French major Areva also claims safety of EPRs, but critics not convinced.
The evolutionary pressurised reactors (EPRs) that Areva is interested in supplying to the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) as part of the proposed Jaitapur nuclear power in Maharashtra will offer 15 per cent savings on uranium per mega-watt produced as compared to other reactors, according to the French nuclear major.
Areva is now engaged in talks with the government-owned NPC for the supply of two EPRs of 1,650 Mw each for proposed 9,900-Mw project along the Arabian Sea in Rajapur Tehsil of Ratnagiri district. The Paris-based company offers energy at competitive rates, and has pegged the lifetime of its EPR plant at 60 years.
Areva, in its latest internal report for December prepared after the Fukushima accident of March 11 last year, has said that the EPRs targeted 92 per cent power availability, and the levelised cost of electricity (the economic production cost) of the Jaitapur reactors suited current targets.
Arthur de Montalembert, chairman and managing director of Areva India, says these two values have always been “at the core” of his company’s culture “if the recent events have emphasised the importance of safety and transparency in the nuclear sector”.
The 2001-founded Areva has, in its report, said its teams along with that of the NPC’s, were keeping the EPR as close as possible to the French reference plant so as to avoid needless redesign or re-engineering costs and to achieve maximum leverage of the experience. The teams were also working out the most economically efficient distribution of scope of work between the two parties.
Further, efforts were being made to leverage NPC’s expertise on procurement for the domestic programme from Indian industrialists. NPC would directly manage much of the work to be done on the secondary parts of the plant. This would save it money and also create new area of expertise that can help it on the production of future plants.
Also Read
NPC says the EPRs are of the evolutionary design. “The reactors have been evolved from the N4 and KONVOI reactors in France and Germany. The current proven versions of these reactors have the capacity of up to 1,500 Mw,” according to NPC executive director Shashikant Dharne. The EPR, he adds, combines the salient features to strengthen the safety to levels that would make it withstand the natural and human induced hazards.
Dharne notes that the enhanced safety features that are considered in the design of EPRs are one of the other deciding factors in the choice of these reactors.
The Ratnagiri District Jagruk Manch has a different view. It president, Vivek Bhinde, says the EPR technology has not yet been proven anywhere in the world. “Areva is doing experiment in India. If they are claiming that the cost will be competitive, then the company is misguiding the people of the country,” he claims.
Konkan Bachao Samiti and the Shiv Sena share Bhide’s views, as they question the safety and durability of EPRs. They had criticised that the cost of power, estimating it to be higher compared to projects based on coal and gas in the country.
Senior nuclear scientist G D Mittal observes that EPRs were a proven technology. “Using it in India should not have any complications,” he opines.
As for Areva, the company says it is confident that the levelised cost of electricity fits with the current targets after studying amortization projections and loan reimbursement modalities in light of the expected lifespan of the Jaitapur EPRs as well as its low maintenance costs and strong availability. “Further, to ensure optimum use of a customer’s initial investment in the reactor and its land, the EPR design criteria included high durability. An EPR plant has an expected 60 year operating lifetime,” the company’s report said.
On capital expenditure, Areva says the EPR was also designed to achieve the best possible use of capital costs through system optimisation and longer operational life. The reactor was designed with a full range of next-generation safety features. Only two of the four safety subsystems (safety trains) were protected by an anti-airplane crash concrete building. The other two safety trains were sufficiently protected by their physical distance from each other on either side of the reactor building. The placement of the safety trains in separate and distinct buildings make it impossible for all four of them to be damaged by external force at the same time.