Memorandum submitted by the Nuclear Industry
Association
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) is the
trade association and representative voice of Britain's civil
nuclear industry. It represents over 100 companies including the
operators of the nuclear power stations, those engaged in decommissioning,
waste management, nuclear liabilities management and all aspects
of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear equipment suppliers, engineering
and construction firms, nuclear research organisations, and legal,
financial and consultancy companies. Among NIA's members are the
principal nuclear power station operators—as well as companies
engaged as contractors and manufacturers in the forefront of nuclear
technology.
We welcome the committee's investigation into
this issue which, with the spiralling cost of electricity and
the realities of climate change becoming more apparent, is both
timely and valuable. Indeed a more thorough Government review
of energy policy taking into account all generation sources would
also be appropriate at this time. Within the context of this investigation
we have confined ourselves to the questions posed by the committee
and while we represent only the nuclear industry we have endeavoured
to give a full set of answers.
A. THE EXTENT
OF THE
"GENERATION GAP"
1. What are the latest estimates of the likely
shortfall in electricity generating capacity caused by the phase-out
of existing nuclear power stations and some older coal plant?
How do these relate to electricity demand forecasts and to the
effectiveness of energy efficiency policies?
Under current plans, all but one of our nuclear
stations are scheduled to close by 2023 leaving only Sizewell
B in operation. In addition there will be major coal fired power
station closures by 2015, either under the Large Combustion Plant
Directive or because of aging plant. In other words around 40%
of the generating capacity projected to be required in 2020 has
yet to be built.
Changes in UK mix will harm electricity supply reliability
Reliable and secure electricity supply is critical
to any modern economy. Power cuts in recent years in the USA and
Canada, Scandinavia and Italy amply demonstrate the particular
vulnerability of even advanced industrial societies to the impact
of interruptions in electricity supply. The blackout in Italy
in particular highlighted the danger of over reliance on imports
as it was caused by a failure in an import line combined with
the reduction of supply from other countries on which Italy relies.
These examples from around the industrialised world need not become
reality in the UK. But as with all major infrastructure projects
governments have to ensure there is sufficient clarity and incentive
in the market to ensure timely investment in the electricity generating,
transmission and distribution infrastructure to ensure that the
impending electricity generating gap is filled.
The fabric of the UK's energy mix—in particular
the electricity sector—is changing dramatically. Consumers
are experiencing the impacts on their bills of record high oil
and gas prices. While these commodity prices are, by their very
nature, variable, the planning required to secure new generation
is not. Energy and electricity generation is simply not a short-term
issue. It takes 2-3 years to build a new gas plant; 1-2 years
for a wind farm; 4 years for a coal plant; and 5 years for a nuclear
plant. It is against this backdrop that the UK is entering a period
where:
— Demand for electricity continues
to grow at 1-2% per year[310].
— The UK's "dash for gas"
means we are moving from 65% coal, and no gas-fired generation,
in 1990 to 65% gas-fired generation, perhaps more, by 2020.
— UK oil and gas reserves are depleted.
The UK has already become a net importer of gas and is forecast
to import 80% of its gas by 2020.
— Government focus is on support for
renewables (particularly wind power), which brings new issues
of intermittency of supply into the equation which need to be
managed.
— Investment is needed in the electricity
grid, to maintain existing infrastructure and provide new capacity
to meet the growth of renewable generation.
— The deregulation of the UK electricity
market means that the emphasis of investors is now on short-term
projects with rapid payback. Building of new stations has tailed
off dramatically.
— There is no market driver to increase,
or even to preserve, diversity within the generation portfolio
or indigenous supply.
— And of course, the UK is an island;
therefore, retaining the ability to meet the bulk of our own demand
is essential, given the limited options for dealing with sudden
supply problems by importing electricity and primary energy from
our neighbours and from further afield.
Given the scale of this change—and the
increasingly widespread concern about future electricity supply
reliability—ensuring the UK will have electricity supplies
in future as robust as they have been in the past is essential.
We need to start planning now.
Nuclear and coal closing—renewables progress
slow but steady
The DTI/Ofgem projections for future UK capacity,
to the year 2020, show that substantial changes are expected in
the generating mix:
Recent and Forecast Breakdown of UK Electricity
Supply[311]
There are several reasons for the projected
changes in the mix:
All but four of the UK's nuclear fleet will potentially
be closing within 10 years. This will reduce the UK's nuclear
fleet from 23% of generating capacity in 2003 to 9% by 2015. If
this 14% were replaced by gas fired generation then an additional
21.4 million tonnes of CO2 (assuming it is all supplied
by pipeline gas, if it were supplied by liquefied natural gas
this figure would be significantly higher) would be emitted to
the atmosphere and the UK would find it impossible to meet already
difficult targets agreed to in global climate negotiations.
Many coal stations are expected to close between
2008 and 2015, with the introduction of the Large Combustion Plant
Directive. This requires large coal-fired power plants either
to have fitted equipment to remove sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and dust from their discharges, or else to operate
for a limited number of hours (20,000 hours) over that timeframe.
As the UK continues towards a low carbon economy,
construction of renewables capacity will continue to be encouraged,
but to date, although many projects are in the early stages of
consideration and planning, actual deployment of renewables has
been slower than expected. Recent Government projections appear
to acknowledge that the 2010 target to have 10% of electricity
from renewables will be missed[312],
and confidence in longer-term targets being reached is therefore
diminished.
There is limited scope to increase electricity
imports. Aside from the requirement to construct new interconnectors,
such an approach requires confidence that the source nation will
always have a surplus of power to export, even at times of peak
demand in both countries. Recent experience—for instance
the large-scale blackout in Italy in August 2003—shows the
risks associated with this strategy.
UK electricity sector becoming dependent on gas imports
After many years of being self-sufficient in
gas, the UK has now become (in 2004) a net importer (as shown
on the chart below).
Recent and Projected UK Gas Import Dependency[313]
The rapid nature of this shift is illustrated
in the chart below, which shows the ratio of domestic gas consumption
to the scale of national gas reserves. The UK is using a greater
proportion of total national gas reserves each year than any other
major economy. The nation therefore faces a very steep growth
in the need for imported gas.
Ratio of Annual Gas Usage to National Reserves,
shown against Magnitude of National Reserves[314]
One of the key ways in which security of supply
can be underpinned is by ensuring that we have a balanced mix
of sources of generation. It is worth noting that all the major
electricity supply shocks in the UK during the 20th century were
caused by over-reliance on a single energy source—in this
case coal. Firstly in the early 1950s, when there was a post-war
shortage of miners, and latterly in the 1970s and 1980s as a result
of industrial action.
In the short term, reliable gas imports can
be sourced from countries such as Norway. In the longer term however,
as demand is forecast to grow across Western Europe, supplies
are likely to come from countries further afield that hold the
largest reserves. The bulk of the world's gas reserves are in
Russia, with other significant supplies in countries such as Iran,
Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Although there is expected to
be a substantial amount of gas imported as liquefied natural gas
(LNG) (even though the total CO2 emissions from this
form of gas can be nearly as high as those for coal) it is anticipated
that much of the gas from these countries would still have to
be exported to Western Europe by means of long pipelines, passing
through many countries along the way. This would require major
infrastructure development in Europe, including terminals in the
UK and increase the risks of potential interruption to supply.
B. FINANCIAL
COSTS AND
INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
2. What are the main investment options for
electricity generating capacity? What would be the likely costs
and timescales of different generating technologies?
What are the likely construction and on-going
operating costs of different large-scale technologies (eg nuclear
new build, CCGT, clean coal, on-shore wind, off-shore wind, wave
and tidal) in terms of the total investment required and in terms
of the likely costs of generation (p/kWh)? Over what timescale
could they become operational?
The economics of nuclear energy are both competitive
and clear. The first generation of nuclear reactors were small,
pushing the boundaries of the technologies. Around the world,
second generation reactors have successfully delivered large quantities
of electricity and have served to establish the industry in the
mainstream energy mix. The Pressurised Water Reactor is the most
widely adopted nuclear reactor technology[315]
and continuous improvements in technology and performance have
resulted in continuing reductions in the costs.
There are a number of elements that need to
be considered in determining the economics of new nuclear build:
capital costs (including an understanding of "first of a
kind" costs, cost benefits resulting from learning, cost
of financing debt and so on); operating costs; and the costs of
decommissioning and waste management. The capital and financing
cost of a new nuclear plant is about 70% of the total cost of
generation; the operating cost component (including fuel) is about
27%, while the decommissioning and waste management costs amount
to about 4% of the total.
A number of studies[316][317][318][319][320][321][322]
into the costs of nuclear generation make varying assumptions
about the key economic parameters, the most significant of which
is the assumed rate of return. At rates of between 5 and 10%,
costs average only £20/MWh. However, costs can be as high
as £40/MWh for rates up to 12%.
[Data converted to sterling based on £1 = $1.734
(exchange rate used in RAE study)].
[Data converted to sterling based on 1EUR = £0.70
(Bloomberg, 10 March 2005)].
[Data converted to sterling based on £1 = $1.65.
Data also excludes Japan and the Netherlands.
Projected costs of nuclear energy from different
studies
Most recently the OECD compared generating costs
for key technologies. It found nuclear generation to be competitive
to coal and gas, even assuming a zero carbon cost, and significantly
cheaper than alternative carbon free technologies.
OECD analysis of power generating costs for different
technologies
The OECD report confirms conclusions reached
in a 2004 study by the Royal Academy of Engineering. The Academy's
study is directly applicable to the UK and is based on real data,
both in the UK and elsewhere. The nuclear component of the study
used the data shown in the table below.
Both studies conclude that the economics of
nuclear are competitive in the baseload sector even without factoring
in the cost of carbon. If the price of carbon reflected the costs
of climate change then the economics of new nuclear look even
more favourable.
RAE assessment of power generation costs of different
baseload technologies
The RAE study also analysed `carbon free' technologies.
Its conclusions indicate nuclear is the most cost effective source
to deliver large-scale electricity if reducing carbon dioxide
is the only measure. Realistically, as stated earlier, industrialised
nations in the 21st century should seek a balanced energy supply
mix.
RAE assessment of power generation costs of different
"carbon free" technologies
With regard to nuclear new build, how realistic
and robust are cost estimates in the light of past experience?
What are the hidden costs (eg waste, insurance, security) associated
with nuclear? How do the waste and decommissioning costs of nuclear
new build relate to the costs of dealing with the current nuclear
waste legacy, and how confident can we be that the nuclear industry
would invest adequately in funds ring-fenced for future waste
disposal?
The UK nuclear industry has moved on and learned
valuable lessons from the past, and by examining the experience
of other countries. Past experience in the UK relates to the building
of first of a kind reactors at a time when our understanding of
the science and engineering challenges was rapidly evolving. Around
the world, nuclear power stations are being built to time and
cost. As outlined earlier, independent studies by leading institutions
show low variations in costs (and much of this is directly due
to the different assumptions made in the differing studies).
Modern approaches will help avoid past problems
Modern global construction practices and project
delivery structures have evolved substantially from those which
existed during the earlier part of the industry's history. The
development of private finance initiatives and similar practices
mean key project risks are now dealt with in a proportionate way.
As a result, the industry worldwide has a track record of delivering
new plants to time and budget.
New nuclear reactor construction underway abroad
is based on internationally developed and standardised designs
which can be readily purchased from a few global vendors. This
standardised approach allows a highly optimised construction approach
and facilitates the use of advanced construction techniques which
together bring costs and construction timescales down. The adoption
of such standardised designs is in sharp contrast to previous
UK experience, where almost every station was of a substantially
different design to previous ones. In addition UK reactors were
often subject to re-design work during the licensing and construction
phases, leading to costly and time-consuming delays.
Further improvements in delivery time and cost
can be achieved through the adoption of a series build approach,
where a number of reactors of identical design are constructed
in the same country. This removes the requirement for the licensing
process to be repeated, reducing the overall timeframe for delivery.
For example, the ongoing Westinghouse programme
of reactor construction in South Korea has demonstrated impressive
cost savings by constructing a series of reactor units.
Series Build Brings Successive Cost Reductions[323]
Similar excellent experience has been demonstrated
by AECL, again in South Korea, as well as in Romania and China[324],
where plants have been delivered to budget and either on schedule
or—in some cases—up to four months early.
Analysis has been carried out[325]
on the first two decades of the French nuclear build programme,
which is based on a number of series of plants:
| 34 similar 900 MW plants
20 similar 1,300 MW plants
4 identical N4 plants
|
This concluded that optimum improvements from series construction
were essentially reached after a series of 10 plants (with a series
of 10 identical plants delivering average capital cost savings
of 35% to 55% relative to the costs of a single "first of
a kind" plant).
International experience confirms confidence in ability to deliver
The evidence from other countries where nuclear is being
pursued (in particular Finland and France) provides strong evidence
that those nations have confidence in the ability of nuclear projects
to be delivered promptly and to budget.
The Finnish model is particularly interesting. Finland has
committed to building a new plant and has adopted an approach
whereby risk is managed effectively. A consortium has been formed
of government, constructor, operator and customers who are able
to apportion risk proportionately, and are willing and able to
provide certainty on the sales of electricity. They have secured
positive involvement from Government, adopted an international
design and have public acceptance of the need for nuclear energy.
Finally they have made sure that there is a clear solution to
the question of waste management.
Insurance: UK nuclear power stations carry both material
damage and liability insurance. This cover is in place for every
civil nuclear site in the UK. There is a limit on the amount of
insurance that operators are required to have which is currently
£140 million as set in the Nuclear Installations Act, which
is in turn based on the Paris convention to which most European
countries, including the UK, are signatories. There is also a
Vienna convention which covers countries outside Europe and has
a lower insurance limit. However moves are afoot to try to move
the treaties closer together (and both are moving the limits in
an upwards direction). Recent updates to the Paris convention
have changed the limit to
700 million and it is expected that this will be enshrined in
UK legislation around the end of 2006 or early 2007. The UK insurance
industry is confident that they can provide this cover on a commercial
basis.
Waste: As far as waste disposal costs are concerned, NIREX
has estimated costs of £0.64-0.83 million per m3 for high
level waste (HLW) (and approximately £0.04 million per m3
for intermediate level waste (ILW)).
The UK Government could set a waste disposal levy or fee
on the basis of nuclear power generated (MWh) and charge for this
at the time of such generation. Most countries tend to follow
this route (eg USA 0.8/MWh, Sweden 1/MWh, Japan 1/MWh and the
Czech Republic 2/MWh).
To determine this fee, the government could make assumptions
about the waste disposal cost, when the cost would be incurred,
and the return realised on levy monies between the date of receipt
and date of incurring the cost.
Security: The nuclear industry operates under very strict
security procedures and gives this the highest priority. Like
other industries, the nuclear industry has to pay for its own
security costs.
Is there the technical and physical capacity for renewables
to deliver the scale of generation required? If there is the capacity,
are any policy changes required to enable it to do so?
Renewable generation still represents a very small component
of the UK's generation mix, although the Renewables Obligation
envisages around 10% of renewable generation by 2010 and 15% by
2015. However in recent reports serious doubts have been expressed
as to whether these targets will be met. The House of Lords Science
and Technology Select Committee report on renewables[326]
noted in July 2004 that it had " . . . found almost
no one outside government who believed that the White Paper targets
[on renewables uptake by 2010] were likely to be achieved"
Renewables undoubtedly have the potential to contribute to
the provision of low-carbon electricity. However there are also
possible network problems which can be caused by having too high
a proportion of generation from intermittent sources. The British
Wind Energy Association itself says that these problems will start
to occur once wind is producing more than 10% of our electricity.
However of the renewable technologies only wind is currently in
a position to produce significant quantities of extra electricity.
What are the relative efficiencies of different generating
technologies? In particular, what contribution can micro-generation
(micro-CHP, micro-wind, PV) make, and how would it affect investment
in large-scale generating capacity?
It is almost impossible to compare efficiencies of the various
technologies. Do to the extremely different nature of the technologies
any attempt at comparison of efficiencies would be meaningless.
3. What is the attitude of financial institutions to investment
in different forms of generation?
What is the attitude of financial institutions to the risks
involved in nuclear new build and the scale of the investment
required? How does this compare with attitudes towards investment
in CCGT and renewables?
Many potential financiers or finance facilitators believe
new nuclear plants to be on a par with new gas fired power stations
in terms of potential returns. However because of the longer build
times for nuclear and the larger capital investment required parity
is probably not sufficient for most investors. In particular long
term pricing signals within the market, for instance by providing
long-term guarantees that there will be a cost attached to carbon
emissions, would provide the right climate to allow the investment
to take place. The lack of a level playing field (for example,
the fact that carbon free generation is only rewarded for some
generators and not others) is also a deterrent to investment.
How much Government financial support would be required to
facilitate private sector investment in nuclear new build? How
would such support be provided? How compatible is such support
with liberalised energy markets?
No government subsidies would be required to facilitate private
sector investment in nuclear new build. As stated above, because
of the longer build times for nuclear and the larger capital investment
required parity with returns from investment in gas fired plant
is probably not sufficient for most investors.
Under an appropriate market pricing regime, and with the
right arrangements for sharing risks and returns, a new generation
of nuclear plant in the UK could be financed through the private
sector. In this way, future nuclear build could avoid some of
the pitfalls which have characterised major infrastructure projects
in the past, including some previous nuclear plants. Private sector
disciplines of project management and financial control will help
to ensure focused and timely delivery.
A key factor in the effective delivery of nuclear plant will
be the development, by Government, regulators and the industry,
of the current licensing and approvals processes to ensure timely
and predictable delivery of all regulatory clearances and planning
consents. A clear policy for the long-term management of radioactive
waste would also greatly assist in improving investor confidence
by removing a degree of liability risk at the end of a station's
life.
What impact would a major programme of investment in nuclear
have on investment in renewables and energy efficiency?
Measures to facilitate nuclear new build by market recognition
of the value of carbon free generation should also benefit the
development of renewables, since they would be equal beneficiaries
of the market changes. Nuclear new build should also have no direct
adverse impact on renewables as these would presumably continue
to be separately incentivised through existing measures such as
renewable obligation certificates given that investment decisions
have already been taken based on their existence. Investing in
new nuclear capacity to ensure adequate low carbon generating
capacity should have no impact on measures to improve demand side
energy efficiency.
C. STRATEGIC BENEFITS
4. If nuclear new build requires Government financial
support, on what basis would such support be justified? What
public good(s) would it deliver?
Direct Government subsidies are not required to facilitate
private sector investment in nuclear new build. However, appropriate
market mechanisms that recognise nuclear energy's contribution
to security and diversity of supply and reducing carbon emissions
will be needed to stimulate investment in new nuclear generation,
and to address the lack of long-term pricing signals in the UK
market and the perception of risk among investment institutions.
Nuclear power delivers CO2 free generation, security
of supply and price stability.
To what extent and over what timeframe would nuclear new build
reduce carbon emissions?
A new 1GWe nuclear power station would, if displacing coal-fired
generation, reduce emissions by around 7.5 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide every year. If it displaced gas-fired generation, it would
reduce emissions by more than 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
each year. It would be expected to offer these reduced emissions
as soon as it reached full output and through its entire operating
life. The carbon emissions associated with the construction of
a nuclear station are "recovered" after just six months
of operation.
For example if a new build programme were to replace the
one fifth of electricity currently supplied by nuclear power stations,
then around 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year would
not be released into the earth's atmosphere (assuming that it
would be displacing pipeline supplied gas fired generation). If
it were displacing liquefied natural gas [LNG] then the emissions
would be closer to the 75 million tonnes that coal would emit,
because of the processing and transport emissions from LNG.
To put the scale of the challenge into context—the
UK has a target of cutting carbon dioxide levels to 20% below
1990 levels by 2010. Yet—with just six years to go, in 2004
the reduction in emissions had only reached 4.2%, so more than
three quarters of the savings still need to be made.
To what extent would nuclear new build contribute to security
of supply (ie keeping the lights on)?
Nuclear is a reliable baseload supplier with 80-90% load
factors. It holds several years' fuel supply at any one time and
the raw material for the fuel is readily available from stable
countries. It also adds to the diversity of supply which gives
increased reliability in itself. This was set out in detail in
the first answer above.
Is nuclear new build compatible with the Government's aims
on security and terrorism both within the UK and worldwide?
New nuclear build would certainly be compatible with the
Government's aims on security and terrorism. The security of nuclear
materials, nuclear licensed sites, sensitive nuclear information
and those working in the industry is overseen by the government's
security regulator, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. The
office's work is overseen by Ministers who are satisfied that
these facilities are sufficiently secure.
Modern nuclear power stations have large heavily reinforced
containments which have been tested against the severest of impacts.
They also have a number of multilayered safety systems which would
require multiple damage before any danger of an off-site incident
could occur and even then only if the operators took no action.
In addition, all nuclear facilities have well tested emergency
arrangements in place which include the possibility of instant
shutdown in the event of a serious terrorist threat. They are
therefore well protected against terrorist attack.
5. In respect of these issues [Q 4], how does the nuclear
option compare with a major programme of investment in renewables,
microgeneration, and energy efficiency? How compatible are the
various options with each other and with the strategy set out
in the Energy White Paper?
In terms of subsidy, renewables are the only form of generation
that needs (and receives) government subsidy to exist in the current
market (although coal may need it in future to incentivise new
plant). Micro-generation and energy efficiency would also require
government incentives to ensure take up. In terms of carbon abatement,
renewables have a part to play in reducing carbon emissions, however
they are not currently expanding at the rate required to meet
government targets and so in order to meet the UK's climate change
commitments other forms of carbon abatement will be needed. Microgeneration
and energy efficiency could have an effect in reducing the increase
in electricity demand, but these measures will not cause demand
from the grid to fall and therefore measures will still be required
on the supply side to ensure sufficient capacity is available
to meet anticipated demand. Renewables help with security of supply
in that they are domestic and independent of a fuel supply from
overseas, but many are intermittent and require back-up conventional
generation.
The Government's 2003 Energy White Paper placed the environment
at the heart of energy policy with an emphasis on the development
of renewable energy sources and improvements in energy efficiency
as key routes towards the achievement of deep cuts in carbon emissions
of 60% by 2050 to mitigate the impact of global climate change.
The White Paper also signalled the Government's intention to keep
the nuclear option open in recognition of nuclear energy's contribution
to energy diversity and reducing carbon emissions. Investment
in new nuclear stations is therefore entirely compatible with
the strategy set out in the Energy White Paper.
D. OTHER ISSUES
6. How carbon-free is nuclear energy? What level of carbon
emissions would be associated with (a) construction and (b) operation
of a new nuclear power station? How carbon-intensive is the mining
and processing of uranium ore?
In 1999 the DTI commissioned ETSU to investigate this for
all forms of generation in order that the full life cycle carbon
costs (which include construction, operation, fuel supply and
decommissioning) be calculated. Their results were:
1 kWh of electricity generation produces:
| Nuclear | 4g CO2
|
| Wind | 8g CO2 |
| Large-scale hydro | 8g CO2
|
| Small-scale hydro | 9g CO2
|
| Energy crops | 17g CO2
|
| Geothermal | 79g CO2
|
| Solar | 133g CO2
|
| Gas | 430g CO2 |
| Diesel | 772g CO2
|
| Oil | 818g CO2 |
| Coal | 955g CO2 |
| |
It should also be noted that the figures for gas plants are
for plant operated on North Sea pipeline supplied gas. If the
gas is sourced further away then the performance will be slightly
lower. However if gas plants are operated on liquefied natural
gas then their performance is as bad as the best of the coal plants
because of the processing and transport emissions from LNG.
7. Should nuclear new build be conditional on the development
of scientifically and publicly acceptable solutions to the problems
of managing nuclear waste, as recommended in 2000 by the RCEP?
The issue of finding a solution to nuclear waste is essentially
a political one rather than a technical one. Countries such as
Finland, Sweden and the US are putting in place technical solutions
for the disposal of waste, and in doing so have addressed the
essential issue of public acceptance. Likewise, ways to provide
surety on the financial provisions for waste management and decommissioning
have been successfully established elsewhere in the world.
More recently produced wastes are dealt with safely and effectively
as they are produced, and the same will be true of any wastes
from future nuclear stations. The UK, through the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority, is now addressing as its highest priority the management
of those legacy wastes from the early days of nuclear experimentation
and development. The historic legacy has to be dealt with, whether
or not we have new generation nuclear build. Wastes associated
with modern reactor designs are much smaller in volume, and are
already treated and prepared for long term storage. Therefore
UK historic liability provisions are not an indicator of waste
management and decommissioning volumes and costs for new generation
nuclear build. Furthermore, any solution put in place for dealing
with legacy wastes could readily accommodate the wastes from a
new generation of nuclear plants.
Therefore the actual implementation of a waste solution should
not be a prerequisite for new nuclear build. However the government
should ensure that the process that it has put in train delivers
a publicly and technically acceptable resolution.
September 2005
310
"Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2004", eg Section 5.1.11;
DTI; July 2004. Back
311
JESS Report; DTI/Ofgem; November 2004. Back
312
Parliamentary Answer from Mike O'Brien; Hansard-Column 650W;
19 October 2004. Back
313
Second JESS Report; DTI/Ofgem; February 2003. Back
314
"Statistical Review of World Energy"; BP; 2004. Back
315
IAEA Power Reactor Information System Database-PRIS; April 2005
[215 of the world's 441 operational reactors are PWRs, compared
with 90 BWRs and smaller numbers of other systems. The world's
PWRs account for 206GW of installed capacity, out of a total of
367GW.] Back
316
"The Future of Nuclear Power"; MIT; 2003. Back
317
"The Economics of Nuclear Power"; Performance
and Innovation Unit Energy Review Working Paper; 2002. Back
318
"The Economic Future of Nuclear Power"; University
of Chicago; 2004 Back
319
"The Cost of Generating Electricity"; Royal
Academy of Engineering; 2004. Back
320
"Reference Costs for Power Generation"; French
Ministry of Economy, Finance & Industry; 2003 Back
321
"Competitiveness Comparison of the Electricity Production
Alternatives"; Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Finland; 2003. Back
322
"Projected Costs of Generating Electricity"; OECD/NEA/IEA;
2005 Back
323
"BNFL/Westinghouse AP1000-The Reactor Technology Ready
Now"; BNFL submission to DTI Energy Policy Consultation;
September 2002. Back
324
Presentation by AECL to Nuclear All Party Parliamentary Group;
February 2005; Back
325
"The Series Effect: Impact on Capital Cost of the Standardisation
of PWR Plants"; AEE/IAEE 15th Annual Conference, Tours, France;
May 1992. Back
326
"Renewable Energy: Practicalities"; Fourth
Report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee;
July 2004. Back
| 
