30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/77

1.1.1

In 2002, 441 power reactors, representing a capacity of 359 GWe, were already in operation across the world, and a further 32 new reactors were under construction. The reactors already in service generated 2574 TWh, or around 17 % of the total world production of electricity. In the EU, 35 % of electricity was generated by nuclear power.

1.1.2

Of the total primary energy requirements for 2000, which stood at 9,963 Mtoe, nuclear energy accounted for 6.7 %, whilst renewable energy sources accounted for 13.8 % (biomass and urban waste 11 %, hydro-electric power 2.3 % and geothermic, solar and wind power 0.5 %) and fossil fuels for 79.5 % (oil 34.9 %, coal 23.5 % and gas 21.1 %).

1.1.3

Nuclear power is used to generate electricity in thirty-two countries. According to the figures for 2002, its share in overall electricity generation ranged from 80 % in Lithuania and 77 % in France to 1.4 % in China. The fact that 32 new power reactors are under construction demonstrates that nuclear energy is an expanding sector of industry world-wide and that the EU must not neglect it in its formulation of both energy and industry policy. Within the EU, in Finland the company TVO obtained a decision from its government in January 2002 agreeing to the ‘principle’ of constructing a fifth nuclear power station, and this decision was approved by parliament in May 2002.

1.1.4

In contrast, in a referendum in 1980 the people of Sweden voted in favour of phasing out the country's 12 nuclear reactors before 2010. However, in 1997 the Swedish parliament and government were forced to conclude that the objective of replacing these reactors with other sources of energy was not feasible. As of 2003, a single (600 MW) reactor, Barsebäck 1, had been taken out of service. The future of Barseback 2 is currently under discussion, since it will be impossible to close it in 2003. One option being considered is to follow Germany's example and negotiate a gradual phasing out of nuclear power with the companies that own the nuclear power stations. A recent opinion poll showed a shift in public opinion, which now seems in favour of the continued use of nuclear power.

1.1.5

In Belgium, the government decided in March 2002 to phase out nuclear power from 2015 and the act was approved by the parliament at the beginning of 2003. The law establishes a maximum lifespan of 40 years for nuclear power stations, meaning that they should all be closed between 2015 and 2025, and stipulates that no new nuclear power stations can be built and/or commissioned. However, the legislation does leave open the option to continue with the use of nuclear power in the event of a threat to the security of electricity supply.

1.1.6

In Germany, the coalition government of the Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens has decided on a policy of a gradual phasing-out of nuclear power and reached voluntary agreement on this with the nuclear power industry. After difficult negotiations, an agreement was concluded with the owners of Germany's 19 nuclear power stations, which limits the average lifespan of the stations to 32 years, calculated from the time they went on stream. The first nuclear power station has already been decommissioned. Most of the stations will be shut down between 2012 and 2022.

1.1.7

Beyond the borders of the EU, but still within Europe, in Switzerland, the public rejected two anti-nuclear initiatives – the ‘Moratorium Plus’ and the ‘Electricity without Nuclear Power’ – in May 2003. The first initiative involved extending the current ten-year moratorium on the construction of additional nuclear power stations by a further ten years; it was rejected by 58.4 % of those who voted. The second, which called for a phasing-out of nuclear energy – without replacing it with fossil fuels – and for an end to the reprocessing of spent fuel, was rejected by 66.3 % of those who voted.

1.1.8

The different types of technology in use:

The following table sets out the different types of technology (reactors) currently being used:

1.1.9

The major producers of nuclear-generated electricity are: the USA, 780 TWh (20.3 % of its total electricity production); France, 416 TWh (78 %); Japan, 313 TWh (34.5 %); Germany, 162 TWh (30 %); Russia, 129 TWh (16 %); South Korea, 113 TWh (38.6 %); and the UK 81.1 TWh (22 %) (editor's note: figures for 2002).

1.1.10

Other countries which generate a significant proportion of their electricity using nuclear power are: Armenia, 40.5 %; Belgium, 57 %; Finland, 30 %; Hungary, 36 %; Lithuania, 80 %; Slovakia, 73 %; Sweden, 46 %; Switzerland, 40 %; and the Ukraine, 46 % (editor's note: figures for 2000).

1.1.11

According to the figures for 2002, the EU-15 generated 855.6 TWh or 35 % of its electricity using nuclear power. There will be no significant change in this ratio with EU enlargement and the accession of the 10 new Member States in 2004. Thus, nuclear power is the most important source of electricity production, and, with its share in primary energy consumed in the EU (15 %), it is an important factor as regards the security of the EU's energy supply.

1.2.1

In 1990, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU-15 had reached the equivalent of 4,208 million tonnes (Mt or Tg) of CO2.

1.2.2

The European Environment Agency's 2002 report gives a total level of GHG emissions for the year 2000 of 4,059 Mt, an increase of 0.3 % compared to 1999, but a decrease of 3.5 % from the 1990 levels.

1.2.3

In relation to the objective of reducing total GHG emissions by 8 % by 2008-2012, the figure for 2000 (4,059 Mt) was above that year's target, resulting from a linear decrease in emissions between 1990 and 2010 (4,208 reduced by 4 %, or 4,039 Mt).

1.2.4

Energy uses (industrial, refineries, electricity production, heating of buildings and transport fuels) accounted for most of these emissions, with 3,210 Mt in 2000, including 1,098 Mt from energy production and only 836 Mt from electricity production for networks.

1.2.5

CO2 emissions alone, which represent 82 % of GHG, stood at 3,325 Mt in 2000, only 0.5 % lower than their 1990 level (3,342 Mt).

1.2.6

All these figures demonstrate that it will be difficult to comply with the Kyoto commitments. Furthermore, these figures cover a period of weak economic growth. The result would not have been so good if the EU had reached its planned economic growth target of 3 %.

1.2.7

These figures show that nuclear power has enabled Europe to avoid producing between 300 and 500 Mt (1) annually, depending on the references used, of carbon dioxide emissions. These figures compare with the total CO2 production of all passenger transport vehicles in the EU in 1995, i.e. 430 Mt (2).

1.2.8

A ‘bottom-up’ report (3) produced for the Commission in 2001 by a group of energy sector experts gave a figure of 1,327 Mt for the CO2 emissions produced by the energy sector (excluding transport) in 1990, together with a projected figure – using a frozen technology reference level – of 1,943 Mt in 2010. Taking this projected increase as a basis, the report concludes that four basic options for using new methods for producing steam and electricity could avoid CO2 emissions by:

Use of these various options, coupled with a vigorous policy of demand-side management, will allow the 1.4 % annual increase in energy efficiency mentioned in point 2.4.2.2 of this opinion.

1.2.9

If all these potential gains were actually made, it appears that the Kyoto targets could be attained. However:

Lastly, abandoning the use of nuclear power in electricity generation would lead to a ‘positive gap’ of 300 Mt annually in CO2 emissions in the energy sector.

1.3.1

Nuclear power stations are currently the largest producers of radioactive waste, followed by medical establishments, industrial establishments and research laboratories which use radioactive sources for examinations and measurements.

1.3.2

For the classification of waste, two parameters – the radioactivity and lifespan (period) of the waste products - are generally taken into account, with waste classed as ‘low’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘high-level’ and as ‘short-’ or ‘long-lived’ products. It should be noted that the products with the longest lifespan are not the most highly radioactive; on the contrary, a long lifespan correlates with low disintegration and relatively low radioactivity.

1.3.3

Technical solutions for managing this sort of waste are already known. For low-level, short-lived waste, an acceptable solution might be surface storage, and this course of action has already been officially decided on and implemented by some Member States. For high-level or long-lived waste, the standard technical solution that is recognised internationally by the experts is storage in deep geological strata, but surface storage is a temporary solution while the Member States concerned decide democratically which management option to adopt. It must be pointed out that for these products, surface packaging and storage comply with legitimate safety requirements and this provisional solution is managed pending the implementation of ultimate solutions. The nuclear package proposed by the Commission under the Euratom Treaty aims to speed up the decision-making process for geological storage.

1.3.4

Given that there is a direct correlation between the amount of spent fuel produced and the amount of electricity generated, the Member States most concerned are those which produce the greatest amount of nuclear energy. For high-level or long-lived waste the situation varies from one Member State to another:

For other, low-level and short-lived waste, the surface storage technique applied in most Member States can be regarded as the acceptable solution.

1.3.5

Situation in the candidate countries (5):

‘In those candidate countries operating Russian-designed nuclear power plants and research reactors, spent fuel management has become a crucial issue in the last decade because shipments back to Russia for reprocessing or storage are no longer possible. As a matter of urgency, these countries had to construct temporary storage facilities for their spent fuel. Little, if any, progress has been made regarding implementation of programmes for longer-term management and ultimate disposal of this spent fuel.

Regarding the less hazardous operational waste from nuclear power plants, only the Czech Republic and Slovakia have operational disposal sites. Several countries have Russian-style repositories for institutional (i.e. non-fuel cycle) radioactive waste. However, these facilities often do not meet current safety standards. In some cases, waste may have to be retrieved and disposed of elsewhere.’

1.3.6

In the EU, 2 million m3 of low-level or short-lived radioactive waste have already been eliminated. These wastes, which account for significantly larger accumulations by volume than the more hazardous categories, present no major technical challenges regarding their disposal but nonetheless require close supervision while in temporary storage (COM(2003) 32 final).

2.1

In view of the large number of uncertain variables involved, it is difficult to make a long-term prognosis for energy consumption patterns. We know that increasing energy consumption has been the cornerstone of recent progress across the board, whether in technology, living standards and levels of comfort, or hygiene, health, the economy and culture. On the other hand, we also know that the structural shift in the economy (tertiarisation) and advances in energy consumption processes are leading to a decrease in the energy intensity of our activities (i.e. the quantity of energy consumed per unit of production). The energy needs of the billions of people living in the developing world must not be underestimated. Lastly, the effects of energy consumption on the environment and the climate need to be taken into account.

2.2

In relation to the abovementioned factors, this opinion draws on two of the studies available which were conducted for the Commission: the ‘European Energy Outlook’ by P. Capros and L. Mantzos from the University of Athens (6) and ‘World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook’ (WETO), DG. Research (7). We have chosen them because both studies aim to elucidate the long-term energy outlook up to 2030, but one covers the European outlook and takes the abandonment of nuclear power for granted, while the other covers the outlook worldwide and assumes the continued use of currently available technologies.

2.3

Both reports use models which extrapolate from ongoing trends, including structural changes and technical progress. Although this means that they cannot incorporate new and radically different policies, the impossibility of making serious forecasts about changes to ongoing trends makes this a minor problem. This opinion therefore draws on these studies to elucidate the nature of the issues involved rather than to predict future patterns.

2.4

The key messages of these studies are set out below.

—

The ‘gas’ case assumes increased availability of natural gas and the introduction of major improvements for gas turbine combined cycles and fuel cells. It would result in a 21.6 % increase in gas consumption compared to the basic scenario, and a 1.6 % drop in CO2 emissions.

—

The ‘coal’ case assumes major improvements in advanced super coal power plant technology, integrated coal gasification combined power plants and direct coal-fired combined cycle plants. It would result in a 15 % increase in coal consumption compared to the basic scenario and would produce no increase in CO2 emissions.

—

The ‘nuclear’ case assumes a major breakthrough in nuclear technology in terms of cost and safety, both for standard light water reactors and particularly in the design of new reactors. It would result in an additional 77.5 % of nuclear generated electricity and a 2.8 % drop in CO2 emissions.

—

The ‘renewables’ case assumes major improvements, particularly in wind power, solar thermal power plants and small-scale hydro-electric installations and photovoltaic cells. It would lead to a 132 % increase in the contribution of these energies and a 3 % drop in CO2 emissions.

2.5

The outcome of this research is that, with no additional changes to the technologies and legislation in place in 2000 (when both studies were published) it will be extremely difficult to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, either at global level, or within the enlarged EU.

These two studies demonstrate that, looking at all the technologies currently available, the contribution of nuclear energy would be just as important to climate control as that of renewables.

3.1.1

Of all the various sources of energy, nuclear energy indubitably makes the most intense demands on R&D. The adoption of the Euratom Treaty in 1957 encouraged research and the dissemination of knowledge in the nuclear sector well before the inclusion of general research policy in the EC Treaty. Research has also focused on technological procedures and on safety issues and the protection of workers, the general public and the environment.

3.1.2

The knock-on benefits of non-military nuclear research for countries generating part of their electricity using nuclear energy are reduced energy bills for the general public and businesses, a more secure energy supply and a proven contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

3.2.1

The European Commission's Green Paper ‘Towards a European Strategy for Energy Supply’ (2001) addresses the key challenge for the European Union: How can the EU, which has insufficient energy resources and relies on foreign imports, often from unstable countries, for 50 % of its energy supply - essentially from fossil fuels - simultaneously maintain its competitiveness, comply with its Kyoto commitments and ensure the well-being of its population? This balancing act is further complicated by the prospect of growing energy dependence towards 2020-2030 and the need for urgent action to combat climate change.

3.2.2

One of the suggestions put forward in the Green Paper is that: ‘the Union must maintain its expertise in civil nuclear technology in order to maintain the necessary expertise and develop more efficient fission reactors,’ as part of an approach geared to sustainable development, which reconciles economic development, social balance and respect for the environment. In its response to the Green Paper, the European Parliament confirms the existence of these issues. It must be recognised that maintaining this expertise requires the continued operation of the present reactor population.

3.3.1

Like research into other technologies, the objective of the research conducted in the nuclear sector is to improve performance in the various areas concerned. Under the 6th Euratom FRDP, research has focused on waste and the effects of low radiation doses.

3.3.2

Research into radioactive waste management aims to ensure that control of radioactive waste is as failsafe as possible. Safe industrial solutions have already been found for the permanent disposal of low-level waste, for packaging (vitrification) and for the temporary storage of high-level or long-lived waste.

3.3.2.1

As regards high-level or long-lived waste, research is also being conducted into temporary above-ground and underground (i.e. several dozen metres below ground) storage that would be capable of keeping radioactive waste confined in sealed containers for several centuries. Research is continuing on storage in geological formations and the direct storage of spent fuel.

3.3.2.2

A number of studies are also focusing on the possibility of perfecting the processes used in reprocessing spent fuel so as to separate and then ‘transmute’ (transform into radioactive elements with a shorter lifespan) the most toxic types of long-lived waste which nowadays are still present in the final waste products. ‘Transmutation’ could be carried out in existing nuclear reactors or in the current prototypes (cf. new innovations).

3.3.3

The research being carried out into new innovations is part of efforts to achieve sustainable development. The global challenge of providing energy for future generations will require the utilisation of the whole spectrum of technologies which can draw on long-term fuel resources.

3.3.4

From an industrial perspective, nuclear power is preparing to meet this challenge, firstly through the introduction, towards 2010, of new evolutionary design or ‘generation 3+’ technologies based on the existing light water reactors and secondly, towards 2035/2040, through the introduction of new ‘4th generation’ types of reactor using different technology (e.g. gas or liquid metal coolants).

3.3.5

Research into new types of reactors has a number of objectives: to make nuclear power more competitive (by shortening the investment period); to improve reactor safety; to minimise the production of waste and to recycle re-usable elements; to foster multi-purpose production, by generating by-products such as hydrogen, as well as electricity. Progress is also awaited in sea water desalination.

3.3.6

Another type of reactor – the HTR (High Temperature Reactor) is situated between the generation 3+ and 4th generation reactors. The HTR is a modular reactor which uses helium at extremely high temperatures as a coolant and is equipped with a direct cycle gas turbine conversion system. The concept is well-known, and technological advances over traditional high temperature cycles should facilitate its translation into practice, although there are still technological barriers to bringing it into industrial operation.

3.3.7

Research into future systems is being conducted at an international level, specifically under the Generation IV programme, initiated by the United States and involving ten countries. Out of around 100 proposals, 19 groups of related concepts have been evaluated and 6 concepts have been selected, many of which comprise several reactor projects. The concepts which are being taken forward are currently at different stages of development and could be ready to be taken up by the nuclear industry at various points after 2035/2040. Some of these concepts will satisfy the wider energy ‘markets’ of heat or hydrogen production.

3.3.8

When they become available, ‘Generation IV’ reactors will make more efficient use of the energy potential of uranium, will also use other fuels (plutonium and thorium) and will burn their own waste products, whilst also being extremely economical and safe and therefore fully meeting sustainable development criteria. All the concepts being taken forward open up extremely promising possibilities with regard to all three of the objectives of the ‘Generation IV’ programme, namely sustainability (efficient use of fuel resources and minimisation of waste), safety and economy. Like the existing reactors, they will be equipped with all the available guarantees concerning non-proliferation of nuclear material for military purposes, whilst the generating reactors all have a closed fuel cycle.

3.3.9

The R & D programmes conducted under EURATOM have made protection against radiation a priority theme and cover a broad spectrum of research including: study of the effects of low doses (from the perspective of cellular and molecular biology as well as epidemiology); exposure during medical procedures, in particular the development of radiotherapies tailored to individual patients' sensitivity to radiation, and exposure to natural sources of radiation; protection of the environment and radiation ecology; risk management and emergency response and protection at the workplace. Cutting edge techniques, such as genomics and biotechnology, are used in all these areas of research, whose findings are already being used – and will continue to be used in the future - to improve both methods of protecting people and the environment and the related protection standards.

3.3.10

The safety of nuclear installations is naturally one of the priority areas for nuclear research. Here too, the EURATOM research and development programmes (9) have clearly identified the key priorities and stressed that, at European level, the most important issue is to improve the safety of existing nuclear installations in the Member States and in the acceding and candidate countries. Research in this sector will focus on the management of these installations - including the effects of installation ageing - and fuel performance and will also cover management of serious accidents, in particular the development of advanced digital simulation codes. Benefits will also be drawn from capacity and knowledge-sharing amongst the European partners involved in the dismantling of nuclear installations and from cooperative work to establish a scientific basis for nuclear safety and to exchange best practice at European level.

3.3.11

Lastly, looking further forward to equally promising developments, it is important to mention research into controlled thermonuclear fusion, which is the subject of an own-initiative opinion currently being drawn up by the EESC.

4.1.1

Ionising radiation acts by to tearing electrons (ionisation) from the main atoms which make up living matter. This radiation can be made up either of particles (alpha or beta) or electromagnetic rays (X rays, gamma rays).

4.1.2

Ionising radiation is measured according to an ‘activity’ scale, which calculates the number of emissions per second. The unit of measurement employed is the becquerel (Bq) which represents one emission per second (the Curie (Ci) represents the activity of one gram of radium, or 37 billion becqerels).

4.1.3

Living organisms have been exposed to ionising radiation since the very beginning of time – and in fact partially owe their evolution to it. Today, we are continually exposed to ionising radiation from our own bodies (6,000 to 8,000 Bq) and from our environment: the earth, which contains uranium (650,000 Bq for a cubic metre of earth), the air, which contains radon, the sky, from cosmic rays, and such familiar products as sea water (10 Bq/litre) or milk (50 Bq/litre).

4.1.4

The effects of ionising radiation are measured in terms of the ‘absorbed dose’ using the gray (1 joule per kilogram of body tissue), and the ‘effective dose’ using the sievert, which is based on the total amount of radiation absorbed by each organ, with coefficients that take account of the nature of the radiation (high or low risk) and of the tissue (high or low sensitivity).

4.1.5

Expressed as an effective dose, natural and medical exposure to ionising radiation (accounting for 30 %) in Paris or Brussels stands at around 2.5 mSv/year (a thousandth of a sievert per year). It reaches levels of approximately 5 mSv/year in granite sites such as the Massif Central in France and is over 20mSv/year in some areas of the world (e.g. Iran and Kerala). For a European, by way of comparison, radiation from the nuclear industry represents around 15 μSv/year (a millionth of a sievert per year).

4.1.6

The human body possesses its own systems for repairing the damage caused to its chromosomes by ionising radiation. This explains why doses of ionising radiation administered at low rates are not carcinogenic (or have never been proved to have a carcinogenic effect) and that cancer levels are not higher in areas of the world where natural radiation reaches a level of 20 mSv/year.

4.1.7

Ionising radiation may have two types of effect:

4.1.7.1

‘deterministic’ or ‘non random’ effects above 700 mSv; as these effects only appear once particular thresholds are reached, protecting oneself is a relatively straightforward matter of ensuring that one's exposure remains below the threshold and within a certain margin of protection;

4.1.7.2

‘random effects,’ which fall into two categories: the first category is radiation-induced carcinogenesis, whose likelihood increases proportional to dose; cancers have only been demonstrated to occur with doses of over 100-200 m Sv for adults and 50-100 mSv for children; the second category is the appearance of congenital, hereditary malformations; this effect, which has been proven to occur in mice, has never been scientifically proven in humans, neither in the populations affected by Hiroshima-Nagasaki nor in those affected by Chernobyl.

4.2.1

Current policy on protection against ionising radiation is determined in various stages and involves the intervention of a number of different international and national bodies.

4.2.2

At the ‘initial’ level, the UNSCEAR (10) (a UN body whose members are appointed by national governments) and, above all the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection - an independent international organisation) analyse the scientific literature and draw up recommendations in the form of reports. For example, ICRP report No. 73 focuses on radiation exposure resulting from medical treatment.

At the next level (in Europe) the European Community adapts the texts of the ICRP in the form of Recommendations or Directives. For example, ICRP 73 led to Euratom Directive 97/43 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure.

Lastly, the Member States transpose the EU Recommendations or Directives into national law.

4.2.3

The basic standards (11) for the protection of the general public against ionising radiation are extremely strict and lay down a limit for additional exposure resulting from the activities of the nuclear industry of 1 mSv per person per year. This regulatory threshold, which has no correlation with the figures discussed in the chapter on the biological effects of radiation, was essentially determined on the basis of the technical capacities of the nuclear industry.

4.2.4

The basic standards for the protection of workers in the nuclear industry lay down a maximum dose of 100 mSv over five consecutive years, or an annual average of 20 mSv, provided that the dose does not exceed 50 mSv in the course of a single year.

4.2.5

Companies using nuclear technology have made continuous progress. To cite just one example, within the company with the greatest number of nuclear installations in the EU, the annual doses for workers exposed to radiation have fallen from 4.6 mSv in 1992 to 2.03 mSv in 2002.

4.2.6

This outcome has been achieved by first subjecting operations in exposed areas systematically to the yardstick of ‘justification, optimisation and limitation’. To give concrete expression to these three principles on an industrial scale, a procedure of ‘ALARA’ (as low as reasonably achievable) was developed by all operators.

4.3.1

Nuclear safety relies on a body of provisions relating to the planning, construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of nuclear installations and the transport of radioactive materials.

4.3.2

These provisions, which aim to avert accidents and limit the effects of any which might occur, are based on the principle of ‘defence in depth’, which involves the systematic use of multiple barriers against any escape of radioactivity from nuclear plants:

A distinction can be made between three types of provision:

4.4.1

Responsibility for nuclear safety falls to the operator of the installation concerned, who acts under the supervision – and according to the rules established by – the national safety authority.

As a result of international exchanges between national safety authorities and/or nuclear operators, indicators on the quality of the various installations are published on a regular basis. Regular exchanges are organised through international inspections (such as OSART (Operational Safety Review Team) under the auspices of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), or ‘Peer Review’ under the aegis of WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) during which nuclear plants are visited by a team of international experts.

4.4.2

These indicators show that there has been a continuous improvement in the performances of nuclear installations in the European Union and in particular that there has been a reduction both in the number of ‘significant incidents’ (level 1 on the 7-level INES (International Nuclear Event Scale) and in emissions of radiation into the environment.

4.4.3

The European Commission recently established a Community mechanism for verifying the effectiveness of national nuclear safety provisions (COM(2003) 32 final). On this occasion, the Committee noted that, in this area, European directives on safety of nuclear installations and the corresponding monitoring procedures should make it clear that the current remit of Member States' safety authorities will remain unchanged and that the operators of nuclear installations will also continue to bear sole responsibility for safety. This last requirement is also consistent with the polluter-pays principle, which the Committee considers to be very important.

5.1

Nuclear generated electricity is extremely expensive in terms of capital, but its operating costs are proportionately very low and very stable. It is worth noting that there are 362 electricity-generating nuclear power stations across the OECD and that today these are generally competitive within their own markets, whether or not these are deregulated.

5.2

In the long term, the competitiveness of nuclear generated electricity is closely dependent on which scenarios are adopted for other sources of energy, particularly natural gas, which now seems to be the benchmark in view of the need to reduce CO2 emissions. A major advantage for nuclear power is still the ability to post a stable - as well as a competitive - price at a time when prices on the internal electricity market are starting to lurch upwards as supply/demand equilibrium comes under pressure (as demonstrated by the Nordel network during the winter of 2002/2003).

5.3

The competitiveness of nuclear power depends on the cost of investment. For a financial return of 5 %, nuclear power is demonstrably competitive in over a quarter of the OECD countries which in 1998 provided data on their studies of electricity production investment for 2005. For a return of 10 %, nuclear power is no longer competitive.

5.4

However, the results of the study published in 1998 rely on the hypotheses adopted by the IEA (International Energy Agency), which are based on gas prices over the next 25 years being lower than in 2000 and less than half their 1980 value in real terms. However, it is extremely unlikely that gas prices will not rise considerably over the complete lifespan of a nuclear power station (40 to 60 years).

5.5

The key question is the financial risk facing operators investing in electricity production in what has become a highly competitive market. This is leading nuclear industry operators to re-examine the issue of the size of production units. Until now, the tendency has been to increase size in order to achieve economies of scale. Given the new characteristics of the electricity market, it is now essential to look at projects that respond to lower unit capacity requirements. For countries such as Finland, France and Japan, nuclear power still remains the most economical way to generate electricity.

5.6

The constructors of nuclear installations (AREVA-Framatome and BNFL/ Westinghouse) are currently signalling falling costs for light water reactors, which could be somewhere in the order of 25 % compared with the prices of reactors currently in operation. The real test will be the TVO consultation carried out in Finland, since this company has obtained all the necessary agreements to invest in a new nuclear power station.

5.7

For the GIF (Generation IV International Forum) studies, an international collaboration scheme for research into future nuclear technology, the objective is a 50 % reduction in capital expenditure together with reductions in construction time, to bring the level of financial risk closer to that in other sectors of energy production.

5.8

In the longer term, the economic competitiveness of the nuclear industry will also depend on the price of renewables. Renewable energies are mostly intermittent, and therefore require complementary installations for producing or storing electricity, meaning that they will remain expensive as long as no major progress is made.

5.9

It should be noted that the price of nuclear generated electricity includes the costs of waste processing and plant decommissioning, which is generally estimated at 15 % of a plant's initial cost.

5.10

Among the factors that help shape choices and decisions, it should also be mentioned that in the EU, the civilian nuclear industry currently employs 400,000 people in jobs that are generally highly skilled.

5.11

Although not an economic issue as such, the downward pressure on costs that normally accompanies a competitive deregulated market and its impact on the steps taken to improve the safety of installations and the security of workers and the population at large could become an issue. The EESC believes that this is a point to which the Commission should pay very careful attention in its proposals for provisions in the field of safety.

6.1

From the data collected from existing EU publications, specialist agencies, experts' hearings and industrialists, which are included in this opinion, the EESC feels it should particularly stress the following points when considering the issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation.

6.2

Nuclear energy produces a significant proportion (35 %) of the EU's electricity and makes up 15 % of primary energy consumption. It makes a major contribution towards ensuring security of supply and reducing the EU's energy dependence.

6.3

It leads to the avoidance of 300 to 500 Mt of CO2 emissions per year, thereby making a very useful contribution towards the range of solutions enabling the commitments made at Kyoto to be respected.

6.4

It ensures stable production prices and therefore contributes to price stability in the EU and removes a source of uncertainty for economic operators about their future prospects.

6.5

When the current nuclear power stations come to the end of their lifespan, renewables will not be able to rise to the challenge of both replacing them and responding to rising electricity demand, even though the development of this form of energy is desirable and encouraged by the EU (see Directive 2001-77 EC). For instance, wind power has only a relatively low and generally unpredictable level of availability, of the order of 2,000 to 2,500 hours a year.

6.6

Control of energy demand must help make human activity less energy-intensive (both in business and private life), but this is not enough to justify stopping nuclear energy production entirely; because of the quantities involved, control will have to focus on uses other than electricity, such as transport.

6.7

The issues raised by nuclear power are safety, protection against the physiological effects of ionising radiation, waste and spent fuel. The first two are already the subject of technical and regulatory responses, which will evolve over time. The increased risk of attacks from the outside which society and industrial activities in general have to face is a factor which has to be taken into account by the public authorities and industry in their safety and protection policies.

6.8

Some EU Member States are making progress in resolving the issue of nuclear waste. Two countries (Finland and Sweden) have chosen the solution and even the site; other countries (France and Spain) have adopted solutions for low-level products and are continuing investigations into higher-level products; the EU Commission has taken steps under the Euratom Treaty to speed up the process. A packaging industry for high-level products has been set up in France and the United Kingdom. Storage is a reality and the fact that other research is continuing does not mean that no solution has been found.

6.9

On the basis of the points made in this opinion and the conclusions which precede, the EESC considers, like the Green Paper, that nuclear power should be one of the elements of a diversified, balanced, economic and sustainable energy policy for the EU. In view of the issues which it raises, staking everything on nuclear power is not an option which should be considered; on the other hand, the EESC considers that a partial or total abandonment of nuclear power would compromise the EU's chances of respecting its commitments on the climate issue. It goes without saying that under the subsidiarity principle a consensual choice of energy sources for the future must be made by the Member States who are in a position to take account of specific national circumstances.

6.10

The EESC suggests that, in follow-up to this opinion, efforts should be made to provide information on the real issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of CO2 emissions, competitive prices and the safety and management of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out a critical analysis of the debates on these issues.