Content uploaded by Holger Rogner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Holger Rogner on Dec 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
19th World Energy Congress
Sydney, Australia, 5-9 September 2004
NUCLEAR POWER AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ROGNER, H-HOLGER
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria
Abstract
A central goal of sustainable development is to maintain or increase the overall assets (natural, man-
made, human and social) available to future generations, while minimizing depletion of finite resources
and not exceeding the carrying capacities of ecosystems. Carrying capacities are, one way or another,
stressed by material extracted from ecosystems, diverted within ecosystems or put into ecosystems. As
there exists no absolute yardstick for sustainable energy development andthere is no technology without
risk or wastes, nuclear'scompatibility with sustainable development cannot be judged in isolation but only
in comparison with alternatives. Moreover, comparisons must not be based only on past or current
technology performance but require a forward looking approach taking into account ongoing RD&D and
innovation. Based on the concept of 'weak sustainability' and by applying seven criteria for sustainable
development, the paper will argue that thefurther development of nuclear power broadens the natural
resource base for meeting growing global energy needs, increases technological and human capital, and,
when safely handled, haslittle impact on human health and ecosystems along thefull nuclear source-to-
service energy chain.
The choice of technologies to advance sustainable energy development in any given country is a
sovereign choice, and each country will need a mix of technologies suited to its situation and needs. The
essence of the Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development is the importance of expanding
possibilities and keeping options open - not foreclosing them for future generations. In line with the
Agenda 21 principle of differentiated responsibilities among countries, those countries who are able and
willing have a particularly important role to play in keeping the nuclear option open, preserving nuclear
knowledge, supporting RD&D in advanced reactor and fuel cycle designs, and increasing the world’s
technological and human capital.
2
LE NUCLÉAIRE ET LE DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE
ROGNER, H-HOLGER
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria
Résumé
Une cible importante du développement durable est de conserver, maintenir ou même faire croître la
totalité des ressources (naturelles, synthétiques et sociales) disponibles aux générations futures, tout en
minimisant l'épuisement des ressources finies, et sans dépasser les contenances des écosystèmes. Ces
contenances sont, d'une façon ou d'une autre, stressées par l'enlèvement des matériaux de
l'écosystème, leur détournement ou leur introduction dansle système. Puisqu'il n'existe ni un mesure
absolu du développement durable énergétique, ni une technologie sansrisques ou sans déchets, la
compatibilité du nucléaire avec le développement durable ne peut être jugée que par comparaison avec
ses alternatives. D'ailleurs, telles comparaisons ne doivent pas être basées seulement sur la
performance technologique historique et actuelle, mais doivent prendre aussi des perspectives d'avenir a
long terme, tenant compte des efforts suivis de recherche, développement et innovation. Basé sur le
concept d'un 'durabilité faible' et appliquant sept critères de développement durable, cet article affirmera
que le développement poursuivi du nucléaire élargit la base de ressources naturelles nécessairespour
satisfaire la demande mondiale croissante pour les services énergétiques, augmente les ressources de
capital humain et technologique, et, si bien mené, a peu d'effets tout le long de la chaîne 'source-a-
service' nucléaire, sur la santé et sur l'environnement.
Le choix de technologies pour avancer le développement durable énergétique est un choix souverain de
chaque pays, et chaque pays aurait besoin d'une suite de technologies assez large et bien taillée aux
conditions et besoins nationaux. L'essentielle de la définition du développement durable trouve dans le
Rapport Bruntland est l'importance attribuée à l'augmentation des possibilités sans exclure
irrévocablement aucune option aux générations futures. Conforme a l'Agenda 21 qui pose comme
principe des responsabilités différenciées pour les pays différents, ceux qui peuvent et qui veulent
joueront un rôle important en assurant que l'option nucléaire reste disponible, préservant la connaissance
nucléaire, soutenant les recherches, le développement et la démonstration des conceptionsavancées
des réacteurs et du cycle nucléaire, et faisant croître la totalité de capital technologique et humain
mondial.
3
NUCLEAR POWER AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
LE NUCLÉAIRE ET LE DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE
ROGNER, H-HOLGER
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
At first glance, it might appear that most national and international conferences and meetings on
sustainable development issues ignore nuclear power asa technology that already contributes, and has
the potential to contributemuch more, to meeting sustainable energy development objectives. A closer
look reveals that the absence of nuclear discussions is the result of a fiercely negotiated temporary truce
between the promoters of nuclear power and their adversaries. In particular, duringthe Ninth Session of
the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-9) held in April 2001–the first CSD session to focus
on energy –an exhaustive debate took place and produced two key outcomes. The first was that parties
“agreed to disagree”. The negotiated text states that some countries view nuclear as an important
contributor to sustainable development, and lists the reasons why, and that some countries think nuclear
power is incompatible with sustainable development, and again lists the reasons why. Second, there was
unanimous agreement that “the choice of nuclear energy rests with countries.” During the preparatory
meetings to the 2002World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South
Africa, these decisionswere reconfirmed and reinforced. At the same time, it was also agreed to avoid
another debate on nuclear power at WSSD that would likely absorb a lot of time, energy and goodwill
without producing a newoutcome.
Some international andintergovernmental institutions working on sustainable development effectively limit
their definition of sustainable energy development to energy efficiency improvements throughout the
energy system, increased use of renewables (except large hydro plants) and the dematerialization of the
production and consumption process. Nuclear power has no place on theirlist of options. One of the
most egregious recent examples is the absence of any mention of nuclear energy in the WEHAB
Framework for Action on Energy prepared by several UN organizations and distributed at the WSSD.
Although neither negotiated nor approved by the WSSD, this document was subsequently advocated as a
guide for action towards sustainable energy development.
This paper attempts a more inclusive examination of the issues. It recognizes that nuclear power is not
necessarily essential to every country’s sustainable development strategy, nor sufficient by itself in
countries that choose nuclear power. But formany countries, thereis much it can contribute to
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs”.
2. Sustainable Development
2. Le développement durable
The definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland report1contains within it two key concepts.
First is the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which the
Brundtland definition gives overriding priority. Second is the concept of limitations, specifically the limited
1“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).
4
ability of the environment to meet present and future needs if it is too much burdened by our technology
and society. The definition recognizes the use of natural resources as essential for sustainable
development while emphasizing that sustainable development requires us to avoid undue reductions in
the environmental and natural resource assets available to future generations.
The concept known as “strong sustainability” acknowledges that some environmental losses may be
permanent, that fossil energy resources are finite and that the potential impacts of climate change may be
irreversible2. In its most stringent forms, it can imply a desire to halt both technological change and
evolution. It suggests there should be limits on our ability to use or degrade natural and environmental
resources, even at the risk of undermining socio-economic development. But this ignores the dynamically
changing nature of resources and life-styles3, which may well obviate over time the need or desire for
some of the limits suggested by strong sustainability.
Moreover, man-made assets may substitute for depleted natural resources. Man-made assets include,
for example, the world’s cultivated agricultural lands plus all its accumulated technological and human
capital, including the inexhaustible capability of human ingenuity to innovate. From this perspective, the
depletion of finite fossil resources can be offset by an expansion of overall man-made assets through the
development of inexhaustible energy infrastructures as well as a larger knowledge base. Similarly, land-
use change such as deforestation for agricultural purposes may be offset by improved agricultural
techniques and by reforestation. This concept of allowing substitution within and between classes of
assets is known as “weak sustainability”.
Many environmental pressure groups hold the view that efficiency improvements, harvesting renewable
energy sources and the dematerialization of the production and consumption process are the onlyviable
substitutes for fossilfuel use. Where weak sustainability cannot be accomplished by these measures,
they postulate life-style changes. Although acknowledged as a virtually zero-emission technology based
on a resource without competing uses, nuclear power for them is not considered a sustainable
technology. But this highly publicized view, which has prevailed in the context of international climate
change discussions under the aegis of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol debates, is not the only viable view.
India, China, Japan and Russia, in particular have stressed the role of nuclear power in their strategies for
sustainable development. New NPPs aremost attractive where energy demand growth is rapid,
alternative resources are scarce, energy supply security is a priority, domestic nuclear power enables the
export of premium-priced oil and gas, nuclear power is important for reducing air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions. One or more of these factors characterizes all the countrieslisted above.
The following sections address the fundamental question of the compatibility of nuclear power with
sustainable development. It is important to note that there is no energy source or energy conversion
technology thatis without environmental impacts, that isabsolutely safe, secure, affordable and reliable,
and that at the same time maximizes socioeconomic efficiency. Somewhere along all energy chains –
from resource extractionto the provision of energy services –pollutants are produced, emitted or
disposed of –often with severe health and environmental impacts. Even if a technology doesnot emit
harmful substances at the point of use, emissions, wastes, adverse environmentalimpacts and
consumption of exhaustible resources may be associated with its construction, manufacture or fuel
production. An assessment of the nuclear power optionmust incorporate all its own risks and benefits
and all the risks and benefits of its alternatives. Just as nuclear power has its advantages and
disadvantages, so do other electricity generating options. Fossil fuels can cause significant damage
locally, regionally and globally. Hydroelectricity, while relatively kind to the atmosphere, can be much less
considerate to the earth and its inhabitants both locally and regionally. Renewables are not without their
impacts, although they aremore local in nature. Non-environmental factorsto consider include
economics including affordability and prices that cover costs, reliability of supply and supply security.
2Strong sustainability demands passing on to the next generation at least the same levels of clean air and water, as
well as similar climate conditions, habitats for species and energy resources enjoyed by the current generation. In
essence, depleting a finite resource is not permitted.
3Resources are recognized as valuable assets only when they are in demand. Demand for resources implies the
availability or development of technologies to exploit and use them to produce socio-economically valuable goods
and services. Resources therefore are dynamically changing as a result of desired life-styles and available
technology.
5
Moreover, the performance profile of a particular technology varies from location to location and from
application to application. What is sustainable given one set of circumstances may well be inappropriate
under another. Therefore, the question of which technologies are sustainable cannot be resolved in
general terms but must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.
3. Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development
3. Le nucléaire et le développement durable
To be consistent with the definition of sustainable development of the Brundtland report, a sustainable
energy system and its technologies would have to comply with thefollowing six compatibility criteria4:
Environmental compatibility;
Economic compatibility;
Intergenerational compatibility;
Demand compatibility;
Sociopolitical compatibility; and
Geopolitical compatibility.
It is recognized that each of these criteria has its limits and, for decision making, a balance between them
must be struck. Without a detailed and comprehensive analysis that compares all options for supplying
electricity services (including end-use efficiency improvements) on a life cycle basis without prejudice and
with respect to the above six criteria, it would be imprudent to jump to the conclusion that nuclear power is
an unsuitable option for sustainable development. Similarly it would be imprudent to ignore public
concerns about the operating safety of nuclear power, waste disposal or proliferation, regardless of
whether they are perceived or real. All concernsand all criteria will need to be addressed if nuclear
power is to stand a real chance of helping to meet rising electricity demand, to mitigate GHG emissions
and to further sustainable development.
3.1 Economic Compatibility
3.1 Compatibilité économique
A technology thatcannot compete against alternativeson a full cost basis is not sustainable –no matter
how environmentally benign. Competitive performance, however, is more than just lower generating
costs. A host of additional factors are most comprehensively encapsulated by the other five criteria for
sustainable energy development. Although some factors are less difficult to express in absolute
economic terms (e.g., the economic value of degraded public health) than others (e.g., the economic
value of reliablesupplies or lackof public acceptance), their quantificationsare fraught with uncertainty,
vary greatly from location tolocation and cannot be generalized. Still, these factors often tilt the balance
in favor or disfavor of a particular technology.
From a public policy perspective, a particular set of costs termed “external costs” is of importance. These
are costs that are imposed by producers and consumers on third parties and that are not reflected, asare
direct (“internal”) input costs, in the market price of the end product. By definition they are external to
standard private sector cost accounting schemes. They are necessarily paid for, not as a cost of doing
business, but by society. Common examples include the health impacts, building and crop damage
caused by air pollution from electricity generation and from automobile traffic or the impacts of global
climate change. One should note that externalities not only encompass costs but also benefits to third
parties. For example, positive externalities could be the added recreational values caused by the
construction of a hydropower reservoirs or shorter commuting times if the top of the dam is used asa
highway.
4Usually the sustainable development debate refers to economic development, social progress, and environmental
protection as the three interlinked pillars of sustainable development.
6
As regards the economic compatibility of nuclear power, one hasto distinguish between the economics of
existing plants and new plants as well as between “internal” and “external” costs.
Existing nuclear power plants generally are among the lowest cost electricity generators. Most plants are
older than 15 years, have been depreciated and their capital charges are practically zero. Moreover,
deregulation and privatization have forced nuclear operatorsto shift from a cost plusmentality to adopt
stringent cost improvementsmeasures without compromising operating safety. During the 1990s and the
initial years of the 21st century, the streamlining of operations and improved management practices have
increased (a) the availability factor of nuclear plants equivalent to 30 GW of new capacity worldwide,
essentially at zero or minimal costs and (b) resulted in significant reductions in operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs5. Operating costs have fallen by as much as 40% (Whitfield, 1997), while high
burn-ups have lowered fuel costs.
Lifetime extension of existing nuclear power station has become one of the least-cost electricity supply
options in many countries with nuclear power plants. In addition to the continued operation of low-costs
plants, the maintenance and safety update investments that usually precede license renewal often result
in capacity upgrades of up to 20% of the original nameplate capacity which further improves the
attractiveness of lifetime extension due to lower generating costs.
New Nuclear Plants. Unlike undermarket regulation and protection, new nuclear power plants operating
in liberalized markets must compete from day one with other fuels and generating technologies: natural
gas, coal, oil, hydro, and renewables.
Internal costs considerations include not only absolute levels of generating costs but also cost structure,
i.e., fixed costs (essentially capital charges), variable or operating costs that change with output levels,
and fuel costs. Fossil fuel plants tend to have lower construction costs, the potential for low operating
costs, but with a potentially significant share of fuel costs. By contrast nuclear power has low fuel costs,
the potential oflow operating costsbut higher capital costs (heavier debt, higher accumulated interest
during construction, highercommercial and non-completion risks), and perceived or potential open-ended
liabilities associated with plant decommissioning, waste disposal, and safety upgrades. Risk is a
significant internal cost component. For example, commercial and financial risks increase with
investment volume or thelength of time before plantconstruction is completed and the plant is earning
revenue.
In general, new nuclear power plants face difficulties to compete in deregulated market because of (1) the
availability of low capital costs gas combined cycle turbines and, at least until recently, very favorable
fossil fuel prices, (2) the shorter investment horizons of private investors demanding returns on
investments competitive with alternatives, (3) the economic risksassociated with both the high unit and
large total capital investments of a nuclear power plant; and (4) the uncertainty of being able to recover
investments due to socio-political factors.
Although the proportion of capital, O&M and fuel costs differsfor coal, oil, gas, nuclear and wind plants,
the ranges of electricity generation costs per kWh for all five types of plants overlap indicating they are
roughly comparable without a clear winner. A detailed study on projected costsof generating electricity
(OECD, 1998) confirms that there is no unique technology that is optimal in all countries analyzed.
Country or region specific circumstances such as domestic resource endowment, site selection, labor
costs, fuel transport distances, taxes,interest rates, energy policy, environmental regulation, etc. affect
plant construction, O&M and fuel costs for each type of plant and ultimately determine the least-cost
option.
For example, highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines are an obvious and low cost generating choice
where reasonably priced gas is available, but where a natural gas infrastructure does not exist, these
plants are no option at all. Moreover, the generating costs are all subject to different sensitivities.
Because of high capital costs and long lead times, nuclear power costs are highly sensitive to interest
5In 2002 for example, the most recent year for which we have final data, nuclear power plants had the lowest
electricity production costs in the USA at 1.71 c/kWh for fuel, operation and maintenance. This includes 0.45cfuel
cost, of which about 0.1 cent would be the ex-mine uranium before manufacture into fuel. Reactor capacity factors
reached an average of 91.5%. Coal came in at 1.85 c/kWh (1.36c of this for fuel), and gas was 4.06 c/kWh (3.44c of
this being fuel) (NEI, 2003).
7
rates. Coal plant capital costs vary greatly with the pollution abatement schemes required. Gas
generation costs are highly sensitive to gas prices, which are a relatively high proportion of total costs.
The impact on generating costs of a doubling in fuel pricesis marginal for nuclear, costs increase by less
than 8 percent while natural gas generation faces a hike of 50 to 60 percent or more. Having nuclear
power in a utility’s generating mix hedges against fuel price and exchange rate volatility.
All these were certainly considerations –hedging against fuel price volatility, concerns about supply
security and prospective constraints on greenhouse gas emissions –together with straightforward
comparative economics (see Figure I), in Finland’s 2003 decision to build a fifth nuclear reactor. Public
and political support for the decision, however, in addition to the reasons above could be obtained due to
the fact that there is consensus in the country for a final high-level waste repository to be located close to
the new power plant.
Figure I: Electricity Generation Costs in Finland (April 2001 prices, 5% real discount rate and 8000h
annual operationexcept wind. Source: TVO, Finland.
Diagramme I: Coûts de production d’électricité en Finlande (prix d’Avril 2001, taux d’escompte réel et 8000h
de fonctionnement sauf pour l’éolienne). Référence: TVO, Finlande, 2003.
Moreover, technological progress and changes in environmental protection and safety regulations
continue to affect the relative economics of nuclear and non-nuclear power generation. The competitive
edge of nuclear power can be eroded by continued high capital costs due to technological stagnation,
relatively low long-term fossil fuel prices, improved efficiencies in coal and natural gas conversion
technologies and better performance of renewable technologies. Innovation, therefore,is vital for the
economic compatibility of nuclear power. Evolutionary innovation has already improved many aspects of
nuclear power performance –operating safety, lower radiation exposure, reduced waste volumes, shorter
refueling intervals, etc. But more is needed. Based on existing designs, specific cost improvements are
usually the result larger unit sizes with higher total capital costs –potentially an impediment in liberalized
markets.
Innovative designsdirected toward smaller units, i.e., less than 300 MW, with shorter construction times
and lower capital costs are under study in many countries. The intent is to produce a design that will be
economical with enhanced safety and proliferation-resistant features. On-site construction with factory
built structures and components, including complete modular units for fast installation are some of the
intended features of these reactors. It is also hoped that these will be easier to finance and suitable for
deployment even in regions with modest electricity grids.
13.84
7.85 5.52 10.51 13.66
40.49
3.56
2.21
1.17
3.27
5.11
2.86 16.41 25.08 15.49
17.70
3.71
5.35 0.33 3.37
3.37
10.09
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Elspot Price
2000 Finland Elspot Price
2001 Finland Nuclear Coal Gas Peat Wood Wind 2200h/a
Euros/MWh
Variable O&M costs
Fuel costs
Fixed O&M costs
Capital cos ts
Spot prices
14.88
22.83
50.58
31.82
23.97
32.10 32.64
39.84
8
External Costs. Environmental policy and regulation may also affect the relative economics of different
generation options. Compliance with more stringent environmental protectionmeasures, including
atmospheric emission limits, may increase the costs of fossil fueled power plants. The cost of nuclear
power is not affected by such measures but might rise due to more severe safety and radiation protection
standards. Environmental policy and regulation inherently internalize externalities. In the short run, this
may well imply higher prices. Although affordable energy supplies are essential for sustainable
development, the pricescharged must reflect their true cost to society, i.e., including externalities.
Nuclear power costs have already internalized most of its externalities such as the costs of safety,
radiation protection, waste disposal or decommissioning. The full application of the polluter pays
principle, especially if applied to GHG emissions, to all energy supply alternatives would thereforefurther
improve the economic competitiveness of nuclear power.
The economics of nuclear power improve drastically if external costs are included in the electricity sales
price. Research of the European Commission on external costs of electricity generation, reported most
recently in a new report entitled “External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due
to electricity and transport” (EC, 2003) shows nuclear power being among the lowest external cost
technologies. Put differently, nuclear power has already internalized most of its externalities (see
Figure II). The majority of the costs shown in Figure II are attributed to chronic health effects from air
pollution. One should note that all the externalities in Figure II reflect the environmental performance
range of existing technologies in Europe and as such are not necessarily representative for the
technologies coming online in the early decades of the 21st century. The environmental performance
tends to improve with eachinvestment cycle –a result of autonomous innovation and technology learning
or enforced by government regulation.
Figure II: External Cost Figures for Electricity Generation in the European Union for Existing
Technologies. Source: EC, 2003.
Diagramme II: Coûts externes de la production d’électricité par les technologies actuelles dans l’Union
Européenne. Référence: EC, 2003.
Governments usually impose internalization by enforcing performance standards. It is because of the
tight standards imposed by nuclear regulatory authorities for the entire nuclear fuel chain that its
externalities are among the lowest of all electricity generating options.
A carbon tax as discussed in the context of mitigating climate change would seriously and intentionally
affect the cost of fossil fuel use. Carbon taxes sufficiently high to affect GHG emissions would result in
significant shifts from fossil-fueled power generation, with nuclear power and renewables clearly in a
position to benefit from this shift.
Figure III (left side) demonstrates the effect of a tax on carbon emissions. The generating costs data for
the nuclear, coal and natural gas prices are average values derived from several costs studies (OECD,
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Coal
Peat
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Biomass
Hydro
PV
Wind
€Cents per kWh
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Coal
Peat
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Biomass
Hydro
PV
Wind
€Cents per kWh
9
1998; IPCC, 2001) and updated to reflect the prevailingfuel prices of early 20026. In this generic
example, a carbon tax of $10 to $20 per tonne of carbon emitted would make the costs of nuclear power
competitive with coal inmany locations. A tax of $50 per tonne would make nuclear power the least-cost
generating option. Whether economiescan withstand taxes ashigh as 50$ per tonne, whether they
indeed bring about efficient internalization, and whether governments are willing to impose additional
taxes on their industrial sectors, are separate issues. As Figure III (left side) shows, a carbon tax, if
sufficiently high, would have a serious impact on the relative costs of nuclear and fossil-fueled generation
technologies.
The right side of Figure III shows the projected generating costs in France for plants beginning operation
in 20157(MEFI, 2004). Here nuclear is already the lowest cost producer and carbon taxes, an almost
sure thing given the European Union directives, simply improve the competitiveness of nuclear power.
Two hypothetical carbon taxes were applied: (a) a low tax of €4 per tonne of CO
2(or €15 per tonne of
carbon) and (b) a high tax of €20 per tonne of CO
2(or €75 per tonne of carbon). A carbon tax of €4 per
tonne of CO2by 2015 isprobably on thevery low side –if there is a meaningful mechanism in place for
curbing greenhouse gas emissions drastically.
Figure III: (a) The impact of carbon taxes on the relative competitiveness of different electricity
generating options (left side); (b) Generating costs projected for France in 2015 with and
without carbon taxes. Source: MEFI, 2004).
Diagramme III: (a) L’effet d’une taxe sur le charbon sur la compétitivité de diverses technologies pour la
production d’électricité (à gauche); (b) Prévision des coûts de production d’électricité en
France en 2015 avec et sans une taxe sur le charbon. Référence:MEFI, 2004.
3.2 Environmental Compatibility
3.2 Compatibilité écologique
Figure IV shows the IAEA’s estimates of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from thecomplete
electricity generationchains for lignite, coal, oil, naturalgas, solar photovoltaics, hydroelectricity, biomass,
wind and nuclear power (Spadaro et.al, 2000). The results include all six Kyoto GHG’s and are converted
to “grams carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour” (gC
eq/kWh) using the global warming potentials of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For nuclear power, it is important that we look at
complete electricity chains and all GHGs. Some anti-nuclear lobbyists, while agreeing that nuclear
electricity generation produces virtually no GHG emissions at the point of generation, have contended
that the balance of the nuclear electricity chain produces emissions comparable to those from fossil fuels.
Figure IV refutes that claim. GHG emissions at the point of electricity generation are shown in the dark
bar segments. Shown in the light bar segments are emissions from all other stages of the electricity
chain, i.e., fuel mining, preparation, and transport; plant construction and decommissioning; the
manufacture of equipment; and (in the case of some renewables like hydroelectricity) the decay of
organic matter. Nuclear power, wind, biomass, and hydroelectricity have thelowest full-chain emissions.
6Real discount rate of 10 percent, interest during construction, decommissioning costs and taxes included
7Real discount rate of 8 percent, base load operation, costs include interest during construction.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Nuclear Coal Natural gas
$/MWh
Base generating costs Carbon tax $10/tC
Carbon tax $20/tC Carbon tax $50/tC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Nuclear Gas Coal
/MWh
Investment costs O&M Fuel
Taxes Carbon tax €4/tCO2 Carbon tax €20/tCO2
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Nuclear Coal Natural gas
$/MWh
Base generating costs Carbon tax $10/tC
Carbon tax $20/tC Carbon tax $50/tC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Nuclear Gas Coal
/MWh
Investment costs O&M Fuel
Taxes Carbon tax €4/tCO2 Carbon tax €20/tCO2
€
10
Figure IV: Full energy chain GHG emissions (in grams of carbon equivalent per kWh) for different
electricity generating options. Ranges are from 1990s technology to advanced technology
(2005-2020). Source: Spadaro et al., 2000.
Diagramme IV: Emissions des gaz à effet de serre (grammes de charbon/kWh) sortant des diverses
technologies pour la production d’électricité. La gamme s’étend des technologies des
années 90s aux conceptions technologiques avancées (2005-2020). Référence: Spadaro et
al, 2000.
90
99
157
121
195
215
181
216
278
217
247
359
16
21
31
28
24
31
25
48
79
11
14
7
9.8
8.4
13.1
16.6
37.3
64.6
76.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
low
high
NUCLEAR
Coast (30% capacity, UK)
Coast (35% capacity, Belgium)
Inland (10% capacity, Belgium)
Inland (<10% capacity, Swiss)
25% cap.; heavyfoundation, Japan
WIND
low
high
BIOMASS
Run-off river or reservoir (Swiss)
Reservoir (Canada)
Reservoir (highvalue, Germany)
Reservoir (theoretical Brazil)
HYDROELECTRIC
2005-20 Technology
1990s Technology (high)
1990s Technology (low)
SOLAR PV
2005-20 Technology
1990s Technology (high)
1990s Technology (low)
NATURAL GAS
2005-20 Technology
1990s Technology (high)
1990s Technology (low)
OIL
2005-20 Technology
1990s Technology (high)
1990s Technology (low)
COAL
2005-20 Technology
1990s Technology (high)
1990s Technology (low)
LIGNITE
gCeq/kWh
2.5
2.5
7.6
2.5
5.7
8.2
1.1
4.4
6.3
Stack emissions
Other chain emissions
11
Nuclear’s current 16 percent contribution to the world’s electricity supply avoids the emission of more than
0.6 giga tonnes of carbon (or 2,300 million tonnes of CO2annually). Indeed, if the electricity of the 441
nuclear reactors (362 GWe) which exist in the world today were to be replaced by the average fossil
generating mix, global energy-related carbon emissions released to the atmosphere would increase by 8-
9 percent instantly.
In addition, nuclear power generatesvirtually no such pollutants as particulates, SO2and NOxresponsible
for local and regional environmental degradation. As a result, the greenhouse and air pollution impacts of
nuclear power are comparable with renewables and significantly lower than those from fossil-sourced
electricity generation (see Figure V).
Due principally to the lowfuel requirements of nuclear power there are limited environmental impactsfor
the full energy chainfrom mining to waste disposal and decommissioning. A significant environmental
impact arises only from potential abnormal events, the probability of which is negligibly small in modern
nuclear power plants.
Fuel Production. Like mining operationsin general, uranium mining has been a source of environmental
concern, particularly because mining and milling result in wastes and because it releases naturally
occurring radioactive by-products, such as radon and radium, from the uranium ore. The waste rock from
uranium mining may contain trace quantities of nickel, arsenic, pyrite and chalcopyrite which may oxidize
under weathering to form acids. Waste rock disposal may therefore require some control.
Figure V: Comparison of greenhouse gas and air pollution impacts for electricity generation from coal,
natural gas, biomass, nuclear, and wind. Source: EC, 2003.
Diagramme V: Comparaison des effets des emissions polluantes et des gaz a l’effet de serre sortant de la
production d’électricité par le charbon, le gaz, biomasse, nucléaire etéolienne. Référence:
EC, 2003.
Continuous improvements in uranium mining practices, especially post-operation, have already improved
safety and reduced potential environmental impacts significantly. The most significant contaminant from
uranium mining is radium - a natural decay product from uranium. Radium is removedfrom wastewater
by co-precipitation with barium. Historically, waste rock has been disposed of by surface piling as
backfilling of mine openings or as construction material. Now waste rock properties are analyzed prior to
operation and depending on the nature of the concentration and acid generating potential of minerals
present, different and appropriate disposal strategies are applied.
12
Mill tailings that result from concentrating uranium ore are a slurry of fine particles of ground rock and
neutralized chemical reagents. They are used for backfilling of mines or placed in impoundments to drain
and consolidate. Engineered barriers control groundwater flow in cases where the impoundment is part
of the mined-out open pit. These are eventually capped to control water infiltration and acid generation.
Radon releases from modern uranium mill tailings have become negligible.
Water used during mining and milling operations is recycled and reused as much as possible - ultimately
wastewater is produced containing traces of radioactive materials and other materials from the rock and
ore. This water is treated before release to the environment to maximum concentration levels as
specified by regulatory authorities which also monitor the discharge of water.
Modern uranium mining can be remarkably clean using the technique of in-situ leaching in which fortified
groundwater is used as a leaching solution that is continually recycled down injection wells, through the
uranium ore, up extraction wells, and through a processing plant to remove the dissolved uranium. There
is very little surface disturbance, low emissions and no tailings to bedisposed of. Eventual site
rehabilitation is relatively simple. For open-pit and underground mining and milling, non-radiation hazards
are no different from those found at other mines and mills. For radiation exposure, standards in countries
where most uranium is mined are based on recommended levels for radiation workers developed by the
International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP8). Radiation dose records compiled by
mining companies under the scrutiny of regulatory authoritieshave shown consistently that mining
company employees are not exposed to radiation doses in excess of the limits.
Waste Disposal. The final disposal of high-level radioactive waste is technically feasible but still needs to
be demonstrated convincingly to the public. That this has not been done is largely attributable to public
skepticism or opposition and lack of the necessary political support. Therefore high level wastes are
being stored above or below ground, awaiting policy decisions on their long-term disposal which will have
to materialize at some point. Modern radioactive waste disposal concepts rely on natural and engineered
barriers (often located in arid or semiarid climates), satisfy very high demands for safety and are vastly
preferable to the waysin which the wastes originating from fossil fuels and other chemical and
manufacturing sources are dealt with.
Levels of concern vary for low and high level radioactive waste. High-level waste (HLW) accounts for
some 5% of the volume and some 95% of the radioactivity in total radioactive wastes; the balance in
either case is made up bylow and medium level waste. Low-level waste (LLW) is comparable in
radioactivity to such common non-nuclear materials as coffee, coal, granite and marble, and many
mineral ores and waters. It includes primarily materials such as gloves and gowns used by radiologists in
hospitals, water filters, water treatment sludge, and contaminated tools and coveralls from nuclear power
plants, although some more highly radioactive materials such as cobalt and caesium radiotherapy
sources and reactor hardware may also be included. Except for the more radioactive components, which
are segregated for safety purposes, most low-level waste is disposed of in licensed facilities under the
control of a regulatory body (WEA, 2000).
Most concern focuses on the disposal of high-level nuclear waste, disposition and sensible use of
accumulated plutonium, and storage and disposal of spent fuel. A 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant
produces annually some 30 tonnes of high level radioactive spent fuel along with 800 tonnes of low and
intermediate level radioactive waste. Significant reductions in the volume of low level waste to be
managed can be made through compaction. In comparison, a 1,000 MWe coal fired power plant, in
addition to air borne emissions, generates annually some 300,000 tonnes of ash containing 200 to 400
tonnes of heavy metals - arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury, nickel and vanadium –from
combustion alone without considering energy chain activitiessuch as mining and transportation.
The high-level nuclear waste needs to be put into perspective with toxic and hazardous wastesfrom
alternative electricity generating chains and the industry at large (see Figure VI). For example, coal, in
addition to its radioactive releases from combustion, also discharges some 0.01 to 0.05 g/kWh of heavy
metals (arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury, nickel and vanadium) along with 30 to 60 g/kWh of ash.
The manufacture of solar photovoltaic cells generates toxic wastes of varying quantities depending on
technology, manufacturing process and PV conversion efficiency (IAEA,1997; Rogner, 2000).
8International Commission on Radiological Protection.
13
Although some radioactive materials are released to the environment during operation of a nuclear power
plant and other fuel cyclefacilities, the amounts are small and strictly limited to below any health
significance (andfar below non-regulated levels for non-nuclear operations) by regulations laid down by
international organizations(ICRP and IAEA). The quantity of such releases may be judged by thefact
that, in some cases, radioactivity released from a coal-fired plant exceeds that from the normal operation
of an equivalent nuclear plant. Coal, like most natural materials, contains natural radionuclides9that are
released during combustion. Most of the more than 4 tonnes of uranium, 9 tonnesof thorium and 0.1
tonne of potassium-40 contained in the coal burned annually in a 1,000 MWe coal fired plant10 end in the
fly ash and are disposed of “uncontrolled”. Although radiation exposure comparisons are difficult to
generalize, it is fair to say that electricity generation from coalmay result in radiation exposures to the
public that exceed those associated with the full nuclearfuel cycle chain11.
Figure VI: Waste volumes in fuel preparation and plant operation. Source: IAEA, 1997.
Diagramme VI: Volumes de déchets produits par la préparation des combustibles et pendant le
fonctionnement des centrales. Référence: AIEA, 1997.
3.3 Intergenerational Compatibility
3.3 Compatibilité entre les générations
Inter-generational equity concerns allege that today’s energy supply activities may severely limit the
energy options available to future generations and compromise the quality of the environment these will
inherit. Fossil resources are finite, and will, if current fossil fuel consumption practices continue, be not
available for use by future generations (in the very long run). Nuclear power can virtually de-couple itself
from the issue of resource depletion either by utilizing lowconcentration uranium occurrences, e.g., from
seawater, in once-though cycles or by reprocessing of spent fuel and the use of breeder reactors. Nuclear
9In coal there is an average of 2.08 parts per million (ppm) of uranium, 4.58 ppm of thorium and 0.054 ppm of
potassium-40.
10 Coal power plant with 40% thermal efficiency, load factor of 6,500 hours/year, average US bituminous coal.
11 The determination of the impact on human health of these radioactive material emissions is very complex and
depends on numerous factors including the concentration in the coal, combustion temperature, the portion of fly ash
in total ash, the efficiency of the emission control devices, the actual composition of radionuclides generated, their
half-life times, the location of the emission source, population density, etc.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Flue gas desulphurization
Ash
Gas sweetening
Radioactive
Toxic
Oil Nuclear Solar
PV
Natural
gas Wood
Coal
Million tonnes
per GWe yearly
14
power is a knowledge and infrastructure intensive technology,thus enhances the human capital and man-
made assets. Therefore, advanced nuclear power technologies and fuel cycles made available to future
generations would compensate for the consumptive use of non-renewable energy resources by current
generations. Environmental intrusion of nuclear power operation is negligible. As regards the nuclear
waste issue, as already mentioned, the quantities of long-lived isotopes potentially affecting inter-
generational equity are small and contained. These must be compared to, and weighted against, the
waste streams of alternative energy supply options (see Figure VI).
3.4 Demand Compatibility
3.4 Compatibilité de demande
Historically, industrialization has also been a process of urbanization, essentially driven by the diverse
economic opportunitiesoffered by the agglomeration of manufacturing, commerce and administration.
Large metropolitan areas require distinctly different energy supply structures than rural areas because of
the vastly higher energy demand densities ofmodern cities. Future energy supply structures, therefore,
are intimately related to the anticipated degree of urbanization, settlement patterns, work place
arrangements and transportation systems. While distributed power generation based on renewable
sources matches well the energy demand densities of sparsely or rural populated areas, central base
load generation withfirm supplies and high reliability such as nuclear power will remain necessary for
meeting high-density metropolitan electricity requirements.
At face value annual renewable energy flows are enormous compared to present and projected future
global energy requirements. However, their low energy supply density compounded by often low
conversion efficiencies drastically curbs their economic potentials. For example, the average energy
density of global hydro power production amounts to 6.2 kWh or 0.71 W per square meter. The density
for good wind sites is 500 to 2,000 W/m2, whereas the higher densities are usually located off-shore.
Solar energy densities for ideal locations are 480 W/m2assuming sun tracking devices, the average is
much lower 100 –300 W/m2. Biomass densities varyfrom about 4 to 6 kWh/m2annually for most
plantations suitable for energy production. With fertilizers, genetic improvements and extensive irrigation
these densities may eventually double. Add to these low supply densities the respective conversion
efficiencies to electricity and the energy needs to bridge spatially separated supply and demand areas,
then it is obvious that a large-scale dependence on renewables implies enormous land requirements with
potential land-use conflicts for food production and fresh water supply. In addition, theintermittent
availability of wind and solar energy makes these only energy suppliers without capacity benefits. A large
dependence of these sources requires either back-up systems based on more reliable energy sourcesor
extensive energy storage. The limitations of renewables, therefore, are notthe magnitudes of their
natural flows which indeed are gigantic, but their diffuse nature and the associated difficulties to convert
and concentrate theseflows to energy services at the rate demanded by the market place.
In contrast to renewables, nuclear power is a highly concentrated source of energy with no burden on
land requirements. It faces few technical siting limitations and its resource base is abundant and
sufficient to fuel nuclear power plants for thousands of years. With urbanization already exceeding 50
percent globally and projectedto grow to 75 percent by the mid 21st century (Nakicenovic et al., 1998),
concentrated energy supplies will be needed to serve peak energy demand densities of 1.5 kW/m2or
more as observed in modern metropolitan areas such as Manhattan (where the mean direct solar
radiation onto New York City is 0.15 kW/m2(WEC, 1994)). Nuclear power is well suited to serve demand
densities several timeslarger than 1.5 kW/m2(which is the power density of commercial and residential
energy use and excludes energyfor transportation) at a high rateof reliability.
3.5 Socio-Political Compatibility
3.5 Compatibilitee Socio-Political
The final disposal of high level radioactive waste, operating safety and possible weapons proliferation of
fissile materials are seen as “unresolved issues” among the media and interest groups. However, public
concerns are not something written in stone. They may be influenced by avariety of factors and may
change within the span of a decade or less if the public is better informed about the realities, risks and
results of various options. The challenge for realizing the necessary revival of the nuclear option lies, on
15
the one hand, in improving the technical, economic and safety performance of nuclear power plants
including waste management and disposal; and, on the other hand,in providing objective, authoritative,
reliable and reproducibleinformation to correct public perceptions.
Radiation effects: The fear of radiation health effects is central to public concerns about nuclear power
activities. Radiation is a fact of everyday life. On a global average, radon gas released from the earth
accounts for almost 49 percent of the annual individual radiation exposure with an additional 40 percent
of natural exposure coming from cosmic radiation and radioactive material in the earth and internal to our
body. The remaining 11 percent is man-made, almost totally due to medical exposure. Nuclear power
related activities add aminimal 0.006 percent, equivalent to a share of 6 in 100,000 units of daily
exposure. Natural background exposure is location-dependent with exposuresin high radon gas areas
often reaching some 10 to 20 times the global average. There has been no credible documentation of
health effects associated with routine operation of commercial nuclear facilities anywhere in the world.
Widely accepted studies demonstrate no correlation between cancer deaths and plant operations.
Nuclear power safety: The objections tothe use of nuclear power on the grounds of operating safety may
gradually be answered by positive experience. The Three Mile Island accidentin 1979, even thoughit did
not spread any radioactivity into the environment, triggered extensive safety reviews, thus strengthening
nuclear safety in theWestern world. The Chernobyl accident, which occurred 18 years ago, similarlyled
to reviews and new safety measures in Russia and Eastern Europe. This disastrous event tends to
overshadow the fact that by now the world has the experience of some 11,000 reactor years of operation
without any other major accident.
Safety is a dynamic conceptcontinuously evolving as innovation progresses. In addition, past disasters
which provoked somuch opposition to nuclear power have spurred corrective action in thefield of safety -
at the national and international level, at the design level and atthe operations level. Under IAEA
auspices and with active participation of member countries, a new safety culture has matured which
complements ever-safer reactor designs. New reactors are equipped with a pre-stressed concrete
containment or fuel configuration that would prevent the release of fission products or health damaging
radiation to the environment even in the highly unlikely event of a severe accident. The industry is
continuously striving to develop advanced reactor designs with inherent safety features, i.e. designs that
make safety lessdependent on technology components and human performance but rather based on
natural laws of physics. As well, the safety of older generation reactors is being steadily upgraded.
The impact of this effort can be seen in the improved availability figuresfor nuclear power plantsaround
the world, lower doses to their personnel and fewer unplanned stoppages. New types of advanced
reactors, some of them available in the market today, can be expected to have even better records on
reliability and safety than thecurrent dominant reactor types.
3.6 Geopolitical Compatibility
3.6 Compatibilité socio-politique
A secure and diverse energy supply mix that reduces reliance on energyimports, and that safeguards
against international market pricevolatility can be of paramount national interest. No fuel supply is
completely secure. Sixty-five percent of proven oil reserves are located in a single region of the world -
the Middle East. Natural gas pipelines can be thousands of kilometers in length and pass through a
number of countries on the way to the consumer. Hydropower can depend on watersheds fed by several
countries. Clearly, where indigenous fossil resources are lacking, nuclear power can contribute
substantially to security of supply and the energy mix as it does in Finland, France, Sweden, the Republic
of Korea and Japan. Because of nuclear power’s low volume fuel requirements per unit of electricity,
strategic nuclear fuel inventories can be readily established for many years and the exposure to fuel price
volatility and sudden changes in the terms of trade can be minimized.
Non proliferation issues. Since the inception of nuclear power, it has been recognized that its expansion
might foster the spread of nuclear weapons and increase the risk of geopolitical instability. The
international non-proliferation regime developed in response to this risk now consists of the 1970 Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreements,
16
including additional protocols now in force in 39 countries12, international verification measures (the IAEA
safeguards system plus regional agreements and bilateral agreements) and export controls. In many
ways the regime has worked remarkably well. There are today five formal NPT weapons states (China,
France, Russia, UK and USA), two non-NPT states that have tested weapons (India and Pakistan) and
one non-NPT state that has not tested weapons but is widely believed to have them (Israel). That is still
far fewer than many expertsfeared prior to the NPT. Moreover, Argentina and Brazil have discontinued
nuclear weapons programs that were already underway, and Ukraine (on the dissolution of the USSR)
and South Africa have given up nuclear weapons that were already in their arsenals.
There is also another side to the NPT, and that too has worked well. Under Article IV, NPT weapons
states promised to help with peaceful nuclear applications in non-weapons states, and that promise has
facilitated the global expansion of nuclear power.
Nonetheless, in 2004, the non-proliferation regime has been described by the Director General of the
IAEA as ‘battered’. Recent developments in North Korea, Iran, Libya and Pakistan, the home of A.Q.
Khan, have elicited calls for stricter controls, particularly for sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Stricter controls are unlikely to affect decisions much in established nuclear power countries, such as
Japan, France or the USA. The concern that has been expressed is not about the timing or extent to
which France “replaces nuclear with nuclear” or whether and when the USA builds a new nuclear plant.
Rather the proposals that have been made appear to affect largely developing countries, asking greater
commitments and justifications from countries with little or no nuclear power today before assistance
would be forthcoming.
Proliferation concerns will continue to be discussed in any national or international policy debate that
attracts active nuclear opponents. But their bigger impact in the near term may be on the pace of global
nuclear expansion if they prompt new uncompensated constraints on nuclear energy ‘have-nots’ aspiring
to follow in the nuclear development footsteps of the nuclear energy ‘haves’.
4. Summary
4. Sommaire
Because there is no technology without risk and wastes, it is essential to foster a rational and balanced
appraisal of all energy options along with their real risks and benefits in order to delineate a sustainable
energy mix for any particular region or country. Sustainable development will require a mix of energy
technologies and their relative attractiveness in different countries will depend on differences in
resources, economics, geography, demography andsocial preferences. Solar power ismore attractive
where it is sunny than where it is not, and wind power is more attractive where it is windy, just as coal, oil
and hydropower are more attractive where they are plentiful. Service economies are less energy
intensive than manufacturing economies, the transport sector consumes more where distances are large
and resource-poor countries are more concerned about energy security and supply diversity than energy-
rich countries.
No single energy source or technology –not nuclear, not renewables, not fossil fuels –can form the
exclusive basis for future electricity generation. Nuclear power alone cannot ensure a secure and
sustainable electricity supply worldwide, nor can it be the only meansof reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Countries must be flexible to cater to their own circumstances.
Nuclear power is a readily and commercially available electricity generating option other than hydropower
that makes –and will be able to go on making –a positive, significant and competitively priced
contribution to GHG mitigation, reduction of local and regional pollution and energy supply security.
Current nuclear power and fuel cycle technologies may not yet meet all sustainability criteria in a
satisfactory manner. Compared to alternatives, however, it is difficult to dismiss nuclear power on
grounds of lack of sustainability. Nuclear power broadens the resource base by putting uranium to
productive use; it reduces harmful emissions; it expands electricity supplies and it increases the world’s
stock of technological and human capital. It is ahead of other energy technologies in internalizing all
12 As of 7 April 2004.
17
externalities, from safety to waste disposal to decommissioning —the costs of all ofthese are in most
countries already included in the price paid for nuclear electricity. To that extent, nuclear power is
consistent with the “weak sustainability” criterion. Moreover, technology development is a dynamic
process. Like other technologies, the next generationof nuclear technologies will perform even better
than their predecessors. New designs and concepts offer solutions to many of the sustainability related
issues: smaller sized and safer reactors with shorter construction periods, lower costs, less waste and
proliferation-resistant fuel cycles (Majumdar et al., 2000).
The main thrust of sustainable development, as laid out in the Brundtland report is about maintaining
valuable assets and keeping options open. As regards nuclear power, and inlight of the conclusions of
CSD-9, those countries able and willing to keep the nuclear option open have a particularly important role
to play. Their challenge is to encourage innovation and adaptability in the nuclear sector so that nuclear
technologies can contribute where relatively emission free energy will be needed most, includingin major
cities and in developing countries. Continuing improvements in nuclear power technologies will have
much to offer to those who choose to use them. While contemporary societies mayfeel apprehensive
about the use of nuclear power and, in many instances can do without, it is imprudent to eliminate the
nuclear option for future generations. Future societies may well opt to stay away from nuclear power. But
they should be allowed to decide this for themselves.
References
Références
EC (European Commission), 2003: “External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages
due to electricity and transport,” European Commission Directorate-General for Research, EUR 20198,
Brussels, 2003 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf).
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1997: Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power.
Vienna, Austria.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Third
Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group
III, Chapter 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Majumdar D., Kupitz J., Rogner H-H., Shea T., Niehaus F. and K. Fukuda, 2000: “The Need for
Innovation: Future Development of Nuclear Reactors and fuel Cycles.” IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 42, No.2.
MEFI (Ministry of Economics, Finance and Industy), 2004. Summary of the General Directorate for
Energy and Raw Materials (DGEMP) study of reference costs for power generation. March 2004, Paris,
France.
Nakicenovic N., Grübler A. and A. MacDonald, 1998: Global Energy Perspectives. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), 2003: Nuclear Energy Overview 25/8/03. Washington, DC.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 1998: Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity: Update 1998. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International
Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, France.
Rogner H-H., 2000: “Rethinking the Options – Kyoto’s Flexible Mechanisms & Nuclear power”. IAEA
Bulletin, 42(2), pp. 36-42.
Spadaro J.V, Langlois L.M. and B. Hamilton, 2000: “Greenhouse Emissions of Different Electricity
Generating Chains”. IAEA Bulletin 42(2).
WEA (World Energy Assessment), 2000: World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of
Sustainability. Goldemberg J. (ed). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and World Energy Council (WEC), New York.
18
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987: Our Common Future Oxford
University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
WEC (World Energy Council), 1994: New Renewable Energy Resources: A Guide to the Future. Kogan
Page Limited, London, UK.
Whitfield M.B., 1997: “Electricity Restructuring in the USA and its Effects on the Nuclear Industry",
Twenty-Second Annual Symposium, The Uranium Institute, 3-5 September 1997, London, UK.
TVO (Teollisuuden Voima Oy), 2004. Olkiluoto, Finland. http://www.tvo.fi/137.htm
