Pakistan may be building FIFTH reactor at Khushab

[Karl]

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/...nuary_2015_reactor_four_operational_FINAL.pdf

 

[farhan_9909]

I have read somewhere that the 4th reactor in Khushab might be for the quest of thermonuclear weapons developments,Ahmad has also said so

We should have the capacity of atleast 150kg of plutonium per year

 

[WAJsal]

Pakistan's fourth nuclear reactor at Khushab now appears operational
@farhan_9909

 

[Kompromat]

More the merrier.

 

[graphican]

We know nuclear weapons will be helpful in the case of war but is in the peace time, we are also alive.. infect that is the only time when we need nuclear energy, in the case of war enemy would be needing heat out of it.

 

[Shotgunner51]

More the merrier.

Getting there bro. Look forward to the two nuclear power plants with a combined capacity of 2200 MW near Karachi, work started already, with ACP1000 if I remember correctly.

 

[waleed3601]

But this question is : Why do we need them?
We already have 4 functioning so why one more when the money can instead be spent on more productive things like the PSDP or solving electricity/petrol/gas crisis.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Fantastic development

 

[Dalit]

May be? Get the hell on with it!

 

[syedali73]

But this question is : Why do we need them?
We already have 4 functioning so why one more when the money can instead be spent on more productive things like the PSDP or solving electricity/petrol/gas crisis.

Not sure if correct or not, some nuclear physicist told me that erecting and maintaining a nuclear reactor is cheaper than a power plant running on furness oil.

Well, I guess the above statement is not right after all. Following is a good read:

Salient points -

1. Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

2. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.

3. Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets where short-term price signals present a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.

4. In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs

 

[waleed3601]

Not sure if correct or not, some nuclear physicist told me that erecting and maintaining a nuclear reactor is cheaper than a power plant running on furness oil.

Well, I guess the above statement is not right after all. Following is a good read:

Salient points -

1. Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

2. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.

3. Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets where short-term price signals present a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.

4. In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs

So the reactor that's being built will be used for generating electricity?
Because there's already 2 nuclear plants U/C at KANUPP with total generation capacity of over 2,000MW courtesy of our Chinese friends.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Maybe the 5th is for someone else ....

 

[Pakistanisage]

I have read somewhere that the 4th reactor in Khushab might be for the quest of thermonuclear weapons developments,Ahmad has also said so

We should have the capacity of atleast 150kg of plutonium per year

That should be enough Weapons Grade Plutonium to build 25 to 30 Nukes per year....

 

[Nefarious]

Thermo Nukes stacked to the ceiling please.

Thanks,

 

[Bouncer]

More the merrier.

Serious question please: strategically speaking, if we have a 100+ warheads already, do we really need more? I don't think any war (God forbid) will go beyond using 10 or maximum 20 weapons (you have destroyed 20 CITIES in enemy territory) and you have 80 more to fire.

So is it an R&D thing to keep adding more warheads or do more warheads really matter? I am guessing its one of these things because better minds in Pakistan, US, Russia, China, India etc have decided to keep increasing their stockpiles.