Liability for the Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, remained in the legislation. (Clause 17 says that “The operator of the nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear damage in accordance with section 6, shall have a right of recourse where – (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage”). Top officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) went on record that clause 17(b) would deter the suppliers from engaging in nuclear commerce with India. Why are the DAE/the NPCIL batting for the American suppliers?

No. Before discussing the right of recourse of the operator, let me tell you about the basic purpose behind the introduction of the nuclear liability Bill. In the very unlikely event of a nuclear incident, we do not want the victims to go for an extended process of litigation to claim compensation. The victims must get prompt and no-fault compensation. Prompt in terms of time, and no-fault meaning that you don't have to prove the fault of the operator or anyone to get the compensation.

The Bill identifies clearly who takes the liability. It is clear that the liability is taken by the operator.

There are many undue apprehensions that all this is being done for the private sector's entry into the Indian nuclear business. Private participation even today is very high. If you look at the nuclear industry in India, all the major manufacturers of equipment and components are in the private sector. However, for this Bill, there is a specific requirement that the nuclear power plant operator will be either the Government itself or a Government company, as defined in the Atomic Energy Act. So this apprehension that this is only a precursor to allowing the private sector to come in as operators of nuclear power plants is totally dispelled.

The second point is the suppliers' liability. What is the meaning of the phrase, “the right of recourse” of the operator? It means the operator first takes his own liability to compensate the victims and after the compensations are paid, he has the right of recourse to sue the suppliers, provided he has definite proof of faulty supply [in the equipment] which has been the primary cause of the incident. The Bill establishes prompt compensation from the operator to the victim.

This whole Bill is between the victims and the operators. It creates a new legal authority called the Claims Commission or the Claims Commissioner. That authority will determine, depending on the scale of the event, how much compensation should be given. The Bill also mentions that the Indian laws, whatever is available today, are in no way affected by the introduction of this new Act. The right of recourse in this case is available to the operator through other Acts [also].

Tort law?

Tort is there. Defect liability is there…. Only in this Act, it has been mentioned that they have the right of recourse. We [the DAE] are not taking sides. We just want to make a victim-friendly legislation and make the operator liable. One of the points is that you are inculcating safety-consciousness in the operator because you are introducing a heavy liability in case any incident occurs which affects the people. We sincerely believe that no situation will arise where it will be necessary to invoke this law.

There was an attempt in June to delete clause 17(b). There was a DAE internal note to that effect.

It was not an attempt.

The perception is that there was pressure on the DAE from the Prime Minister's Office to delete the clause.

No. Let me explain. There are two contradictory requirements. On the one side, you have to look at the international practice, what are the laws available in several countries. In most of these legislations, there is no mention of the right of recourse…. In some way, there is a mention and statements are similar to what is indicated in 17(a) and (c).

On the other side, when you are getting equipment and components from several suppliers, in case a fault in any of them leads to a nuclear accident, there should be some suppliers' responsibility. This is the contradiction.

That is why this point was discussed in detail during several discussions of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Based on its recommendations and a broad political consensus, the present language in clause 17 was evolved.

Was there no pressure at all from the American suppliers to remove 17(b)?

It is a legislation made in India. So we have to ensure that it is India-centric. It cannot be based on what you are calling pressures from other countries. In any case, there will be many things published in the press, many viewpoints being expressed. But you cannot say that an Indian lobby is being created by pressure from other countries.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom