Canada to sell CANDU to India

Canada wants to sell CANDU nuclear reactors to India. A better idea is to sell India the whole company

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent trip to India, a lot of attention has been focused on the possibility of saving AECL, a federally owned crown corporation, by selling CANDU nuclear reactors to India. Considerable evidence suggests that this scenario is unlikely. A better, more realistic way to rescue the Canadian nuclear industry would be to sell AECL to India and use Indian technology for our next generation of Ontario reactors.

To understand why, it is necessary to look at various technological options and the tortuous history of Indo-Canadian nuclear ties.

AECL and its CANDU nuclear reactors are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Domestically, CANDU reactors have suffered from massive cost overruns and prolonged shutdowns. The sluggish Ontario economy and reduced electricity consumption means that, at best, AECL may look forward to some refurbishment work on older units and the construction of two new units in Canada over the next decade.

Internationally, things look even grimmer. Europe seems to have bet on AREVA’s reactors while America is considering AREVA and Westinghouse designs. South Korea and China, which had purchased six CANDUs, have also chosen to look at AREVA, Westinghouse and GE models.

Other CANDU customers include small states with fragile economies, namely Romania and Argentina. Any potential deals would be small and uncertain.

There are reasons why CANDU is such a hard sell internationally. Compared to our Russian, European and American rivals, Canada has less to offer in terms of export credits, industrial offsets and diplomatic arm-twisting.

Additionally, all the rival firms produce light water reactors, which require enriched uranium. CANDU, on the other hand, uses heavy water reactors, which rely on natural uranium and heavy water as a moderator.

This difference underscores a key problem with a proposed privatization (sale) of AECL and its CANDU. The most likely purchasers are AREVA, GE and Westinghouse, the very manufacturers which make competing reactors based on the completely different light water technology.

These firms would be highly unlikely to introduce CANDU heavy water technology into their overseas portfolios, given the radical differences between the two technologies. In fact, the biggest incentive for these firms to purchase CANDU would be to eliminate a competitor in overseas markets, while also getting a piece of Ontario’s upcoming award of two new reactors.

The Ontario government seems determined to award this contract to AECL to protect domestic jobs and buttress a “national champion.” Buying CANDU seems to be the only way for foreign reactor-makers to participate.

To slash costs, we can expect that any of these firms will try to standardize components among all of their units, both here and overseas. This means that even CANDU reactors built for Ontario will include increasing portions of foreign components.

The net result would likely be zero opportunities for CANDU outside Canada, and a gradually shrinking share of components for CANDUs sold domestically.

On its own, CANDU has poor prospects for international sales and is reliant on domestic sales. Clearly, this is not sustainable.

Selling AECL to anyone would yield immediate funds for a beleaguered government and an end to state subsidies. To get more from a sale, though, Canada should look at an alternative buyer rather than AREVA, GE or Westinghouse.

There is only one other nation in the world which has selected the same heavy water reactor technology as CANDU. India bought and evaluated two CANDUs and two American light water reactors in the late 1960s. Due to a shortage of domestic uranium, India decided to base a massive domestic nuclear program on heavy water technology.

India has built 17 reactors and is constructing six more currently. Indian heavy water reactors have been a scintillating success and, according to the Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, have achieved over 90% capacity utilization in the last decade. By contrast, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance reports the province’s fleet of CANDUs sported a 65% utilization rate in 2005. The Canadian Nuclear Society claims an overall CANDU fleet performance of closer to 80%.

India’s NPCIL has been able to lower costs and outperform AECL thanks to a massive pool of technical talent and an enormous, ever-expanding economy with increasing energy demands. The energy requirements are so high that NPCIL cannot construct heavy water reactors quickly enough, and needs to purchase foreign reactors. This led to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which allows India to buy foreign reactors as long as they are open to inspections and used for civilian (non-military) purposes.

Multi-billion dollar deals have already been signed with Russian manufacturers and AREVA, while negotiations with Westinghouse are ongoing. The stakes are massive: India will deploy reactors worth $40-billion in the next decade. Half of these will be imported.

Over the next seven years, NPCIL plans to build eight indigenous 700 megawatt (MW) heavy water reactors and a 500 MW fast-breeder reactor, in addition to contracts with foreign manufacturers. When chairman S.K. Jain was asked how so many reactors could be built, he bluntly stated that NPCIL was cash-rich and had billions of dollars in reserve.

Given that India is familiar with heavy water technology, one would think that CANDUs would have a better chance than other reactors. However, the contracts signed so far have been for the unfamiliar light water reactors built by CANDU competitors.

This baffling situation is due primarily to historic boondoggles perpetrated by previous Liberal administrations. In 1973, India tested nuclear weapons despite not being signatories to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India refused to sign the NPT because neighbouring China, which had attacked India in 1962, was permitted under the NPT to possess nuclear weapons.

Canada accused India of using Canadian-supplied reactors to build the first elements of her nuclear arsenal. The Liberal government then took a fateful decision that ultimately resulted in CANDU’s current predicament: It suspended all nuclear cooperation with India.

As a result, India developed an indigenous series of heavy water reactors that dramatically outperform CANDUs in performance and cost attributes.

According to University of Toronto professor Arthur Rubinoff, no nation reacted more harshly to India’s 1998 nuclear tests than Jean Chretien-led Canada. The Liberals recalled Canada’s ambassador, cancelled trade talks and urged the world community to take harsh action.

These actions, akin to cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, explains why despite the similarities, it is AREVA and the Russians who have scored reactor sales in India rather than CANDU.

Our Conservative government has tried valiantly to reverse bitterness created by self-destructive Liberal policies. Voting in favour of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was the first step. Mr. Harper and his huge delegation to India emphasized eagerness to resume nuclear trade.

Canada may have already missed the bus on this file, however. Obstruction from non-proliferation zealots within Canada’s legendary bureaucracy has resulted in Russia and France leapfrogging us and signing reactor deals. Also, the Indians are nervous about the minority status of Stephen Harper’s government and how an alternate regime may deal with India.

Additionally, the more advanced state of the Indian nuclear industry and superior performance of Indian reactors raise legitimate questions about whether there are any advantages to buying CANDU.

On the other hand, rescuing AECL with Indian ownership would have obvious benefits.

India is developing a new thorium reactor — an element both India and Canada have in abundance — which will be the world’s cleanest and safest. With its enormous clout, size and access to low-cost technological solutions, India is much better positioned to achieve global sales.

The participation of an Indian-owned AECL in India’s massive domestic nuclear program, as well as potential Indian-led foreign sales efforts, would be likely to generate more employment and benefits for Canada’s nuclear industry. It is clearly a more attractive proposition than the futility of a small independent player competing against muscular, better capitalized foreign firms backed by superpowers.

India has achieved a tremendous track record of rescuing faltering foreign firms in places like Europe. Britain has sold the remnants of its auto industry (Jaguar Land Rover) to an Indian firm and recently pledged funding to the Tata Group for the production of an electric car in the U.K.

Tata Steel has also purchased and overhauled Europe’s largest steel manufacturer, Corus Steel.

Europeans have entrusted Indian behemoths to rescue such important strategic industries as steel and automotive sectors. There is no reason why Canada’s faltering AECL cannot benefit from Indian ownership as well. It may be our only ticket to saving the nuclear industry.

Financial Post
Ron Banerjee is the director of Canadian Hindu Advocacy, hindus@canhindu.com

Start of Public Review Period on the Environmental Impact Statement and the Application for a Licence to Prepare a Site for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project

The Joint Review Panel for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project announces the start of the six-month public review period on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Application for a Licence to Prepare a Site submitted by the proponent, Ontario Power Generation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

The EIS and the licence application are intended to examine the potential environmental effects of all phases of the project and address all requirements of a licence to prepare a site – the first in a series of licences required over the lifetime of a new nuclear power plant. The proponent was directed to prepare the documents in accordance with guidelines that were developed jointly by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the CNSC, and issued by the Minister of the Environment.

“The start of the public review period is a major milestone for this review as stakeholders and public participation are cornerstones of the environmental assessment and nuclear power plant licensing processes” said Joint Review Panel Chair, Mr. Alan Graham. “This comment period gives stakeholders and members of the public the opportunity to express their views to the Panel on whether the EIS and the Application for a Licence to Prepare a Site adequately address all the requirements that were identified in the guidelines.”

In addition, the Panel issued today preliminary instructions for the public review of the EIS and the licence application. The Panel may issue additional directions on procedures to ensure effective, efficient, fair and transparent process. During the public review period, the Panel will carry out its own review of the proponent’s EIS and licence application and may issue requests for additional information to the proponent. The Panel encourages comments and recommendations from outside parties outlining proposed information requests.

Please forward written or recorded comments by mail, e-mail or fax to the attention of either or both of the Panel Co-Managers, on or before May 17, 2010. This date is subject to change depending on the time required for the proponent to respond to additional information that may be requested by the Panel. All comments and proposed information requests received by the Panel will be treated as public documents and posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet site for this project.

• Debra Myles
  Panel Co-Manager
  Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant
  Project Joint Review Panel
  c/o
  Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
  160 Elgin St, 22nd Floor
  Place Bell Canada
  Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3
  Tel.: 613-957-0626 or 1-866-582-1884
  Fax: 613-957-0941
  E-mail: darlington.review@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
• Kelly McGee
  Panel Co-Manager
  Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel
  c/o
  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  PO Box 1046, Station B
  280 Slater Street
  Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9
  Tel.: 613-947-3710
  Fax: 613-995-5086
  E-mail: kelly.mcgee@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

The EIS, the complete Application for a Licence to Prepare a Site and the instructions for the public review period, along with additional information on this project, are available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, reference number 07-05-29525, and on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Web site at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca.

Paper or electronic copies of the documents are also available for public viewing at Ontario Power Generation’s Community Kiosk, Bowmanville Mall, 243 King Street East, Bowmanville, Ontario. For locations of additional paper or electronic copies for public viewing, please contact Ontario Power Generation by phone at 1-866-487-6006, or by e-mail at newbuild@opg.com.

The Joint Review Panel will announce the date of the public hearings once it has determined that the EIS and the licence application for site preparation, together with any additional information received in response to information requests by the Panel, have adequately responded to the guidelines. The announcement and scheduling of public hearings will be made 90 days prior to the start of the hearings.

About the Project

The project is a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for the site preparation, construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of up to four new nuclear reactors at its existing Darlington Nuclear site located near Oshawa, Ontario, along the north shore of Lake Ontario, in the Municipality of Clarington. The project is expected to generate approximately 4800 megawatts of electricity for delivery to the Ontario grid.

About the Joint Review Panel

The Joint Review Panel for the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project is an independent body, mandated by Minister of the Environment and the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the Application for a Licence to Prepare a Site.

For more information, media may contact:

• Annie Roy
  Senior Communications Advisor
  Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
  Tel.: 613-957-0396
• Aurèle Gervais
  Media and Community Relations
  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  Tel.: 613-996-6860

Source: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Beaver Valley gets extensions

Operating licenses for the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant have been extended for another 20 years, meaning the two reactors there may now run until 2036 and 2047. First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (Fenoc) applied for the extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which considered there were no environmental or safety impacts that would preclude it. Since 1999 Fenoc has spent over $500 million on maintaining and improving the plant, including the installation of new steam generators and a new reactor pressure vessel head for unit 1. Performance has been boosted by 10% to the current net output of 1815 MWe.

Source: World Nuclear News

Britain to build 10 new nuclear plants

Britain will build 10 new nuclear power plants to supply up to 25 percent of the nation’s electricity needs, the government’s energy minister says.

Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy and climate change secretary, announced Monday that the first new plant should be operational by 2018 despite fierce opposition from environmentalists and consumer groups, who warned that fuel bills would rise to pay for the massive building program, The Daily Telegraph reported.

In a major shift of emphasis for the Labor Party, Miliband said the new nuclear plants would be built on the sites of decommissioned or soon-to-close existing stations and that by 2025, one-quarter of the country’s energy needs would come from nuclear power, up from the current 13 percent.

“Change is also needed for energy security,” Miliband said. “In a world where our North Sea reserves are declining, a more diverse, low-carbon energy mix is a more secure energy mix, less vulnerable to fluctuations in the availability of any one fuel.”

The Telegraph said the new nuclear plants would cost at least $8.3 billion each and would produce enough electricity to power a city the size of Manchester for 60 years.

Source: UPI.com

Standards designed to fight IC counterfeiting

In response to a request by the Semiconductor Industry Associtation Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force, SEMI, an industry association that serves the manufacturing supply chains for the microelectronic, display and photovoltaic industries, announced the development of standards to facilitate the identification of counterfeit integrated circuits (ICs).

The SEMI T20 standard and subordinate standards SEMI T20.1 and SEMI T20.2 oversee product authentication by any party in the trade stream, which helps reduce illegal counterfeit items in the marketplace. The standards help ensure the automated, reliable, and secure technique of product authentication consistently at key points in the trade stream.

According to SEMI’s documentation, T20 covers structure, behaviour, and services for those involved in authentication of semiconductor and related products or objects through the use of secure serialisation. T20.1 covers labels for objects used for packaging semiconductor and electronic components, including intermediate container, product package, or shipping pack, and for direct marking of the packaged device. T20.2 involves labeling by trusted brand owners of batches of authentic parts with a secure batch number (encrypted serial number) on the product package and an authentication service for anyone considering purchase of a batch of parts, using the encrypted batch number as the basis for a validation check of the license plate.

These standards are the result of work by members of the Traceability Committee in the United States and Japan over the past several years in an effort to fight the unlawful spread of counterfeit ICs.

Earlier this month, three California family members were indicted by the U.S. Attorney on charges of interstate trafficking of counterfeit ICs. In a statement, the U.S. Attorney said the accused acquired the ICs from supply sources in China, imported them into the United States, and sold them to the public via the Internet.

They also obtained trademark-branded ICs from unknown sources, and then scraped, sanded, or ground off the original markings, repainted the devices in a process referred to as “black topping,” and remarked the devices with another trademark thereby fraudulently indicating, among other things, that the devices were of a certain brand, newer, higher quality, or were of military grade.

Source: Electronics News

A closer look at Areva’s EPR systems

A detail from Areva’s UK documentation

Areva has come under pressure after a joint statement from safety regulators urged it to revise control systems for its EPR design.

A message today from British, Finnish and French nuclear safety regulators put it plainly: “The EPR design, as originally proposed by the licensees and the manufacturer, Areva, doesn’t comply with the independence principle, as there is a high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems.”

Reactor designers need to maintain independence between routine control systems and the systems that maintain safety in unusual conditions. This is because some of the safety systems protect against the failure of control systems and for that reason it should be impossible for them to fail together.

This means Areva must re-work the systems to establish sufficient independence while still meeting the varying requirements of the three countries. This is made more difficult for the EPRs in advanced stages of construction in Finland and France, while the UK and US regulatory systems require all studies be complete before construction begins.

In response to the unusual public statement, Areva noted that that actual safety of the EPR has not been questioned. France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (Autorité De Sûreté Nucléaire, ASN) posed questions on the topic in October and Areva is “committed” to answering them by the end of this year. The Health and Safety Executive of the UK noted the seriousness of the issue in April and Stuk of Finland first raised queries in December 2008.

The EPR under construction at Olkiluoto is expected to be changed to include a separate analogue back-up system in addition to the current digital I&C set-up. This could be an option for the specific model under construction at Flamanville in France and planned for the UK, and British regulators have previously suggested this to Areva. In Britain, the problem could lead to the exclusion of the instrumentation and control system from EPR’s Generic Design Acceptance, meaning that a separate licensing process would have to take place for a new control and safety solution.

Construction on two EPRs at Taishan, China is in the early stages with Chinese authorities likely to follow the ASN. American regulators have not made any public statements on the issue and continue to study the design for future deployment.

Source: World Nuclear News

Indian Point shuts down reactor

Federal regulators say a nuclear power reactor at Indian Point has been shut down due to an electrical fault.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan says Indian Point 2 went to what’s known as hot shutdown at 10:42 p.m. Monday. That means it is offline but can be brought back quickly.

However, Sheehan said Tuesday operators also found problems with two valves. As a result, the plant is venting steam into the air rather than using the steam to turn a turbine.

Sheehan says the vented steam is not a danger. It’s from the side of the plant that does not use radioactive water.

Plant owner Entergy says Indian Point 3, the other reactor at the Buchanan site, remained at full power.

Source: The Associated Press

Refurbished Canadian units gets approval to restart

Two reactors at Canada’s Bruce A nuclear power plant that have been out of service for over a decade have been given regulatory approval for refuelling and restart. At the same time, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has announced five-year operating licence renewals for the Bruce A and B nuclear power stations.

Bruce A unit 1 during its refurbishment (Image: Bruce Power)

Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce A plant have been undergoing a major refurbishment to replace their fuel channels and steam generators plus upgrade ancillary systems to current standards in an operation that should enable them to operate for a further 25 years. The announcement by regulator CNSC that refuelling can go ahead means the project looks to be on line for the projected 2010 restarts.

The regulator also announced that it had decided to renew the operating licences for Bruce A and the four-unit Bruce B plant, with the new licences valid from 1 November 2009 to 31 October 2014. (The five-year renewal is in line with Canadian regulatory practice, whereby nuclear power plant operating licences are granted for a fixed term and must be renewed periodically.)

As part of its ruling, CNSC has requested that detailed information on the status of the refurbishment of the Bruce A units and on the status of Bruce Power’s follow-up monitoring be included in its own annual Status Report on Power Reactors. It has similarly requested detailed information on the status of Bruce Power’s follow-up monitoring, ageing management, any safety-significant dates for equipment, and any forecasted end of life plans, be included in the annual Status Report for Bruce B.

Units 1 and 2 at the four-unit Bruce A plant started up in 1977, but unit 2 was shut down in 1995 because a steam generator suffered corrosion after a lead shielding blanket used during maintenance was mistakenly left inside. In the late 1990s then-owner Ontario Hydro decided to lay up all four units at the plant to concentrate resources on other reactors in its fleet, and unit 1 was taken out of service in December 1997 with units 3 and 4 in following in 1998. The four units at sister power station Bruce B continued to operate. Bruce Power took over the operations of both Bruce plants from Ontario Hydro in 2001 and restarted units 3 and 4 by early 2004. Bruce A units 3 and 4 are likely to undergo a similar refurbishment once units 1 and 2 are back in operation.

The decision to refurbish the units followed a 2005 agreement by Bruce Power and the government of Ontario to refurbish the two 769 MWe Candu reactors as a faster option than building new ones in the face of impending power shortages. A similar approach has been adopted elsewhere in Canada, with refurbishment work already completed at Pickering A units 1 and 4, ongoing at Point Lepreau 1 and planned to commence at Gentilly 2 in 2011.

Bruce Power decided to withdraw its application for a third nuclear power station at Bruce in July, saying it would focus on the refurbishment of the existing Bruce plants rather than building Bruce C. It also announced it was scrapping plans for a second new nuclear plant at Nanticoke in Ontario.

Source: World Nuclear News
Featured photo credit: Bruce Power

China’s nuclear power capacity expected to top 70 GW by 2020

China’s nuclear power installed capacity is expected to top 70 Gigawatts (GW) by 2020, 75 percent higher than the government’s target, according to estimate by scientists.

The country currently has 11 reactors, with a total nuclear power installed capacity of 9.08 GW, Pan Ziqiang, director of Science and Technology Committee of China National Nuclear Corporation, told participants to an international summit on clean energy held Monday.

He said estimates of China’s nuclear power installed capacity varied from 70 GW by 2020, 200 GW by 2030, to 400 GW by 2050.

“These are only estimates by scientists, not national plans,” said Pan.

According to the country’s long and mid-term development plan on nuclear power plants, nuclear power installed capacity will reach 40 million kw (40 GW) by 2020 and will generate 260 billion to 280 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year, accounting for 4 to 6 percent of the country’s total. The installed capacity of nuclear power projects under construction will be 18 GW by 2020.

Zhang Guobao, vice minister in charge of the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, said last month promoting nuclear power development was an option of the country in restructuring its energy structure, against the backdrop of global concern on greenhouse gas reduction. The country was considering whether to revise the original target, Zhang said.

Pan also said China has enough uranium for 70 GW of nuclear power plants.

The two-day summit was jointly held by China Chamber of International Commerce and the Financial Times. More than 300 government officials, experts and entrepreneurs from home and abroad attended the summit.

Source: China Development Gateway

Cameco to expand sales in India and China

India and China are the future of the nuclear power business, and uranium giant Cameco Corp. is expanding its ties with both of them.

On a conference call yesterday to discuss the company’s third-quarter results, chief executive Jerry Grandey devoted a lot of time to the opportunities Cameco sees in the two Asian giants, which are expected to be the biggest sources of uranium demand growth in the years to come.

“We’re quite optimistic as time goes on that we’ll be a major partner [and] supplier with both countries,” he said.

Mr. Grandey is particularly excited about India, where Cameco opened offices last month. The governments of Canada and India are near a nuclear co-operation deal, and the fact India uses CANDUstyle reactors makes it an even stronger opportunity.

“The spectrum of opportunities in India for us is broad,” he said.

“It’s both uranium supply as well as co-operation in other aspects of the CANDU fuel cycle, we hope, and could span exploration activities there and perhaps jointly abroad.”

In China, he said that the focus will remain on uranium supply deals, but added that the two sides could partner up on activities elsewhere in the world.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), China and India are building a combined 23 nuclear reactors, with another 57 in the planning stages. No other country has more than 13 reactors in the planning stage right now. WNA is also forecasting that China will produce six times more nuclear power in 2020 than it does today

With the Asian powers leading the way, Cameco remains very bullish about the long-term prospects of uranium. However, it is cautious on short-term pricing in the illiquid spot market.

Mr. Grandey pointed to two recent events that have provided mixed signals on prices: The U.S. Department of Energy’s announcement that it is releasing some uranium stockpiles, and a production setback at BHP Billiton Ltd.’s Olympic Dam mine.

While uranium sales volumes were down 15% year-over-year in the third quarter, the company said a few months ago that deliveries in the second half of 2009 were weighted toward the fourth quarter.

Next Page »