China boasts breakthrough in nuclear technology

[Martian2]

I will definitely wait for it,but not something 12 yrs old,u can bring some new ones

And by the way Indian uranium reserves r not even sufficient to run even single of its plants,we r bound to export uranium

It's a 2007 Ph.D. doctoral dissertation by an Indian at Texas A&M. In other words, if he's biased then he will heavily favor India.

 

[prototype]

Alex the little(indian) boy please dont intefere us men (china and russia)talking. please have a decency to know you are not in our league.

So u in a mood to make it personal,is it?

 

[prototype]

It's a 2007 Ph.D. study by an Indian doctoral dissertation at Texas A&M. In other words, if he's biased, he's heavily favoring India.

and what does it say

By the way breeder tech is also about reprocessing and recycling not only plutonium and uranium in spent fuel, but all the actinides, closing the nuclear fuel cycle and potentially multiplying the energy extracted from natural uranium

And India is one of the nation who had mastered breeder program,so importing,exporting fuel had not to do much with it,even with the multiplied energy u can still import fuel,if ur reserves r to low

 

[ChinaRocks]

So u in a mood to make it personal,is it?

Nothing personal i just stated the fact, india is way way way far behind china and russia, no point of discuss anything with regard of technology and invoation with india.

 

[Martian2]

I've already explained that it's a typo by the BBC.

Wait a second and I'll post the link to India's limited reprocessing abilities by the end of 1998. It also explains that India would have run out of nuclear fuel by around 2010 without importation of international nuclear fuel. This problem only exists if India has not mastered the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle.

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/85860/Woddi.pdf?sequence=1

"ABSTRACT
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Assessment of India:
A Technical Study for U.S.–India Cooperation. (December 2007)
Taraknath Woddi Venkat Krishna, B. Tech., Orissa University of Agriculture and
Technology;
M.S., Texas A&M University
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. William S. Charlton"
...
"IV.B. Assessment of Plutonium Production and Use: Beginning till 1998" (p. 38)
...
"Given the limited reprocessing capabilities of India, it is assumed that most of the
spent fuel is in storage for future use. Assuming 6 kilograms of weapons-grade
plutonium was used for Pokhran-I tests, 24 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium was
used for Pokhran-II tests, and 50 kilograms for FBTR core, India would have had
enough weapons-grade plutonium in 1998 (center bottom in Figure 3) for at least 44
implosion devices (assuming 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium required for a
weapon)." (p. 42)

"The total amount of UO2 consumed until 2006 is determined through the sum of
quantities in the right-hand-side of Tables XIII and XIV plus 40 tons each for the fresh
core loading of the 12 plants. The total amount of UO2 produced is 5410 tons (Table XII)
and the total amount of UO2 consumed is 4330 tons. In addition the production reactors
(CIRUS and DHRUVA), consumed 609 tons of UO2 by the end of 2006. Thus, the total
UO2 reserve available at the end of 2006 was 471 tons. Assuming no additional mining
activity is added, the reserves and production for the power reactors can last for only a
few more years. Table XV shows the fuel consumption for 2007 and 2008 from present
operating plants and newer additions. All the NPPs in India are presently operating at
60% or lower capacity factor. The same is assumed for all the power plants under
construction that may line up at the projected dates." (p. 52)

I don't like sloppy journalists that make up facts. I just want to prove the facts.

Anyway, let's proceed with the analysis:

1. At the end of 1998, India had limited reprocessing capability.

2. The Ph.D. dissertation makes clear that India, by 2007 (when the Ph.D. dissertation was written) was rapidly running out of nuclear fuel. If India possessed MASTERY of the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle and a nuclear reprocessing plant like France (e.g Normandy plant), Britain (e.g Sellafield plant), Russia (e.g Ekaterinburg plant), and now China then the Indian nuclear fuel could have been reprocessed to extract the energy by 60-fold.

3. Using logic, since India was unable to magnify the lifetime of its nuclear fuel by 60-fold, it stands to reason that India has not mastered the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle. Please do not make the excuse that reserves were low. India has plenty of nuclear fuel for its atomic weapons. The problem is that India cannot currently multiply its existing nuclear fuel stock by 60-fold or its "nuclear waste" by 59-fold (because it still has 59 reprocessing cycles left).

That's it for me. I'm done with this thread. You guys can proceed with the finger-pointing.

 

[prototype]

Nothing personal i just stated the fact, india is way way way far behind china and russia, no point of discuss anything with regard of technology and invoation with india.

Then dont indulge in name calling,I had so far never attacked any members directly,but that does not mean I will not go for it if people like u keep playing with my restraint.

I don't like sloppy journalists that make up facts. I just want to prove the facts and let the two of you fire barbs at each other.

Anyway, let's proceed with the analysis:

1. At the end of 1998, India had limited reprocessing capability.

2. The Ph.D. dissertation makes clear that India, by 2007 (when the Ph.D. dissertation was written) was rapidly running out of nuclear fuel. If India possessed MASTERY of the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle and possessed a nuclear reprocessing plant like France (e.g Normandy plant), Britain (e.g Sellafield plant), Russia (e.g Ekaterinburg plant), and now China then the Indian nuclear fuel could have been reprocessed to extract the energy by 60-fold.

3. Using logic, since India was unable to magnify the lifetime of its nuclear fuel by 60-fold, it stands to reason that India has not mastered the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle. Please do not make the excuse that reserves were low. India has plenty of nuclear fuel for its atomic weapons. The problem is that India cannot currently multiply its existing nuclear fuel stock and "nuclear waste" (which still has 59 reprocessing cycles left) by 60-fold.

That's it for me. I'm done with this thread. You guys can proceed with the finger-pointing.

Weird logic,ur assessment is based on a repost at the end of 1998 and an independent report in 2007(not sanctioned by Indian govt).

By the way do u know that Tarapur plant had to closed back some time because of our depleting resources,thats why I told we r bound to import.

Meanwhile yes i dont thing we had mastered closed Uranium cycle in heavy pressurized water reactor(not sure),

But had already succeeded in Thorium cycle and breeder technology,yhe only reason we r not going for it is the reasonable high cost currently when compared to heavy water pressurized reactor.

Bye

 

[BigTree.CN]

Calm down guys, according to Chinese media, India has acquired similar technology long before China does, they deserve some credit for such an accomplishment.

ÎÒ¹úºË¼¼Êõ»ñÖØ´óÍ»ÆÆ ÏÖÓÐÓË×ÊÔ´¹»ÓÃ3000Äê_ÐÂÎÅÖÐÐÄ_ÐÂÀËÍø

落后印度或约20年(China is behind India for about 20 years)

　　值得一提的是，同为发展中国家的印度，早在上世纪60年代中期就掌握了这项技术，掌握该技术的时间甚至早于德国和日本。
( What should be noted is India, though being a developing like China, gained such technology as early as in middle 60s, which is even before Japan and Germany.)

　　印度在上世纪50年代就开始乏燃料后处理技术的研究，现有3座规模不大的后处理厂在运行。2007年印度开始建设实验快堆乏燃料后处理厂，计划在2012年建设快堆乏燃料商用后处理厂。

　　据中核集团规划发展部主任曹述栋介绍，作为核电界的后来者，印度自身的铀储量少、品位低，在发展核电的过程中还受到了多方面制约，因此极为重视后处理厂和快堆建设，很早就制定了清晰的核能发展战略，即便在1974年，由于拒绝在《核不扩散条约》上签字的印度进行首次核武试验遭到了西方的核贸易禁运后，该国依然未放弃在民用核能方面的技术探索。

　　一位不愿透露姓名的核能专家则表示，在核能工业上，尽管近几年中国作出了艰苦的努力，但“冰冻三尺非一日之寒”，几十年下来，中国在快堆和燃料循环技术方面已经大大落后于印度，“可能落后印度20到25年”。 (A nuclear expert who insists on anonymity explained, China though has made signiifcant effort in recent years, is still much left behind by India with regard to fast breeder technology and fuel recycling technology. "China may be behind India for about 20-25 year.)

And according to the article, before China, 8 other countries have already mastered this kind of nuclear technology, which are US, UK, France, Belgium, India, Germany, and Japan. It is pretty clear China has much catch-up to do.

My first time to translate Chinese article, please forgive me for the mistakes I have made.

 

[Martian2]

Calm down guys, according to Chinese media, India has acquired similar technology long before China does, they deserve some credit for such an accomplishment.

落后印度或约20年(China is behind India for about 20 years)

　　值得一提的是，同为发展中国家的印度，早在上世纪60年代中期就掌握了这项技术，掌握该技术的时间甚至早于 德国和日本。
(What should be noted is India, though being a developing like China, gained such technology as early as in middle 60s, which is even before Japan and Germany.)

　　印度在上世纪50年代就开始乏燃料后处理技术的研究，现有3座规模不大的后处理厂在运行。2007年印 度开始建设实验快堆乏燃料后处理厂，计划在2012年建设快堆乏燃料商用后处理厂。

　　据中核集团规划发展部主任曹述栋介绍，作为核电界的后来者，印度自身的铀储量少、品位低，在发展核电的 过程中还受到了多方面制约，因此极为重视后处理厂和快堆建设，很早就制定了清晰的核能发展战略，即便在19 74年，由于拒绝在《核不扩散条约》上签字的印度进行首次核武试验遭到了西方的核贸易禁运后，该国依然未放 弃在民用核能方面的技术探索。

　　一位不愿透露姓名的核能专家则表示，在核能工业上，尽管近几年中国作出了艰苦的努力，但“冰冻三尺非一日之 寒”，几十年下来，中国在快堆和燃料循环技术方面已经大大落后于印度，“可能落后印度20到2 5年”。 (A nuclear expert who insists on anonymity explained, China though has made significant effort in recent years, is still much left behind by India with regard to fast breeder technology and fuel recycling technology. "China may be behind India for about 20-25 year.)

And according to the article, before China, 8 other countries have already mastered this kind of nuclear technology, which are US, UK, France, Belgium, India, Germany, and Japan. It is pretty clear China has much catch-up to do.

My first time to translate Chinese article, please forgive me for the mistakes I have made.

This is my last post here, because I'm getting bogged down by amazing claims from unreliable sources.

Let me address that Chinese article. It claims that India had better nuclear technology than Japan or Germany in the 1960s. It further claims that India is 20 to 25 years ahead of China in nuclear technology. I'm sorry, but I don't think any objective person on this forum is willing to believe either claim.

To my knowledge, India is currently unable to match Chinese nuclear accomplishments in posts #9, #10, and #12. The article that you posted is not based on reality.

 

[Brotherhood]

Calm down guys, according to Chinese media, India has acquired similar technology long before China does, they deserve some credit for such an accomplishment.



And according to the article, before China, 8 other countries have already mastered this kind of nuclear technology, which are US, UK, France, Belgium, India, Germany, and Japan. It is pretty clear China has much catch-up to do.

My first time to translate Chinese article, please forgive me for the mistakes I have made.

Wow, shocking indeed..."sina news"? how many thanks do you think you will get from...

 

[Martian2]

Instead of reading ridiculous articles with unbelievable claims, I suggest that you read mainstream articles, like the one below. The writer also has a Ph.D. (see end of article).

China, Russia Surging Ahead in Nuclear Technology - by Jay Lehr - Environment & Climate News

"China, Russia Surging Ahead in Nuclear Technology
Environment & Climate News > May 2010
Energy > Nuclear Power
Written By: Jay Lehr
Published In: Environment & Climate News > May 2010
Publication date: 04/02/2010
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) raised an important issue last fall in a press release. He said:

"Communications experts say that fear is the best way to get attention when you're trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have certainly mastered that technique by playing to economic, environmental, and safety fears. So I'd like to introduce a little element of fear into my argument here. I want to suggest what could happen if we don't adopt nuclear power as a more important part of our energy future."

Alexander went on to note Russia, China, and many other countries are currently developing and utilizing nuclear power while the United States remains behind. How, then, he asked, are we going to be able to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we're stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy that is really not much energy at all?

"The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power,” Alexander said.

Chinese Using Newest Technology
In January 2006, Alexander noted, the Chinese sent a delegation of nuclear scientists and administrators to the United States on a fact-finding mission. They toured the Idaho National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory and visited GE and Westinghouse, to help them decide which technology to choose for their nuclear program.

Perhaps surprisingly, given that we haven't issued a construction permit to build a new reactor in the past 30 years, most countries still look to us for leadership in this technology.

The Chinese eventually chose Westinghouse technology for their next-generation reactors. At the time Westinghouse was an American company. In 2007 Toshiba bought Westinghouse, so it is now a Japanese company.

By 2008 the Chinese had shovels in the ground. The first four Westinghouse reactors are scheduled for completion by 2011. China also bought a pair of Russian reactors, which should be finished around the same time.

They have been talking about building 60 reactors over the next 20 years, and they just recently raised their goal to 132 reactors. They mean business.

U.S. Falling Behind
What have we accomplished in the meantime? In 2007 NRG, a New Jersey company, filed the first application to build a new reactor in the United States in 30 years.

The licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will take five years, after which opponents will file lawsuits and the whole thing will move to the courts. If they're lucky, they might have a reactor up and running by 2020.

Other companies have followed suit, and there are now 34 proposals before the NRC, but nobody has broken ground yet. It isn't likely the Chinese will be coming to us any time soon for more tips on how to build reactors.

The Russians are also getting into the game. They're in the midst of a big revival, planning to double the production of electricity from nuclear power by 2020. France, Britain, South Korea, and India are all following suit. Very soon every major nuclear country in the world will be able to forge its own reactor vessels—except one. And that's us.

No steel company in America is capable of forging the hardened steel nuclear reactor cores—known as ingots—that house fuel rods. The ingots weigh more than 270 tons each and are absolutely crucial to nuclear reactors. When it comes to the infrastructure for building nuclear power reactors, we're still stuck in the 1960s.

Domestic Supplies Depleted
The nuclear industry tells us at least 70 percent of the materials and equipment that go into our first few new reactors will have to come from abroad, because we've let our nuclear supply industry wither on the vine. In 1990 there were 150 domestic suppliers making parts for nuclear reactors. Today there are only 40, and most of them do their business overseas.

Of the 34 proposals before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 are designed by Westinghouse, (which, as noted, is now a Japanese company), and nine are from Areva, the French giant.

General Electric, the only American company left in the field, has partnered with Hitachi to build the remaining five, but it fared poorly in the competition for federal loan guarantees. Two utilities have now cancelled their orders with GE, and there are rumors GE may quit the field entirely.

Russians Lead in Mini-Reactors
Babcock & Wilcox is the one American company that stirred some interest recently, when it announced plans for a new "mini-reactor." This is a 125-megawatt unit that can be manufactured at the factory and shipped by rail to the site, where several units can be fit together like Lego blocks.

This created the impression that America might be innovating again, forging back into the lead. But the complete prototype for the Babcock & Wilcox reactor is still two years away, and then it may take another five years to get NRC design approval.

Meanwhile, the Russians are already building a mini-reactor that will be floated into a Siberian village on a barge. And they've got orders for mini-reactors from 12 countries. In spite of Babcock & Wilcox's fine effort, the Russians are considerably ahead of us.

Does this inspire a little fear? It should.

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute."

 

[BigTree.CN]

Wow, shocking indeed..."sina news"? how many thanks do you think you will get from...

文章源自于东方早报，新浪网只是转载。
?????????? -??-?????

I don't care how many thanks I will get from whomever.

 

[Martian2]

文章源自于东方早报，新浪网只是转载。
?????????? -??-?????

I don't care how many thanks I will get from whomever.

You should read mainstream articles written by real experts and stop posting that nonsense. People are interested in facts, not falsehoods or propaganda. If you keep this up, your credibility will become seriously damaged.

I have been generous with you by debunking two wild claims. Firstly, you made an unsubstantiated claim of South Korea being further advanced than China in technology. I showed you that on eight widely-recognized benchmarks, South Korea could not match a single Chinese accomplishment and some occurred 40 years ago (e.g. 1971 successful Chinese rocket launch).

Secondly, I have shown you that China is far ahead of India in nuclear technologies (see posts #9, #10, #12, and #100). I do not like to waste my time. I will not spend precious time to debunk your next wild claim. If you care about your credibility, you will refrain from posting a claim that defies common knowledge.

Common sense should tell you that if India still can't build a nuclear submarine then their nuclear technology is not very advanced. Everyone knows that China has deployed Type 093 Shang-class nuclear attack submarines and Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs. China is way ahead. Those are the facts.

Type 093 Shang-class Nuclear Attack Submarine (SSN)

Type 094 Jin-class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN)

 

[BigTree.CN]

Martian, I only said something like India is ahead of China in fast breeder technology and fuel recycling technology because they aquired such technologies earlier than China. I have never claimed that China is left behind by India with regard to the whole nuclear industry.

 

[Martian2]

Martian, I only said something like India is ahead of China in fast breeder technology and fuel recycling technology because they aquired such technologies earlier than China. I have never claimed that China is left behind by India with regard to the whole nuclear industry.

India is decade(s) behind China in all nuclear technologies, except for those two that you claim? Does that make any sense to you?

After this breakthrough in "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing, China has proclaimed that it is no longer worried about its nuclear fuel supply. If India had this breakthrough 20 to 25 years ago, why did India have only limited reprocessing capability by the end of 1998 and why is India desperate to import nuclear fuel? Analogous to China, why hasn't India proclaimed its freedom from worrying about its nuclear fuel supply?

The answer is simple. India has NOT MASTERED the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing technologies. Does this make sense? Of course it does. Just like all of the other nuclear technologies, India is decade(s) behind China in MASTERING the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing technologies.

I just want you to stop posting incredible claims without providing substantial documented evidence from respectable sources to back it up. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Please use your common sense. Either India is decades ahead of China in nuclear technologies or it's not. It is illogical to recognize that India is decades(s) behind China in vast areas of nuclear technologies, but claim it is 20 to 25 years ahead in only two specialized areas. That just doesn't make any sense.

That's like saying that Taiwan is decade(s) behind the United States in stealth technologies, but Taiwan has radar absorbing material that is 20 to 25 years ahead of American stealth technology. Would you believe that silly claim? Alternatively, how about Taiwan is decade(s) behind the U.S. in fighter jet technologies, but Taiwan has a jet engine that is 20 to 25 years ahead of American technology and can travel at hypersonic speed. Would you believe that goofy claim?

 

[Speeder 2]

India is decade(s) behind China in all nuclear technologies, except for those two that you claim? Does that make any sense to you?

After this breakthrough in "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing, China has proclaimed that it is no longer worried about its nuclear fuel supply.

If India had this breakthrough 20 to 25 years ago, why did India have only limited reprocessing capability by the end of 1998 and why is India desperate to import nuclear fuel?

Analogous to China, why hasn't India proclaimed its freedom from worrying about its nuclear fuel supply?

The answer is simple.

India has NOT MASTERED the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing technologies.

Does this make sense? Of course it does.

Just like all of the other nuclear technologies, India is decade(s) behind China in MASTERING the "closed" nuclear fuel cycle reprocessing technologies.

...

Please use your common sense.

Either India is decades ahead of China in nuclear technologies or its not. It is illogical to recognize that India is decades(s) behind China in vast areas of nuclear technologies, but claim it is 20 to 25 years ahead in only two specialized areas. That just doesn't make any sense.


That's like saying that Taiwan is decade(s) behind the United States in stealth technologies, but Taiwan has radar absorbing material that is 20 to 25 years ahead of American stealth technology.

Would you believe that silly claim? Alternatively, how about Taiwan is decade(s) behind the U.S. in fighter jet technologies, but Taiwan has a jet engine that is 20 to 25 years ahead of American technology and can travel at hypersonic speed.

Would you believe that goofy claim?

Bravo, Martian!! I can't put it better. This is what I would call Common Sense and Sharp Logic!

If I could I would have given you 10 thanks for this post alone.

I am not a nuclear expert though, but do some a heck of common sense, and one doesn't have to be anexpert to counter some wild claims that defy logic:

{ as a side note here, China has fielded 4th gen nuke attack sub (094?) and definitely is researching the 5th gen (095) while India is struggling to even field the 1st gen nuke sub (091 equivalent at China's 1960s level) in the coming years. }

To claim that India is 20 to 25 years in a particular step of the same/highly related technology (while drastically behind in the whole process at that same time as per fact) is just too wild to cut it, because a. technologies in highly related areas are closely inter-connected and b. more often than not millitary industry and cilvilian one share the similar level of the same tech.

Therefore, apart from what Martian just brilliantly argued, another question regarding that counter-common sense "20-25 yrs lead" claim would be:

If it were true, then India would also be about 20 to 25 years ahead of China in the related spin-off civilian or millitary technologies. But where are they? ( It is in the same vein of logic of this question that if one claims that the US is 20 yeard ahead of China in civilian chip making, then one must also logically expect that the US has about 20 years lead over CHina as well in the corresponding millitary chip tech. It is utterly dumbfounded to claim though, in an analogy of above nuke example, that the US is 20 years of China ahead in millitary chip , while China is 20 years ahead of the US in some prossesing parts of civilian chip making. Impossible! )

It is because the very same "brains" that made India "20-25 years ahead" in step 3 for example (the original claim) could have had easily and logically diverted part of their time and efforts to make step 2 and step 4, for example, very advanced as well in order to have a very advanced whole process with perhaps much less than 20 years overall lead speaking. The fact that this is not the case for India defies the common sense so much that one has no choice but cast doubts on that original claim.

[/B]


(btw, that nameless expert quoted in the chinese article could say so out of some ulterior motives such as asking for more funding, etc.)