• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

M. Ramesh

"Because of the problem in getting enriched uranium from France, all the fissile material had to be indigenous and we had to redesign the reactor. This was the first challenge. Indigenous fuel had to be got, with limited plutonium availability. When it became clear that we were not going to get any fuel from France, we decided to go in for the carbide fuel."

CHENNAI, March 25

WITH the work on the country's first commercial-scale fast breeder reactor under way, India enters the second phase of its nuclear programme, viz., the plutonium cycle. In this phase, the country's nuclear establishment would reprocess the plutonium produced in its conventional nuclear power plants, mix the reprocessed plutonium with enriched uranium, and use the mixture as the fuel in the fast breeder reactors. Since these reactors produce more plutonium than they consume, it would be sufficient to feed small quantities of uranium to the reactors. This way, India would be able to conserve its scarce uranium resources.

The march to the 500-MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), that is coming up at the Kalpakkam complex near Chennai, has been an arduous one. Since no international help was available for either the technology or uranium, Indian scientists and engineers have had to sort of re-invent the wheel — learn the fast breeder technology all by themselves. This learning process happened in the 40-MW Fast Breeder Test Reactor, also at Kalpakkam. The commencement of work on the PFBR marks the end of the learning phase and the beginning of the phase that works the knowledge.

Mr S.B. Bhoje, Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, which is responsible for putting up the PFBR project, has worked on fast breeders for most part of his career. The pat on the back for his work came recently in the form of the Padmashri Award.

In an interview to Business Line, Mr Bhoje looks back at the path that he and the country traversed, and explains why the fast breeder technology is necessary for India. Excerpts:

The ground-breaking event for the PFBR project must be a dream come true for you. Can you recount India's experience with fast breeder technology since the early days?

Yes. It has been a long experience with a lot of ups and downs. We came to Kalpakkam to build the FBTR (fast breeder test reactor) way back in 1972. We got the project approval that year. We thought we would build it in seven years. Initially, there were some delays with signing the agreement with the French — payments, clearances from the External Affairs Ministry, the Finance Ministry etc., which took two years. (However) by then, the civil work had started. We had even placed orders with the industry for equipment. All this took two years.

Then came Pokhran-I, and there was a problem with further collaboration with France. The main issue was the supply of enriched uranium, which we had to buy from France.

Why? Could we not have enriched our own uranium?

We had only plutonium plants, but no facility for enriching uranium. Initially, for small reactors (such as the FBTR), you need high enrichment. This enriched uranium was to come from France. When Pokhran-I happened, the French wanted safeguards to be put in. The Indian Government was against it. (Therefore), we did not get this fuel.

Because of the problem in getting enriched uranium from France, all the fissile material had to be indigenous and we had to redesign the reactor. This was the first challenge. Indigenous fuel had to be got, with limited plutonium availability.

When it became clear that we were not going to get any fuel from France, we decided to go in for the carbide fuel. We were driven to this decision. (Carbide requires lesser quantity of enriched uranium.)

When we began fabricating this fuel (at BARC), we encountered difficulties, particularly because there was no precedent. This composition was not tried anywhere in the world.

Did it take 10 years to fabricate the fuel?

The fabrication itself did not take 10 years. The delay was on account of plutonium availability, which had to be allocated to us by the Government of India. There were only limited quantities and the Government had its own priorities.

Where were you getting this plutonium from?

From the Trombay plants. It took time for producing the plutonium (to build up necessary inventories of plutonium).

So, by 1984-85, you were ready with the FBTR? Why has it taken 19 years to come to next stage — the PFBR stage?

First, as I said, we had to overcome the problems of FBTR, to get the FBTR going. Then, when we started work on designing the PFBR, in 1982, there were other problems. The attitude of other countries hardened. Our plutonium production itself was not enough — because we then had only the Trombay plant.

But even about a decade ago, officials were saying that the PFBR would come up in 5-6 years' time? You are behind your own estimates?

There are some good reasons for that. The agreement with the Americans (for the Trombay plant) came to an end in 1993. But still, they (the Americans) said that although the agreement is over, as per a clause in it, you have to take permission from us to reprocess the fuel. But how can the clause operate when the agreement is over. These were just their pressure tactics.

Then, what did you do?

We did not reprocess the (Trombay) fuel. We voluntarily put it under IAE safeguards, as a confidence building measure. Then, we began reprocessing the other fuel. Now, we are in a much better position (in terms of plutonium production).

Some experts have said that the fast breeder technology is on the retreat the world over and many plants are closing down. But we are just getting into FBRs. What is your reaction to this view?

You have to understand this point in the proper perspective. The other countries started the FBR programme in a big way, in the 1960s. There were two main reasons for this — one, the energy demand was continuously growing and, secondly, uranium supply was limited. When the uranium supply is over, you would need fast reactors. Both the premises on which the FBRs were built are no more there. The energy growth is not as much as it was thought. Secondly, more uranium reserves have been discovered. So, there is no need for the fast breeder reactors, which are costlier. Therefore, many countries postponed their FBR programmes, but no country has given it up permanently.

But today, the trend is again changing. Many developed countries are again looking at FBR reactors. With nuclear power, energy security is assured for centuries. Japan for example, would not have to worry about energy for the next 2,000 years.

Are there 500 MW plants elsewhere in the world?

Yes. Take Russia, for example. They initially had four reactors. One of them, called the BR-5 reactor, has completed 40 years of life. Another one, a 60 MW Bore-60 reactor, has completed 30 years now. Then there was the BN-350 reactor in Kazhakstan, but it is to be shut down because the Russians are now demanding more for the enriched uranium and spare parts. This reactor was doing desalination also — it was producing water too. In Kazhakstan, you get oil anywhere you dig, but no water. So, they said of the 350 MW, 150 MW will be for electricity and the remaining will be for desalinating water. If this reactor does not operate, there will be a water shortage. But it is to be shut down because of political reasons. The Russians have now built a 600-MW reactor, BN-600, in the Ural mountains. They now want to build three more reactors of 800 MW capacity each. The Russians have dismantled their nuclear weapons, all the high-grade plutonium has to be put somewhere safe. The safest place is in a reactor. That is another reason why they want to build FBR reactors, but there may be a constraint in terms of finance.

What about France's Superphoenix project?

The Superphoenix is being shut down for political reasons. The Green party came to power in a coalition. They had mentioned in their manifesto that they would shut down the superphoenix reactor if they came to power. They said, "this was our election mandate".

Even the `technical' problems with the superphoenix project had little to do with nuclear technology. Once it snowed heavily and the roof of the building that housed the turbines collapsed. What is `nuclear' about this? The French had the Phoenix reactor, which was a highly successful reactor, for 15 years. It was then refurbished, and they are going to run it for another five years. You must understand that many other countries do not need the fast breeder reactors, which are three times costlier than the conventional reactors, because either they have their own sources of uranium or have access to uranium. India has neither.

What is your comment on the economics of nuclear power? And, in calculating the cost of the PFBR, have you taken into account the decommissioning costs?

Yes. Three paise per unit will be collected (as part of the tariff) and saved for decommissioning. As regards the economics of nuclear power, it is like this: Nuclear power's capital costs about 22 per cent higher. But running costs are lower. The combined cost is still lower. France produces the cheapest electricity. Costs can be lowered by standardising design and placing bunch orders. (The cost of the PFBR power is expected to be Rs 3.20 per unit.)

Does the current cost structure take into account the lowering trend in the interest rates? The estimated cost of Rs 3,400 crore was at February 2000 prices, but interest rates have come down since then.

Yes, but we cannot go on changing the cost structure. But the project is certainly becoming more competitive. Today, nuclear power is becoming cost-competitive. Besides, the prices are stable. Even if the prices of uranium double, the cost increases by only one per cent for fast breeder reactors. Because, abundant Uranium 238 has been reprocessed and is available. Therefore, the cost of power will not vary with the fluctuations with fuel (uranium) prices. As a result, the price of electricity is highly price stable, even over the centuries. There is no doubt about the economy. Also, today's industry does not have jobs.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Bengal wind-diesel power project set to enter phase II

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line