Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation’
Date: 2004-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, nuclear energy, nuclear safety, power plant

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/77

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The issues involved in using nuclear
power in electricity generation’

(2004/C 110/14)

On 23 January 2003, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity
generation.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 January 2004. The rapporteur
was Mr Cambus.

At its 406th plenary session (meeting of 25 February 2004), the Committee adopted the following opinion
by 68 votes to 33 with 11 abstentions:

INTRODUCTION

This own-initiative opinion has been submitted to help clarify
the debate on the use of nuclear power in electricity generation
at a time when the Commission has re-introduced the issue in
the Green Paper on the security of the EU's energy supplies and
in the ‘nuclear package’ on general principles in the field of
safety and the management of irradiated nuclear fuel and radio-
active waste.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has been
in favour of each of these initiatives. In its opinion on the
Green Paper (CES 705/2001 of 1.5.2001), it stated in particular
that:
‘There are problems connected to nuclear power, but it
also has clear benefits. Member States take the decisions on the
use of nuclear power. However, it is difficult to see how the EU
can in future meet the challenges of climate change and ensure
energy supply at reasonable prices without nuclear power
continuing to make at least its current contribution to electri-
city generation.’(point 5.7.8).

In the opinion on the ‘nuclear package’
(CES 411/2003 of
26.3.2003), the Committee generally approved the Commis-
sion's initiative, while making suggestions based on its exper-
tise.

sions to shut down or re-organise plants and provide safety
training where necessary. Constant surveillance of operators
and safety authorities in the Member States concerned remains
necessary in order to maintain, and indeed improve, safety
levels.

Finally, the limits of this opinion are set by its title; it is but
one element in a wider debate on energy policy which has
already been the subject of several opinions and which must be
continued in areas such as the development of renewable ener-
gies and control of demand.

1. PART ONE: THE CURRENT ROLE OF NUCLEAR

POWER IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION

1.1 Nuclear power in present-day electricity generation: the global

picture

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 electri-
city was generated by nuclear power.

The present opinion looks at other nuclear-related issues –
particularly the environmental, physiological and economic
aspects – which the EESC feels are essential to acquiring a full
understanding of the EU's energy problems, so that the debate
may be as wide-ranging and well-informed as possible.

Of the total primary energy requirements for 2000,
1.1.2
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 %).

For reasons of consistency, the quantitative and qualitative data
in this opinion concern the EU-15, since the outlook is based
on an analysis of past trends. If the acceding countries and
those applying for EU membership were taken into account,
the figures would be changed to a certain extent, but the issues
surrounding the use of nuclear power, both the positive and
the negative aspects, would be unaffected.

It must be said that since 1992 the question of safety in
nuclear power stations in the acceding countries and those
applying for EU membership has been under review, and
upgrading programmes have been in operation, involving deci-

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
that
reactors are under construction demonstrates
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.

C 110/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

In contrast, in a referendum in 1980 the people of
1.1.4
the country's 12
Sweden voted in favour of phasing out
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 diffi-
cult 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.

Beyond the borders of the EU, but still within Europe,
1.1.7
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 addi-
it was
tional nuclear power stations by a further ten years;
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:

Total
number
of
opera-
tional
units /
Number
of
coun-
tries

258 /
25

Type and common
name

Energy
level of
the
neutro-
ns

Moder-
ator

Fuel

Coolant

Pressurised (ordinary
or ‘light’) water
reactor (PWR)

Low

Ordin-
ary
water
*

Pres-
surised
ordin-
ary
water
*

Enri-
ched
urani-
um
with
or
witho-
ut
pluto-
nium

Type and common
name

Energy
level of
the
neutro-
ns

Moder-
ator

Fuel

Coolant

Boiling (ordinary or
‘light’) water reactor
(BWR)

-id-

Pressurised heavy
water reactor
(PHRW, or CANDU)

Gas graphite reactor
(UNGG, GCR,
Magnox or AGR)

-id-

-id-

Boiling
ordin-
ary
water
*

Heavy
water

Graph-
ite

RBMK (ordinary
water/graphite)
reactor

-id-

-id-

Fast breeder reactor
(FBR)

high

None

-id-

Natur-
al
urani-
um

Natur-
al or
slightly
enri-
ched
urani-
um

Enri-
ched
urani-
um

Urani-
um
and
pluto-
nium

Total
number
of
opera-
tional
units /
Number
of
coun-
tries

91 /
10

41 / 6

Boiling
ordin-
ary
water
*

Heavy
water

CO2
or He

32 / 1

13 / 3

4 / 4

Boiling
ordin-
ary
water

Melted
sodiu-
m

1.1.9
The major producers of nuclear-generated electricity
are: the USA, 780 TWh (20.3 % of its total electricity produc-
tion); 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).

Other countries which generate a significant propor-
1.1.10
their electricity using nuclear power are: Armenia,
tion of
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 gener-
ated 855.6 TWh or 35 % of its electricity using nuclear power.
There will be no significant change in this ratio with EU enlar-
gement 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 Reduction of CO2 emissions in the EU using nuclear energy

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.

The European Environment Agency's 2002 report
1.2.2
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.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/79

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).

— 280 Mt according to another

study (Shared Analysis
Project) (4), if the current proportion of energy produced by
nuclear power were maintained, which would mean instal-
ling an additional nuclear capacity of 100 GWe (around 70
reactors).

1.2.4
Energy uses (industrial, refineries, electricity produc-
tion, 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 elec-
tricity production for networks.

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
appears that the Kyoto targets could be attained. However:

these potential gains were actually made,

If all

it

CO2 emissions alone, which represent 82 % of GHG,
1.2.5
stood at 3,325 Mt in 2000, only 0.5 % lower than their 1990
level (3,342 Mt).

All these figures demonstrate that it will be difficult to
1.2.6
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 produc-
tion of all passenger transport vehicles in the EU in 1995, i.e.
430 Mt (2).

A ‘bottom-up’ report (3) produced for the Commission
1.2.8
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:

— 500 Mt,

if all new plants used the natural gas-fired
combined cycle (NGCCs);
it should be pointed out that
using gas alone in the future to supplement renewable
energy for electricity production will accelerate the exhaus-
tion of gas reserves and does not constitute a ‘sustainable’
approach;

— 229 Mt through the use of renewables;

— 23 Mt through optimising production cycles in oil refi-

neries;

— 50 Mt through CO2 removal, subject to further studies and

a big rise in costs;

(1) The Commission established this figure with reference to the equiva-
lent electricity generation by gas. However, if the actual energy mix
of the past ten years is taken as the reference, the equivalent of 500
million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions were avoided annually
through the use of nuclear power.

(2) Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Emissions for
Climate Change, Bottom-up Reports, Energy, European Commis-
sion-Environment, March 2001, chapter 1.3.4.

(3) Cf. footnote 2.

— on the one hand,

the
present time whether it would be feasible to introduce all
the prerequisite policies or whether the costs of doing so
would be acceptable;

is impossible to determine at

it

— on the other hand, the Kyoto targets are comprehensive
and even an 8 % reduction in emissions from the energy
sector will not be sufficient, if for example, no reductions
are made in the transport sector.

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 Management of nuclear waste and spent fuel

1.3.1
Nuclear power stations are currently the largest produ-
cers 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’, ‘inter-
mediate’ 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 radioac-
tivity.

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 implementa-
tion 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.

(4) The Shared Analysis Project, Economic Foundations for Energy

Policy – Directorate General for Energy.

C 110/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

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:

— Finland, which is the most advanced country, has opted for
the solution of geological storage and has chosen a storage
site;

— Sweden has also opted for geological

storage and is

currently identifying a site;

— France is exploring three possibilities: geological storage,
lifetime reduction through separation-transmutation and
long-term surface or underground storage;

— the other countries have not yet started the process of
choosing an ultimate solution for high-level or long-lived
waste.

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.’

In the EU, 2 million m3 of low-level or short-lived
1.3.6
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. PART TWO: LONG-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK (2030)

2.1
involved,

In view of

it

is difficult

the large number of uncertain variables
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 consump-
tion 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.

In relation to the abovementioned factors, this opinion
2.2
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 aban-
donment of nuclear power for granted, while the other covers
the outlook worldwide and assumes the continued use of
currently available technologies.

Both reports use models which extrapolate

from
2.3
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.

2.4.1 Ca p r os-M a ntz os St u dy

It is projected that in 2030, the EU's GDP will be more than
the technological
double that of 1995, but as a result of
progress made both in the various branches of energy produc-
tion and in the consumption process, together with structural
change in the economy, energy consumption will have risen by
20 %, from 1,650 to 1,968 Mtoe (EU-25), meaning an average
drop in energy intensity of 1.7 % per annum.

(5) Extract from COM(2003) 32 final – CNS 2003/0022, paragraph 5
in the section ‘Situation in the EU Member States and candidate
countries’.

(6) The European energy outlook to 2010 and 2030, P. Capros and L.

Mantzos, 2000

(7) World energy, technology and climate policy outlook 2030 –WETO

– Directorate General for Research Energy, 2003.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/81

According to this scenario, oil would continue to provide the
lion's share of energy, followed by gas and coal. Total CO2
emissions (4,208 Mt in 1990), which fell from an indicator of
100 in 1990 to 98.7 in 1995, would rise to 109.5 in 2020
and 117.2 in 2030. The Kyoto commitments could not be met
within this basic scenario. Further, looking in more detail at the
increase in CO2 emissions (assessed in the study at 568 Mt
between 1995 and 2030), emissions from the industry, tertiary
and domestic sectors and non-commercial uses would decrease,
but emissions from the transport sector and energy production
would increase by 163 Mt and 533 Mt respectively. The
phasing-out of nuclear power would account for most of the
increase in the latter figure.

2.4.2 WE TO Stu dy

2.4.2.1 Global outlook for 2030

The study projects that the world population will rise from 6.1
billion people in 2000 to 8.2 billion in 2030, and that global
GDP will grow by an average of 3 % per year (as opposed to
3.3 % during the thirty years between 1970 and 2000).

World energy consumption is projected to increase by 70 %
between 2000 and 2030 (from 9,963 Mtoe to around 17
Gtoe), representing an annual increase of only 1.8 %, for a 3 %
growth in GNP.

In terms of demand for fossil fuels, oil would represent 5.9
Gtoe or 34 % of global consumption, natural gas 4.3 Gtoe or
25 % and coal, more competitive in terms of price, 4.8 Gtoe or
28 %.

The overall demand for energy would rise from 1.5 Gtoe in
2000 to 1.7 Gtoe in 2030. This analysis takes account of the
accession of the new Member States, where economic growth
would be higher but where the gains in terms of energy inten-
sity would also be more significant (8).

In terms of fuel shares, natural gas is projected to reach 27 %
of total EU energy consumption, and would be behind oil
(39 %) but ahead of coal and lignite (16 %).

2.4.2.3 Outlook for electricity production

Global electricity production is projected to increase by a
steady 3 % per year. New technologies which emerged during
the 1990s,
including combined cycle gas turbines, advanced
coal-burning technologies and renewables would account for
over half of this production.

The share of gas in global electricity generation is expected to
rise in the three main gas-producing regions.

The development of nuclear power would not be sufficient to
maintain its share in global electricity production, which would
fall to only 10 %.

Renewables would account for 4 % of energy needs, compared
to 2 % in 2000, mainly due to increased electricity generation
through wind power. For the EU-25, total electricity production
would rise from 2,900 TWh in 2000 to 4,500 TWh in 2030,
with the share of renewables rising from 14.6 % to 17.7 %, that
of combined heat and power from 12.5 % to 16.1 %, while
that of nuclear power would fall from 31.8 % to 17.1 %.

Demand for nuclear power is projected to increase by 0.9 %
per year over the reference period, but nuclear energy would
account for only 5 % of global energy consumption in 2030,
compared to 6.7 % in 2000.

Under the basic reference scenario, global annual CO2 emis-
sions would more than double between 1990 and 2030, rising
from 21 Gt to 45 Gt.

2.4.2.4 CO2 emissions

The share of large-scale hydropower and geothermal energy
would stabilise at 2 % of the total (2.3 % in 2000). Demand for
solar power, small-scale hydropower and wind power would
increase by 7 % per year between 2000 and 2010 and then by
5 %, but their share of consumption would still reach only 1 %
of the total in 2030 (0.5 % in 2000).

The share of wood and waste consumption is projected to fall
and would only represent 5 % in 2030 against 11 % today.

In total, renewable energies would represent 8 % of total world
energy consumption in 2030.

instance,

For
in 2003, China would become the largest
economy (with a 10-fold increase in GNP since 1990) and
would become the biggest source of CO2 emissions, which
would increase by 290 % in relation to 1990.

In the EU, the shares of coal and oil would decrease respec-
tively by 7 % and 4 % and the share of natural gas would
increase by 10 %, leading to a modest drop in the carbon inten-
sity of energy consumption. However, due to the overall
increase in energy consumption, total CO2 emissions would
increase by 18 % between 1990 and 2030.

2.4.2.5 Variations in the basic reference scenario

According to this scenario, global energy consumption would
rise by 1.8 % per year with a population increase of 1 % and an
annual increase in per capita wealth of 2.1 % per year, implying
an overall reduction in energy intensity of -1.2 % per year.

The data set out above is drawn from the WETO study's basic
reference scenario. The study also includes a further four varia-
tions on this scenario:

2.4.2.2 2030 Outlook for the EU

Within the EU, the population is projected to remain stable.
Per capita wealth is expected to rise by 1.9 % and improve-
ments in demand-side management
(EDM) would permit a
1.4 % reduction in energy intensity, meaning that energy
demand would increase by 0.4 % per year.

— The ‘gas’ case assumes increased availability of natural gas
and the introduction of major
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.

improvements

(8) The most recent data provided by the Commission list 1,650 Mtoe

in 2000 and 1,968 Mtoe in 2030 for the EU of 25.

C 110/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

— The ‘coal’ case assumes major improvements in advanced
super coal power plant technology, integrated coal gasifica-
tion 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, parti-
cularly 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.

insufficient energy resources and relies on foreign imports,
often from unstable countries, for 50 % of its energy supply -
essentially from fossil
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 depen-
dence towards 2020-2030 and the need for urgent action to
combat climate change.

fuels

One of

the suggestions put

forward in the Green
3.2.2
Paper is that:
‘the Union must maintain its expertise in civil
nuclear technology in order to maintain the necessary expertise
fission reactors,’ as part of an
and develop more efficient
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
the
continued operation of the present reactor population.

expertise

requires

this

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.

3.3 Key research themes in the nuclear sector

These two studies demonstrate that, looking at all the technolo-
gies currently available,
the contribution of nuclear energy
would be just as important to climate control as that of renew-
ables.

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. PART THREE: PROSPECTS FOR RESEARCH

3.1 The achievements of nuclear R&D

Of all the various sources of energy, nuclear energy
3.1.1
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.

The

3.1.2
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.

3.3.2
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 (vitrifica-
tion) 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 under-
ground (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.

3.2 Key research issues in the nuclear sector

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

3.3.2.2
A number of studies are also focusing on the possi-
bility of perfecting the processes used in reprocessing spent
(transform into
fuel so as to separate and then ‘transmute’
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).

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/83

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.

From an industrial perspective, nuclear power

3.3.4
is
preparing to meet this challenge, firstly through the introduc-
tion, 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).

Research into new types of reactors has a number of
3.3.5
objectives: to make nuclear power more competitive (by short-
ening 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 genera-
tion 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.

level,

specifically under

Research into future systems is being conducted at an
3.3.7
the Generation IV
international
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.

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 mole-
cular biology as well as epidemiology); exposure during
medical procedures,
in particular the development of radio-
therapies 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.

too,

for nuclear

research. Here

The safety of nuclear installations is naturally one of
3.3.10
the priority areas
the
EURATOM research and development programmes (9) have
clearly identified the key priorities and stressed that, at Euro-
pean 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 Euro-
pean level.

Lastly, looking further forward to equally promising
3.3.11
developments,
to mention research into
controlled thermonuclear fusion, which is the subject of an
own-initiative opinion currently being drawn up by the EESC.

important

is

it

4. PART FOUR: HEALTH, PROTECTION AGAINST

RADIATION AND SAFETY

4.1 Biological effects of radiation

4.1.1
Ionising radiation acts by to tearing electrons (ionisa-
tion) 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).

3.3.8 When they become available, ‘Generation IV’ reactors
the energy potential of
will make more efficient use 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 ‘Generation IV’ programme,
namely sustainability (efficient use of fuel resources and mini-
misation of waste), safety and economy. Like the existing reac-
tors, they will be equipped with all the available guarantees
concerning non-proliferation of nuclear material for military

the objectives of

Ionising radiation is measured according to an
4.1.2
‘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).

(9) The following areas correspond to the priority thematic areas for
research set out in the specific programme for research in the
nuclear sector, which will be covered by the 6th EURATOM RTD
Framework Programme.

C 110/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

4.1.3
Living organisms have been exposed to ionising radia-
tion 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).

4.2 Policy on protection against ionising radiation

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.

4.1.4
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 sensi-
tivity).

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).

its own systems

The human body possesses

4.1.6
for
repairing the damage caused to its chromosomes by ionising
radiation. This explains why doses of ionising radiation admi-
nistered 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.

At the ‘initial’

level, the UNSCEAR (10)

4.2.2
(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.

for

the protection of

The basic standards (11)

the
4.2.3
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 tech-
nical capacities of the nuclear industry.

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 likeli-
hood 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 scien-
tifically proven in humans, neither in the populations affected
by Hiroshima-Nagasaki nor in those affected by Chernobyl.

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.

Companies using nuclear

4.2.5
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.

(10) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

Radiation.

(11) A European Directive adopted in May 1996 under the Euratom
lays down maximum doses for the general

Treaty (dir 96/29)
public and workers in the nuclear industry.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/85

4.3 The principles behind safety procedures

4.3.1
Nuclear safety relies on a body of provisions relating
to the planning, construction, operation, closure and decom-
missioning of nuclear installations and the transport of radioac-
tive materials.

4.4.2
These indicators show that there has been a contin-
uous 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.

4.3.2
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:

— prevention to avoid faults: mainly through ensuring compli-

ance with operating procedures;

— monitoring (or detection) aimed at anticipating faults
through tests and/or controls: this can take the form of
regular testing of the materials necessary to ensure safety;

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 corre-
sponding 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.

— action or treatment to limit the consequences of a fault and

ensure that it does not re-occur;

5. THE ECONOMIC ISSUES INVOLVED IN USING
NUCLEAR POWER IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION

— systematic analysis of events that might be the precursors

of a worsening situation.

A distinction can be made between three types of provision:

— material – relating to the design and reliability of nuclear

installations;

— organisational – relating to the clear definition of each
player's responsibilities in the work of the installation, rele-
vant controls and the provision of appropriate resources
required by given situations, particularly emergencies;

— human – to ensure that people's actions are based on
specific training relevant to their job and responsibilities
and on a culture of safety, which motivates each player to
be rigorous and vigilant.

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.

In the long term, the competitiveness of nuclear gener-
5.2
ated 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).

4.4 Responsibility for and monitoring of safety

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.

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 elec-
tricity production investment for 2005. For a return of 10 %,
nuclear power is no longer competitive.

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 inspec-
tions (such as OSART (Operational Safety Review Team) under
the auspices of
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.

the

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).

C 110/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

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 electri-
city 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-Frama-
tome 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 neces-
sary 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.

are included in this opinion, the EESC feels it should particu-
larly 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.

It leads to the avoidance of 300 to 500 Mt of CO2 emis-
6.3
sions 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 contri-
butes to price stability in the EU and removes a source of
uncertainty
future
prospects.

economic operators

about

their

for

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 elec-
tricity 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.

It should be noted that the price of nuclear generated
5.9
electricity includes the costs of waste processing and plant
decommissioning, which is generally estimated at 15 % of a
plant's initial cost.

Control of energy demand must help make human
6.6
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 trans-
port.

5.10
Among the factors that help shape choices and deci-
sions, 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.

Although not an economic issue as such, the down-
5.11
ward pressure on costs that normally accompanies a competi-
tive 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. CONCLUSIONS

6.1
From the data collected from existing EU publications,
specialist agencies, experts' hearings and industrialists, which

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
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.

evolve over

Some EU Member States are making progress in resol-
6.8
ving 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.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/87

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 every-
thing 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 prin-

ciple 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 manage-
ment of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out
a critical analysis of the debates on these issues.

Brussels, 25 February 2004.

The President
of the European Economic and Social
Committee
Roger BRIESCH

C 110/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

APPENDIX I

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the discussion:

Introduction

Amend sixth paragraph as follows:

‘It must be said that since 1992 the question of safety in nuclear power stations in the acceding countries and those
applying for EU membership has been under review, and upgrading programmes have been in operation, involving
decisions to shut down or re-organise plants and provide safety training where necessary. Constant surveillance of
operators and safety authorities in the Member States concerned remains necessary in order to maintain, and indeed
improve, safety levels maintain and further develop the highest standards of safety. The terrorist attacks of
11.9.2001 have undoubtedly brought a new dimension to the issue of safety at nuclear power plants.’

Reason

Safety at nuclear power plants should not merely be maintained at the current level but, where necessary, improved.
Thus, for example, they should certainly be protected against aircraft impacts.

Result of vote

For: 34, Against: 60, Abstentions: 8

Point 1.1.3

Amend as follows:

‘Nuclear power is used to generate electricity in thirty-two three out of the 192 countries in the world. In 18 of
these countries no new nuclear power stations are being built. 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 being planned or in some cases are under construction demonstrates that, despite high
economic, safety and political risks, nuclear energy is an expanding sector of industry world-wide outside the EU, in
some cases in countries in which the military use of fissile material cannot be excluded and that the EU must not
neglect it in its formulation of both energy and industry policy. WithiIn the EU the go-ahead for the construction of
a nuclear power station was given for the last time in 1985, until in Finland January 2002, when the Finnish
company TVO obtained a decision from its government in January 2002 agreeing to the ’principle‘ of constructing
agreement in principle to allow the construction of a fifth nuclear power station, and this decision was approved by
parliament in May 2002. No official application for planning consent has, however, so far been submitted.’

Reason

The text gives the impression that there continues to be a great demand for new nuclear power stations throughout the
world (Europe included). This is not the case. Some of the nuclear power plants ‘under construction’ have in fact been
mothballed for years. In Europe the last application for construction of a new nuclear plant was made some twenty
years ago.

Result of vote

For: 30, Against: 58, Abstentions: 9

Add a new point 1.1.4 after point 1.1.3:

‘In the EU of 15 Member States 145 nuclear plants are at present generating power in 8 Member States.
Portugal, Greece, Italy (since 1987), Austria (referendum 1978), Luxembourg and Ireland make no use of
nuclear power. In the Netherlands one reactor is still operational, a second having been decommissioned in
1997. Spain (with 9 nine reactors) and Belgium (see point 1.1.5) have adopted a moratorium. In Great Britain
(35 reactors) the nuclear power industry is facing very serious economic problems and can only survive thanks
to subsidies from levies on other forms of energy.’

Reason

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/89

If the situation in the EU is to be described, it should be done fully.

Result of vote

For: 36, Against: 55, Abstentions: 8

Point 1.1.11

Amend as follows:

‘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 at present an 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
This will only be the case, however, for as long as existing reactors, which are already approaching the end of their lives,
are still in operation. If this share of power generation is to be maintained in the medium to long term, for example
because it is felt that it will be impossible to compensate for its loss through increased energy efficiency, renewable
energy sources etc, it will be necessary to build a sufficiently large number of new nuclear plants. It is by no means clear
to what extent the construction of an estimated 100 new nuclear plants would be politically acceptable.’

Reason

With a 35 % share, nuclear power is not the most important source of electricity production, merely an impor-
tant source. Even if this opinion is not intended to debate energy policy, it should however at least be clearly
stated that in the EU we have to answer an important question: Is the construction of (a large number of) new
nuclear power stations politically feasible? The EESC must not sweep this question under the carpet.

Result of vote

For: 36, Against: 65, Abstentions: 8

Point 1.2.9

Amend the final paragraph as follows:

‘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. This figure can, however, be reduced if nuclear power is phased out over an
extended period, new power-generating capacity based on renewable energy sources developed and efficiency-boosting
measures stepped up.’

Reason

The emission figures quoted are a snapshot and do not shed any light on future emission levels, as these
depend on trends in energy demand, energy intensity and power generation capacity.

Result of vote

For: 32, Against: 66, Abstentions: 9

Point 1.3.3

Amend as follows:

‘Definitive Ttechnical solutions for managing the management and temporary and final storage of this sort of waste are
already knownstill being sought given the problems inherent in storing dangerous substances. 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.This does not, however, mean that safe forms of storage already exist. 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 demo-
cratically which management option to adopt.The EU has neither a final storage facility nor the necessary long-term
experience. It must be pointed out that for these products, surface packaging and storage must 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. Clearly, the safety criteria which a final storage facility must meet if it is to remain safe for a
million years are extremely high. The costs of such final storage should be reflected in power generation costs.’

Reason

C 110/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

It is simply not true that practicable solutions exist for all problems connected with the (final) storage of
nuclear waste.

Result of vote

For: 34, Against: 68, Abstentions: 7

Point 2.1

Add the following paragraph at the end of the point.

‘In view of the large number of uncertain variables (...) the effects of energy consumption on the environment and the
climate need to be taken into account.

Scenario studies attempt to predict the various possible development paths of energy supply in the future. They are
intended to model alternative options for public discussion with the aim of achieving a consensus-based energy
supply concept. However, this approach also demonstrates the essential foundations of such an energy blueprint.’

Reason

Self-explanatory. The addition makes sense here in terms of clarifying the role of the studies discussed in detail
later in the text.

Result of vote

For: 32, Against: 60, Abstentions: 15

Point 2.3

Amend as follows:

‘Both reports use models which extrapolate from ongoing trends, including structural changes and technical progress.
Each assumes that there will be no fundamental change in investment decisions relating to energy during the period in
question, e.g. substantial growth in the share of investment in renewable energy sources or an increase in energy effi-
ciency compared with the current trend, as a result of political decisions. Although this means that they cannot incorpo-
rate 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.’

Reason

Both the studies in question essentially provide reference scenarios, which do not take into account such
changes in investment flows, which are technically and economically defensible. If such decisions were to be
taken, which cannot be ruled out, the decrease in energy intensity might accelerate appreciably, e.g. owing to
existing possibilities. This is by no means a pipe dream, but is consistent with EU policy. In its current
proposal for an energy efficiency Directive (COM(2003) 739 final of 10 December 2003), the European
Commission proposes using political measures to boost the rate of increase in energy efficiency, currently aver-
aging 1.5 % p.a., by at least 1 % annually over the next few years. This would substantially reduce energy
consumption.

Result of vote

For: 33, Against: 64, Abstentions: 10

Point 2.5

Amend as follows:

‘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.

If nuclear power plants are kept in operation, their contribution to solving the problem of climate change in the
next few years, based on current technology, could be comparable to the contribution of renewable energy.

In any case, over the long term only renewable energy and improved energy efficiency will solve the climate change
problem, since the raw material of atomic energy, uranium, is a finite resource.’

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/91

Reason

The qualification (‘If nuclear plants are kept in operation...’) reflects the fact that one of the two scenarios considered
excludes nuclear energy and only the other involves keeping nuclear plants in operation. Thus the claim made in this
sentence can be based on only one scenario (maintenance of nuclear energy), not on both. The potential additional emis-
sions forecast in the phasing-out scenario could be avoided by keeping nuclear power plants in operation (i.e. not
phasing them out), but equally by stepping up efforts to introduce renewable energy and improve energy efficiency or
through other possible measures. This is not mentioned, however.

Result of vote

For: 29, Against: 62, Abstentions: 9

Point 3.3.2

Amend as follows:

‘Research into radioactive waste management must aims to ensure that control of radioactive waste is as absolutely
failsafe as possible. No absolutely Ssafe industrial solutions have already been found yet for the permanent disposal
of low-level waste, for packaging (vitrification) and for the temporary storage of high-level or long-lived waste.
However, the Committee would like to know how long research in this industrial sector should be seen as a public
responsibility and receive public funding.’

Reason

In point 3.1.1 the rapporteur already notes that ‘nuclear energy indubitably makes the most intense demands on R&D’.
The question must be raised of how long the public sector should be involved in research activity in this industrial
sector, especially as it is clear that, since uranium is a finite resource, atomic energy also has a limited lifespan.

Result of vote

For: 29, Against: 72, Abstentions: 7

Point 4.1.6

Delete point.

Reason

This sweeping statement is untenable.

Result of vote

For: 43, Against: 58, Abstentions: 9

Point 4.3.1

Add a new point 4.3.1

‘4.3.1 For many years what worried people most about nuclear power generation were the risks inherent in normal
operation and possible accidents. The terrible Chernobyl disaster showed that, on the one hand, human error
cannot be completely excluded and, on the other, that it is impossible to make safety plans covering every
eventuality. It would be too simplistic to ascribe Chernobyl to the shortcomings of a particular political
system. The accident at the Harrisburg nuclear power plant in the USA and the still unexplained clusters of
leukaemia cases around German nuclear power plants show that ’western‘ reactors too are certainly in need
of critical assessment.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 32, Against: 63, Abstentions: 8

C 110/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Point 4.3.2

Add a new point 4.3.2:

‘4.3.2 A new, serious and hitherto unknown risk connected with nuclear power generation is the threat of
terrorism – and potentially also armed conflict. The nuclear power industry is the only kind of power genera-
tion that might be of any fundamental interest to terrorists. When the nuclear industry was first conceived,
such a threat was wholly unimaginable for engineers and politicians alike. Unfortunately, however, the times
have changed dramatically and the discussion must not ignore the fact. The extent to which it is possible to
avert such substantial risks in our democratic countries governed by the rule of law is questionable. In politi-
cally unstable countries, such risks are many times greater.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 32, Against: 68, Abstentions: 8

Point 5.1

Amend as follows:

‘Nuclear generated electricity is extremely expensive in terms of capital, but its operating costs are proportionately
very low and very stable. Reasons for that include high levels of grants and subsidies, the use of technologies the
cost of which has been written off, tax-free reserves, the fact that the full cost of storage is not taken into account,
insufficient risk insurance and high levels of research support. As a result of these and other factors It is worth
noting that there are 362 electricity-generating nuclear power stations across the OECD and that, today these under
the given conditions, are generally competitive within their own markets, whether or not these are deregulated It
must be recognised, however, that, in the UK, for example, all moves to privatise nuclear electricity production have
failed. That is the surest indication that economic uncertainties do certainly also exist.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 26, Against: 69, Abstentions: 6

Point 5.2

Amend as follows:

‘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). The competitiveness of nuclear energy varies, depending on the price of gas. It can also help secure
stable prices on the internal electricity market by reducing the impact of upsets in the supply/demand equilibrium
that are inherent in the single market (look at what happened with the Nordel network in Scandinavia in the winter
of 2002/2003), thereby preventing such upsets from causing excessive fluctuations in price.’

Reason

The first sentence of the amendment explains the first sentence of point 5.2 by correctly stating that the competitiveness
of nuclear energy is currently determined first and foremost in relation to the price of gas. In contrast, the original
sentence (‘A major advantage...’ ) is phrased in absolute terms and thus directly contradicts the preceding statement. It
must therefore be deleted. The second sentence of the amendment explains the mechanics of price stability.

Result of vote

For: 27, Against: 65, Abstentions: 9

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/93

Point 5.3

Amend as follows:

‘The competitiveness of nuclear power depends on the cost of investment, subsidies and the overall energy context.
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.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 38, Against: 63, Abstentions: 6

Point 5.10

Amend as follows:

‘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. As many – if not more
– additional jobs will be created in the EU by the intensive expansion and ongoing development of renewable ener-
gies and energy-efficiency technologies.’

Reason

Given the precarious employment situation, particular attention should be paid to markets that may, potentially,
generate new jobs. The projected number of jobs appears conservative given estimates from the German construction
workers' trade union IG Bau of some 200,000 additional jobs in the German building insulation industry alone, and
Eurosolar's predictions of some 500,000 potential additional jobs in the EU's renewable energy sector.

Result of vote

For: 28, Against: 61, Abstentions: 18

Point 5.11

Amend as follows:

‘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. Large operators have already made substantial staff
cuts. The EESC believes that this is a point to which the Commission should pay very careful attention in its propo-
sals for provisions in the field of safety.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 28, Against: 63, Abstentions: 18

Point 6.3

Amend as follows:

‘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.’

Reason

The amendment reflects the change to point 1.2.9.

C 110/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Result of vote

For: 27, Against: 67, Abstentions: 12

Point 6.4

Amend as follows:

‘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. Long-term economic and safety considerations,
however, lead to a different cost assessment.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 31, Against: 65, Abstentions: 6

Point 6.5

Amend as follows:

‘When the current nuclear power stations come to the end of their lifespan, Renewables will not be able to cannot
at present rise to the challenge of both replacing current nuclear power stations them and responding to rising elec-
tricity demand which in some cases is still rising, even though the development of this form of energy is desirable
and encouraged by the EU (see Directive 2001-77 EC). There also remain structural obstacles to this: for instance,
wind power currently has only a relatively low and generally unpredictable availability, of the order of 2,000 to
2,500 hours a year. However, all this could change significantly, for example through energy efficiency measures,
the further development of permanently available energy sources such as biomass, etc.’

Reason

Renewable energy is only just being introduced into the market.
In particular, biomass and geothermal energy,
constantly available renewable energy sources that would be able to replace nuclear energy even in those areas where it
performs best, are at a very early stage. This is also true of storage systems that would be able to make intermittent
energy sources such as wind and solar energy capable of bearing a constant load. It should therefore be made clear that
the circumstances described are a snapshot of the current situation.

Result of vote

For: 27, Against: 54, Abstentions: 16

Point 6.6

Add new point 6.6:

‘6.6 The point that significant strategic decisions must soon be taken in the EU is an important one for the EESC.
The lifespan of the existing nuclear power stations is gradually coming to an end. Europe thus faces the ques-
tion of whether to begin a new generation of nuclear power usage and indeed to what extent society will
accept this. The latter important question is for politicians to resolve. Alternatively, do we want, as of now, to
start making every possible effort to move towards an age where energy policy will involve the use neither of
fossil fuels nor of nuclear energy? The need eventually to achieve this is not a matter of 'yes' or 'no', but of
'when'.’

Reason

We depend on fossil fuels, mostly in the form of stored solar energy (coal, oil and gas) and from uranium, of which
reserves are equally finite. It is simply a matter of when we move into a new age of energy use. The EESC cannot duck
this question.

Result of vote

For: 32, Against: 58, Abstentions: 15

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/95

Point 6.6

Amend point 6.6 as follows:

‘Control of energy demand must help make human activity less energy-intensive (both in business and private life).
In respect of electricity, there is great untapped potential in this area, which needs to be exploited. Exploiting that
potential alone is not, however, enough to compensate for stopping nuclear power production entirely. Further-
more, greater potential for reducing energy intensity lies in the areas of heating and transport. The transport sector
in particular requires special attention, in order to achieve an effective reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in this
area and at the same time ensure sustainable mobility.’

Reason

These conclusions can logically be drawn from the scenarios described in Part 2 of the opinion.

Result of vote

For: 34, Against: 59, Abstentions: 13

Point 6.9

Delete point and replace as follows:

‘Notwithstanding the continued public controversy over nuclear power in EU Member States, the EESC concludes
that, on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, it is primarily up to the relevant national decision-makers to achieve
a consensus as to the sustainable future energy mix. The particular circumstances of each country must be taken
into consideration, in particular the extent to which energy sources are available within that country. It is these
sources that should be used as a matter of preference, in order to reduce the EU's heavy dependence on energy
imports, which the European Commission's Green Paper on security of supply has already identified as a priority. It
is beyond dispute that renewable energy and improvements in energy efficiency have a very important role to play
here, since they reduce dependence on imports and do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases. The devel-
opment of renewable energy and efficiency technologies is an important building block on Europe's road to
becoming a knowledge-based, highly developed, competitive and export-oriented region and thus to fulfilling the
Lisbon agreements with respect to the energy sector. In addition, new jobs can thus be created.’

Reason

The text is self-explanatory in terms of its content, whilst also being consistent with previous EU statements on energy
policy. This paragraph also takes the necessary step of placing nuclear power in the context of the overall debate on a
sustainable energy mix.

Result of vote

For: 33, Against: 61, Abstentions: 13