Jaitapur nuclear power plant :A very expensive proposition


 

A very expensive proposition
MV Ramana and Suvrat Raju
February 12, 2013, HT
During his visit to India this week, French President Francois Hollande is likely to urge the government to conclude a questionable deal to purchase six nuclear European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) from the French company Areva for Jaitapur (Maharashtra). Though marketed as “the most advanced”

reactor, the EPR is commercially immature; not a single reactor has been commissioned anywhere in the world. Moreover at the construction sites at Olkiluoto (Finland) and Flamanville (France) costs and time have escalated dramatically from the initial projected figures, suggesting that each reactor will cost about Rs. 60,000 crore. So six could cost in excess of Rs. 3.5 lakh crore.To put this figure in perspective, each of the two reactors that Areva is hoping to sell in the next five years is larger than Maharashtra’s annual plan for 2012 (Rs 45,000 crore). Shockingly, the government agreed to purchase the reactors from Areva without a nominal competitive bidding process. The procurement rules in any branch of the government, including the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), mandate public tenders for any purchase aboveRs. 10 lakh.

Cables revealed by Wikileaks suggest that this peremptory decision was made in 2007. The government’s rationale was laid out by former DAE secretary Anil Kakodkar. In an article in 2011, Kakodkar wrote: “We also have to keep in mind the commercial interests of foreign countries and of the companies there… America, Russia and France were the countries we made mediators in these efforts to lift sanctions, and hence, for the nurturing of their business interests, we made deals with them for nuclear projects.” Indian officials are aware that this attitude is costly. In another cable, the general manager of the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) admitted that India had “paid a ‘high’ price for French reactors from Areva”.

Unsurprisingly, the government has been reticent about discussing the modalities of the contract it is negotiating with Areva. It has failed to support its assertions that “the cost per unit of electricity from the Jaitapur plant will be competitive to the other power plants” with any substantive data on costs. When asked, it demurred, even in Parliament, with the excuse that “the detailed project proposals … are under finalisation.”

To check the veracity of the government’s claims, we recently used the best available public data on fuel prices and capital costs, assumed a substantial markdown to account for lower costs of labour in India and estimated the expected tariff from the EPR reactors. This calculation involves some rather detailed accounting, but the basic procedure for setting the electricity tariff from nuclear plants was laid out by NPCIL in 2008.

By adapting this procedure to the EPR  -  and using the most recent guidelines of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission  – we estimated that if NPCIL were to follow the regulations faithfully, the first-year tariff from the EPR would be about R14 per unit. This assumes that reactor construction starts next year and is completed on the same pattern as the Kudankulam I and II reactors, which, given the untested nature of the EPRs, is generous. The calculated tariff is a far cry from current or expected future tariffs from other base-load power projects.

Since it cannot pass on such a high tariff on to consumers, the government may absorb the loss and sell electricity at a lower price. However, every rupee of under-recovery will cost the exchequer about Rs. 1,000 crore per year. Just to halve the tariff from the first two reactors down to Rs. 7, the government may need to spend Rs. 14,000 crore per year.

This is in addition to indirect subsidies in the existing revenue model. For example, NPCIL plans to put in its equity early, and then let it lie idle with no return for the period of construction that may easily extend beyond a decade. The government may increase these handouts in various ways – for example, by putting pressure on public sector banks to provide cheap credit for the project. The issue here is not Maharashtra’s need for electricity. Rather it is why the government has chosen this particular company, and its overpriced technology, to meet this need.
MV Ramana and Suvrat Raju are physicists associated with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. Ramana is the author of The power of promise: Examining nuclear energy in India
The views expressed by the authors are personal

 

Jaitapur a critical issue: It’s all about money, honey!


English: Internationally recognized symbol. De...

 

IndiPublished: Friday, Feb 15, 2013, 8:00 IST
Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

India and France on Thursday reviewed the progress on the controversial Jaitapur nuclear project, which is being constructed by French nuclear giant Areva and India’s public sector nuclear company Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), even as issues related to cost of this this multi-billion dollar deal remains pending.

“Today, President Hollande and I exchanged views on a number of bilateral, regional and multilateral issues of common interest. We reviewed progress on the Jaitapur nuclear power project and reiterated our commitment to its early implementation as soon as the commercial and technical negotiations, which have made good progress, are completed,” prime minister Manmohan Singh said.

India had signed agreements for the 9,900 MW nuclear power project in 2010 but owing to different factors such as protests from locals, difficulty in land acquisition, liability in case of accident and cost of the project, it has not moved ahead a great deal. Environmentalists have also critically opposed its construction voicing concern about seismic activity in the area specially after the Fukushima incident in Japan.

However, the Indian government has reiterated its commitment to go ahead with the project several times but has also admitted that there are issues pertaining to the cost of the project and technology.

In a joint statement released here on Thursday, French president Francois Hollande and Manmohan Singh expressed satisfaction regarding the project. “In the field of energy, the leaders expressed satisfaction in regard to the ongoing collaborative projects in R&D on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and agreed to further strengthen bilateral civil nuclear scientific cooperation,” the joint statement said.

“Recalling the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 4 February, 2009 between NPCIL and Areva for setting up of 6 x 1650 MWe EPR units at Jaitapur, the leaders reviewed the status in regard to the first two EPR units and noted that NPCIL and AREVA were engaged actively in techno-commercial discussions. They expressed hope for the expeditious conclusion of the negotiations. It was emphasized that the nuclear power plant at Jaitapur would incorporate the highest safety standards,” the joint statement noted.

Meanwhile, sources in the central government told DNA: “There has been satisfactory progress on talks regarding the nuclear project. As far as safety issues are concerned, Areva is bringing the latest technology. And even before the reactor at India would be built they would have built nuclear reactor using same latest technologies at several other places. So by the time it would be built in India all those things the company would learn while building those could be incorporated in Jaitapur plant.”

 

 

 

The Reality at Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant , Mr. Hollande #mustshare


OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Anuj Wankhede and Cressida Morley

French President Francois Hollande is making his first visit out of Europe since he was elected. And he has chosen India as a preferred destination for his visit starting tomorrow – 14th February.

On his radar is to sell Areva’s failed EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) nuclear reactors to India. Even as his own country has neither been able to implement the EPR reactors in France or Finland and nor has the US regulator certified it, the Indian government is eager to set up these reactors in a huge area in coastal Maharashtra – at Jaitapur – a highly bio-diverse region that needs preservation.

The carrot which the French president is dangling is the supply of fighter jets to India on “favorable” terms. The Indian government for want of more and more weapons (and probably with an eye on making some money out of the deal?) is turning a blind eye to the enormous damage this project will cause. Anuj Wankhede and Cressida Morley write about the Jaitapur protestors, who despite all efforts of the French and Indian governments, remain determined that this project will never see the light of day.

The beauty of the Ratnagiri coastline and surrounding area has to be seen to be believed. Any government official from DAE to NPCIL would be crazy to think of destroying or even putting at risk this kind of natural biodiversity. It is already established that Maharashtra state itself does not require any more electricity than is already being produced and the Chief Minister himself is on record as saying that the state will be free of any load shedding by the year end.

So for whom is the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP) being built?

Certainly not for the local people, the fishers, farmers and ordinary people whose livelihoods will be destroyed and their lives threatened. The government tells us that nuclear power is needed for ‘development,’ but the people who will be directly affected by JNPP have a very different ideas of what development is and whom it should benefit.

The fishing village of Sakhri-nate, is just a few kilometers by road from the proposed JNPP site – only 3 kilometers as the crow flies. You can see the site clearly just across the sea.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERASlogans such as ‘No nuclear’ and ‘Areva go back’ are painted on walls all around the village and the people against JNPP vehemently say they are prepared to give their lives rather than allow the plant to come up. Recent newspaper reports have shown just how desperate NPCIL is to do a deal with the fishers by raising the compensation for land acquisition to Rs. 22.5 lakh per hectare from Rs.1.5 to 4 lakh announced previously.

But the fishers are adamant…it doesn’t matter how much they are paid when their livelihoods, their community, in fact their very lives are on the line.

Most of those opposed to the plant in Sakhri-nate are fishers but there are people of different professions as well, showing that it is not just a direct concern for livelihood but a much wider fear that JNPP will in fact destroy their lives and community. The activists have detailed knowledge of how the JNPP will affect their lives. For fishers, this knowledge may not be scientific in the academic sense of the word, but every day they observe the sea intimately as their lives literally depend on it. The knowledge that they have gained through long experience cannot be easily dismissed.

The fishing community is concerned that the effluent water used for cooling the nuclear plant – which will be pumped back into the sea at a temperature – at least 5-7 degrees Celsius higher than the natural temperature – will have a disastrous effect on the fish population and their breeding. The Government is trying to assure the fishers that a rise in seawater temperature would not affect the fish, except possibly to make them bigger! Obviously, the fishers are not buying this at all. They claim that the fish that presently inhabit their fishing ground will not be able to live in such a changed environment. Even if these fish are able to swim away to other areas of the sea, shellfish, for example cannot escape so easily and will surely perish. Perhaps, different species of fish will come to the area due to the raised temperatures but this also represents an unknown for the fishers. In any case, they refuse to believe that the environment will simply remain the same with such enormous quantities of heated water being pumped into the sea. As one fisher put it, even a refrigerator emits heat which can affect the surrounding air temperature and living things, so how can the government claim that an entire nuclear power plant will have no impact on the environment?

Others have expressed fears of terrorism and natural disasters.

The cliffs surrounding Sakhri-nate, directly opposite the proposed site for JNPP, are spectacular to say the least. The solid rocks here weather the eternal beating of the sea waves. Yet, this rock was split wide apart by lightening and electrical storms that are common in the area. It’s easy to imagine similar lightening bolts falling just a few kilometers away, and the damage they would do to a nuclear reactor. It would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions indeed.

P1190019Especially after Fukushima, the fear of accidents is very real and no amount of government assurances has convinced the activists that JNPP will be totally safe. The level of distrust towards the government is very high and palpable. Activists claim that the government contradicts its own reports and does not disclose ‘inconvenient’ information besides they feel the government is least concerned about the locals.

Rather than the government, Sakhri-nate fishers would rather believe their fellow fishers from another part of the state – Tarapur. They have travelled to nearby Tarapur which as the site for the first nuclear reactor to be built in India and they have seen what the nuclear power plants have done to the fishing catch. The fishing community at Tarapur is practically out of business due to the low catch and the enforced security ring around the plant which forces them to take long detours into the sea and which entails huge costs on diesel – not to mention the time spent.

At Tarapur, the locals were told 40 years ago that the Tarapur NPP was a matter of national pride. The local community and fishermen in that area gladly agreed to its construction, fully believing government assurances that the fish and environment would not be affected and that they would be adequately compensated. They have since been thoroughly betrayed and have warned their fellow fishers near Jaitapur to fight against JNPP – lest the same fate befalls them. The information received by the Sakhri-nate fishers from the Tarapur fishers is based on their bitter experiences and a shared understanding of the sea and the environment, both of which are integral parts of their lives and livelihoods. Who would you rather believe—the actual experience of your peers or the theoretical science of distrusted governments?

Ideas on development: worlds apart

The rift between the local community, dead-set against the NPP and the government, equally determined to build it, is not just about differing information and mistrust. There is a more fundamental difference in worldview between these two parties. While the government’s idea of ‘development’ focuses on achieving ambitious electricity generation, attracting foreign capital and making more and more ‘goods’ for an ever-expanding market, the fishers of Sakhri-nate have different ideas.

no nuclearAs one local explained “We are already developed. We don’t need anything more; we have full employment in the village. Even disabled or illiterate people have jobs, mending fishing nets etc. We have enough electricity; all we ask is that the government allows us to pursue our livelihoods. We have enough money to live well now, as fishing is a lucrative industry, but if we loose our livelihood, we will have nothing.”

Others said that if development was needed at all in their village, it should be in the form of increased educational facilities – including vocational schools – so that their children would get better employment opportunities – if they choose to. There are also calls for growth which minimizes environmental destruction and which compliments local industries such as food processing factories for the fish and mangoes, also produced in large quantities in the Jaitapur area. The already present ice factories, which provide ice to pack the fish so they can be sent to different parts of the country, are another obvious example of this type of development.

It would seem that the government has underestimated the level and type of knowledge and information that the local community has or even tried to understand their concerns – leave alone address them. This is not to mention the high income and living standards enjoyed by the fishermen who do not want this so called lop sided “development” at such high risks.

But most of all, the official model of development is being called into question: Why should large-scale industrial projects be encouraged, in this case a foreign-funded project that carries a risk of unimaginable destruction, and why should local communities be required to sacrifice their lives and livelihoods for lighting up city malls while the locals who are being affected by the project will still have only erratic power supply – just as is the case at Tarapur?

(The views expressed in the article are the personal views of the authors and not those of any organization or institution.)

 

New Centralized Nuclear Plants: Still an Investment Worth Making?


LANDSHUT, GERMANY - SEPTEMBER 01:  A cooling t...

(Image credit: Getty Images Europe via @daylife)

Just a few years ago, the US nuclear renaissance seemed at hand.  It probably shouldn’t have been.  Cost overruns from Finland to France to the US were already becoming manifest, government guarantees were in doubt, and shale gas drillers were beginning to punch holes into the ground with abandon.

Then came Fukushima.  The latter proved a somewhat astonishing reminder of forgotten lessons about nuclear power risks, unique to that technology:  A failure of one power plant in an isolated location can create a contagion in countries far away, and even where somewhat different variants of that technology are in use. Just as Three Mile Island put the kaibosh on nuclear power in the US for decades, Fukushima appears to have done the same for Japan and Germany, at a minimum.  It certainly did not help public opinion, and at a minimum, the effect of Fukushima will likely be to increase permitting and associated regulatory costs.

By contrast, when a gas-fired plant in Connecticut exploded during construction a few years ago, it didn’t affect the public perception of other gas plants.  But Fukushima and nuclear power is another story.  The stakes are so much bigge

Even without Fukushima, the verdict on large centralized US nukes is probably in, for the following reasons:

1)     They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed).  The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.

2)     They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays.  In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of America’s earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.

3)     And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing.  You can’t pull out without losing your entire investment.  For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent  $2.25 bn (1983)  and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.

Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons.

Electricite de France’s Flamanville plant has seen its budget explode from 3.3 to 6 bn (July 2011) to 8 bn Euros ($10.5 bn) as of last December, with a delay of four years over original targets.  EDF in part blames stricter post-Fukushima regulations for part of the overrun).  To the north, Finland’s Olkiluoto – being constructed by Areva – has seen delays of nearly five years, and enormous cost overruns.  The original turnkey cost of 3.0 bn Euros has skyrocketed beyond all fears, increasing at least 250%.  Just last month, Areva’s CEO conceded “We estimate that the costs of Olkiluoto are near those of Flamanville.”

In the US, recent experience doesn’t look much better:  Progress Energy (now Duke) first announced the 2,200 MW Levy nuclear project in 2006, with an estimated price tag of $4 to $6 bn and an online date of 2016.  The cost estimated increased to $17 bn in 2008.  This year, Progress announced the project would cost $24 billion and come online in 2024.  The Levy plant currently has a debt in excess of $1.1 bn for which customers had already paid $545 million through 2011.  As of now, the utility plans to proceed, with the Executive VP for Power Generation stating ”We’ve made a decision to build Levy…I’m confident in the schedule and numbers.”

In Georgia, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (owned jointly by a number of utilities, including Georgia Power) appear in somewhat better shape, but issues have cropped up there as well.  Customers currently pay $10 per month in advance to cover financing associated with the two 1,117 MW units.  Georgia Power is allowed by legislation to recover $1.7 bn in financing costs of its estimated $6.1 bn portion of the $14 bn plant during the construction period.  However, there have already been some cost problems, and Georgia Power is disputing its responsibility to pay $425 million of overruns resulting from delays in licensing approvals.  Total cost excesses to all partners total $875 mn.  The two units were expected to come online in 2016 and 2017, but in a Georgia PSC meeting in December, an independent monitor noted that expected delays of fifteen months are largely as a result of poor paperwork related to stringent design rules and quality assurance.  Those delays will likely continue to cost more money.

Unfortunately, these experiences are not outliers.  From 2007 to 2010, the NRC received 18 nuclear applications ( of which only twelve are still active).  Of these, the consulting outfit Analysis Group reported that for eight plants where they were able to obtain two or more comparable cost estimate, 7 are over budget (including Levy and Vogtle), with updated numbers “often double or triple initial estimates.”  This is consistent with an MIT study estimating ‘overnight’ costs nearly doubling from 2002 to 2007.   As utilities management consultant Stephen Maloney was quoted in the Analysis Group study “No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost.  We see cost escalations as companies coming up the learning curve.”

Last August, Exelon abandoned plans to construct two facilities in Texas, blaming low natural gas prices.  Two months later, Dominion Resources announced that it would shut down its existing Kewaunee station in Wisconsin as a consequence of low gas prices and a lack of buyers.  The latter move was particularly eye-opening: building a nuclear plant is supposed to be the expensive part, while operation is expected to be relatively cheap.

So it appears that the nuclear renaissance may be largely over before it started.  And yet, many projects have not yet been canceled, with utilities and ratepayers accepting ever more risk in order to rescue sunk costs. In many cases, these costs have soared or will soar into the billions. As risk management expert Russell Walker of the Kellogg School of Management is quoted as saying in the  Tampa Bay Times “When the stakes get higher, it gets harder for organizations to walk away…this happens a lot.  It’s the same problem a gambler has: If I play a little longer, it’ll come around.

With low natural gas prices, efficient combined cycled turbines, more efficient renewables and a host of more efficient end-use technologies, that’s a bet fewer and fewer seem wiling to take.   Unfortunately for ratepayers at some utilities, they are at the table whether they like it or not…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/15/new-centralized-nuclear-plants-still-an-investment-worth-making/

 

Committed to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project, India tells France #Wtfnews


English: Internationally recognized symbol. De...

 

PARIS: India on Thursday assured France of its commitment to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in the backdrop of protests being carried out in that area against the atomic plant.
External affairs minister Salman Khurshid, who held bilateral talks with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius here, said both sides are committed to ensuring the highest levels of safety in the project.
“Our government remains committed to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project. Both sides are committed to ensuring the highest levels of safety in the project,” Khurshid said at a joint press conference.
The remarks of Khurshid, who is here on an official visit, came at a time when protests are going on back in India against the 2,000-MW Kudankulam project in Tamil Nadu over safety concerns.
Protests have also been organised against the Jaitapur project in Maharashtra.
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is a proposed 9900 MW power project of Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur by the French company Areva.
The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.

Khurshid’s visit is the first visit by an Indian external affairs minister to this country in a decade. Khurshid said he held a “comprehensive and fruitful” discussions with Fabius.

“We reviewed our cooperation in defence, space and civil nuclear energy and counter terrorism, which are important pillars of our bilateral relations,” he said.

Khrushid said India and France share the same values of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“Our excellent bilateral relations with France are marked by mutual trust. They encompass trade, investment, defence, security, counter terrorism, space, nuclear energy, education, culture, science & technology and people to people contacts,” he said.

The minister stressed that though affected by global economic slowdown, bilateral economic and commercial relations are steadily growing in recent years.

“Yet there remains considerable untapped potential for further growth. We invite French investments in our infrastructure, food processing industries, hi-tech and green technologies,” he said.PARIS: India on Thursday assured France of its commitment to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in the backdrop of protests being carried out in that area against the atomic plant.
External affairs minister Salman Khurshid, who held bilateral talks with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius here, said both sides are committed to ensuring the highest levels of safety in the project.
“Our government remains committed to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project. Both sides are committed to ensuring the highest levels of safety in the project,” Khurshid said at a joint press conference.
The remarks of Khurshid, who is here on an official visit, came at a time when protests are going on back in India against the 2,000-MW Kudankulam project in Tamil Nadu over safety concerns.
Protests have also been organised against the Jaitapur project in Maharashtra.
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is a proposed 9900 MW power project of Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur by the French company Areva.
The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.

Khurshid’s visit is the first visit by an Indian external affairs minister to this country in a decade. Khurshid said he held a “comprehensive and fruitful” discussions with Fabius.

“We reviewed our cooperation in defence, space and civil nuclear energy and counter terrorism, which are important pillars of our bilateral relations,” he said.

Khrushid said India and France share the same values of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“Our excellent bilateral relations with France are marked by mutual trust. They encompass trade, investment, defence, security, counter terrorism, space, nuclear energy, education, culture, science & technology and people to people contacts,” he said.

The minister stressed that though affected by global economic slowdown, bilateral economic and commercial relations are steadily growing in recent years.

“Yet there remains considerable untapped potential for further growth. We invite French investments in our infrastructure, food processing industries, hi-tech and green technologies,” he said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#India-Areva closes in on key agreement for Jaitapur plant #nuclear


Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu, Dec 18, 2012

A file photo of the site of the proposed Jaitapur nuclear plant in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra.
PTI A file photo of the site of the proposed Jaitapur nuclear plant in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra.

Unperturbed by protests against its proposed nuclear power plant in Jaitapur, Maharashtra, the French civil nuclear energy major Areva is now in the closing stages of striking an “early works agreement” with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.

This agreement, which is actually a series of studies to ensure that the reactor is in conformity with local conditions, is likely to take nine months. “Areva’s discussions with NPCIL are on. We hope to achieve closure as soon as possible. We are eager to start [on the studies] so as to fully define the project,” said diplomatic sources.

They drew attention to French Ambassador Francois Richier’s observations at a recent Indo-French nuclear seminar. “I hope the discussions will be completed soon,” he had said, which would make the Jaitapur project “the first to come up since the 2008 Nuclear Suppliers Group exemption to India.”

While Kudankulam I and II will be the first mega units to come up in India, the agreement with Russia [then Soviet Union] was signed over two decades ago and negotiations over the next two units are deadlocked over the Nuclear Liability Act. Similarly, the American bid to set up nuclear plants in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh is also held up.

Commenting on the Act, which has been opposed by all companies vying for business in India because of a clause that puts the onus of an accident on suppliers, the sources said Areva’s basic principle was to abide by the law of the land and at the same time ensure that the company’s interests were protected. But as the Rules have not entered into force, there is uncertainty about how it will all end up. In addition, the Supreme Court is hearing a petition on safety in civil nuclear plants. “But this question is not for us to solve,” they said.

Protests

The second issue facing the French company are mass protests in and around Jaitapur that has led to the loss of a life in police firing. Unlike the Russians, who suspected a foreign hand in protests at their site in Kudankulam, the French are taking the protests at Jaitapur in their stride.

“It is the beauty of democracy that all are allowed to demonstrate. France had such demonstrations for long and one good effect was it obliged the industry and the government to take care of safety concerns and also accept transparency. This approach helped the French to accept nuclear energy without fears. Today France has 60 reactors or one reactor for every 10 lakh people. Demonstrations are legitimate and we will try to address their safety related concerns,” the sources said.

The third stumbling block after the Limited Nuclear Liability Act and the protests is the absence of an India-Japan civil nuclear cooperation agreement. This will make it next to impossible to source crucial parts for the reactor vessel made by the Japan Steel Works.

Indian officials expect Areva to approach South Korea with which India has a civil nuclear agreement. According to South Korean diplomats, Areva and Korean Electric Power Company (Kepco) have worked together in the past, but have also competed against each other for a major United Arab Emirates tender, which was won by Seoul.

Kepco’s stand

At the same time, it remains to be seen whether Kepco will be content with supplying a few parts for the reactor, when South Korea feels that after signing the civil nuclear agreement with India [after just three meetings], New Delhi might award it a nuclear reactor park of its own.

Diplomatic sources are confident of surmounting these issues. “This is not the first time France is central to India’s nuclear energy programme. Our cooperation started in 1951 and the long term commitment to work together in nuclear and space segments triggers all kinds of cooperation easily and solves all problems.”

 

Cost of Jaitapur reactors could triple to nearly Rs. 35,500 crore


 

VAIJU NARAVANE, The Hindu, Dec 6,2012

 

English: Internationally recognized symbol. De...

English: Internationally recognized symbol. Deutsch: Gefahrensymbol für Radioaktivität. Image:Radioactive.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

EDF, the French electricity giant that has built and operated the country’s 58 nuclear reactors, has announced that the bill for the 1,650-MW, third-generation pressurised reactor known as EPR has now gone up to AFP €8.5 billion. At its inception, the reactor, designed by Areva of France, was expected to cost €3.3 billion.

This is bad news for India which is slated to buy six EPR reactors for a site in Jaitapur, Maharashtra. Initially expected to cost some €20 billion, the six EPRs India intends to buy will now be in the region of €50 billion — nearly Rs. 35,500 crore.

Delays and cost over-runs have marked the construction of the EPR in Flamanville, Manche, France. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) carried out an audit of the country’s nuclear installations and asked for several reinforcements and design changes. All these added to the price.

However, work on the reactor had been badly delayed and it is now expected to go on stream in 2016. Industry insiders predict that date will not be respected and there will be further cost overruns.

“The development of the boiler design, additional engineering studies, the integration of new regulatory requirements and everything learnt from Fukushima have also been taken into account,” EDF said in a statement.

There is not a single EPR that is working today. The reactor built in Olkilouto, Finland, by Siemens and Areva is also running four years behind schedule and has yet to begin operating. The reactor may start operating next year.

EDF has been rapped on the knuckles several times by the nuclear watchdog ASN for cutting corners, using shoddy materials, and employing workers who do not know their job. The Flamanville plant is the first reactor being built in France in nearly 20 years.

 

 

Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project- Nuclear Devastation


The Jaitapur Project, dianuke.org

The plan by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) to establish two nuclear reactors in Jaitapur in Maharashtra was first publicly announced in September 2005, just two months after the United States-India nuclear cooperation deal was inked.[i] In 2003, two years before the deal was conceived, NPCIL had commissioned a feasibility study in the Jaitapur region.[ii]

The project, originally for two 1,000 MW reactors, was modified in February 2006, when India and France signed an agreement on nuclear cooperation and declared their intention to establish a “nuclear power park” in Jaitapur, consisting of six units of European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) of 1,650 MW each.[iii]

Jaitapur is planned to be the biggest nuclear power station in the world, even larger than Japan’s Kashiwkazi-Kariwa plant. The reactors are to be designed and built by the largely state-owned French nuclear energy company, Areva. Ever since 2006, Areva has figured in connection with the proposed nuclear park in Jaitapur.

Even before the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group agreed in September 2008 to make a special exception for India in the global nuclear trade regime in keeping with the US-India deal, New Delhi had started dangling the carrot of lucrative nuclear reactor business worth $270 billion before the international nuclear industry in the form of “nuclear power parks” in coastal areas.[iv] This was done without any clearance from the Reserve Bank of India, without an engineering or technical assessment of the suppliers, and without a transparent, broad-based study of or planning for nuclear expansion on such a massive scale.

There was no evaluation of the relevance of the nuclear reactors for the country’s energy security. NPCIL did not invite global tenders for them. Yet, it short-listed Areva’s EPRs, along with Westinghouse Electric Company’s AP1000 series of reactors, General Electric-Hitachi’s ABWR reactor series, and Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom’s VVER 1,000 reactors.[v]

On its part, France has been more than eager to exploit the lucrative nuclear market emerging in India. Not only it had not condemned India for its nuclear tests of 1998[vi], it promised India access to sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies and offered assured fuel supplies.[vii]

In anticipation of the NSG clearance, pre-project activities started by mid-2006 and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between NPCIL and the Government of Maharashtra in September 2006.[viii]NPCIL’s camp office appeared near Madban village in early 2007.[ix] Within a month of the NSG clearance in September 2008, India and France entered into a framework nuclear agreement.[x] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was invited as the chief guest at the French National Day in 2009.[xi]

The agreement for the first two of the six EPRs between Areva and NPCIL was signed in December 2010 during French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s India visit.[xii] This event was also marked by a hastily granted clearance for the project by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.[xiii]

Current status:

  • The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is yet to give clearance to the reactor design
  • Environmental clearance is conditional
  • In the first phase, two reactors are to be built between 2012 and 2018.
  • Union cabinet has to approve financial issues
  • A powerful movement against the project has emerged.
  • Seventy local self-government representatives of 10 villages have resigned en masse
  • Liability remains a concern for Areva[xiv]

 

Courtesy: CNDP Report on Jaitapur: http://www.cndpindia.org/download.php?view.66

Notes:

[i] Meena Menon, “Critical Mass”, Frontline, 27:12 :: Jun. 05-18, 2010   http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2712/stories/20100618271204100.htm

[ii] “French N-tech firms eyeing India”, Times of India, May 18, 2008,  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1536108.cms

[iii] “Advantage India: French Nuclear Deal”, Times of India, Feb 20, 2006, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Advantage-India-French-nuclear-deal-/articleshow/1421908.cms

[iv] Raman, J Sri, “The US-India Nuclear Deal: on year later”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1, 2009. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-us-india-nuclear-deal-one-year-later

[v] “Nuclear Power short-lists 4 suppliers for Reactor” Business Line, August 18, 2008 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/08/18/stories/2008081851400100.htm

[vi] “Trade, nuclear power tops Sarkozy’s India wish list” France 24, Dec 05, 2010

http://www.france24.com/en/20101204-india-france-trade-nuclear-power-deals-top-india-wish-list-sarkozy

[vii] “France, Russia ensure uninterrupted fuel supply to Indian rectors”, Globalsecurity.org,,Sept 17, 2008

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/india/2008/india-080917-irna01.htm

[viii] “In India the Nuclear Stampede Begins”, Asia Times Online, Nov 22, 2006. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK22Df01.html

[ix] “Work begins for nuclear plant in Maharashtra”, Earth Times, May 3, 2007 http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/58714.html

[x] “India, France ink landmark agreement”  Rediff News, September 30, 2008. http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/30ndeal3.htm

[xi] “PM Gets rare honour as Chief Guest on French Day” Indian Express, July 14, 2009.  http://www.indianexpress.com/news/PM-gets-rare-honour-as-Chief-Guest-on-French-Day/489092/

[xii] “India to get 2 nuclear reactors” Deccan Herald, Dec 06, 2010.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/118500/india-get-2-nuclear-reactors.html

[xiii] “Jaitapur power plant gets environmental clearance”, NDTV, Nov 28, 2010

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/jaitapur-power-plant-gets-environmental-clearance-69147

[xiv] “Jaitapur n-reactors flagged off but liability concerns remain” Indian Express, Dec 7, 2010. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/jaitapur-nreactors-flagged-off-but-liability-concerns-remain/721283/

MUST WATCH VIDEO

 

This renaissance is just a fairy tale


Nuclear power plant symbol

Nityanand Jayaraman

June 15, 2012, The Hindu

The unpredictable financial implications of constructing, running, decommissioning plants and handling risks are causing a global rethink on nuclear energy

For a professed proponent of liberalisation and free trade, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh‘s penchant for a technology that cannot float without subsidies is telling. Nuclear power’s unfavourable economics are not lost on Dr. Singh.

Recently, Westinghouse Electric and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to negotiate the setting up of AP1000 reactors in Gujarat, ending a slump in interest from the Toshiba subsidiary in India’s nuclear market. For Toshiba’s Westinghouse and other nuclear equipment suppliers, the Civil Nuclear Liability Act’s clause on supplier liability was the key hurdle to investing in India. The companies wanted the Indian government to insulate them from the financial fallouts of any potential disaster caused by their technology by spreading that liability among taxpayers. The recent MoU suggests some progress in moving towards this goal.

More obstacles remain, though. Nuclear projects are un-bankable. The government may deploy mental health specialists to deal with the fears of Kudankulam protestors. But those shrinks are unlikely to be able to allay the fears of financiers or nuclear equipment suppliers.

According to nuclear energy expert Peter Bradford, “The most implacable enemy of nuclear power in the past 30 years has been the risk not to public health but to investors’ wallets. No nuclear power project has ever bid successfully in a competitive energy market anywhere in the world.” Mr. Bradford was member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and chair of the New York and Maine electricity regulatory commissions. He teaches a course on nuclear power at the Vermont Law School.

Second thoughts

Unpredictable financial implications associated with constructing, running, decommissioning plants and handling nuclear risks are causing a rethink on nuclear energy worldwide. But these developments seem to slip by India without so much as causing a ripple.

Germany and Switzerland have decided to phase out nuclear power, despite their substantial dependence on it. Israel abandoned its year-old civilian nuclear programme after Fukushima. Belgium revived a pre-Fukushima decision to phase out nuclear power, using the Japanese disaster as a reminder. Italy and Kuwait gave up their nuclear debut by abandoning plans for 10 and four plants respectively. Mexico dropped plans for constructing 10 plants. All of Japan’s 54 reactors are now closed, and plans for 14 new reactors killed.

The story of nuclear energy’s unviability is told not just by the actions of naysayers, but also by the experiences of those — like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Vietnam and South Africa — pursuing nuclear programmes. All of them want the nuclear option, but have no idea how they will finance it.

If the U.S. is Dr. Singh’s inspiration, then the so-called nuclear renaissance’s trajectory in that country gives even more cause for despair. In 2009, the U.S. declared a nuclear revival with promises of more than 30 new reactors. Today, most of these projects are doomed. Even candidates for federal loan guarantees such as the South Texas project, and the Calvert Cliffs-3 project in Maryland, have been mothballed.

State governments in the U.S. do not seem to share the Federal Government‘s enthusiasm for nukes. Bills to reverse moratoria on nuclear plants in Minnesota, Kentucky and Wisconsin failed last year. In Missouri, North Carolina and Iowa, legislators defeated bills to charge electricity consumers in advance to finance reactors.

“At the time of Fukushima, only four countries — China, Russia, India and South Korea — were building more than two reactors. In these four nations, citizens pay for the new reactors the government chooses to build through direct subsidies or energy price hikes,” Bradford notes.

Finland was among the few that reiterated its commitment to nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. The 1,600 MW Olkiluoto nuclear plant uses French company Areva‘s technology. Areva’s modular design was expected to make it faster and cheaper to build. But 11 years later, the project is behind schedule and its $4.2 billion budget is up now by 50 per cent. After Fukushima, Areva admits that the same plant would cost $8 billion. Even Areva’s home project, in Flamanville, France, has suffered a $4 billion cost overrun and a four year delay. Indeed, 31 out of 45 reactors that were being constructed globally around 2009 were either delayed or did not have official dates for commissioning, says a report for the German Government by consultant Mycle Schneider.

In India

In Kalpakkam, meanwhile, the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor was slotted to contribute to the grid in March 2012. In 2005, Baldev Raj, Director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, boasted that the 500 MW unit will be completed in 2010, 18 months before schedule. Till date, there is no sign of this happening. The Kudankulam plant, which is now 23 years old since conception, lost only eight months due to protestors.

In Jaitapur too, the government has more to worry about than local protestors. Areva, the technology supplier, is in trouble. Last year, it announced losses of €1.6 billion, and the sacking of 1,200 workers in Germany. Last June, it decided to suspend production at a Virginia reactor component plant due to declining market prospects. Its expansion plans in France, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. may never materialise. Areva expected to sell 50 nuclear reactors this decade. It has not received a single order since 2007.

Now, with a socialist president at the helm in France, Areva’s future looks even more uncertain. French President François Hollande had promised voters a reduction in nuclear dependence from 75 to 50 per cent, and shutdown of an aging reactor in Fessenheim. Whether or not he carries through with these promises, it appears certain that no new plants will be built or planned during his term. Both conservative-led Germany and socialist France will make up the shortfall from the nuclear phase-out, by investing in renewables for electricity and new jobs. In replacing nuclear with renewables, these nations are declaring that despite its carbon dividend, nuclear is too risky — financially, politically and environmentally — to pursue.

(Nityanand Jayaraman is an independent writer and volunteer with the Chennai Solidarity Group for Kudankulam Struggle.)

Good news- Bombay High Court issues notice on suit challenging Jaitapur N-plant


By Newzfirst4/13/12

MUMBAI - The Bombay High Court Thursday issued notice to the government, Nuclear Power Corporation of India and others in a public suit challenging the proposed 9,900-MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project coming up in Ratnagiri in Maharashtra.
Justice D. D. Sinha and Justice V. K. Tahilramani issued the notice returnable next week, lawyer R.N. Kachwe for the activist-petitioner Hemant Patil said.

Patil contended that the JNPP could pose severe environmental and radiation hazards to the local population.

“I have demanded an independent commission of experts be constituted to look into all these aspects before the projects is given the go-ahead,” Patil, who is also president of the anti-corruption NGO, Rashtriya Bhrastachar Virodhi Janshakti, told IANS.

He also urged the court appoint a Court Commissioner to verify the actual position of the entire project and its impact on human, wild life, flora and fauna and the sea waters.

The JNPP, planned in Madban-Jaitapur villages, has been facing stiff resistance from the locals and a majority of the state opposition parties since the past one-and-half years after it was cleared by the centre.

“We have prayed for injunction against the NPCIL and Areva of France, restraining them from proceeding ahead with the project till the pendency of the case,” Kachwe said.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,857 other followers

%d bloggers like this: