
US to build six nuclear power plants in India - sandwall
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/build-nuclear-power-plants-india-190314072408714.html
======
niftich
India has an intricate history with nuclear technology. Both the Soviet Union
and the US courted India in the 1950s, but in the end it was Canada who
donated a design for the first Indian reactor that came online in the 1960s.
The US assisted with building another. Indian testing of nuclear weapons in
the 1970s drew a sharp rebuke from several countries and the US and Canada
withdrew their assistance. This also resulted in the creation of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, an export control regime to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Cut off from exporters of nuclear technology, they slowly continued with
domestic designs and new research. But their tremendous size and influence
made them an attractive partner in geopolitical power plays.

In 1988 the Soviet Union and India announced they would build two new
reactors, and the US fiercely protested at the time. The Soviet Union fell
apart, and the Russians didn't resume the project for another 10 years, but
construction eventually began in 2002. In 2006 the US and India reached an
agreement to cooperate and the US lobbied for an exemption for India from the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was granted. It quickly became obvious that
everyone wanted a slice of the Indian nuclear energy market.

Disregarding climate change for a moment, it's clear that the energy demand in
India is increasing, and despite a rapid rise in the deployment of renewables,
utility-scale generation is still 75% coal. This contributes greatly to
pollution. Local coal lower quality than elsewhere, requiring more per unit of
power. Nuclear will be an important complement to renewables as the energy mix
slowly migrates off of coal. Unlike the US, which is awash in cheap natural
gas that's readily stored and piped where needed, helping to even out the
mismatch between solar generation and demand, India has very little natural
gas, so it can't afford to pursue a strategy that deemphasizes nuclear energy.

~~~
ergothus
Missing from that history was India developing nuclear weapons in the late 90s
- I imagine that changed the politics immensely.

Today they are an even more important and influential geopolitical ally, and
the pollution argument you raise is as important as you say, but the concerns
about a power supplying them with nuclear weapons ala the alleged Israel/US
history is no longer a part of it (I assume).

...then again, I could be completely wrong in any of this. Comments welcome.

~~~
femto
One concern is nuclear material being diverted from their civilian programs to
weapons programs. As a major suppler of uranium, this has been an issue in
Australia for the last decade. India wants Australian uranium, but they aren't
a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It seems that the $ won out though,
as Australia is now shipping uranium to India.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-
mak...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-19/australia-quietly-makes-first-
uranium-shipment-to-india/8722108)

~~~
pushtheenvelope
it's worth understanding why India doesn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China,
Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either
all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

afaik india has a good record of preserving its nuclear secrets, and not doing
"proliferation" to other countries.

~~~
lmm
> The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China,
> Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either
> all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise,
and also to assist with civilian power efforts.

~~~
rainhacker
> Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise

and how is that going for the big players since the treaty was singed ?

~~~
lmm
Nuclear arsenals are a fraction of their former size, and "battlefield"
nuclear weapons have been almost entirely eliminated. But no-one has signed up
to take the final step down to zero.

~~~
pushtheenvelope
yeah, agree with you on arsenal sizes going down.

As much as I would like nuclear weapons gone, I don't see it as being done to
a satisfactory level that assuages India's concerns. I don't think anyone has
made a real commitment to denuclearizing, akin to what South Africa did a
while ago.

------
elsonrodriguez
> India plans to triple its nuclear capacity by 2024 to wean Asia's third-
> largest economy off polluting fossil fuels.

One has to admire the no-nonsense problem solving happening here.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I’ll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up. Until then,
it’s PR, not energy policy.

Aspiration alone is no different than failure.

~~~
Alupis
> I’ll admire it when the fuel is loaded and the generators spin up

Meanwhile, the United States continues to shut down Nuclear Reactors and
prevent modern constructions out of irrational fearmongering.

At least India recognizes the benefits of Nuclear Power...

~~~
dv_dt
It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering. Nuclear is
uneconomical, especially with renewable energy dropping in cost consistently.
Is France, the long time operator of one of the largest fleets, afraid of
nuclear - I think it is very experienced at managing nuclear, both old gen and
the very newest gen reactors. And yet this article:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-
po...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-power-costs-
will-rise-if-renewables-are-sidestepped)

France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building
15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to
replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said.

France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on
clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports,
according to a report from the country’s environment ministry. If it does
this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable
energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17
percent last year

~~~
endorphone
"It's a trope that Nuclear is failing because of fearmongering."

I think it's a large scale astroturfing effort by the nuclear industry (which
is huge, with a very small number of players) and the useful rubes who play
along.

Nuclear may be a necessary part of the grid mix, but the panacea presented has
never remotely been close to reality -- every build takes much longer than
promised, and always, with 100% certainty, costs billions more than planned.
Every build has maintenance that costs multiples of the claims, operation that
is far more expensive, and with waste products that there is still no viable
solution for, with an eternity of costs dragging them down. And nuclear only
exists because the public subsidizes it by eschewing the need for real
insurance (which would be prohibitively expensive otherwise).

In every economic sense nuclear has been an enormous boondoggle, and they
stopped making them because every energy provider got wise. This has nothing
to do with fearmongering or some sort of ignorant public -- quite the
contrary, the overwhelming public sentiment had no problem with nuclear --
though that claim frequently appears. It's bizarre.

~~~
acidburnNSA
To postulate a detachment of the economics of nuclear from public perception
very hard to justify in my opinion.

Certainly nuclear has been expensive to build and operate, and the industry is
by no means innocent in this. On the other hand, it's extremely regulated, and
the bureaucracy built up makes it very expensive, for example, to make a
routine change during construction from the blueprints. No other industry is
as regulated as nuclear.

During operation it's the same way. You can spend many person-months dealing
with corrective action procedures that are mandated, etc. Many of these are
considered by the industry to not actually affect safety. For instance the NRC
finds like 22,000 "green" findings and a few hundred "white" ones per year.
The white ones have low safety significance. Yet, the paperwork and follow-up
is nearly crippling.

That's good right? Because nuclear is dangerous? Wrong. Commercial nuclear
over its 60 years of commercial operation has killed as many people as coal
(operating as designed) kills every single day. Every time a nuclear plant
shuts down, more people die because of increased air pollution.

It's not rational. It's regulated so much because people are afraid of it.
It's expensive entirely because of fearmongering.

~~~
adrianN
It could very well be that nuclear is so safe because of all the bureaucracy
that is required. Its safety record is not a good argument for abolishing the
red tape. The fact is that failure scenarios of nuclear plants _are_ very
dangerous.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Are they? Tmi was before the red tape was excessive and Fukushima was a huge
meltdown from a massive tsunami. How many people died from the radiation
released from both combined?

The answer is zero.

I'm not saying we go non-regulated. I'm saying the current regs may be too
much. I'd argue that climate change is now more of a threat than more carbon-
free nuclear plants.

~~~
tracker1
Isn't Fukishima still leaking into the Pacific? And hasn't the world had to
redefine "safe" measures and recommendations for pregnant women and children
to abstain from ocean fish because of it? Long term effects could be very bad.

I'm actually in favor of more nuclear power in the U.S. mainland. But certain
locations are definitely more or less safe than others. I'm also in favor of
streamlining a lot of regulation, if those responsible for a human error based
disaster (including managers up to the president/ceo of
contsruction/management org) potentially being hanged as a result (not shot,
not electric, not chemical injection, hanged till dead).

------
throwawaysea
I count 45 planned reactors and 12 reactors currently under construction in
China at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China)

Somehow the two under construction in the US
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant))
are estimated to cost $25B and are complicated by Westinghouse having declared
bankruptcy. Others
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Units_2_and_3))
have been cancelled.

The same AP1000 reactor model was installed at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station)
at a cost of just $6b, although they were also 4 years late in becoming
operational. But it does seem like other countries are capable of getting
these large projects done while they whither and drag out in the US.

~~~
xvilka
Inability to buid high-speed rail in US corroborates with this conclusion. It
is not economically ineffective，it is US infrastructure projects huge
inefficiency (sadly). If we check other industries, I think we would able to
find more failed big projects.

------
fmajid
Big mistake. The US nuclear industry is a wreck because of the lack of
standardization and economies of scale, unlike, say, France.

India should also be investing in thorium reactors given its indigenous
reserves and the inherent safety advantages.

Another issue is cooling: water supplies in Andhra Pradesh are highly erratic,
and this will only get worse with global warming.

~~~
sjwright
The water lost to cooling ends up as steam and then precipitation. So it
doesn't exactly delete water, it just disperses it. Some of it will fall
straight back into the same river systems. A lot of it would probably be
absorbed into the local water table—which is valuable if the table is already
being tapped.

Does anyone know if there's any modelling to show how widely such activity
disperses water? How much of the water is expected to land somewhere
functionally useless (e.g. into oceans)?

Or, if they built a desalination plant next to each nuclear plant, would they
be able to compensate for the water loss efficiently?

~~~
adrianN
The trouble with nuclear in regions where water can be scarce is that you
can't cool your plant sufficiently and have to turn it off. You can take only
a small fraction of a river's flow for cooling without kill all fish in the
river. If the river is low on water, your plant can't be cooled.

------
kumarm
This is great new not just from environment perspective. This is a move that
significantly reduces dirty politicians influence in India.

Guess who is awarded most of new Power Generation plants in India since
private sector started building power plants? It almost entirely politicians
and their family members.

Example (Owned by Member of Parliament Galla Jayadev's Family) :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amara_Raja_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amara_Raja_Group)

------
khuey
Meanwhile in the US SCE&G abandoned their two under construction AP1000s after
Westinghouse went bankrupt and the remaining two that Southern is building at
Vogtle are on life support. The only AP1000s actually operating are in China.

------
jwr
Finally something that helps us avoid the beginning climate catastrophe.
Nuclear power is of the very few effective means of working towards that goal.

------
i_am_proteus
> The two countries have been discussing the supply of US nuclear reactors to
> India, the world's third-biggest buyer of oil, for more than a decade.

I doubt that any nuclear capacity will significantly affect India's oil
consumption. Nuclear typically displaces coal or gas.

~~~
sampo
India has one nuclear reactor's worth of diesel power plants (about 1000 MW).
And 90 times more (90 GW worth) of all kinds of smaller diesel generators used
as backups during power outages.

If the new nuclear electricity decreases the outages in the grid, I am sure it
will almost 1:1 turn to savings in burned diesel.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_industry_in_India#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and_gas_industry_in_India#Electricity_generation)

~~~
dv_dt
It could replace it faster and cheaper by financing distributed solar or wind
and batteries.

~~~
merpnderp
Sun and wind must be coupled with nat-gas, or at least that's how it works in
the US. Either that or prepare for brown/blackouts.

~~~
dv_dt
LCOE estimates for at least the short duration gaps has solar+ batteries
beating nat-gas peakers. This is pretty recent, in actual construction bids
for IIRC < 4hr capability. Expect more encroachment onto basically mature nat-
gas tech space as batteries and solar continue to get cheaper.

~~~
igravious
What about solar pv module and battery module waste?

What about the environmental impact of mining and extracting the rare and not
so rare elements that go into making solar pv modules and battery modules?

What about the water use in the production of these modules?

What about the greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial scale processes
involved in producing these modules?

What about the impact on wildlife and the environment through land clearance,
habitat destruction, species dislocation, threats to bird species, …

\---

From the way people go on about solar pv and battery tech you'd swear they had
zero externalities.

> It could replace it faster and cheaper by financing distributed solar or
> wind and batteries.

Faster, probably. Cheaper, probably. But at what cost to animal and human
lives, and at what cost to the environment? Coal plants can be built fast and
cheap too. That's why we've so many of them.

~~~
dv_dt
You recycle them because they're waste that doesn't fall into super
specialized radioactive processing categories:

[https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-
opportunities-...](https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-
opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling)

Energy dept on energy lifecycle of PV pays back in < 3 years of their typical
20-30 year lifespan. (and that's a span to 80% sustained production - the
panels can go longer...)

I could keep answering all those questions point by point, but they're
googleable and I feel there is a distinct lack of curiosity on those points...

~~~
igravious
From the link you just provided:

Millions upon millions of tonnes of e-waste just in panels, _no mention about
batteries_.

And the industrial processes involved?

(A) Silicon based PV panels

(1) Disassembly of aluminium and glass parts

(2) Thermal processing at 500C!

(3) Physically separating cell modules

(4) Etching away silicon wafers (using acid!)

(5) Melting broken wafers (at what temp?)

And what % rates does that give you? 100% metal reuse, 95% glass reuse, 85%
silicon reuse, 80% modules reused: all in all sounds pretty energy intensive
and doesn't even result in 100% recycling

(B) Thin-film based PV panels

(1) Shredding the PV panels into 4-5mm pieces to remove lamination

(2) Separating solid and liquid with a rotating screw

(3) Removing film using acid and peroxide!

(4) Removing interlayers materials with vibration

(5) Rinsing the glass (using up how much water?)

(6) Separating and processing metals

And what % rates does that give you? 95% semiconductor material reuse, 90%
glass reused: all in all sounds pretty energy intensive and doesn't even
result in 100% recycling

And of course you have to build the reprocessing and recycling plants which is
energy intensive and generates greenhouse gas emissions because construction
is a major source of greenhouse gas emission.

And again, that's saying _nothing_ about battery waste.

But yeah, solar pv panels and battery modules: great solution …

~~~
chopin
To be fair, you'll have to compare this to the treatment of the fuel waste and
the decommissioned plant. Especially the former problem seems to be largely
unsolved.

~~~
mrpopo
Treatment of fuel waste is not really a difficult problem.

This is where swiss fuel waste is stored : [https://www.zwilag.ch/en/cask-
storage-hall-_content---1--105...](https://www.zwilag.ch/en/cask-storage-hall-
_content---1--1054.html)

An area less than half a (european) football stadium to contain 45 years of
fuel waste for 4 nuclear plants. As of April 2018, there are 449 operable
power reactors in the world. That means you need an area as large as 56
football stadiums to contain all the fuel waste in the world. Not exactly an
impressive area. A solar park this size would output energy equivalent to less
than a 10th of one modern nuclear plant.

*EDIT: changed a 1000th to a 10th. It greatly exaggerates the solar capacity, but it doesn't change the point anyway.

------
gdy
Here is an article about how Russia dealt with India's civil nuclear liability
law. Perhaps, something similar was agreed for American reactors.

[https://www.powermag.com/indias-nuclear-liability-law-
breakt...](https://www.powermag.com/indias-nuclear-liability-law-breakthrough-
for-russia-stalemate-endures-for-u-s/)

------
thisisit
In the meantime Solar Power is one of the fastest growing industries in India.
Government is targeting 100GW by 2022:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India)

India's history with nuclear power plants hasn't exactly been great.
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant faced tons of protests:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Pla...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

------
blackflame7000
Nuclear power gets a bad rap. Instead of abandoning the technology we should
be focusing on how to safely contain a meltdown. I mean if we use boron
control rods to absorb the neutrons, then why not encase the whole thing in a
boron tomb that vacuum seals when radiation is detected?

~~~
javagram
modern reactors have core catching devices that are supposed to catch a
meltdown and prevent it from going into the ground
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_catcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_catcher)

of course these have never been tried in an accident because both Chernobyl
and Fukushima are very old reactors. On the other hand before Fukushima I used
to see people say that the problem with Chernobyl is there was no containment
vessel as there is in western reactors, then in Fukushima the containment
vessel did melt through. So who knows how well the core catcher would work in
practice.

~~~
pfdietz
The cores at Fukushima didn't "go into the ground" either. That doesn't
prevent water in the core carrying radioactive material all over the place,
once things are compromised.

~~~
blackflame7000
True, but radioactive water is much easier to deal with than radioactive air
because the hydrogen will capture the neutrons converting to Deuterium which
is relatively safe and isotopes of oxygen are relatively shortlived. So as
long as you can filter the heavy metals, it's in theory, less of a mess.

------
logfromblammo
I'm starting to get the feeling that all terrestrial energy generation should
ultimately come from sunlight, and our nuclear reactors should be out in
space, and on other celestial bodies, especially those further away from the
sun.

But in order to do that, we need to further develop nuclear reactor technology
by building utility-scale nuclear energy plants here on Earth--not because we
need our energy to be nuclear, but because we need our nuclear energy to be
reliable and efficient.

The cynical part of me is thinking that the US can apparently build nuclear
plants anywhere on Earth except in the US.

~~~
nickik
Why? There is literally no reason to have nuclear reactors in space.

Building a modern reactor that is not based on 60 year old technology would
make more sense, but regulation have made that impossible and the government
itself has 0 interest in doing so.

~~~
logfromblammo
Radiothermal generators already power satellites and space probes.

Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel currently available to
us.

Wind and water power is unavailable when there is no atmosphere or weather
cycle. Solar power requires more surface area as you get further from the sun.
Solar panels and storage batteries have mass, too.

Combustion fuels have mass, and the rocket equation hates superfluous mass in
objects launched to orbit.

A good engine for low-gravity propulsion would be a nuclear reactor that heats
propellant to a very high temperature and then releases it at high velocity.
That's not the sort of engine that could get you to orbit, but it does provide
a lot of delta-V once you are up there. Propellant can be found outside of
gravity wells, and a refuel mission carrying nuclear fuel is cheap to launch
on a dollar per joule basis.

Nuclear waste does not endanger the environment if there is no environment to
endanger. No one is likely to stumble across it accidentally. Criticality
accidents would only kill the crew, if there even is a crew.

Habitats that are buried deeply to protect against radiation and to contain a
bio-friendly environment may not be able to rely on solar alone. They would
likely need a large mass of batteries to make it through storms and nights,
and an RTG or a full-blown reactor might provide more reliable power for less
mass.

~~~
nickik
Ah. Sure for propulsion I love nuclear reactor and NTR. But not to get it back
to earth. haha.

------
sabareesh
India undoubtedly become power hungry, when I was visiting couple of years
back power cut has become a norm which i don't remember when I grew up. There
are so many wind mill installation around my hometown but at the same time
there is so much opposition for nuclear power. [https://media-
cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/a1/06/fa/...](https://media-
cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/a1/06/fa/the-sky-the-clouds-the.jpg)

------
KorematsuFred
While Afganistan is called the graveyard of empires, India is where emperors
face their first miserable defeat.

There is a book titled "Confessions of an economic Hitman". The book is
written by an ex-CIA agent to was an economist and would write a lot of fake
reports claiming developing nations can grow much faster only if they invest
heavily in infrastructure. Then US would generously offer loans in return of
assurance that the contracts will be awarded only to American companies. Fe
decades down the line those countries would be left holding the can and debt.
This model failed miserably for USA in India because India' growth story after
1990s turned out of be true, India's hunger for infra actually grew. Enron who
had a weird misadventure in India eventually had to file for bankruptcy.

While I am happy that India is tripling the nuclear energy capability I am
unhappy that American companies are involved. It might end up badly for Indian
but more than likely to Americans.

~~~
DuskStar
Your premise here seems to be "countries paying back their loans is bad for
the companies that built the infrastructure", and I think I'm really going to
need some more explanation for that one.

~~~
icebraining
"When some of those countries were unable to service their debt we often said,
"Ok, you may not pay now, but your country will vote to support the US at the
next vote in the UN. Or you will allow the US to build a military base on your
territory." Or something else of the kind."

[https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711161059158765-economic...](https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711161059158765-economic-
hitman-interview-us/)

~~~
DuskStar
That seems like it would be _bad for the US_ not _bad for the companies in
question_ , who got paid either way.

~~~
icebraining
The gist I got from the article is that those companies would also get
benefits, like cheaper access to resources or monopolies in their areas of
operation.

------
RickJWagner
I wish the US would build six new (clean, safe) nuclear plants in the US.

~~~
standardUser
There's two under construction now in Georgia and one came online in late 2016
in Tennessee. But these are all additions to existing facilities.

The cost of new nuclear power is far beyond most traditional and even
renewable power generation, so we're not likely to see many more any time
soon.

------
Krasnol
Let's hope they got their waste management figured out

[https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/indias-
nuclear...](https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/indias-nuclear-
industry-pours-its-wastes-into-a-river-of-death-and-disease/)

------
tracker1
Could we get 6 new reactors in the US?

I'm actually serious... I don't get why we still have coal power plants at
all. I know there are various risks involved, and disposal is another, but a
lot of lessons have been learned and there's a lot of room here for this. It's
just incredible that a couple of movies could set back nuclear power in the US
for as many decades as has happened.

------
Torwald
Can somebody explain to me what happens with all the nuclear waste? How is
nuclear power anything else but an environmental catastrophe waiting to
happen? We pile the waste on and on, how do we deal with that?

~~~
MFLoon
When we burn fossil fuels a huge volume of hazardous waste just goes into the
environment, and we know what it does then. With nuclear there is also a huge
volume of hazardous waste, but at least it remains spatially consolidated and
in our control. The consensus best solution is deep burial. Sure we might run
out of space and create nuclear "landmines" over the very long term, but it's
a preferable tradeoff to the much more imminent threats of the global warming.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-
level_w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste)

~~~
Torwald
How would you describe:

>and we know what it does then.

What is it that it does then?

~~~
MFLoon
Greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, poisoning the hydrosphere and biosphere,
etc; not going to dignify the question with further details.

I don't understand why one wouldn't believe in the environmental dangers of
conventional energy sources but be hyper concerned about the "environmental
catastrophe waiting to happen" from nuclear energy sources.

------
kp666
What happens to the liability act?

------
known
I wish all civilian nuclear power plants operate under UN
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build%E2%80%93operate%E2%80%...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build%E2%80%93operate%E2%80%93transfer)

~~~
sachin18590
I guess that would be the peak of globalization, when you wean off energy
control from individual countries.

------
bargl
I wonder what types of reactors they'll be building. I've recently heard of
Thorium reactors (and I don't understand enough about them) but I'd love to
see them start spinning up around the world to see if they actually are as
good as they seem.

------
ahamedirshad123
Hope they don't built it in Tamil Nadu. We already have two.

------
thecybernerd
This is exciting I wonder if Westinghouse will ever use some of the technology
that Transatomic developed.

------
matthewfelgate
Hopefully nuclear power can help India grow more greenly and catch up
economically with China.

------
sureshn
India is the key ally to all developed countries in the western world, be it
the Rafael Deal for fighter aircrafts to other countries like Israel agreeing
to setup defence manufacturing in India all are keen to be engaged with India.
US especially after Trump became president has been very much Pro India as
opposed to Obama who was definitely anti-india and Pro Pakistan, If the US has
to tame china it needs India , these geo political equations I believe favours
India and that is why you see all these things happening now

