WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/01 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Internalising the environmental costs of nuclear energy.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: electrical energy, environmental protection, environmental tax, production cost, radioactive waste, reduction of gas emissions, security of supply, sustainable development, tax system

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/89

5. When the regulation will be adopted, all airlines and airports will be obliged to follow the
Community standards and would not be able to decide by their own on the balance between security and
facilitation measures. If they want to maintain an acceptable level of quality to their passengers and avoid
lengthy queue which could affect the image of air transport, they would have to accept to increase the
resources allocated to aviation security.

(1) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing common rules in the field

of civil aviation security COM(2001) 575 final of 10.10.2001.

(2002/C 134 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Internalising the environmental costs of nuclear energy

(5 October 2001)

Given that:

. the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which is come into force in 2002, will mean the
in the general weighting of

internalisation of environmental costs (in terms of global warming)
product prices;

. in the energy field, the application of the Kyoto Protocol will give renewable energies and nuclear
fuels (particularly coal and

energy a competitive advantage over energy produced from fossil
hydrocarbons);

. nuclear energy is not a sustainable energy source (although,

in global warming terms, it has less

impact than other energy sources do);

. if the sustainable development strategy launched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 is to be carried out, all
(and not merely some) environmental costs need to be internalised in the general price-weighting of
all products as a matter of urgency,

I would ask the Commission what measures it intends to adopt so as to internalise the environmental costs
in determining the price of energy from nuclear power stations (i. e. the storing and management of
nuclear waste on the one hand, and on the other, the risk of radioactive pollution)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission agrees that renewable and nuclear energies do not normally make any significant
contribution to global warming. The Green Paper ‘Towards a European Strategy for the security and
energy supply (1)’ estimates that in the year 2010, generating electricity using nuclear energy will help to
avoid over 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission in the European Union alone. The Green Paper
offers a global picture of the Community energy policy and highlights the inter-relation between the
various energy sources in terms of security of supply, competition, environment and fiscal considerations.
In the Green Paper, the Commission has also referred to the internalisation of costs linked to degradation
of the environment and the need to eliminate major disparities between Member States taxation.

Internalising the external costs of energy production and use is a strategic environmental objective.
However, there are considerable technical and methodological problems to overcome in evaluating these
external cost. An important source of information on this is the Commission’s ExterneE study, that was
launched in 1991 and reported earlier this year. This estimated that the average external costs for nuclear
was just below 0,4 Euro cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 1,3 to 2,3 cents/kWh for gas and between
4,3 and 7,3 cents/kWh for oil and coal. Wind energy, with 0,1 to 0,2 cents/kWh had the smallest external
cost.

C 134 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The ExternE study considered the entire nuclear fuel cycle,
environmental pollution, radiological impacts on the general public and the risk of accidents.

including waste, radioactive emissions and

In the first instance, it is the Member States who are responsible for ensuring that environmental and other
external costs of nuclear energy, such as those resulting from authorised radioactive discharges to the
environment, waste disposal and security of installations are internalised. However, in general the costs of
storing and long term management/disposal of the spent fuel and waste from nuclear electricity production
are partly covered by a charge which is included in the price of the electricity. This includes, where
necessary, safe transport of the material from one site to another (2). The risk of accidents/radioactive
pollution is normally internalised in two ways. One way is the defence in depth of nuclear facilities that
reduces the risk of any accidental releases of radioactivity in Western reactor technologies. The other way
is through the adhesion of all Member States to the Paris Convention on Nuclear Liability that would come
into force in the event of any accident.

Building on the results of the ExternE study the Commission has recently launched a follow up research
project (NEWEXT . new elements for the assessment of external costs from energy technologies). In its
future analysis of this subject the Commission will review the internalisation of environmental costs with
regard to the prices of all sources of energy. In addition, the Commission announced in its Green Paper on
energy security that it will make a systematic inventory of state aid in the energy sector in order to avoid
distortion of competition. This inventory will of course include nuclear energy which, should no longer
benefit from aid.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2) Details of how the funds for covering the costs of radioactive waste management in individual Member States are
available in a report ‘Schemes for financing radioactive waste storage and disposal’ that was contracted by DG
Environment and published in October 1998 (EUR 18185).

(2002/C 134 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/01

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Objective 3 development programme

The EU Objective 3 development programme in Sweden includes support which may be applied for by
various undertakings, organisations and public institutions to help them develop their activities. When EU
Objective 3 funds have been approved, receipts entered in the accounts have to be presented before any
funds may be paid out. However, small undertakings may find it impossible to hand over large sums of
money before they receive the support. The latter can be a crucial factor for small companies’ development
and livelihood.

The figures show that in Sweden between 80 and 90 % of this support is applied for by large companies.
The failure of small and medium-sized undertakings to apply is a clear result of the rule described above.

Enquiries into the procedures for paying support from the EU growth programme in other Member States
have revealed that only in Sweden do receipts have to be presented before the support can be paid. In the
other Member States an advance of one third of the support is granted to facilitate the start up of the
activities in question. The reason for this might be that other Member States have other interpretations of
how the EU contributions are to be paid.

Do the rules governing Objective 3 make such demands, or is this an interpretation on the part of the
Swedish authorities?