Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence

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.


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.


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.


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.


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:
Nuclear4g CO2
Wind8g CO2
Large-scale hydro8g CO2
Small-scale hydro9g CO2
Energy crops17g CO2
Geothermal79g CO2
Solar133g CO2
Gas430g CO2
Diesel772g CO2
Oil818g CO2
Coal955g 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

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 16 April 2006