1. Nuclear developments in Europe
Christian Taillebois
External Relations Director
FORATOM
International Nuclear Forum, Varna, Bulgaria, 2 June 2011

2. About FORATOM
Brussels-based trade association for the nuclear industry in Europe.
Membership:
16 national nuclear associations active across Europe.
Nearly 800 firms are represented: from Europe's (and the world's) largest nuclear utilities and nuclear fuel cycle companies to other undertakings engaged in the transport of nuclear materials and the management of radioactive waste.

3. FORATOM Membership

4. FORATOM’s Mission
Act as voice of nuclear energy industry in EU energy policy debate
Enhance relations between nuclear industry and EU installations
Deliver information on nuclear energy to EU institutions, media and the public
Inform members about developments emerging from EU institutions
Interact with intergovernmental organisations (IAEA, OECD/NEA, IEA, etc.)

5. Nuclear overview in Europe
A total of 144 nuclear reactors in the EU (148 including CH)
4 units under construction (1 in Finland, 1 in France, and 2 in Slovakia)
28% of total electricity is generated from nuclear in the EU
+600 million tonnes of CO2eq emissions were saved in Europe in 2008. 5 5

6. FORATOM’s vision
“To support the development of nuclear energy in Europe through sustained, highly proactive and visible actions in order to ensure that a long-term EU-wide low-carbon energy strategy includes the continued deployment of nuclear technologies.
This deployment aims to maintain, and ultimately increase, nuclear energy’s one third share of the electricity generation market.” 6 6

7. Factors driving the nuclear revival (1)
Security of supply:
Secure base load energy
Plentiful uranium from politically stable countries
Greater energy independence
Climate change:
Nuclear saves nearly 608 million tonnes of CO2eq emissions per year
Supports drive towards a low-carbon economy

8. Factors driving the nuclear revival (2)
Competitiveness:
High construction cost but operating, maintenance and fuel costs lower than other base load sources
60 year operation
Nuclear energy is currently recognised as the least cost option for baseload centralised generation, even in low CO2 price scenarios
Jobs:
Nuclear industry employs around 500,000 people
1 new unit provides around 700 jobs (400 permanent supply chain and local service jobs)

9. Nuclear developments in Europe

10. Nuclear new build in Europe (Pre-Fukushima) (1)
Under construction:
Finland: EPR (TVO: Olkiluoto) online by 2013
France: EPR (EDF: Flamanville) online by 2014
Slovakia: 2 VVER-440 units (Slovenské Elektrárne: Mochovce) online by 2013/2014

11. Nuclear new build in Europe (Pre-Fukushima) (2)
Under consideration/planned:
Bulgaria: New units considered (Belene/Kozloduy).
Czech Republic: Tender received for 2 reactors at Temelin
Finland: Two more units online by 2020 (TVO & Fennovoima)
France: Second EPR unit online by 2017 at Penly
Hungary: Government wants 2 more units by 2025
Italy: At least 4 EPRs by 2020
Lithuania: New unit considered (Ignalina)

12. Nuclear new build in Europe (Pre-Fukushima) (3)
Under consideration/planned:
Poland: First NPP by 2022 (Zarnowiec identified)
Netherlands: Second unit considered (begin in 2015, at Borsele)
Romania: Two more units planned (Cernavoda)
Slovenia: Second unit considered (Krško)
Sweden: New units considered
UK: 8 sites identified in draft Government Policy Statement, 1st unit online by 2018

13. Long-term operation (Pre-Fukushima)
Netherlands: Borsele (10 years).
Spain: Garoña (4 years); Cofrentes (10 years). Legal reference to the 40-year life of nuclear reactors recently removed
Belgium: Doel et Tihange (10 years). Government’s decision yet to be approved by Parliament
Germany: 8 more years for older NPPs and 14 years for younger ones beyond 2021; new fuel tax; fund for the development of RES

14. And then an unexpected tsunami hit Japan…

15. MS who haven’t changed their nuclear policy
Post-Fukushima
MS who haven’t changed their nuclear policy
MS who decided to postpone any decision
MS who took immediate decision

16. MS who decided to postpone any decision
Post-Fukushima
MS who decided to postpone any decision
- Decision to extend lifetime of NPPs put on hold until “stress tests” carried out. Discussion on how much utilities should pay for LTO.
- One-year moratorium on the construction of the country's first NPP by Amendment tabled extending moratorium indefinitely. June referendum?
- Government has suspended the approval process for the construction of three new NPPs in order to review safety standards.

17. Post-Fukushima The German case… Immediate closure of seven NPPs,
Three-month moratorium on the decision to extend the operational duration of the NPPs
Shutdown of all NPPs by 2022

18. EU and industry response to Fukushima accident

19. European Council conclusions (1)
Safety of EU NPPs should be reviewed, on the basis of a comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessment (“stress tests”)
ENSREG to develop scope and modalities of these tests with full involvement of Member States, making full use of available expertise (notably WENRA)
Assessments will be conducted by relevant national authorities and results should be shared with the EC and ENSREG

20. European Council conclusions (2)
EU to request similar “stress tests” in neighbouring countries and worldwide – full use of relevant international organisations
EC to review existing legal and regulatory framework for the safety of nuclear insulations (2009 Safety Directive etc…)

21. European nuclear industry’s response
European NPPs are safe
No need for premature decision
The nuclear community has to take into account all lessons to be learned from Fukushima accident
We are ready to cooperate
definition of the criteria of the stress tests (contribution from FORATOM/ENISS)
Implementation of the stress tests

22. EU “Stress Tests” specifications (1)
Initiating events
Earthquakes exceeding the design basis
Flooding exceeding the design basis
Consequential loss of safety functions from any initiating event
Prolonged total loss of electrical power
Prolonged loss of the ultimate heat sink
Combination of both

23. EU “Stress Tests” specifications (2)
Accident management issues
Loss of core cooling function
Loss of cooling function in the spent fuel storage
Extreme scenarios
Most unfavourable operational states
degraded situation outside the plant
the possibility of several units being affected at the same time
Terrorist threats to be considered as part as a separate process

24. EU “Stress Tests” specifications (3)
1 June: Start of self-assessment by licensees based on questionnaire provided by national regulators
15 August: Finalisation of self-assessments by licensees, start of revision by national regulators
15 September: Finalisation of revision by national regulators, start of peer-review process

25. EU “Stress Tests” specifications (4)
31 October: Finalisation of peer-review process
9 December: Presentation of EC’s Progress Report to the European Council
June 2012: Presentation of EC’s Consolidated Report to the Council, Proposal of revised Nuclear Safety Directive

26. What will the consequences of Fukushima be?
The accident has already had some consequences
political decisions
Negative impact on the image of nuclear (nuclear accident in a highly-developed country with a mature nuclear industry)
EU citizens remain confident in the safety of their country’s nuclear plants
Fundamentals of nuclear energy remain unchanged
Electricity demand will continue to rise
2595 TWh en 2010  3242 TWh en 2020 (Eurelectric «Power Choices » 2010)

27. Conclusion -
= ? +

28. Thank you for your attention!
@FORATOM_nuclear

29. Key up-coming nuclear issues in 2011
Directive on Radioactive Waste Management (June 2011)
Energy Roadmap to 2050 (3rd quarter 2011)
Community Illustrative Nuclear Programme (PINC) (3rd quarter 2011)
Regulation establishing a Community system for Registration of Carriers of Radioactive Materials ( if legal difficulties are resolved)
Directive on Basic Radioprotection Standards (2011)
3rd triennial Report on Decommissioning Funds (2011)
Water Framework Directive (review of the list of priority substances) (2011)
Recommendation on the financing of research reactors for the production of medical isotopes (2011)