---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shankar Sharma <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 21:03:15 +0530 Subject: Re: Areava's EPR Nuclear Reactor: Jaitapur (India) vis-a-vis Finland To: Sukla Sen <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
"The [Indian] Minister of State for the Department of Atomic Energy and Space said [yesterday] the *government is gathering all resources* *to make the 9,900-MW Jaitapur nuclear power plant* [consisting of 6 EPR nuclear reactors to be supplied by Areva] in coastal Maharashtra as one of the most glorious atomic energy establishments." Well, one may need all the resources at the disposal of the STATE to build 9,900 MM EPR nuclear power plant, going by what EPR have cost elsewhere. Regards Shankar Sharma On 16 May 2015 at 17:15, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > ["This week Finland cancelled its option for a second European > Pressurised Reactor [to be supplied by Areva] as the existing EPR > project sinks into a abyss of cost over-runs, delays and litigation, > writes Jim Green. It now looks like the EPR is a failed technology and > its owner, French nuclear giant Areva, is fast running out of both > money and orders as its 'hot prospects' evaporate. > "Twelve years after the first EPR was ordered there is not a single > working example of the reactor, and the earliest projected date for > completion of the first EPR is 2018 - and no surprises if that slips > to 2020." > (Excerpted from sl. no. I below.) > > "The [Indian] Minister of State for the Department of Atomic Energy > and Space said [yesterday] the government is gathering all resources > to make the 9,900-MW Jaitapur nuclear power plant [consisting of 6 EPR > nuclear reactors to be supplied by Areva] in coastal Maharashtra as > one of the most glorious atomic energy establishments." > (Excerpted from sl. no. II below.) > > ***What a glaring contrast!!!***] > > I/II. > > http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2859924/finland_cancels_olkiluoto_4_nuclear_reactor_is_the_epr_finished.html > > Finland cancels Olkiluoto 4 nuclear reactor - is the EPR finished? > Dr Jim Green & Oliver Tickell > > 15th May 2015 > > ***This week Finland cancelled its option for a second European > Pressurised Reactor as the existing EPR project sinks into a abyss of > cost over-runs, delays and litigation, writes Jim Green. It now looks > like the EPR is a failed technology and its owner, French nuclear > giant Areva, is fast running out of both money and orders as its 'hot > prospects' evaporate.*** [Emphasis added.] > > ***Twelve years after the first EPR was ordered there is not a single > working example of the reactor, and the earliest projected date for > completion of the first EPR is 2018 - and no surprises if that slips > to 2020.*** [Emphasis added.] > > There's been plenty of bad news recently for the European Pressurised > Reactor (EPR) nuclear power station design. > > And now there's more. The Finnish electricity company TVO announced > this week that it had cancelled plans to build a second EPR at > Olkiluoto in western Finland because of delays and problems with the > first EPR on the site currently being built by Areva and Siemens. > > That plant, Olkiluoto 3, is running severely over time and budget. > Construction began in 2005 and it is not expected to commence > operating until 2018, nine years late. > > The estimated cost has risen from EURO 3.2 billion (US$3.6b) to EURO 8.5 > billion (US$9.5b). Areva has already made provision for a EURO 2.7 billion > (US$3.0b) writedown on the project, with further losses expected. FTVO > and Areva / Siemens are locked ina EURO 10 billion legal battle over the > cost overruns. > > Finland's government had given TVO a deadline of 30th June to request > a building permit for its planned Olkiluoto 4 plant. TVO said it would > not pursue the project due to "the delay of the start-up of Olkiluoto > 3 plant unit." > > It added: "In this situation it is impossible to make significant > Olkiluoto 4 related decisions necessary for the construction license > application." > > How did it come to this? > > The French EPR (aka Evolutionary Power Reactor) was the first > Generation III design to win orders, first in 2003 when the order for > Olkiluoto 3 was the first for a nuclear reactor in Western Europe in > 15 years. > > This was followed by the 2006 order for an EPR at Flamanville in > France, and two EPRs at Taishan in China in 2007. Soon /Areva was > confidently projecting a sales pipeline of 25 or more reactors. > > Since then, EPRs have faced one problem after another. All three EPR > construction projects have suffered cost blowouts or delays or both. > > The estimated cost of the Flamanville EPR in France has increased from > EURO 3.3 billion (US$3.7b) to at least EURO 9 billion (US$10.1b). The first > concrete was poured in 2007 and commercial operation was expected in > 2012, but that timeframe has been pushed back to 2017 (with further > delays likely). > > The British Daily Mail newspaper characterised the Flamanville EPR > project as one "beset by financial mismanagement with rocketing costs, > the deaths of workers, an appalling inability to meet construction > deadlines, industrial chaos, and huge environmental concerns", and > noted that "it continues to be plagued by delays, soaring costs, and > litigation in both the criminal and civil courts." > > The two EPRs under construction in China are 13-15 months behind schedule. > > And while the UK government has been keen to press ahead with a twin > EPR reactor 3.2GW power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset supported > by the most generous nuclear subsidy package ever assembled, no order > has yet been signed - even though Areva subsidiary Creusot Forge has > already forged its pressure vessels. > > A global collapse in confidence > > Since the Fukushima disaster, a number of countries that might have > considered EPRs pulled back from earlier interest in new reactors - > the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland, among others. In 2012, > new-build tender processes in Finland and the Czech Republic rejected > the EPR. > > In the US, a total of seven EPRs were planned at six sites. Four EPR > construction licence applications were submitted to the Nuclear > Regulatory Commission (NRC) but all four applications have been > abandoned or suspended. In February 2015, Areva asked the NRC to > suspend work on EPR design certification until further notice. > > EPRs were considered at various sites in Canada - including Alberta > and Darlington, Ontario - but those plans were shelved and a generic > licensing process by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was > terminated. > > In 2009, Italian utility Enel and EDF planned to build four EPRs but > that plan was scrapped after Italy's June 2011 referendum which > rejected nuclear power. In 2012, Enel pulled out of the Flamanville > EPR project. > > The United Arab Emirates chose South Korean reactor technology over > EPRs. Reflecting on that decision, former EDF head Francois Roussely > concluded that while the EPR is "one of the best" third-generation > designs, the complexity of the design is a "handicap". > > Likewise, Cambridge University nuclear engineer Tony Roulstone said in > an October 2014 lecture that the EPR design is very safe but > extraordinarily difficult to build - he described it as > "unconstructable". > > According to the US's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), EPRs have > four sets of active safety systems, each capable of cooling the > reactor on its own, and other safety features including a > double-walled containment and a 'core catcher' for holding melted > reactor core materials after a severe accident. > > But the safety of some EPR design choices has been questioned by the > French government's Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear > Safety, and the EPR licensing process in the UK has been criticised. > > Serious faults with pressure vessel metallurgy > > On 7th April 2015, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) announced > that fabrication defects had been found in the reactor pressure vessel > of the Flamanville EPR, forged by Areva's Creusot Forge subsidiary. > Tests revealed areas with high carbon concentration resulting in > "lower than expected mechanical toughness values". > > Pierre-Franck Chevet, head of ASN, said: "It is a serious fault, even > a very serious fault, because it involves a crucial part of the > nuclear reactor." > > The results of further tests are expected by October 2015. In one > scenario, ASN will not require any remedial action and there will be > minimal consequences for Areva. But if remedial action or replacement > is required, it could be extremely expensive and problematic for > Areva, all the more so because the pressure vessel has already been > installed in the Flamanville EPR. > > Asked what would happen if tests were negative, Chevet said: "Either > EDF abandons the project or it takes out the vessel and starts > building a new one ... this would be a very heavy operation in terms > of cost and delay." > > In a worst-case scenario for Areva, the pressure vessel problem would > kill the Flamanville reactor project. A former senior nuclear safety > official told Le Parisien: "If the weakness of the steel is proved, I > don't hold out much hope for the survival of the [Flamanville] EPR > project." > > French environmental minister Ségolène Royal congratulated ASN on its > speedy reaction to the pressure vessel problem. Others are asking why > the problem was not discovered before the vessel was installed. It is > believed the problem involved an inaccurate material inspection device > used between 2009 and 2014. > > ASN's Pierre-Franck Chevet acknowledged that "mistakes had been made", > adding: "It is more than 15 years since the last nuclear power > stations were constructed in France. The expertise in some trades has > not been sufficiently passed on from one generation to the next." > > Chevet said the reactor vessels for the UK's two planned EPRs planned > for Hinkley Point C could be affected as they have already been > manufactured by the same company using the same manufacturing > techniques - even though no formal order has been placed by EDF. > > The two EPRs under construction in China might also be affected since > the pressure vessels for those reactors were also made by Creusot > Forge. China will not load fuel at the Taishan EPRs until safety > issues have been resolved, China's environment ministry said. > > A senior manager of a Chinese nuclear company, speaking anonymously to > the South China Morning Post, said: > > "The people responsible for this need to be sacked. It shouldn't have > happened. All materials must be checked thoroughly before use - that's > a basic requirement. The urgent task is to launch a quality inspection > in Taishan as soon as possible. Each batch of materials varies > slightly. We will cross our fingers and pray for the best." > > It is unlikely that the EPR under construction in Finland is at risk > of a defective pressure vessel, as the vessel was forged by Japan > Steel Works. Nevertheless, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety > Authority (STUK) has instructed energy utility TVO to carry out new > tests of the durability of the pressure vessel. > > A future for EPRs? > > An immediate priority for Areva is to keep the UK Hinkley Point EPR > project moving ahead. That project faces a legal challenge from > Austria and Luxembourg under EU regulations against the massive > subsidies being offered by the UK government. The Treasury may also be > getting cold feet over the massive cost and the growing catalogue of > problems with the EPR. > > Bloomberg noted in an April 16 article that Areva's EPR export > ambitions are now in "tatters". Bloomberg quoted former World Nuclear > Association executive Steve Kidd, who said "everyone was laughing" at > Areva's projections for EPR sales. Kidd blames the EPR saga in part on > the French government's 80% ownership of Areva: > > "Everyone in the know could tell the chickens were going to come home > to roost. I don't think that would have happened in a private > business." > > According to trade union sources, Philippe Knoche said in February > that the utility was likely to sell only about a dozen EPRs in the > years up to 2030, down from the 25 predicted previously. > > If Areva is to secure even a dozen orders by 2030, it will need > further orders from China - which seems increasingly unlikely. Steve > Thomas from Greenwich University says reactors built by Areva and > Westinghouse "are just too expensive for the Chinese." > > Knoche says Areva will emphasise growth in China, which he described > as the "new frontier" of global nuclear power. The two EPRs under > construction at Taishan will likely be completed (unless the pressure > vessel problem becomes a major obstacle). It is doubtful whether two > additional EPRs planned for the same site will proceed, and still more > doubtful that EPRs will be built at other sites. > > Areva also has to sort out unresolved issues with its Chinese project > partners. And it needs to find additional partners to cover capital > costs. > > > An agreement (but not a binding contract) to build two EPRs at India's > Jaitapur site was signed in 2010. The project has moved at snail's > pace. Construction was to start in 2013 but unresolved issues > (including financial arrangements) continue to delay the project. > > Perhaps Areva will secure further orders in France. That will depend > in part on debates over future reliance on nuclear power and other > electricity sources, and a debate over permitted lifetimes for the > current fleet of reactors. > > So that's four EPRs under construction that will probably proceed to > operation, four EPRs planned but uncertain, and diminishing prospects > for further orders. If the pressure vessel problem is not resolved, > the under-construction EPRs become uncertain and likelihood of further > orders becomes vanishingly small. > > A negative learning curve on steroids > > What to make of the EPR saga? First, Areva is backing the wrong horse > - the outcome of current political debates will result in a declining > role for nuclear power in France, coupled to the growth of renewables. > > A new report by ADEME, a French government agency under the Ministries > of Ecology and Research, concludes that a 100% renewable electricity > supply scenario is feasible in France. The report estimates that the > electricity production cost would be EURO 119 per megawatt-hour in 2050 in > the all-renewables scenario, compared with a near-identical figure of > EURO 117 / MWh with a mix of 50% nuclear, 40% renewables, and 10% fossil > fuels. > > Areva has also backed the wrong-sized wrong horse: a giant reactor > with a giant price-tag. That said, the backers of 'small modular > reactors' are having no more success than Areva. > > Areva has backed the wrong-sized wrong horse at the wrong time - the > Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath, stagnant energy demand, the > liberalization of energy markets, the political fallout from the > Fukushima disaster and other factors have dampened demand for new > reactors and made it more difficult to secure finance (or government > subsidies) for huge projects. > > The EPR saga undermines the rhetoric of standardised, simplified > reactors designs ushering in a new era of nuclear growth. It also > shows that developing modified versions of conventional reactors (in > this case pressurised water reactors) can be complicated and > protracted and can end in failure. > > How much more difficult will it be to develop radically new types of > reactors? The French government's Institute for Radiological > Protection and Nuclear Safety has recently produced an important > critique of Generation IV nuclear power concepts. > > It states that there "is still much R&D to be done to develop the > Generation IV nuclear reactors" and it is sceptical about the safety > claims made for Generation IV concepts. > > The EPR saga shows that even countries with extensive nuclear > expertise and experience can mess things up. The EPR might have > demonstrated the potential for mass production to drive down costs - > but in reality it is demonstrating the opposite. > > Even before the EPR fiasco, the large-scale, standardised French > nuclear power program was subject to a negative economic learning > curve - costs were increasing over time. The EPR represents a negative > learning curve on steroids. > > That point is emphasised by construction cost estimates of £16-24.5 > billion (US$24.3-37.2b; EURO 21.7-33.2b) for two planned EPRs (with > combined capacity of 3.2 gigawatts) at Hinkley Point in the UK. In the > mid- to late-2000s, the estimated construction cost for an EPR was £2 > billion; current estimates are 4-6 times higher. > > Private companies have pulled out of EPR projects in several countries > (Italy, the US, the UK, etc.). Thus the EPR fiasco reinforces points > made in the International Energy Agency's World Economic Outlook 2014 > report: > > that nuclear growth will be "concentrated in markets where electricity > is supplied at regulated prices, utilities have state backing or > governments act to facilitate private investment"; > and that "nuclear power faces major challenges in competitive markets > where there are significant market and regulatory risks." > > Where can Areva go from here? > > Despite the probably fatal problems with the EPR design, the company > is not giving up on the technology - for the simple reason that it has > nowhere else to go. First, it's working on design modifications based > on its experience of what has gone wrong in EPR construction projects > to date. > > It is also involved in developing a smaller, 1.1 GW pressurised water > reactor called ATMEA. But in March 2015 Areva recognized an EURO 80 > million (US$89m) impairment for its share of ATMEA development costs > > "following the downward revision in the number and schedule of > potential sales of this reactor outside Turkey, in the absence of > tangible progress in the selection processes of the countries involved > at the end of 2014." > > The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014 was sceptical about the > prospects for ATMEA: > > "The smaller PWR design, ATMEA, developed in collaboration with > Mitsubishi, has been mentioned as an option for Jordan, Hungary, > Argentina, and Turkey for the Sinop project. However, these are all, > at best, long shots and unless ATMEA attracts interest in more > prestigious markets and get comprehensive safety approval from a > highly experienced regulator, it appears to have little future." > > The EPR fiasco could tip Areva into bankruptcy. Areva posted a EURO 4.83 > billion (US$5.4b) loss for 2014 and is negotiating a rescue package > with the French government. Energy specialist Thomas Olivier Leautier > from the Toulouse School of Economics said: > > "Areva's financial situation is critical, the EPR is as crucial to > them as the iPhone was to Apple. Their failure in Finland and now the > problem in Flamanville could prove fatal." > > Ironically, Areva itself may not even have the resources for its > expected 10% stake in Hinkley Point. Chief executive Philippe Knoche > recently declined to commit to the 10% figure, and the head of Areva's > reactors and services division said: "Our current financial situation > obviously will make things more difficult." > > Areva's reprocessing operations are also in trouble. A May 6 Reuters > article outlines the problems. Since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, > Areva's reprocessing unit has lost nearly all of its international > customers. The company's 'back-end' sales - reprocessing and > decommissioning - have fallen from EURO 2 billion in 2004 to EURO 1.53 > billion > in 2014. > > Areva needs to invest something of the order of EURO 200 million per year > for nearly 10 years to renew ageing equipment and boost capacity of > its nuclear waste storage pools. > > Money, money, money (or lack of it) > > Last week Areva responded to its financial woes last week by > announcing a cut of 4,000 employees, almost 10% of its 45,000 > workforce, as reported in the New York Times. The company is also > courting investment from the China National Nuclear Corporation, which > told reporters in Beijing that it would be interested in investing in > Areva. > > However CNNC would be certain to demand a large share of Areva given > its dire financial straits, and would also obtain access to its > nuclear technology and know-how - something that the French government > might well find incompatible with its national security and long term > interests. > > Another alternative is that EDF, another French nuclear parastatal > that has the benefit of being in profit (for now), might buy Areva - > the most likely option, according to a Bloomberg report. > > But the danger there is that Areva would represent a significant > liability in both the short and the long term, draining EDF cash just > as it has to budget for a large programme of expensive nuclear plant > closures in France, which will also slice away a large part of its > income, and leave it unable to invest in the new generation capacity > needed to make up the shortfall. > > Or Areva could seek funding directly from the French government to > stay afloat. But that could well run foul of the EU's ban on state > aid, aimed at maintaining competitive markets undistorted by > government subsidies. As Greenpeace's Jan Haverkamp commented last > October on the broader ramifications of the Hinkley Point subsidy > debate: > > "The chance to funnel large sums from state coffers and consumers' > pockets to these megalomaniac pet projects will cause frantic activity > in those countries where old, centralised energy systems are still > popular with politicians." > > The final option for Areva is to declare itself bankrupt, with major > implications for the French economy and the credibility of France's > entire nuclear enterprise. The only certainty is that French taxpayers > will pay dearly for Areva's follies and fiascos. > > Meanwhile potential purchasers of EPRs and investors in Areva would do > well to bear the following in mind. Twelve years after the first EPR > was ordered there is not a single working example of the reactor, and > the earliest projected date for completion of the first EPR is 2018 - > and no surprises if that slips to 2020. > > Would you bet your pension fund on Areva and its EPR technology? > > Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the > Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where an > edited version of this article was originally published (No. 803, May > 2015). > > Nuclear Monitor is published 20 times a year. It has been publishing > deeply researched, often strongly critical articles on all aspects of > the nuclear cycle since 1978. A must-read for all those who work on > this issue! > > Additional reporting by Oliver Tickell, who edits The Ecologist. > > II. > > http://www.firstpost.com/india/fault-lies-govt-delay-jaitapur-nuclear-plant-union-minister-jitendra-singh-2246640.html > > Fault lies with govt for delay in Jaitapur nuclear plant: Union > Minister Jitendra Singh > May 15, 2015 17:29 IST > > New Delhi: With stiff resistance from locals delaying the > commissioning of Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant, Union Minister Jitendra > Singh on Friday said "the fault lies with" the government for not > being able to convince the people of the "advantages of atomic > energy". > > ***The Minister of State for the Department of Atomic Energy and Space > said the government is gathering all resources to make the 9,900-MW > Jaitapur nuclear power plant in coastal Maharashtra as one of the most > glorious atomic energy establishments.*** [Emphasis added.] > > The Jaitapur Power Plant stands delayed. ReutersThe Jaitapur Power > Plant stands delayed. Reuters > > "There is a lot of misgivings and we are looking at that plant very > ambitiously, the entire atomic energy department is focussed on that, > we are trying to gather all the resources to make it one of the most > glorious atomic energy establishments, but again these misgivings have > come up. We have failed or we have not been able to propagate the > facts as vigorously and aggressively as we ought to have done." > > "There is a lot of non-malignant advantages of atomic energy - it is > environment friendly, climate friendly and these things are evidently > very clear and if we are not able to convince our people and a plant > like that in Jaitapur is still suffering from certain hiccups perhaps > again the fault lies with us," Singh said. > > He was speaking at the Nuclear Energy Conference organised by The > Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM) in New Delhi. > > Emphasising more awareness, Singh said hazards of nuclear energy are > not actually of the magnitude to which they are being projected and > for that there is a need to have more awareness programmes with facts > and figures because "we have stuck up with something like Jaitapur > plant". > > "We need to tell the world and the people here that we have conducted > a number of studies which have proved abundantly that there is no > extra risk or hazard with having an atomic energy establishment in > your vicinity," the Union Minister said. > > Echoing the minister's sentiments, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) > Secretary Ratan Kumar Sinha, who is also the Chairman of Atomic Energy > Commission, said convincing people about nuclear energy and getting > good financial experts are the two major challenges facing the Indian > nuclear industry. > > "The negative information flowing to the people from the rural areas, > less educated ones was hampering the nuclear projects in the country > and it was important to convince the population about it at large," > Sinha said. > > "After completion of the project, almost 75 percent of the total cost > of per unit is of the high capital cost that is involved. So the > sector requires financial experts, in managing the cost," Sinha said." > > He said over the past 7-8 months, India has had a "productive" and > "revolutionary" dialogue with its foreign collaborators which includes > Canada and Australia in terms of procuring uranium, the pre-work > engineering agreement (PEA) with French company Areva and the US > company WestingHouse Co. > > Francois Richer, French envoy to India, said that with the visit of > Prime Minister Narendra Modi to France, the nuclear cooperation > between the two nations has developed and his country supports India's > entry to the elite Nuclear Suppliers Group. > > Speaking on the occasion, Irwan Hinault, CEO Areva -- the company > which is to be built six EPR reactors at Jaitapur -- said the PEA > between his company and Larsen and Toubro will help improve the > competitiveness of the project as many equipment could be manufactured > in India itself, thereby reducing the cost. > > PTI > > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Regards Shankar Sharma Power Policy Analyst # 1026, 5th Main Road, E&F Block, Ramakrishna Nagara Mysore, Karnataka, India - 570022 Phone: 0821 2462333 & 94482 72503 [email protected] [email protected] <[email protected]> "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." - Thomas Edison in conversation with Henry Ford, 1931 "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
