The EPR is still a reactor in the making, whose design is likely to undergo serious modification before it can be built as a series.
The announcement last week by the Finnish utility TVO of yet another year-long delay in the construction of the new Areva European Pressurised Reactor/Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) being built at Olkiluoto in southern Finland has re-launched the controversy surrounding the world's biggest, most expensive and as yet untried nuclear reactor.
India is slated to purchase up to six of these reactors, of which the first two alone carry an estimated price tag of €11 billion. A memorandum of understanding for the sale of two EPRs was signed in 2009 and there are chances that a framework agreement will be signed during French President Nicolas Sarkozy's working visit to India which began on December 4.
Supporters of the EPRs say that India desperately needs nuclear energy to replace dwindling and polluting fossil fuels. Given India's population density and the paucity of land, Areva's powerful 1,650 MWe nuclear reactor would be best suited to its needs. However, critics point out that the technology, which is extremely capital intensive, remains untried and the EPR has run into trouble wherever it is being built.
Started in 2005, the initial completion and commissioning date for the Finnish OL3 reactor was 2009. Over the years and because of repeated delays, the reactor's budget too has increased from €3 billion to an estimated €5.7 billion with TVO and Areva locked in bitter arbitration. The Finnish company which awarded Areva a fixed price, turn key contract for the project is claiming damages totalling some €2.7 billion.
There are only four such reactors currently under construction in the world, two in China, known as Taishan 1 and 2, one in Finland known as OL3 and Flamanville3 in northern France. Work on Taishan 1 and 2 has just started and it is difficult to say whether it is running to cost and will be completed on time.
But the Flamanville3 reactor in France, being built by the French electricity giant EDF, the world's most experienced architect engineer which has 58 nuclear reactors to its credit in France alone, has also run up huge delays and cost over-runs. Anne Lauvergeon, the CEO of Areva, in a snide aside during an interview with The Hindu indicated that the problems of both Ol3 and Flamanville could come from the civil engineering firm retained for both projects — the French construction giant, Bouygues.
A third generation pressurised water reactor, the EPR was initially known as the European Pressurised Reactor or the Evolutionary Power Reactor. This has now been changed by Areva to the trademarked name of EPR. Designed to be more competitive because of its massive power output of 1,650MWe, the reactor uses fuel that is a mix of uranium and plutonium oxide known as MOX.
The EPR has been marketed as the safest and strongest reactor in the world capable of withstanding hits from a full-size passenger airplane. But critics say that the redundancy of the safety measures has made the reactor extremely complex and costly to build, resulting in huge delays and cost over-runs.
After the French consortium led by EDF, GDF-Suez and Areva was beaten by the South Koreans who were awarded a contract to supply the United Arab Emirates with four nuclear reactors, President Sarkozy asked the former CEO and present Honorary President of EDF, Francois Roussley, to write a report on the French nuclear industry.
“The credibility of the EPR model and the capacity of the French nuclear industry to successfully build new reactors have been seriously tested by the difficulties encountered on the sites of Olkiluoto and Flamanville3 …The complexity of the EPR resulting from its conception, notably its level of power, the core and the core catcher and the excessive and redundant safety features remains a handicap both for its construction and its cost. It is therefore important to rapidly redress the situation by taking urgent measures to allow the French nuclear industry to reposition itself on the civil nuclear market. If this is not done, it is the credibility and perhaps the very existence of Areva and the industry around it, which will be threatened,” Mr. Roussely says in his report.
He goes on to insist that Areva and EDF should bring the completion of the OL3 and the Flamanville 3 reactors to a rapid and satisfactory conclusion bearing in mind time and cost over-runs. “The lessons drawn from the construction of these two reactors should be properly understood and analysed before commencing the next EPR in France or the one in the U.K.,” the Roussley report says.
Professor Thomas, a specialist on nuclear energy at Greenwich University's School of Business, feels that India would be making “a terrible mistake purchasing technology that has been plagued by problems, is needlessly expensive and, above all, is yet to prove its efficiency.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, considered the gold standard in matters of nuclear safety, in a communiqué issued as recently as July 23, 2010, said it “has informed AREVA NP that the company has yet to demonstrate how some aspects of the EPR reactor's digital instrumentation and control system meet NRC requirements … AREVA need to better demonstrate that each safety division in the system can perform its function without relying on information originating outside the safety division and is protected from adverse influence from outside the division …”
The exact cost of each EPR in India has not been disclosed. Ms Lauvergeon told The Hindu that the cost would be less than Rs. 4 per Kilowatt/hour. Professor Thomas rubbishes the claim. “There are three important factors in determining the price of a kilowatt/hour of nuclear electricity. The first is the cost of building the plant and until you see Areva's bid you don't know what that is going to be. The second element is the cost of borrowing the money. Now what rate of interest will India have to pay? Areva does not know that. And the third element is whether the plant is reliable because if its unreliable there will be fewer kilowatt hours to spread those fixed costs over,” Professor Thomas told The Hindu.
In an interview with the newspaper, the project manager of the Flamanville3 site, EDF's Robert Pays tried to explain the delays and cost over-runs at the plant: “Last summer, we announced a re-evaluation of the budget for the entire reactor, global costs of €5 billion. It is clear that when the duration of the work goes up, the costs go up — that's the first reason for the cost over runs. The second is that we had drawn up cost estimates on the basis of preliminary quantity estimates — the number of kilometres of pipes, cables, the kilos of steel in the concrete, etc., but detailed studies indicated that the quantities required were in fact superior to the initial estimates. Since this reactor was the first in the series there were a certain number of studies or the design had not been entirely finished when we started construction and then the Nuclear Safety Authority also obliges to modify certain features because we have to comply with its comments and observations and that too adds to the cost.”
The long and short of it is that the EPR is still a reactor in the making whose design is likely to undergo serious modification before it can be built as a series.
Thomas Houdre, the chief of the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), told The Hindu that his organisation was waiting for Areva to submit another report on the Instrumentation and Control question which continues to hang fire. The ASN has also pointed to welding problems. Classified EDF documents leaked to the press in March 2010 have raised questions about the safety of the nuclear core. “Spanning 10 years from 1999 to 2009, the documents refer to a major redesign of the core because original plans did not meet safety criteria for control rod ejection accident at high power,” the New York Times reported. “Control rods regulate the nuclear reaction in the reactor vessel, and a control rod ejection accident has a domino effect, causing parts of the reactor to overheat. In a severe case, that will break the cladding covering the radioactive fuel rods, causing them to release radioactivity, with potentially dangerous consequences,” the NYT noted on July 26, 2010.
EDF documents reveal that the architect engineer at Flamanville3 tried to find safer cladding material. However, these attempts have so far not been successful.
Says Professor Thomas: “The EPR will eventually be certified in the U.K. and the U.S., but not for two maybe three years. Until that point there could be significant design changes and the additional requirements of the regulators could further increase the cost. If the regulator asks for an additional safety system, for example, that could increase the price of the plant. If I was India, I would wait to see when that happened.”
Keywords: India, France, Areva European Pressurised Reactor, Evolutionary Power Reactor, MoU, uranium and plutonium oxide
France and Areva must cut their losses and abandon the EPR now. In the short term, this will require some painful write-offs, for example, of investments in the UK and the U.S.A., but in the long term, the losses will be much greater if they continue to try to make the EPR work. Capacity factor of French reactors have declined while the rest of the world has seen increases. France itself want major design changes in the EPR design they are planning to sell to India. EPR instrumentation and control system, can cause explosion of the reactor like an atom bomb as per its own people. This problem was first identified in 2008; yet more than two years later, a detailed solution to the problem still has not been presented to the regulators. The EPR design is a danger to India. Construction has gone dramatically wrong at the two sites in Europe where it is being built. Second, the cost of the EPR is so high that South Africa and Canada have rejected the EPR design even though France has bid for it. Even ignorant Arab nation, UAE had gone to a competitor’s design abandoning the French EPR reactor. France’s European Pressurized Water or EPR Generation III+ reactor problems are so serious that they should be abandoned as per Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich professor of energy studies. His EPR in crisis report says that the Areva design, begun in 1995 to add more passive safety factors to the basic Electricity de France Generation III PWR, has not been able to deliver on promises of a new, safer reactor that is dramatically less capital-intensive than past machines. In 2001, French nuclear officials claimed the EPR could be built for $1320/KW, but the costs of the two EPR units now under construction in Finland and France are well behind schedule and running more than triple the cost estimate, at $4800/KW in 2009 for the Finnish reactor. TVO, the Finnish utility that will own and operate the plant at Olkiluoto, is suing Areva to recover some of the costs, which could sink the utility. TVO cannot survive financially if it had to shoulder a significant proportion of these costs. French government controlled Areva’s credit ratings have fallen to BBB+, as a result of the EPR problems and its customers could be put out of business by the purchase an EPR. In France EDF, had ordered an EPR for Flamanville in January 2007. Construction began on the 1630-MW unit that December, at a cost estimate of about $2590/KW, not including the first fuel load or financing costs.
Big power plants mean big problems when things go wrong and with big nuclear power plants like EPR means big disasters. India like all large industrial countries will need nuclear power as the solar/wind/biomass sources will not provide enough power. If a large power plant fails then a large area and a large number of industrial councerns grind to a halt. India should think of investing in many small power plants. This will limit any damage if there is an accident but more importantly it provids redundancy. If a power plant has to be taken off-line or if there is an accient then only a small area and few industrial concerns are affected and other power plants can take up the slack.
It is foolish and short sighted on the part of UPA government to invest in nuclear energy which can release enormous amounts of radiation in case damage due to earthquakes, tsunamis, accidents and terrorist acts. It is unconscionable that India does not even figure the top ten countries investing in solar energy which grew by 59% in 2010, while China leads the world in solar and wind energy.
Since cost of solar energy is currently lower than that of nuclear energy, India should scrap plans for all new nuclear power plants and instead invest in solar, wind and biomass technology. This will help India to become not only energy independent, it will propel India as one of the major developers of solar and wind energy technology which will be among the major industries in coming years.
Read: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/
Managing the operations of EPR Power Plants
Management of Low Possibility Failure of an EPR in INDIA, is highly questionable, as the selection of people to do the same is not done on the basis competance.
Look at the poverty in India,Bangladesh,Africa and such places.Is there any technology to eradicate poverty?
Power - literally and politically - in India has neither been procured legitimately nor utilised efficiently going by its independent history. Its probably another big ticket deal that will fatten up wallets and o/seas bank accounts of many knowns and some unknowns. As much as I endorse and embrace technology, the capability demonstrated by Indian Govt. thus far has been appalling and at the least critically concerning. If CommonWealth Games could not be organised well, a few licence be issued properly, the last thing these self-centred pollies need is to venture out with not so tested, huge capital based and numerous unknowns based technologies, esp. ones that could be devastating if things go wrong. There is simply no CAPABILITY or RESPONSIBILITY the govt of India can guarantee for its roll-out let alone success. I suggest they start to learn securing the parliament, the borders & at the very least all the TAJ hotels before they embark on such significant risks. We have a huge coastline, abundant sunshine, places with heaviest rainfalls & hottest summers.. Is it just me or there is a serious disconnect for not considering Renewable power options, which even though may not produce as effectively as EPR's ( if at all they should ) but is least likely to kill masses of citizens or dump nuclear wastes in the neighbourhoods..
It should have been better to mention that Prof. Stephen Thomas specializes in the economics and policy of nuclear power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Thomas_%28professor%29>) instead of saying "Professor Thomas, a specialist on nuclear energy at Greenwich University's School of Business". I am afraid that the printed text may mislead the readers.
INDIA is like a kid spoilt with Choices. Since, it has such a high GDP and it needs to keep its pace so its more than necessary to solve the first problem and that is POWER. But it is also a country where the common man doesnt have a Voice and only Illiterate or corrupt Politicians take the call in any type of decisions. So last words, " as you sow, so shall you reap". India is Sowing Atom Bombs on its own land...Someday it will kill a lot of us. But who cares.Its just plain business that matters. Those who care are ignored or killed.
We know how pliable our government servants are. When it comes to such critical matters have our nuclear scientists studied this design in detail, and with their past experience can they truthfully say and prove that this technology is safe ? Even in the case of the Nuclear deal, they were prepared to toe the govt line on compensations. So here too most likely they would have been told to toe the line, so that they get plum postings later when they retire.
It should be done but by a Government research agency. Only then patent royalty would help cover research cost. And at an isolated place as there's a high risk of nuclear accidents. Otherwise, there will be widespread casualties and we would give them a free test bed with all royalties going to that private organisation. Look at the big picture. At this scale its heinous.
We cannot repose faith in a government which has a proven track record of corruption. We must put our heads together and see that there is infallibility in forbidding self suicide by allowing lakhs of crores of rupees equivalent of wealth to be looted,if not a crore! We should assure food security and health security for all life. Then there will no bogging down.
Any evolving Technology for that matter is bound to invite 'for' and 'against' arguments, especially in this multi-billion dollar industry given its nature and sophistication involved.But the question is aren't our nuclear scientists good enough to weigh the pros and cons and arrive at right decision?It is true we have not had the desired level of debate or information sharing from our scientific communities on this even while our political masters don't have time to raise such important issue in the parliament which is in a virtual state of limbo for over two weeks.Under these circumstances we have to repose faith in the govt. and allow forward movement rather than get bogged down.
There is absolutely no question about human ingenuity, whereever they may be. Only that reactors which use plutonium or reprocessed fuel or just the usual uranium fuel form part of a complexity that requires infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error. It also requires infallible people. This is not an attribute of human beings.So I agree with people who ask for other kinds of power which does not demand infallibility! Even three decades after the inception of any nuclear programme, society may not receive any energy net of that used for construction. Why should we go for such a course?
What ever may be the technology that must be Eco-friendly and safe,while operational. So we are not liable to play with the lives of Human beings and animals for the sake of Technology. Please give this type of chances to our scientists if you want to experiment but don't give a room to others to experiment on us.
Any new technology or a product will have the initial resistance and teething problems. As long as the overall safety and security of the reactors are in place and this being monitored thoroughly without any loopholes, we should be prepared to embrace the new technology.
Who is this 'Professor Thomas' by the way? Do we want yet another US academic to tell us how economical it will be to keep the 400 million without access to electricity in India a bit more, rather than pay the French? Had it been a US company, will he have the same opinion?
India should ensure that it does not get burned in a political deal. Indian nuclear regulator who is tasked with ensuring safety should not be pressured to meet "commercial" and "political" deadlines. Engineering and material science is a professional domain; if the regulators in Finland, U.S, U.K, and the French engineering firm EDF have an issue with the reactor, there might be engineering issues that cannot be solved overnight by the flick of the wand. This is not an optimization problem (think PHWR) but an actual design issue.
I feel EPR reactor is evolutionery with intensive power density. A proven system is needed is needed to proceed with. However, it is timely to order an independent safety audit of currently operating Indian reactors both civilian or otherwise based on US regulatory systems to know the factual status of our control systems. It is needless to gloat on our industrial or road safety records without knowing the true status. Both public or private sector chemical process industrial or refineries' standards, procedures, records are to be scrutinised to understand our culture of health and safety.I am not trying to protect EPR; I am only trying to drive home the point whatever BAT or best equipments are procured, our safety culture is not at par with Europeans / Americans, we will continue to cut corners and derate / bypass the available safety features. This culture of safety has to be uprated at all levels in Indian systems before attempting to judge others.
I think it is an example of aping, what others are buying we are also trying to copy.Bhopal gas tragedy is still to be remedied and we are preparing ourselves for another nuclear project.The money which is accumlated in the foreign accouts is enough to meet MDG's and enough to spend same money to meet our growing energy demands.
After this article, I think that this is going to be another scandal of corruption in the making. Such a huge cost for a reactor technology which is not yet proved worthwhile. Is the government in so much hurry that it is ignoring every aspect or politicians just want a contract through which they can ship money in Swiss accounts. Why can't they get those reactors which have been successfully deployed in many countries already. Why government is ready to become playground for France companies. as Balaji has just said - get ready for a next Bhopal kind tragedy.
I congartulate THE HINDU for this article.In D A E the merit system never puts up the best brain but the obedient one on the top.So you can make conclusions about Indian expertise.
It is the just a stepping stone towards acquiring EPR and final contract agreement is yet to be signed in due course. Again, it is very clear that no reactor would be commissioned before 2018. So it would be unjust and imprudent to argue that India is acquiring un-tested Reactors which can prove to be fatal. By 2018 France itself would have few installed EPR. So, India is on right track to go for the mega-deal, that will ensure to fulfill India's avaricious energy need.
The article does not mention whether the reactor was evaluated for technical feasibility by the Indian Atomic Research scientists. Was there any impact analysis at all? Are Indians that stupid to rush and buy an untried technology? Please someone, say no.
As Dr.Homi Bhabha said at the time of installing the first Nuclear Power Reactor at Tarapur, "That No Power is costlier than Power at any cost". The cost of electricity to be produced in the proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project may even go upto Rs 10/ kwh, but it will turn out to be cheaper than unscheduled power cuts,captive power and power produced through solar, wind and other sources of renewable energy.Then why to talk about the cost of power? It is agreed that AREVA may not have commissioned their first 1650 Mwe EPR. But we have to see whether they have got the technology, expertise and the resources to correct the deficiencies in the design and any malfuntioning of the reactor.In my opinion they have got. Our engineers and scientists of Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Power Coporation of India Ltd and other indigenous firms should closely work with AREVA so as to ensure that the project is put on schedule. It is like the bridegroom's and the bride's parties working together to make the marriage function a suceess instead of blaming each other. Our engineers and scientists are equally capable. Given an oppotunity they are also capable of designing such an EPR of 1650 Mwe themselves. Let us not bemoan the new initiatives taken by Dr.Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India who has enabled India to see the light at end of the so far dark Nuclear Power Plant tunnel.
For all the sceptics who start crying foul, please remember, there is no technology which is completely foolproof. The very nature of technology is that the new superceedes the old. It is unreasonable to suggest that collective scientific wisdom of US, China, Finland, France (countires that have either invested or going to invest in the EPR reactors)and now India is going to fail and that somehow we would end up with reactors that are unsafe and/or non-functional. Whether the Nuclear Technology is ultimately safe or not is another debate.
Let us not demoralize our engineering strength. Every system irrespective of its nature always remains in developing stage. Our DAE family had shown its engineering skills in bringing the Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor to highest safety horizon which was brought four decades ago. We are now world leader in nuclear technology and have mature engineering approach to customize any nuclear reactor to work safely in Indian Environment.
I wonder what sparks such extreme reaction from Mr. Atis Mitra. To talk of Indian Nuclear Scientists, I would like to inform people that today, India has smarted Candu technology, much better than Canada themselves. The competence of Indian nuclear scientists cannot be questioned at all. The anti EPR views of Prof. Thomas are well known in the nuclear sector. It is unfortunate that Hindu which stands for ethical journalism chose to publish the anti EPR stance of Prof. Thomas which do not stand much grounds. I do agree there are instances of delays in Finland and questions raised on the complexity. But countries such as China is already in advance stage of construction, UK is almost zeroing in on EPR. This should prove to the world that EPR are not rejected by all. Yes, because of complexity due to lot of built in safety, for eg. 4 train systems, the EPRs are coming at some premium. But nuclear technology comes at premium and comes clean in the long run on the cost front. Hope people of India would not be swayed by such one sided reports and stoop low to demean their own countrymen's competence. Instead, have faith in the nuclear expertise of the country's best brains to do justice to the country's choice of EPR.
It is very easy for anyone to express an OPINION about anything, and the question is, how qualified is this author to write an article about nuclear reactors? Regarding Prof. Thomas, he is in business school and NOT an EXPERT in Nuclear Reactor Technology. It is very common for any new technology to have some problems/issues when it is being developed, and since there are several reactors up and running with this EPR technology and I sure they have learnt enough lessons.
Some comments saying our engineers are not good - is absurd. DAE has made very good progress - with the kind of late start we had and with the kind of infrastructure and funds we had, we have done a very great job in terms of nuclear energy and nuclear reactors. As Dr. R. L. Banerjee pointed out Govt should take opinions from the experts in our own country. He might be very much correct in his opinion that we need not goto Prof. Thomas. But one problem I see is that - why do not these experts come out in open and mention the merits/demerits? Also We should not make decisions just based on economic/political reasons.
I am not really convinced that the US scare tactics are really worth the paper they are written on. Professor Thomas is a very good American looking after the interests of the USA. In every commercial deal there are pro's and cons. The Concorde is a classic example. For commercial reasons the USA had done evertything to make the aircraft look bad. They failed!! The Ariane Space craft was heralded as a project of Doom and we know today that that's not true either. Lastly we have not really heard of any mind boggling criticism from our own nuclear scientists indicating that despite being a new technology, there is nothing that negative to cause alarm. Personally I feel That the United States is very upset that we are not using their market since they really got us into the Nuclear arena post Pokharan.
We should not make mistake of another Bhopal in the name of nuclear reactors. We should properly investigate each product before we buy any product.There so many waiting for our potential markets. We should not overreact to the foriegn delegates and lobbies pressure.As our PM said " Let the Market decides what to be bought". Let us follow the same in Nuclear Reactors too..
While making arms they are never sold to third country after some gap , but for testing the nuclear reactors in third country or I should say a banana republic, bribe the senior bureaucrats and politicians and sell and test your products here in India then improve them to install in your domestic country, because safety standards in Europe are more stringent than in India , recent examples include testing of HIV samples drugs in southern states.
The government is evidently playing with fire. It is therfore certain to get burned. Recklessnes of the government in catering to the PM's vision of India meeting its enoromous electric power need using untried and prohibitively costly technology is staggering. Why is the enlightened public opinion in the country not calling a halt to such misadventure?
This sounds like ENRON part II.
What is stopping OUR engineers from certifying the viability of this reactor? The truth is, for every new project, we have NEVER been able to trust our engineering skills. The engineers we produce can not solve real world problems, design anything new, or come up with new standards for new processes. This is the price we have to pay - dependence on foreign know how - even if we are stepping into areas and technologies that may be new to the entire world!
Excellent and timely article. Kudos to The Hindu. AERB and PM, Ministers concerned should look into all these things before signing any contract with AREVA
Seeing the way the Indian organisations are manned with incompetent and technically low standard people,I doubt any proper assesment can be done in India
Unistar (EDF & Constellation Energy) submitted an application for an EPR, approved by the state of Maryland, USA at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant stated, in its application for a "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity," that the (experimental) reactor will be used with "recycled" fuel. It is not known whether the fuel will be reprocessed nuclear (i.e., Plutonium) so-called "spent" fuel or if the "recycled" fuel will utilize "surplus" bomb-grade Plutonium left over from excess Plutonium bombs.
It is, therefore, extremely important to consider that not just is the EPR a new design with several safety features in question but also that it will be running an experiment with the use of Plutonium fuel. This is a scary thing for the good people of France, Finland, China, the US and now India, too. We are nothing but experimental "guinea pigs" being used for the benefit of allowing wealthy investors to try out new technology (an experiment!) through the use of even more deadly-than-usual nuclear fuel in reactors they are not even certain will safely run.
Not for anything, but doesn't it really seem the entire world has gone stark raving mad lately?
I am sure India has enough brainpower available in the country to assess the problems mentioned in the article. They don't need to depend on the authorities like Professor Thomas and his kind for it. Before signing any contracts Govt. of India should consult a pannel of eminent Indian nuclear scientists and engineers.
Please Email the Editor