02-21-2011, 12:42 PM
[quote name='Arun_S' date='20 February 2011 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1298261823' post='110860']
Indian deterrence (medium and high yield) requires large qty of WgPu and Supergrade Pu.
Lacking ability to field Thermo nukes the lack of CIRUS and and reprocessign capacity is even more appalling.
In my language medium yield is ~ 25-50 kt and high yield is 150-300 kt.
[/quote]
1. This is why, as BK indicates, some fraction of the PHWR power has been used for WGPu production in low burn mode. I think the bottleneck here is really regarding reprocessing. You have said earlier that 40% of reprocessing capacity used for this is a good estimate. Do you mean 40% * Capacity factor or 40% itself ?
2. BK book of course, indicates higher WGPu production than any NPA estimate. Reprocessing will be less of a constraint once PFBR comes online, with axial and radial blankets being used for this. Spent fuel from pfbr has much higher Pu content/THM.
3. It still makes sense to have some corrected (even if untested) TNs in the mix. A future govt. can then break out of this self-imposed logjam by testing.
4. You also said some days back that RGPu plays a key role in our deterrent (non low yield). Maybe for medium yield FBFs ? I read that boosting enables porduction of reliable wpns with RGPu. Of course, not deployable on Submarines, but land based is another matter.
5. Hope reprocessing capacity is further increased rapidly. Srikumar Banerjee says there will be 3*500 thm/pa lines by 2020. That will be good. If there is no unwanted interference, that will be the time frame by which deterrence will be more credible.
Indian deterrence (medium and high yield) requires large qty of WgPu and Supergrade Pu.
Lacking ability to field Thermo nukes the lack of CIRUS and and reprocessign capacity is even more appalling.
In my language medium yield is ~ 25-50 kt and high yield is 150-300 kt.
[/quote]
1. This is why, as BK indicates, some fraction of the PHWR power has been used for WGPu production in low burn mode. I think the bottleneck here is really regarding reprocessing. You have said earlier that 40% of reprocessing capacity used for this is a good estimate. Do you mean 40% * Capacity factor or 40% itself ?
2. BK book of course, indicates higher WGPu production than any NPA estimate. Reprocessing will be less of a constraint once PFBR comes online, with axial and radial blankets being used for this. Spent fuel from pfbr has much higher Pu content/THM.
3. It still makes sense to have some corrected (even if untested) TNs in the mix. A future govt. can then break out of this self-imposed logjam by testing.
4. You also said some days back that RGPu plays a key role in our deterrent (non low yield). Maybe for medium yield FBFs ? I read that boosting enables porduction of reliable wpns with RGPu. Of course, not deployable on Submarines, but land based is another matter.
5. Hope reprocessing capacity is further increased rapidly. Srikumar Banerjee says there will be 3*500 thm/pa lines by 2020. That will be good. If there is no unwanted interference, that will be the time frame by which deterrence will be more credible.