Nuclear Energy

Future of EPR in Doubt
This is a damning diagnosis. One of the selling points of the new generation plants is that
they have incorporated the lessons of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island designed into them from the
start. This is supposed to reduce complexity by rationalising the layers of safety systems that had
been added to the old designs to take account of these accidents. Now, one of the lessons from
Three Mile Island accident was that if a safety system fails, there should be an independent –
redundant – back-up system available. But the Roussely report says that the complexity of the EPR
is because of its extra back-up safety system. This criticism therefore raises questions on one of the
most important advancements in design that is supposed to be incorporated in the EPR – that even
while having an independent back-up safety system, the complexity of the design is reduced. ccclxxiv
(Ironically, the UK and US safety regulators are raising questions about the very independence of
this back-up safety system.)
Stephen Thomas, professor of Energy Studies at the University of Greenwich and a
researcher in the area of energy policy, especially nuclear policy, for over 30 years, says that
reducing this complexity in design is not going to be easy, it would require major modifications in
design, which means that Areva would have to seek authorisation of its new design from nuclear
regulators all over again. This whole process would probably take a decade! ccclxxv
To add to the EPR's woes, at both Olkiluoto and Flamanville, the cost of construction has
sharply escalated. With all the design and other problems, there is no knowing what the final cost is
going to be. Even if they ignore the design problems, no European country nor the USA is going to
order another EPR at such an astronomical cost.
Clearly, the EPR is in trouble...
Part IV: Conclusion
From the detailed discussion above, it is obvious that despite intense lobbying and
propaganda campaign by the nuclear industry, the “nuclear renaissance” is turning out to be a damp
squib. Even though the US administration has expressed its willingness to dole out billions of
dollars in new subsidies for new reactors, and the first loan guarantees for construction of 2 reactors
in Georgia have been announced, all the proposals for construction of new reactors have run into
trouble. Eventually, after all the huffing and puffing by the nuclear industry and their spokespersons
in the administration, at the most one or two reactors might start getting constructed. It is
indisputable that there is no nuclear renaissance in the US. This is also true of Western Europe,
where the construction of two new reactors after nearly two decades has become such a fiasco that
it is doubtful if any more reactors are going to be built there in the near future. All proposals for
constructing new reactors in Canada, one of the first countries in the world to invest in nuclear
power, have been cancelled. Russia has announced plans to build a few nuclear reactors, but given
its huge gas and oil resources, it is unlikely that it will invest huge amounts in nuclear power. China
and India are likely to build a few reactors; Korea, Japan and Eastern Europe might also add a
92