As India Announces Plans For Four New Reactors, Kudankulam-1 Gets Go-Ahead For Regular Operation

[FBaggins]

India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has granted a licence for “regular operation” of the Kudankulam-1 nuclear power reactor and siting consent for four new indigenous reactors on a greenfield site in northern India.

The AERB said Kudankulam-1, which began commercial operation on 31 December 2014, is one of two Russia VVER units being built in Tamil Nadu, southern India, as part of an agreement between India and Russia signed in 1988. Commercial operation is when the plant supplier officially hands over responsibility for continued operation to the operator.

...snip...

The 917-megawatt unit, India’s first pressurised water reactor unit, reached first criticality in July 2013 and was connected to the grid in October 2013. Commissioning was delayed because of protests and legal action following the March 2011 accident at Fukushima-Daiichi. The AERB also said the construction of Kudankulam-2 is complete and the plant is undergoing “commissioning activities”.

...snip...

The AERB also announced that it had given siting consent for four new 630-megawatt indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors at a nuclear station to be called Gorakhpur Haryana Anu Vidyut Pariyojana in the state of Haryana, northern India. The reactors will be the same as those under construction at Kakrapar-3 and -4, and Rajasthan-7 and -8.


http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2015/07/16/as-india-announces-plans-for-four-new-reactors-kudankulam-1-gets-go-ahead-for-regular-operation

How odd... I could have sworn that reliable sources here were certain that anti-nuclear forces were winning in India and that Kudankulam would never enter service.

[Fred Sanders]

1. "Anti-nuclear" is generic. There is a huge distinction between anti-nuclear power and anti-nuclear weapon.

For India nuclear power for a burgeoning electrical demand is the logical choice and their scientific expertise is world-class.

Not unlike Iran, which at least has given up on the weapons.

[FBaggins]

2. IIRC, it was the term that they used.

(or perhaps it was anti-nuclear "lobby" or "movement&quot . They were clearly referring to those who oppose nuclear power.

There is a huge distinction between anti-nuclear power and anti-nuclear weapon.

To most of us, that's true. We have no trouble opposing the later while supporting the former. To others? It's far too simple to conflate the two.


Not unlike Iran, which at least has given up on the weapons.

I wish I could believe that.