Benefits and Nuclear Fission for a Low-Carbon …...Office CDMA 01/47 B-1049 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] February 2013 EUR 25817 2012 Interdisciplinary Study

2012Interdisciplinary Study

Synthesis Report

Nuclear Fissionfor a Low-Carbon Economy

Benefits andLimitations of

Report edited in the context of the Symposium on the “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy” held in Brussels on 26-27 February 2013Co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee

Contact:

Georges VAN GOETHEM

European CommissionDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate K – Energy

Unit K.4 – FissionOffice CDMA 01/47B-1049 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected]

EUR 25817February 2013

2012 Interdisciplinary Study

Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy

Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020)

Synthesis Report

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers

or these calls may be billed

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor the European Economic and Social Committee nor any person acting on behalf of the European Institutions is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

All experts and interviewees speak in a personal capacity. Affiliations are provided solely to assist with identification.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

ISBN 978-92-79-28673-5 ISSN 1018-5593doi: 10.2777/7010

© European Union, 2013Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

Cover image © suravid/shutterstock.com

Table of Contents

Mandate

Rationale

Introduction EU collaborative research in nuclear fission to face tomorrow’s energy challenges

Synthesis of the experts’ studies

Towards a renewed Euratom fission research programme for 2014

Annex 1 Summary of the EGE ethics group report

Annex 2 Topical scientific-technological reports: expert viewpoints

Annex 3 Topical socioeconomic reports: expert viewpoints

Annex 4 Contribution of the Advisory Group on Energy

Annex 5 Nuclear fission energy research in FP7 and beyond

Annex 6 Contribution of nuclear energy towards the 2050 Energy Roadmap

Annex 7 The European clearinghouse on nuclear power plant operating experience

Annex 8 Glossary

Annex 9 References

Annex 10 Contributors

4

5

6

8

16

19

29

37

38

40

41

43

45

50

4

S y n t h e s i s R e p o r t

In view of its decision on the Euratom part of Horizon 2020, the EU Council (meeting of 28 June 2011) requested that the Commission “organise a symposium in 2013 involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders to contribute to the debate on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy. The symposium will be prepared by an interdisciplinary study involving, inter alia, experts from the fields of energy, economics and social sciences.”

Mandate from the European Council

Ma

nDa

TE

Request from the EU Council to the European Commission to organise a symposium on the benefits and limitations

of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy

5

2 0 1 2 I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y S t u d y

In light of the mandate handed down by the Council and as part of the political agreement of 28 June 2011 on the Euratom Framework Programme (2012–13), the European Commission contracted in 2012 an interdisciplinary study on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy: 2012 Interdisciplinary Study — Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy: Defining priorities for Euratom fission research and training (Horizon 2020). As requested by the Council, this study will contribute to discussions during a symposium, co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee, to take place in Brussels on 26–27 February 2013, involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders1.

A number of high-level experts worked intensively towards the elaboration of this study. These experts have provided their extensive viewpoints on a wide range of topics, both from a scientific and technical, as well as a socio-economic viewpoint. This synthesis report gives a flavour of the in-depth analyses carried out by the experts, which can be consulted in the complete 2012 Interdisciplinary Study2.

The study would first and mainly be oriented towards answering “why — and how to — continue developing research and training activities on nuclear fission and radiation protection at EU level?”

Extract from the terms of reference

1 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission2 available online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

Rationale

RaT

Ion

aLE

6


Research challenges

Our energy supply has been — for centuries — based on wood and more recently on fossil fuels. We know that this is hardly sustainable, not only because of greenhouse gas emissions, but also because of finite resources. New technologies have therefore been developed during the last 50 years, since security of supply and a low-carbon economy have become — and still are — strategic priorities for Europe.

But, “one solution doesn’t fit all”. Minimisation of risks (economic, strategic, technical, environmental, human) and the development of the right energy mix, with an optimised use of energy, are becoming policy drivers, which should be supported by the research community. To better address the issues, initiatives from the Commission have recently focused on stimulating integrated research approaches and on pooling resources. Roadmaps and strategic research agendas have been developed, in support of secure, efficient, competitive and sustainable energy systems.

Through the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan), research is today identified as a major pillar of the EU energy and climate policy. The vision is not only to stimulate a wide range of multidisciplinary research activities, but also to encompass socio-economic research to back up the development of new technologies and public policies. Implementing the SET-Plan will also depend on increased scientific cooperation based on joint national efforts. In Horizon 2020, the societal challenge “secure, clean and efficient energy”, including its Euratom fission research part, is designed to support the achievement of these objectives. In the specific case of Euratom fission research, an even stronger coordination and integration of Member States’ programmes is required, in order to ensure stability and stronger commitments from the parties involved.

EU collaborative research in nuclear fission to face tomorrow’s energy challengesThe Fukushima event in 2011 reinforced the concerns of the citizen on the use of nuclear energy. Public authorities around the world took different actions, including stopping immediately the operation of power plants, commencing a review of current and future plants, e.g. through stress tests, or deciding to progressively phase-out nuclear energy. Many countries, however have decided to continue for several decades the exploitation of nuclear energy, and even to develop it further.

All energy mix scenarios elaborated in the European Energy Roadmap 2050 include nuclear energy in one way or another. While it is for each EU country to choose whether to make use of nuclear power, the role of the Union is to develop, in the interest of all its Member States, a framework to support joint cutting-edge research, knowledge creation and knowledge preservation on nuclear fission technologies, with clear emphasis on safety, security, waste management and radiation protection, including for different applications of ionising radiation, notably in the medical field.

The Council of the European Union decided at the end of 2011 on the prolongation of the Euratom programme for the period 2012–13, focusing on safety. To discuss future orientation of nuclear fission research, it also requested the carrying out of a study and the organisation of a symposium, early in 2013, on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission energy and its impacts on EU research policy.

The aim of the symposium, held on 26–27 February 2013, and of the related studies, carried out in 2012, is therefore to provide answers to pressing questions concerning Europe’s nuclear research policy for the next seven years (financial framework 2014–20).

InTR

oD

UCT

Ion

7


The research services of the European Commission would like to thank the experts who contributed to different studies, in particular those summarised further in this report, for their inputs to the debate. The 2012 report of the Advisory Group on Energy should also be highlighted. We welcome the recommendations stemming from all these direct and indirect contributions, which will be discussed during the symposium, helping to better define the “drivers and enablers for change” in Euratom 2014–20.

InTR

oD

UCT

Ion

Euratom research and training: drivers and enablers for change

One of the main goals of the Euratom research and training programme, in compliance with the Euratom treaty, is to develop the required competences contributing to the safe and sustainable evolution of nuclear energy, as well as to raising the standard of living in the Member States.

This is clearly in line with the general “Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”, as well as with the objectives identified in the various official Communications dedicated to the triangle “research, energy and education”, such as “The Innovation Union — Turning ideas into jobs, green growth and social progress” and “Resource-efficient Europe — Towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy”.

In addition, it should be highlighted that nuclear safety and security have always been in the heart of European fission research and this is even more important now, after the Fukushima event. Keeping in mind that nuclear fission will remain a clearly identified source of energy in many countries in Europe and in the rest of the world, for at least the coming decades, it is crucial to maintain and further develop the appropriate knowledge, skills and research infrastructures on nuclear fission safety issues.

Furthermore, common activities of EU Members and the Commission should be further elaborated and utilised for the improvement of nuclear safety, such as the European Clearinghouse for Nuclear Power Plant Operational Experience Feedback, run by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre and bringing together the best nuclear safety knowledge in the EU.

The consideration of economic, social and environmental issues linked with energy production, distribution and use, the quality of life and the competitiveness of industry in Europe are also raising new challenges, for which the nuclear fission community needs to provide reliable answers.

8


Towards a renewed Euratom fission research programme for 2014

The reality

The patchwork of national nuclear policies across Europe reflects national energy options. Some countries have been non-nuclear for years while a few others have responded to the recent accident in Japan by political decisions to close or limit the operation of existing plants. Yet 14 EU Members will continue to rely on nuclear energy over the medium to long term, either by programmes to allow long-term operation of existing plants or new builds.

However, even with full responsibility for its energy mix, a country’s decisions can affect the rest of Europe as electricity can be traded and radiation from a severe accident would not respect man-made borders. Thus there is a need to have a joint approach to the future of nuclear fission research in Europe, which is the reason that all Member States have signed up to the Euratom treaty. Under this umbrella, the following research goals have been agreed upon; safety and reliability, sustainability, safeguards, and security. The EGE has also highlighted the need to achieve equilibrium between these four elements. Also, within the EU a community of international nuclear scientists and engineers has ensured that Europe remains at the leading edge of both basic and applied research in nuclear fission.

In addition the EU acknowledges the necessity to move towards a zero-carbon economy and flagship initiatives to encourage smart, sustainable and inclusive growth have been proposed.

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

Global consumption of energy is increasing both as a result of population increase and due to the aspirations of citizens to have a quality of life that is equal to that in most of Europe.

According to the EU Institute for Security Studies: “There are three main global trends emerging today that will shape the world in 2030: the empowerment of individuals, which contributes to a sense of belonging to a single human community, greater stress on sustainable development against a backdrop of greater resource scarcity and persistent poverty, compounded by the consequences of climate change: and the emergence of a more polycentric world characterised by a shift of power away from states, and growing governance gaps as the mechanisms for inter-state relations fail to respond adequately to global public demands3.”

It is in this context that the future of nuclear fission research at the EU level needs to be seen in an holistic and realistic way. Likewise it is necessary to be aware of the current political context within Europe and elsewhere. This is also acknowledged by the Commission’s European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) in its review of the challenge of supplying the new energy needed and doing so without adding dangerously to atmospheric greenhouse gases.

The task

The original terms of reference asked the expert group to make its report “oriented towards answering the why — and how to — continue developing research and training activities on nuclear fission and radiation protection at EU level”.

3 Global Trends 2030, ESPAS report, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2012

John WOODAssociation of Commonwealth Universities

9


10 recommendations

1. Europe faces major societal challenges including climate change and energy dependency. Energy availability, security of supply, sustainability and safety issues (as identified by the EGE ethics group), all require continuing specific research effort, within the energy supply context as a whole, ranging from renewables to nuclear fission and fusion and aiming at responding to the EU energy policy.

2. Following Fukushima, nuclear fission for energy has become a sensitive political issue in some Member States and the public at large expects its concerns to be properly addressed. Future fission research therefore needs to respond to those concerns, including new ways of engaging the public. This is the only way for European industry in the nuclear field to maintain its worldwide leading position.

3. For this reason, all aspects of safety, risk-mitigation, safeguards and security, in addition to waste management and decommissioning, should be the first priority of Euratom; furthermore, the participation of social scientists and other experts from the non-nuclear science and engineering community is required to ensure an holistic approach to the Euratom fission programme.

4. To allow all citizens in Europe to profit from transparent, publicly-financed independent knowledge in nuclear fission, Europe needs to keep its capacity-building competence at the highest level. Therefore European skills need to stay up to date and support for continuous professional development is essential. In addition qualifications should be standardised across Europe to allow free flow of knowledge and expertise to become a reality, as well as to facilitate links to other fields.

5. Respect for European values, solidarity between Member States, and a prudent equilibrium between a common policy, competition between different energy plans and national energy diversification are all necessary elements of an EU energy and research framework. The link between scientists/engineers and policymakers needs therefore to become stronger. Ways of doing this at the EU and national levels (e.g. through research and educational institutions) should be analysed, optimised and implemented as soon as possible.

6. Existing research associations and technology platforms related to nuclear should do more to interact with the general public and to develop stronger links with the European energy fora, including the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF).

7. New and emerging technologies need to be promoted not only to support safety and security but also to develop innovative areas such as nuclear medicine.

8. In line with the changing research and innovation scene worldwide, Euratom should take a full part in international discussions, forming partnerships where there is advantage in working with other regions of the world.

9. Considering the evolution of all these challenges, the governance of Euratom research, including the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), should be reformed; research should be integrated, whenever appropriate, with other Commission support and policy streams, ensuring transparency and cost-effectiveness; the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) monitoring of Euratom activities should also be enhanced.

10. The role of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre as an EU centre for nuclear safety, safeguards and security science should be reinforced; consideration should be given to the JRC playing an active role in collecting and disseminating Euratom research results.

9


10


Initially it might appear that all these objectives and realities are in conflict with one another, especially in the context of the current financial crisis. It is therefore timely that a future roadmap for nuclear energy research, including fission research, be adopted to make clear to European citizens just where their future energy resources will come from. Although the recent economic downturn has lessened the consumption of energy in the short to medium term, the ethics group report has also highlighted the need for new or improved energy technologies if Europe is to meet 2020 and 2050 objectives on climate change, security of energy supply and competitiveness.

The case

In line with the Euratom treaty vision, the case for nuclear fission research at the European level is clear. Whatever the political situation in individual countries, all countries will benefit from research which gives confidence that Europe has sufficient trained people to ensure that current and future nuclear plants and waste are safe. In addition, European industry should remain at the cutting edge of technology where the investments in test equipment and new technologies are too big for one country to consider alone, especially the newer EU Members.

Public acceptance

There is no doubt that most citizens do not understand the nature of nuclear energy and, despite its outstanding safety record in Europe, the very mention of the term nuclear conjures up adverse reactions in the main. This public perception cannot be ignored. There are many concerns, including:

• By whom and how are nuclear decisions made?

• What level of risk is acceptable both in running plants and storing nuclear waste (whether it is located nationally, within Europe or globally)?

• Is the long-term supply of fuel sustainable?

• How should terrorism risks be countered?

• What are the consequences of ionising radiation other than in electricity production (in medicine, for food safety, natural geological radiation)?

• Should we trade with third countries in machinery and expertise to increase the use of nuclear energy, which might play into the hands of unstable governments?

The list could go on, but it is irresponsible of governments, industry and researchers to ignore such fears if the population is to support them in funding future nuclear research. Some of these fears are not just about nuclear fission, but about all scientific research in general and especially where big industry is concerned. It is easy to say the public requires more educating. This is not only patronising but top-down edicts from either government or industry are unlikely to achieve more acceptance and may induce further suspicion.

A key recommendation of the European Research Area (ERA) in its first annual report was that the ERA should be based on a shared responsibility between science, policy and society. To this end three major recommendations were made:

• Appoint an EU chief scientist;

• Engage the public more fully in the debate; and

• Share non-sensitive information by open access.

The first has been achieved. The third has been proposed and would lead to the second being realised.

Above all there should be an holistic approach to energy issues rather than treating each technology and potential technology in isolation, given that European citizens expect a stable supply of energy. They need to be aware of the consequences of any particular option, including the medium- and long-term costs.

When it comes to nuclear energy, a good reference document is the SWOT report by the European Nuclear Energy Forum4.

It is recommended that research should be under-taken to develop methodologies further for risk assessment and public discussion of the levels of risk of various technologies, including those used by most citizens (e.g. motor travel), to understand why people accept some risks and not others.

Here it would be useful not to confine this research merely to nuclear fission, in order to show it is not a special case. A key point to get over is that scientific “facts” are often not certainties but based on scale or the balance of probabilities. It is frequently noted by research academics that students often flounder when they move from the certainties of school science (with facts) to research where the outcomes are necessarily unknown. Thus some curriculum development in schools, sociological analysis of perceptions of risk and safety, and the human cost-benefit analysis of nuclear fission should be supported.

4 available on the website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/competitiveness_en.htm

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/competitiveness_en.htm

11


Such research should not be led by industry and government, although they remain important contributors, but might be done by academia or independent policy/society analysts. In advocating this approach, lessons from climate change research should be heeded. Above all these studies and outputs must be seen as part of an holistic approach to the future of nuclear energy rather than just stand-alone projects. This is also in line with the EGE’s recommendations.

Assuming that a specific fund is set aside for this research then it should be overseen by a cross-disciplinary board to ensure that the studies link wider issues. A European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI)-type organisation should be considered to enhance an holistic approach and to form an open-access source for all citizens, along the lines of many “citizen cyber-science” projects such as Galaxy Zoo5. This approach would be exciting since it would bring together thousands of non-professionals to contribute to scientific discovery and effectively would democratise research.

It is recommended that an advisory panel consisting of social scientists, with the appropriate nuclear scientists and engineers from industry, research associations and academia, be set up to oversee large nuclear research projects that receive significant Euratom funding, to ensure that all socioeconomic aspects of a project are considered, including public engagement. One might consider expanding the role of the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) by adding social scientists to the membership.

5 http://www.citizencyberscience.net/events/lccs12

Existing European policies

Future research must be seen within the wider context of European energy policy. Binding targets have already been set for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of energy to be produced by renewable energy sources. While carbon reduction targets might be met in the short term due to the economic crisis, if the policies for sustainable growth are to be achieved then there will be a mid- to long-term need to provide more non-carbon based sources. For the immediate future this is likely to require a continuing or increasing commitment to nuclear sources and, given the long-term nature of technology development and confidence in the ability to increase the lifetimes of existing plants, this would require support over the next two decades.

It should be realised that investment in new materials research for safety critical applications, for example, takes at least 20 years to produce practical uses. In this sense there are needs similar to those of the aerospace industry, which combines forces at a European level through a technology platform. The fission research community does this in particular with its Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP).

Other ESFRI facilities will also be of use in developing materials for nuclear plants in addition to giving further information on the effects of radiation, such as the Jules Horowitz Reactor, the Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor MYRRHA, the European Spallation Source, the European X-Ray Laser Project and the Extreme Light Infrastructure6, all of which have attracted EU funding.

Currently 25–30% of electricity in Europe is provided by nuclear power plants. Given this dependence now and into the foreseeable future, and if future policies are to be based on scientific evidence and demonstration, then further and continuing research is necessary. While individual countries in line with their domestic policies will support most of this, European policies need direct European funding.

6 ELI has made extensive use of Structural Funds for its construction and this is a route to pursue in the future.

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

http://www.citizencyberscience.net/events/lccs12

12


In addition to specific policies the SET-Plan informs decisions for the next two or three decades. It is estimated that new nuclear power plants and facilities might be constructed in the near term, requiring human resources to ensure their safe construction and operation, in addition to test facilities needed for the appropriate assurances. Harmonised industrial approaches and regulatory and licensing measures would be highly beneficial, especially for long-term operation as well as for non-proliferation and nuclear security.

Moreover, the dismantling of existing plants — particularly in countries that have decided to stop the exploitation of nuclear energy — will last for many years, and this type of operation needs safe and harmonised procedures.

It would thus be a very high-risk option from economic, industrial and social perspectives if further research were not supported.

Complementary to the traditional collaborative research instruments, the new and emerging technologies proposal and the pre-commercial procurement of research ideas proposal outlined in Horizon 2020 would be excellent tools to develop many areas of interest to the nuclear fission industry, using public procurement to support very high financial risk, early-stage projects, to drive forward innovation.

There are many exciting new technologies, e.g. based on accelerator-driven sources and fast reactors, which could be developed using procurement at a European level. Some of these projects could be attractive to countries that have access to structural funds for research in order to generate centres of scientific and industrial excellence. Furthermore, there is a continuous need for pooled and joint facilities, such as EU networks of excellence and the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) laboratories.

Other innovative technologies related to sensors for safety monitoring, or those related to health and medicine, offer numerous commercial advantages to European companies but need early public support if the obvious developmental risks are to be covered.

One lesson which has become abundantly clear in drawing up these large international projects is that there is a need to educate or train more personnel to lead and manage large international scientific projects, including in nuclear fission.

It is thus recommended that a number of initiatives in Horizon 2020 should support future nuclear research especially in infrastructures, new technologies and project management. There would be the potential to provide both conceptual and technical design support for new projects that could inform strategic decisions on what could be located in regions with access to structural funds for research and development (R&D). It is also recommended that small funds be allocated to support the drawing up and maintenance of data demonstrating the potential local impacts so that informed decisions could be made. In addition there needs to be real support for basic nuclear-related science including that for new nuclear and structural materials, reference measurements, devices/sensors that are radiation safe, radiobiology, modelling, and many other areas, including support for user-accessible facilities to train many in nuclear safety and security.

Many of these basic science activities including social sciences should be proposed by individuals to the “excellent science base” pillar of Horizon 2020, and be largely supported.

In some countries agencies and initiatives ensure links between those doing the research and those involved in the political process at the highest level (e.g. the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on the future of nuclear energy7 and the Comité de Choix Stratégique in France).

It is recommended that the Commission review these approaches and set up a similar vehicle for ensuring that the link between scientists and policymakers becomes as strong as possible and is transparent to all stakeholders both within the Commission and outside, and that the outcomes are available to the general public in line with the greater involvement of EU citizens as described above, as long as security is not compromised.

7 http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldsctech/221/22102.htm

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldsctech/221/22102.htm

13


National coordination

Key questions are what should be done by individual Member States, what can be helped by coordinated action and what should be undertaken or driven centrally by the Commission? It has been suggested that the approach should be at the “maximum common denominator” level. A key recommendation is that there is great value in maintaining and sustaining support for existing structures, like the SNETP, and potential new technology platforms. Another key platform is the Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform (IGD-TP) and there are other coordinated activities on radiation protection, especially the Melodi association on low-dose effects. Nevertheless, while the existing platforms are working well, their interaction with the general public to share developments to ensure further public confidence should be enhanced and supported.

Education and training

In addition to developing a well-informed general public there is a growing need to train specialists in all areas of nuclear energy, including R&D. In order to ensure the highest standards of safety and security in all sectors of nuclear technology, freedom of labour and freedom of knowledge throughout the EU, these specialists need to be qualified at a level accepted by all Member States. (The existing JRC European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector monitors trends in this field and identifies future human resource requirements).

R&D provides a vibrant skills pipeline for young talented people. There should be further encourage-ment of mobility to maximise the knowledge base throughout Europe via Erasmus-Mundus and Marie Skłodowska-Curie type programmes. Consideration should be given to encouraging centres of excel-lence in specific universities where there will be the necessary critical mass of expertise necessary to train students.

It is recommended that the Commission provide support for partnerships between universities and nuclear fission research organisations (including the JRC), specifically in universities where the research culture is not world leading, to create critical masses both for research and training.

Support is also required for developing practical skills that are accepted throughout Europe. There is a case for considering the adoption of a European-level accreditation system for all areas to allow easier freedom of movement, although it is recognised that this would have to cover everything from basic nuclear engineering to nuclear medicine.

In addition, given the recommendations about public engagement, training programmes in social sciences should be incorporated and supported.

Alongside the initial training it would be necessary to maintain continuous lifetime accreditation by updating personnel on a regular basis. Some effort should be expended on which type of European body could give accreditation and whether it could be linked in some way to the proposed European Research Passport8.

An excellent vehicle for proceeding would be the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) under the European Institute of Technology (EIT), such as InnoEnergy, which has developed a mas-ters in nuclear energy with several universities, companies and research institutes. Given the need for continuous updating of people, including those already in industry, some effort is required to de-velop distance and e-learning curricula alongside practical experience in the field.

Safety, safeguards and security

Everything from nuclear explosions to the alleged murdering of spies by local irradiation is not only the stuff of blockbuster movies but is part of the fears of most people. Alongside the work on public engagement, one must be aiming for the highest possible standards among practitioners. This is an area for which there can be no compromise. It is essential that the present level of R&D investment is maintained and increased. Also, as regards training, there is an overriding priority for common standards, practices and codes to be adopted throughout Europe, not only to ensure best practice but to allow open competition within the free market.

Alongside the stress tests undertaken in Europe in the light of the Fukushima accident, further research is needed on how much the lifetime of current reactors can be extended without affecting safety. Since the protection of EU citizens is a “must” for the EU, prevention of nuclear incidents and accidents, their understanding, evaluation and mitigation should be supported by the Euratom R&D programme. The same conclusions can be drawn for new developments and future reactor systems as described above (generation IV, accelerator-driven systems). Indeed, the EGE has recommended that a comparative impact assessment of all energy sources be carried out, addressing technological, social and political scenarios.

8 Proposal made by the European Research Area Board to aid mobility of researchers across the EU

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

14


Long-term nuclear waste management will require the implementation of solutions which have been developed over decades. More research will be necessary for that, e.g. testing of materials for containment, to show the public that waste can be properly and safely managed over extended periods.

The work of the JRC in providing R&D for nuclear safety, safeguards and security independently of national or industrial interest needs to be effectively disseminated outside the circle of its direct stakeholders. From a public engagement perspective its connection and cooperation with other aspects of the research and innovation ecosystem, supported by the Commission, should be open and transparent. The JRC could contribute with others to improving public confidence by sharing knowledge and information and by disseminating the output of European R&D projects. The implications of the proposed open access policy need, however, to be examined from a security point of view.

Wider research needs

The massive advances in the use of ionising radiation for treating medical conditions are widely recognised, as is the use of isotope tracers for industrial processes. Breakthroughs in genetic modification and the use of synthetic biology using ionising sources is progressing rapidly but the implications are largely not understood by either the general public or policymakers. Further research at a European level is required not only into the basics but into the long-term safety implications for public health and the environment.

The EU does not sit in a research bubble, it has to interact further with other regions of the world and especially with the countries with rapidly growing nuclear programmes (Russia, China, South Korea). No longer is either the USA or Europe seen as the natural partner for every form of research. There needs to be extensive analysis of which types of international partnerships would be best undertaken at a European level and which by individual Member States or institutions. Advantage should be taken of existing linkages. In particular, participation of the EU in the Generation IV international Forum (GIF) research is a unique opportunity to maintain high competence and know-how in the nuclear field and to share the cost with partners. To achieve this, further support is needed through projects in the Euratom fission programmes.

While the immediate need for nuclear fission research over the next few decades is much discussed, research is needed into the longer-term consequences of and the main underlying values behind the research that is being undertaken. Security studies are needed into the potential for societal breakdown if there is a major plant failure, terrorist use of nuclear materials or failure to meet the energy needs of European citizens. These scenarios are in addition to the lack of global competitiveness for European industries which might move elsewhere, further exacerbating economic and unemployment problems. Many believe we are living at the fragile edge of consumerism in advanced countries; lack of investment in modelling societal breakdown as a result of long-term energy shortages is not wise.

The future

We live in a global world, resources are constrained and in some cases disappearing. In the short to medium term this will put further pressure on all economies to adapt to a new type of sustainable equilibrium, including energy usage. Lights going out across Europe will soon cause social unrest and the potential for societal breakdown. In addition to the further nuclear research investment required at a European level for safety, safeguards, protection, education, infrastructure, new and emerging technologies, and medical and industrial applications, investment is needed to show potential extreme scenarios to policymakers (e.g. what a shortage of energy supply would mean, irrespective of the policies of individual countries). The chronic under-investment in energy research since the 1980s needs to be reversed.

There are exciting opportunities to use future investments in both research infrastructures and training to stabilise the brain-drain from parts of Europe. This requires a level of political vision which might be difficult to achieve, unless there is a more intelligent usage of existing capacity-building instruments in the relatively short term. This needs joined-up thinking to show what the longer-term societal impact could be if an enlightened and holistic approach is taken now. With a European Chief Scientific Adviser in place there could be some work undertaken to bring non-political players together (Note, this is the model in the UK where the independent chief scientific advisers to ministries and to the prime minister agree how the ministries should work together constructively).

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES

15


At research level it is essential to marry work supported by Euratom with other actions under the Innovation Union proposals, including the work of the JRC, the regional agenda and international policies of the EU. Currently it appears that there is still too little interaction.

It is recommended that a cross-European Commission group be set up to oversee the energy research espe-cially related to nuclear fission. The group should in-clude the research and innovation, energy, communi-cation and education and culture directorates-general and the JRC (possibly with EIT involvement and others as necessary). This should meet on a regular basis to exchange information and to coordinate programmes.

Syn

THES

IS o

f TH

E Ex

pERT

S’ S

TUD

IES


16


Summary of the EGE ethics group reportFossil fuels were the energy source that shaped 19th and 20th century civilisation. But burning coal, oil and gas has proved highly damaging to our environment. Carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse effect gases and fumes all contribute to the disruption in the balance of our planet’s climate. Global energy consumption is set to triple by the end of the century. And yet supplies of fossil fuels are rapidly being depleted and, in addition, the consequences of their exploitation without measures to reduce the production of gases that impact on the environment are serious. Two questions loom over humanity today: how will we supply all this new energy and how can we do so without adding dangerously to atmospheric greenhouse gases?

New or improved energy technologies are vital if Europe’s objectives for 2020 and 2050 in the fight against climate change and to ensure security of energy supply and competitiveness of European companies are to be fulfilled. However, constraints hamper the development and widespread application of these technologies, be they the chronic under-investment that has affected this sector since the 1980s, significant delays in the marketing of new products, the additional cost often involved without always giving better energy output, legal and administrative obstacles, or social acceptability.

On 28 June 2011 the Council reached a political agreement on a Commission proposal for a nuclear research and training programme for 2012–13. However, some Member States felt that a broad discourse on ethical issues and a sustainable energy mix in Europe should take place and indicated the need of having an Opinion from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). On 19 December 2011, the President of the European Commission requested the EGE to “contribute to the debate on a sustainable energy mix in Europe by studying the ethical impact of research on different energy sources on human well-being.” The EGE accepted this request and decided to focus on the ethical aspects of the use of different energy sources in Europe, as foreseen in the EGE remit9. The group recognised the need to consider issues such as security of supply, storage of energy, particularly where intermittent sources are utilised, competition for water and food in the case of biofuels, waste treatment and/or storage and pollution. The EGE decided:

• To address the ethical issues arising from energy use and the mix of energy, the consequences for the future, energy policy and regulation (including environmental considerations), the precautionary principle and inter-generational justice;

• To identify the ethical criteria to allow decisions concerning research on sources of energy (in view of the Council’s decision) to be taken on an informed basis and the implications arising from the use of energy in different areas;

• To propose an integrated ethics framework to address the ethical issues related to the production, use, storage and distribution of energy; and

• To identify the ethically relevant areas of energy research.

9 The role of the EGE is to provide the Commission with high quality and independent advice on ethical aspects of science and new technologies in connection with the preparation and implementation of Community legislation or policies.

an

nEx

1

17


Following several months of work, on 16 January 2013, the group adopted unanimously its 27th Opinion: “An ethical framework for assessing research, production, and use of energy”. In its Opinion, the EGE has adopted an integrated ethics approach to achieve an equilibrium between four criteria — access rights, security of supply, safety, and sustainability — in the light of social, environmental and economic concerns. It adopted specific recommendations related to access to energy, safety and impact assessment, security of energy supply, sustainability, research and democratic deliberation, participatory instruments and responsibility for future generations. As far as research is concerned, the EGE welcomed the Commission’s actions in energy research and recommended that priorities for research should also cover:

• Technologies that would contribute to the development of European smart grid infrastructure that is configured to harness the potential benefits of low-carbon and renewable technologies, in particular when decentralised energy production is developed.

• New technologies for storage of energy where or when excess is produced in order to facilitate the use of energies that are intermittent.

• Interdisciplinary research on storage and transport of materials and residues related to energy production and use.

• Analysis on residue production of different energy sources, its reduction or elimination and possible re-use. Research to determine the most suitable technologies, regulations and infrastructures for future carbon capture, storage and sequestration.

• Energy efficiency in all areas, but particularly in urban design and architecture, transport, utilities and industrial facilities.

• Psycho-social modelling of individual and community behaviour in energy conservation in order to support energy efficiency initiatives in setting new standards beyond current best practice. Such work is already under way.

• Comparative studies on the implementation of the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 in Member States (quantitative and qualitative data), with specific emphasis on sociocultural and geographical factors that have justified the adoption of specific energy mixes at local level.

• Comparative impact assessment of all energy sources, using the integrated methodology of technological, social, and political scenarios. They should include worst case scenarios (social, environmental), short-term and long-term prognoses, geopolitical contexts and safety risks for workers.

• Social sciences (individual responsibilities), psychology, social anthropology, sociology, ethics and law.

• Interdisciplinary research on the ethical, legal and social implication of energy, to be financed in Horizon 2020.

The EGE also requested that impact assessment of any energy source through its whole life-cycle should be carried out on a comparative basis, including the question of accountability, and that a comparative integrated impact assessment should be required for all energy sources, particularly new technologies. Such an assessment should also involve the participation of local communities at the earliest possible opportunity and assess impacts and risks across the entire life-cycle of the energy production, storage and use, in line with the Lisbon Treaty and the precautionary principle. The group also expressed serious concerns about shale gas and specific actions to embed ethics into energy mix policy design at EU and national levels.

Proceedings of the EGE round table on ethics of energy: http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/proceedings-ege-roundtables/index_en.htm

an

nEx

1

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/proceedings-ege-roundtables/index_en.htm



18


19


an

nEx

2Topical scientific-technological reports Expert viewpointsThe 2012 Interdisciplinary Study has been drawn up addressing the scientific and technological topics, as well as a socioeconomic viewpoint. The report on ethics was addressed by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA).

The following chapter contains short summaries of the topical scientific-technological reports together with the “main subjects” treated for each topic. A total of eight topics were identified and have been addressed by the experts:

1. The three pillars of EU Energy Policy — sustainability, security of supply and competitiveness

2. The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)

3. Research and development

4. Education and training and skills

5. EU nuclear safety and security aspects

6. People, quality of life and the environment

7. Safety and security culture beyond EU borders

8. Science-based policies and nuclear safety and security legislation

More information is available from the full texts of the experts’ reports which is published online on the occasion of the symposium Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy (Brussels, 26–27 February 2013)10.

10 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

and http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm.

20


William D’HAESELEER Faculty of engineering science, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium

In his study, the expert takes an “integrated energy systems” approach when looking at the contribution of nuclear fission research to EU energy policy.

EU energy policyContributing to the three pillars of EU energy policy: sustainability, security of supply, competitiveness for a future low-carbon economy

Nuclear has ample capability to contribute to the three pillars of the EU energy policy simultaneously, certainly if an extra effort is made for research and development (R&D) to exploit its assets:

• Nuclear is carbon dioxide-free, if using a good fuel cycle; but its safety record has received a serious dent. Acceptable solutions for waste management and proliferation resistance could be improved. Better understanding of low-dose effects of radiation could ameliorate its reputation and acceptability.

• Security of supply is offered by resource availability (possibly using fast reactors), stable but dispatchable electricity production facilities capable of load following and large turbine-generators providing inertia to the system, permitting reactive power control for voltage stability.

• Nuclear leads to cheap decarbonisation, if it can keep its investment and operational costs low. Future load following, however, must be examined as an important issue.

Nuclear energy only has a long-term future if it is acceptable to the public. To that end, a considerable R&D effort must be devoted to the perceived shortcomings of nuclear power. More R&D is needed, in particular, on the external costs of nuclear11, including risk analysis and accidents, fuel-cycle and waste, routine operation and life-cycle analysis. All this should be summarised in rigorous cost-benefit analyses.

11 E.g. building on FP6 project EUSUSTEL (European sustainable electricity; comprehensive analysis of future European demand and generation of European electricity and its security of supply, 2005–06).

http://www.eusustel.be/, complementary to project NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability, 2004–09) http://www.externe.info/ and http://www.needs-project.org/

The expert highlights that an externality is com-monly defined as a cost that arises when the so-cial or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and that impact is not fully accounted for by the first group. To fully calculate the external costs, all the main impacts from all the stages have to be considered. He rec-ommends, therefore, introducing further the con-cept of total social cost of electricity generation, that is: the sum of the private and external costs of a technology based on its use of resources from an economic point of view and an environmental point of view, which can be regarded as a relative measure of sustainability.

The expert concludes that, given the tremendous uncertainties in areas related to the global energy issue, a priori excluding nuclear fission from the current and future EU electricity generation mix in all Member States would be irresponsible. The EU as a whole should take the lead, with public funding, to seek a more aligned harmonisation.

an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 1

http://www.eusustel.be/

http://www.externe.info/

http://www.needs-project.org/

21


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 2

The results of the peer review stress tests of the EU nuclear power plant fleet requested by the EU Council on 24-25 March 2011 demonstrated consensus on the high levels of safety of the plants in operation and no reactor was identified as requiring immediate shutdown. Nevertheless, the analysis identified opportunities to improve the safety margins. The costs of additional safety improvements are estimated to be EUR 30–200 million per reactor unit. Thus, the total costs for the 131 reactors operating in the EU could be in the order of EUR 10–25 billion over the coming years12.

At the end of 2011, the European Commission issued the EU Energy Roadmap 205013, based on different energy mix scenarios. A number of ambitious pilot projects are being carried out under the SET-Plan to test the transition towards those scenarios. A drastic decarbonisation, of the order of 80–95% below 1990 levels, of the overall energy sector by 2050 is the strategic objective of Europe’s energy policy.

The energy carrier electricity is expected to become even more important than today (20% of final energy demand today, almost 40% by 2050) and the electricity sector has an effectively zero carbon dioxide emission objective. (Scenarios in the roadmap indicate decarbonisation levels of 57–65% in 2030 and 96–99% in 2050, all compared to 1990).

12 Communication from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (stress tests) of nuclear power plants in the EU and related activities, COM(2012) 571, Brussels, 4.10.2012

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf13 Energy Roadmap 2050, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF

SET-planContributing to the execution of the SET-Plan, with emphasis on the objectives defined for nuclear fission

María Teresa DOMíNGuEz BAuTISTAEmpresarios Agrupados, Spain

In her study, the expert takes an industrial approach through a SWOT analysis:• Strengths and opportunities (SO) in terms of socioeconomic benefits, jobs, investment,

environment and technologies• Weaknesses and threats (WT) identified in the recommendations to be incorporated

in the SET-Plan and implemented in Horizon 2020.

If current nuclear plant lifetimes are extended between 2015 and 2035, new build should take place between 2025 and 2045. If 20% of the electricity in 2050 is produced by nuclear (delayed carbon capture and storage scenario), that means approximately 100 new units of 1400MWe. Special efforts should also continue to be dedicated to the final storage of high-level waste, a domain where the EU nuclear industry has an excellent record.

The Euratom programmes should play an active role in: the harmonisation of licensing requirements and procedures for generation III reactors, nuclear and industrial codes and standards (including utility requirements) and siting requirements; promoting licensing certification of standard plant designs; and promoting the concept of “first-of-a-kind”.

The EU should also support the study of innovative reactors, through demonstrators and experimental facilities identified in the SET-Plan. This should be done by joining the initiative of some of the Member States. The basic research needed to this end should be channelled through the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA). Clear mapping of international collaboration in these new systems is required at EU level to avoid duplication in development.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF

22


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 3

Gustaf LÖWENHIELMCGL Consulting, Sweden

The expert, ex-chair of Euratom’s Fission Consultative Committee, takes a “governmental” approach when analyzing the strong link between the research and the competences needed for the nuclear industry, irrespective of Member States own energy policies.

Research and developmentPromoting research and development in the nuclear field through increased coordination of national programmes, joint programming

Research and development (R&D) at EU level should encourage pooling of resources and encourage mobility of researchers to understand challenges in different Member States and also to access specialist facilities, equipment or capability that cannot be replicated in all countries.

Thus a trained workforce, mobile across the EU, sharing resources and know-how through EU-level research programmes is commonly desirable for Member States whose objectives with regards to nuclear differ widely and could be:

• Opposition to nuclear with no intention to deploy, but need to have a voice with the EU and be assured over neighbouring states;

• Phasing out nuclear and need to ensure that reactors are decommissioned safely, efficiently and cost-effectively and that the radioactive waste is managed in a safe long-term and sustainable manner;

• Maintaining generating capacity and wish to see their fleet managed appropriately with maximum lifetime extension while giving assurance to other Member States; and

• Looking to actively expand nuclear programme and considering advanced nuclear concepts and advanced fuel cycles.

Chapter 1 in the Euratom treaty (1957), “Promotion of research”, stated that the European Commission is “responsible for promoting and facilitating nuclear research in the member states and for complementing it by carrying out a research and training programme”. It added that “for purposes of coordinating and complementing research in member states” the Commission shall by either specific request or by a general published request undertake research.

Furthermore, it stated that “the Commission shall discourage unnecessary duplication and shall direct research towards sectors which are insufficiently explored”. The Commission is also given the possibility of bringing in public and private research centres as well as any expert for consultation. In article 134 the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee is established as an advisory body.

As far as the future is concerned, cooperation and coordination should be enhanced through the existing European technology platforms (e.g. the SNETP, the IGD-TP) and associations (e.g. Melodi). The inclusion of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre could give added value, in particular regarding dissemination and education. However, the Commission should investigate how these platforms and associations can be developed further and promising work is under way.

Finally it is important to keep the nuclear option open for a long time as this provides an opportunity to alleviate the transfer to carbon dioxide-free energy production in a more economical way. Thus, research on new innovative nuclear technologies must be pursued.

23


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 4

François WEISSGrenoble Institute of Technology, France, and KIC InnoEnergy

The expert highlights the need for efficient knowledge management at EU level, by ensuring education and training in nuclear energy as part of the energy mix. He takes the example of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) when promoting the full integration of the knowledge triangle (research, innovation and education).

Education and training and skillsFurther development of expertise and high skills in nuclear fields

National research and education networks as well as the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN — 64 members from universities, research organisations and industry, from 18 EU countries)14 have played an important role in rekindling the flames of nuclear education and training. Recently, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) opinion on energy education15 insisted on the need for inter-sectorial collaboration and on the need to attract young people more effectively to science and to make the public at large familiar with energy policy issues. The EESC supports, in particular, the new SET-Plan Energy Education and Training Initiative, which brings together bodies from academia, research institutes and industry.

Of particular interest is the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy16, a company, with all its implications: built upon an industrial plan; results and output oriented; commitment from shareholders for the first seven years; and financially sustainable in the medium term. KIC InnoEnergy covers all the SET-Plan thematics, shared among six centres: one is Sustainable nuclear and renewable energy convergence (coordinated by the French Co-location Centre Alps Valley; core members are Areva, the CEA, Grenoble INP and Grenoble Ecole de Management). The expert notes that KIC InnoEnergy launched a European masters in nuclear energy (MSc EMINE) with universities, companies and research institutes.

14 http://www.enen-assoc.org/ 15 CESE1054/2012-TEN/474-25/04/2012-http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.

en.ten-opinions.2181216 KIC InnoEnergy: Knowledge and Innovation Communities, http://www.kic-

innoenergy.com/homepage.html

The following actions are recommended:

• Education programmes should be developed to address market and societal needs and improve linkages between nuclear energy and its benefits to society and the economy.

• European initiatives such as the European Human Resource Observatory in the Nuclear Sector (EHRO-N), the ENEN and the EU’s Joint Research Centre databases should be reinforced to support EU strategic actions.

• A framework for mutual recognition of qualifications should be developed with the aim of including non-academic qualifications and vocational training to help promote nuclear energy. Pilot exercises should apply a learning outcomes approach within European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training partnerships (ECVET)17.

Mobility of workforce is a central objective of the EU, to foster growth and jobs, which implies a European approach to education and training. But this can only lead to excellence if adequate research tools (infrastructures and programmes) are available. This means a clear plea to maintain a strong Euratom fission research programme.

17 http://www.ecvet-team.eu/

http://www.enen-assoc.org/

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.21812

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.21812

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/homepage.html

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/homepage.html

http://www.ecvet-team.eu/

24


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 5

Victor TESCHENDORFFPrivate consultant, Germany

The expert focuses on the Euratom regulatory framework and how to enhance nuclear safety and security. He highlights that the involvement of the public and civil society is crucial and that public acceptance of any nuclear installations relies on trust that they are built and operated safely.

EU nuclear safety and security aspectsFostering harmonisation of the highest nuclear safety and security levels, solutions for nuclear waste and spent fuel management, emergency preparedness in accordance with Euratom Treaty obligations, ensuring verification of proliferation resistance

Safety and security are key indicators for the quality of life. Protecting people and the environment against harmful effects of ionising radiation has been the aim from the beginning of nuclear activities. Nuclear energy is expected to be a main contributor to low-carbon electricity production in the future. To make this happen, safety and security must stay first priority, even more after the Fukushima disaster. The stress tests performed on the European nuclear power plants have identified tangible improvements to be implemented. Against this background the following recommendations are issued:

• The European Commission should support EU Member States in implementing the 2009 nuclear safety directive, the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the stress tests (research with emphasis on beyond-design basis accidents), and the 2011 radioactive waste directive (research with emphasis on final disposal of long-lived nuclear waste).

• Research at the EU level should strengthen the scientific and methodological basis for further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial codes and standards, and safety assessment practices, with the aim of meeting growing expectations of plausible and science-based regulatory decisions.

• EU citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against nuclear threats from malevolent actions. Advanced methods and high expertise to detect and prevent theft, unauthorised access and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and other radioactive substances should be developed at EU level, and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) should continue to provide strong scientific support in this field.

• The development of advanced reactor concepts and the deployment of demonstrators must consider a high level of safety and reduced long-lived nuclear waste as an integral part of design from the beginning; this should become a prerequisite for any EU support.

Maintaining and constantly improving nuclear safety is thus a societal challenge. Experience shows that the public awareness on fundamental questions and options has increased along the lines of the Aarhus Convention’s principles of 1998 (UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters). The JRC, as a centre of reference for scientific knowledge independent of national or specific interests, could be instrumental in raising public confidence in safety and security and the options available for further improvement.

25


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 6

William NuTTALLThe Open University, UK

The expert considers global threats and opportunities relating to energy policy generally and civil nuclear power in particular. These include climate change, urbanisation, globalisation, fresh water scarcity, security and weapons proliferation.

people, quality of life and the environmentPossible contribution of nuclear fission to worldwide challenges in particular regarding people, quality of life and environment

Efforts to militate against the threats should be on the basis of a global burden sharing in which the greatest efforts should come from those countries with the greatest ability to bear the cost. Part of this effort will involve research and development (R&D), but, importantly, R&D is not simply a burden to carry, it is an opportunity representing an investment in the future. Nuclear fission research and training help build a better world and underpin EU prosperity.

A structured dialogue took place with a range of experts broadly from two communities. The first community comprises European social scientists with a range of specialisations, such as economists, political scientists and social psychologists. The second community comprises international nuclear experts from outside the EU, bringing personal observations from either the perspective of an outside country or an international organisation. In addition much insight was gained from the socio-economic reports submitted to the study.

A strong message is the need to better recognise the concerns of people in nuclear energy policy and research prioritisation. EU decision making in the nuclear fission area is perceived as being excessively technocratic. European citizens must be given a louder voice. Improvements in this regard will be helped by the inclusion of relevant social science research in the Euratom portfolio. Indeed there is a remarkably clear consensus among those consulted that the Euratom research portfolio should contain a stronger component of the social sciences.

EU nuclear technical capacity contributes to health and well-being (e.g. nuclear medicine and security). Importantly, Euratom research and training have never involved matters relating to nuclear weapons development, nor have they had links to other nuclear military technologies, e.g. submarine propulsion. Nuclear fission energy makes a great contribution to European prosperity. It directly supports 500,000 jobs and underpins 400,000 more. Europe has a strong competitive position in an industry with much prospect for global growth and that global growth will occur independently of Europe’s decisions. European nuclear power provides reliable baseload power for industry and householders independent of volatile fossil fuel prices. It seems highly probable that the electricity system of the future will require and value system flexibility. The Euratom programme should recognise that reality and increasingly take a whole-system approach.

The European publics are not simply anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear. Individual opinions are contingent on perceptions of risks and benefits and heavily influenced by considerations of trust. Trust-building would benefit from a broadening of the Euratom research portfolio and efforts to increase public participation in both nuclear fission research and energy policy decision making. It is time to end the EU nuclear technocracy.

26


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 7

Olivia COMSACentre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects (CITON), Romania

The expert takes the approach of the guardian of the Euratom Treaty: Safety, security and non-proliferation are absolute priorities. The common objective is the protection of people, society, and environment from any harmful release of radioactive material.

Safety and security culture beyond EU bordersTo promote highest safety culture at international level in all sectors of nuclear fission and radiation protection

The EU external cooperation instruments promote cooperation in the field of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation based on common interests and mutual benefit. These are:

• the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC)18: the INSC provides financial support for measures improving technical support to regulatory bodies, nuclear operators and national technical safety organisations, including in nuclear safeguards, radioactive waste management and emergency preparedness as well as education and training;

• the Instrument for Stability19, which funds the EU’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Risk Mitigation Centres of Excellence. It covers areas of nuclear security and non-proliferation such as combating illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and export control of dual-use technologies; and

• the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance20, which provides support for strengthening nuclear safety and regulatory bodies capability in EU acceding countries.

18 Council Regulation (EURATOM) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, OJ L 81, 22.3.2007

19 Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability, OJ L 327, 24.11.2006.

20 Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, amended by Regulation (EU) N° 540/2010

These instruments do not finance research but facilitate networking with, inter alia, research and development communities in nuclear safety, safeguards, security, non-proliferation, radioactive waste management, radioprotection, export control, emergency preparedness and training. The scientific and technical expertise of the Joint Research Centre is instrumental in this context. Euratom, through international cooperation, also plays an important role in promoting nuclear safety and security culture beyond EU borders. The EU should therefore maintain its competence in innovative reactor designs, which would allow the EU to be able to assess safety, non-proliferation and security aspects of future installations outside the EU.

The expert highlights that, during the Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea on 26-27 March 2012, the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso confirmed the EU commitment to boost nuclear safety and security and to contribute under the lead of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the development and reinforcement of a solid and robust global approach for nuclear safety and security after Fukushima. He also stated: “Radiation knows no borders. We therefore need a true cross-border, global approach to nuclear safety. At the global level, we need to agree on the highest safety standards and strengthen emergency preparedness.”21 The European Council president Herman Van Rompuy added: “The EU is committed to achieving the highest level of nuclear security, with the understanding that ultimately, it is the responsibility of every state to maintain effective nuclear security.”

21 Speech by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, on “EU Action on Nuclear Safety” at the Nuclear Security Summit, South Korea, 26-27 March 2012

27


an

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 8

Jozef MISAKUJV Řež, Czech Republic

The expert reaffirms that EU policies should be based on scientific facts in order to address the important issues and look for common solutions.

Science based policies and safety and security legislationBetter science base available to support EU policies and evolving EU legislation on nuclear safety, radiation protection and waste management and increased awareness of the people (decision makers, opinion leaders, citizens, etc.)

It is in the interest of all EU citizens to have the highest safety and security level which is best implemented by means of scientifically-based legislation, codes and standards harmonised across the EU and beyond. Further development is important also for non-electrical application of nuclear sciences, such as medical use, development of advanced materials and other industrial applications.

Support for EU policies should cover a broad spectrum of areas in order for the EU to stay at the front line of research and development (R&D) and not to lose existing competences. Among these areas, safety and security of EU installations is of utmost importance. A policy to optimise and to develop the future generation of nuclear infrastructures also needs to be continued.

Next to that, decommissioning, dismantling and the optimisation of solutions for different waste streams require adequate nuclear know-how, for all scenarios involving nuclear energy.

Education and training are important aspects that need top priority in order to compensate for the loss of the expertise in the nuclear domain.

In addition, a broad spectrum of medical R&D issues should be covered in order to utilise the synergy effect of nuclear research, e.g. the further development of radionuclides and dedicated biochemical components for nuclear medicine and improvements in techniques to optimise doses, and the development of methods to measure individual radiosensitivity of human beings in order to optimise the doses delivered in radiotherapy (in particular, for the ageing population).

Updating of legislation and harmonisation of practices should also be based on scientific facts. More effective ways of communicating with the public should be developed to increase trust and European legislation should provide sufficient basis for minimisation of risk. Dedicated research in support of the regulatory bodies should provide background for their independent oversight, harmonised across the Europe and beyond, and development of tools for independent safety assessment.

A sound mechanism should be established to collect scientific evidence at the national and international levels and deliver it to policymakers in a manner that allows its effective translation into policies and regulations. The Joint Research Centre could play a key role in providing impartial scientific advice and support to policymaking EU bodies.

As far as research funding is concerned, a combina-tion of various sources should be considered, includ-ing national and regional funding and funding from private industry. Euratom research has the poten-tial to play a key role in efficient use of scarce re-sources in terms of people, infrastructure and funds and in the past it helped maintain know-how, com-mon understanding of issues and harmonisation of solutions; it should therefore remain a key compo-nent in fission research funding.

28


29


an

nEx

3Topical socioeconomic reports Expert viewpoints

For the socioeconomic part, six questions were asked, pertaining to three main domains, namely, decision making, risk governance and Euratom research. A series of questions was put to a set of selected experts for their insight into socio-economic issues.

Decision making:

•Who are the end users of Eu energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)? Should this research be driven principally by public concerns or by industrial needs? Who are then the best representatives (e.g. environmental organisations or “technological platforms”)?

•What is specific to EU nuclear fissionresearch? To what extent is it distinct from energy research in general? Should it be driven by EU legislation (e.g. similarly to the Bataille law which proposed a long-term research programme to support the French strategy22)?

Risk governance:

•What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large? What kind of EU research is needed to improve the risk governance? “Technical experts” aiming at technological risk minimisation, “social scientists” aiming at public fear minimisation, or a mix of both?

•How to deal with and how to communicate about uncertainties (e.g. climate change, genetically modified organisms, stem cells)? How about strategic questions in nuclear (e.g. is plutonium an asset or a liability)? What is the impact of low-dose radiation (linear no-threshold model versus hormesis)?

22 The 1991 Bataille Law on the management of high level long lived waste committed France to a 15-year research programme focussed on three ‘axes’: (1) partitioning and transmutation; (2) retrievable and non-retrievable geological repositories; (3) conditioning and long term storage – see 2005 political debate http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf

Euratom research:

•What could be improved to better “serve” the end users? What is the public perception of Euratom research programmes? More generally, how is the role of the technical (especially nuclear) experts perceived, in comparison with scientists in other areas of energy research?

•Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues? What is the impact of the Fukushima event on the public debate and on policymaking in the EU Member States? Is this impact going to be permanent? Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf

http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf

30


Who are the end users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)? Should this research be driven principally by public concerns or by industrial needs? Who are then the best representatives (e.g. environmental organisations or “technological platforms”)?

The best representatives of the needs and concerns of nuclear research seem to be technology platforms, nuclear associations and nuclear clusters.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

Both industry and public are the end users of research and research can sometimes act as a mediator between them by providing neutral knowledge of the safety related technical, human, and organisational phenomena.

Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald

Energy research should start from social and environmental concerns and be organised subsequently around specific technology options, not vice versa. This also implies that comparative assessment research on those options should be an important part of the basic research.

Gaston Meskens

Social sciences research in the nuclear domain can be useful: to analyse decision makers’ assumptions about the public’s attitudes and perceptions; and to grasp better the actual attitudes and reasoning of citizens in their everyday lives.

Marc Poumadère

By opening the black boxes of nuclear research, environmental or labour organisations, for example, could contribute to the definition of research programmes. In particular, these actors must be involved in the production of and discussion of scenarios and choices concerning possible future energy pathways.

Francis Chateauraynaud, Soraya Boudia, Markku Lehtonen

The public has a series of ethical and value based concerns about nuclear issues. These concerns have significant implications for the policy framework, the political context and the structures for governance that are developed. Public concerns should not drive policy alone, but they should shape it. The work of Sciencewise (UK centre for public dialogue http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/) is worth looking at to understand what value the public can bring to policy processes.

Simon Burall

Ideally, technology platforms should represent the balance between industrial needs and other concerns, but evaluations of the European platforms and our recent study of the IGD-TP show that this is not the case. It should be considered that research funded by public money should in the first instance be committed to the interests of (European) society. This is contrary to a research agenda which is dominated by industry needs.

Anne Bergmans and InSOTEC partners

The end users must be both the technicians and the people in the bodies that are entrusted with formulating and giving force of law to the measures involved.

Evandro Agazzi

In short: if you want to have public trust, raise your own trustworthiness first. The trustworthiness of Euratom could be increased through transparency and accountability, while it could be easily destroyed by intransparency or the perception of biases.

Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald

an

nEx

3

31


What is specific to EU nuclear fission research? To what extent is it distinct from energy research in general? Should it be driven by EU legislation (e.g. similarly to the “Bataille law” which proposed a long-term research programme to support the French strategy)?

The peculiarity of nuclear fission research that it is much more regulated due to safety and security concerns.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

The Finnish approach of public nuclear safety research (see for example http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/safir2014/), which is partly funded by a “tax”-like fee from nuclear power companies and thus partly steered by them, is worth considering in broader context as well.


The reference to the French situation (reminder: 1991 Bataille Law on the management of high level long lived waste) is interesting, because the case is an example of “reverse research”, where research is being identified as an important factor in knowledge creation but also, consensus-building. I do not know if the EU is in a position to implement such a model, nor if it falls under its remit.

Romain Garcier

From an economic point of view two main issues are now in debate: (1) How long-term investments may be taken into account, with a good discounting approach? (2) How the specific problem of irreversibility must be solved? The life duration of nuclear waste is very long and for economists this point is difficult to evaluate.

Jacques Percebois

An EU legislation to propose a long-term research strategy may be productive if it settles for an integrated research program on energy options and their interconnections, including natural and social sciences. It also needs to promote active outreach to stakeholders and NGOs in order to understand their viewpoints and to identify areas of common interest, value or concern.

Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke

Unlike for many other energy systems, includ-ing the externalities (waste, decommissioning, environmental impacts, etc.) has always been an integral part of nuclear research. The public should decide on the acceptability of energy technolo-gies once their implication has been understood. Excluding certain energy systems from research could expose us to dangerous choice limitation in the future.

Eberhard Falck

Key to the analysis of nuclear fission safety is the concept of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). PRA calculations are taken as significant indicators of plant weaknesses, and they underpin the concept of acceptable risks and tolerable consequences under fault conditions. However, PRA seems structurally limited in its ability to capture the outcomes and consequences of severe accidents. Research appraisal of this approach and its real-life application seems appropriate and timely.

Paul Dorfman

It is highly advisable to elaborate at least certain shared frames of reference with the aim of proceeding in the direction of an increased integration of the different regulations.

Evandro Agazzi

an

nEx

3

32


What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large? What kind of EU research is needed to improve the risk governance? “Technical experts” aiming at technological risk minimisation, “social scientists” aiming at public fear minimisation, or a mix of both?

Research has shown that lay people’s acceptance of nuclear power mainly depends upon the amount of economic benefits (e.g. a secure energy supply) they perceive in this energy source. Perceived risks (e.g. of an accident) have a much smaller influence on acceptance of nuclear power than perceived benefits. Also, the perceived benefits of nuclear power for the climate have a much smaller impact on acceptance of nuclear power than the perceived economic benefits. Trust and feelings have indirect effects on the acceptance.

Vivianne Visschers

The promising existing frameworks, such as the International Risk Governance Council’s risk governance framework (http://www.irgc.org/), have the capacity to integrate different fields of knowledge, include important stakeholders and tailor risk communication to the specific needs of the target audiences. As this risk governance framework has been tested in practical regulation, it could be a starting point for improving risk governance in the EU energy sector.


What is needed are honest and independent assessments of all the various dimensions of nuclear activities (not analysed only from a risk perspective, but also from an opportunity and economic justification perspective).

Romain Garcier

Scientists, industry and regulators can only work on establishing trust in the respective technologies.

Eberhard Falck

European policy and the economic research must develop analyses in three fields: impacts of the nuclear choice on the health of the various populations affected; transparent and objective information about the fair cost of nuclear energy (private and social costs); and comparative analysis of risk management in the main industrial sectors: chemical, nuclear, oil and gas, etc.

Jacques Percebois

An acceptable nuclear risk is simply a risk that an informed democratic society justifies as acceptable. In its contribution to improving risk governance, social sciences research may support effective communication about science and technology with the public, but should primarily concentrate on methods to involve the public better in the research itself and make research transdisciplinary and holistic in a convincing way.

Gaston Meskens

An acceptable level of risk for the public can only be understood when methodologies of risk assessment are used that transcend technical forms of risk assessment (based on probabilistic estimates of harm). Public fears generally are not irrational; they simply depend on different ways of framing the nuclear issue. Institutional responses need to be social in nature rather than about mere fear reduction.

Phil Macnaghten

The quality and reliability of information in matters regarding great risks is the only remedy against irrational and emotional attitudes.

Evandro Agazzi

The public is able to take a very sophisticated view of risk, but not in isolation. It is as interested in how the benefits of a particular technology will be spread as it is in who will bear the risk.

Simon Burall

an

nEx

3

33


How to deal with and how to communicate about uncertainties (e.g. climate change, genetically modified organisms, stem cells)? How about strategic questions in nuclear (e.g. is plutonium an asset or a liability)? What is the impact of low-dose radiation (linear no-threshold model versus hormesis)?

A good way to deal with this issue is to admit the existence of uncertainties, which cannot all be removed by improving technology only, and put more effort on anticipating and being prepared for unrecognised and emerging risks. This kind of foresight activities is one example where social scientists can make a big contribution.


Expected technical progress with new nuclear reactors is promising and must lead to an increasing research effort. With such a nuclear generation, plutonium is no longer a waste and becomes a fuel. The problem of uranium scarcity is solved and, moreover, through transmutation of some actinides, it is possible to reduce the long-run waste volume to be stored. But the public (and even some governments) does not have good knowledge of this potential technical progress and more information should be provided.

Jacques Percebois

All these questions have been subject to considerable controversies — some for several decades. The issues around the so-called uncertainties are not merely a matter of communication but of: the transparency of decision making concerning nuclear activities; confidence in nuclear institutions in light of their often poor track record in interacting with the public; and the different interpretations of the precautionary principle, adopted as a key principle for risk governance in Europe.


Structures will need to be set up to demonstrate to the public that its concerns are really being heard and are really being acted on. The deficit model of public engagement will not work for areas such as these.

Simon Burall

Rather than seeing risk governance as only a matter to do with communicating about uncertainties (i.e. sending a predetermined message to the passive public that needs to be convinced), efforts should aim at fostering dialogue and discussions and establishing fora in which risk, responsibilities, acceptable thresholds, etc. are co-defined. The case of genetically modified organisms has shown that if the voice of the public is not heard and listened to, controversies about science and technology can quickly emerge.

Anne Bergmans and InSOTEC partners

The worst approach would be to try to keep uncertainties hidden and to give the impression that we are able to master and eliminate them thanks to our models and simulations.

Evandro Agazzi

One important aspect concerns the over-reliance on modelling. Within the energy sector lack of transparency may be as big a problem as uncertainty: the lack of transparency about the ingredients fed into simulations and modelling of energy futures is a major problem that needs to be addressed to enable sound political decision making.


an

nEx

3

34


What could be improved to better “serve” the end users? What is the public perception of Euratom research programmes? More generally, how is the role of the technical (especially nuclear) experts perceived, in comparison with scientists in other areas of energy research?

The key issues could be better education about nuclear energy and more focused financial support for research favoured by the industry and technology platforms.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

Euratom research programmes seem to be unknown to the public. One reason might be that they might have been very specific and technologically oriented with no human and societal content — and perhaps regarded by researchers as superior to laymen’s concerns, which holds also for many technological experts.


Nuclear research is still seen as useful and important but most people make no distinction between national and European research programmes. They are more concerned about the direction of nuclear research. Is it more inclined to promote nuclear power or to control it? Is it more directed towards safety and security research or to making nuclear power more profitable and efficient?


In order to maintain public, policy and academic trust in the research process, it is imperative that “limitations” should be given equal weight to the “benefits” of nuclear fission within defining priorities for future Euratom fission research and training.

Paul Dorfman

End users could feel better served if they got involved, directly or indirectly. Action-research could be developed to have scientists share work on the field with the local population whenever possible. But a large part of nuclear research remains strictly technical and it is difficult to imagine how to involve the public.

Marc Poumadère

In an era of responsible science and innovation — now firmly embedded in European Commission funding programmes — nuclear science has to prove that it is operating responsibly. This means that it is: anticipative (with the capacity to consider possible intended and unintended broad impacts); inclusive (committed to deliberate with users and wider publics); reflective (able to reflect upon embedded commitments and assumptions); and responsive (answerable to outside questions and flexible enough to adjust). These are general prescriptions but especially pertinent to the case of nuclear.

Phil Macnaghten

Concerning better service to the public, we think that Euratom could be a pioneer in public engagement in energy if — a big if! — conceived rightly. What needs to be ensured in particular is that public engagement is not misunderstood as acceptance machinery. Instead of requiring blind trust or acquiescence by the public, the goal should rather be to create platforms of public engagement and open discourse where mutual criticism and open debate about different energy futures are supported.


an

nEx

3

35


Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues? What is the impact of the Fukushima event on the public debate and on policymaking in the EU Member States? Is this impact going to be permanent? Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

Most of the EU-sponsored social science research that I am aware of is in policy analysis. It is generally very descriptive, stays at the country scale and shies away from engaging with contentious issues. Historically, there has always been an ambiguity about Euratom’s role in European nuclear policy: can an institution that is essentially a promoter of nuclear energy answer public concerns about nuclear energy?

Romain Garcier

Euratom should address sociopolitical aspects – although not necessarily in every research round. Sociopolitical topics must be linked closely to EU decision making.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

The public does not need unambiguous answers to what would be the right energy policy for Europe and what would be the eventual role of nuclear in this. It will trust the research if it senses it to be open, transparent, transdisciplinary and inclusive and driven by a sense for environmental care and social justice with respect to energy policy.

Gaston Meskens

The impact of Fukushima is a demonstration that pure technological advance is not very effective if it is not accompanied by an adequate maturation of moral and social responsibility.

Evandro Agazzi

Sociopolitical issues could be further studied but not treated separately from other Euratom research issues. Severe accident research could include the social impact (even upon populations not exposed to accidental radiation) in the definition of the severity of an accident; what makes a nuclear accident severe is a result of both technical and social characteristics.

Marc Poumadère

We have been focusing too much on defensive messages for nuclear energy. We need to convey to the public all the risks and benefits associated with all energy conversion. This is effectively hampered by the various lobby and partisan groups. There also needs to be a change in the training and education of students to improve their consciousness of the societal context in which they will operate and awareness that they will be societally accountable.

Eberhard Falck

Euratom should as a matter of urgency undertake work on sociopolitical issues across Europe. Such work needs to involve an appropriate balance of disciplines and to be set within an appropriate sociopolitical framing.

Phil Macnaghten

Euratom should certainly focus more on sociopolitical issues, but in addition to understand the collective processes at stake in different countries, a long-run permanent observatory of debates and mobilisations, economical strategies and policymaking would be highly beneficial.


We want to emphasise the necessity to support inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, to include various stakeholders and multiple perspectives and to explore the pros and cons, the specificities and limits of different alternative energy scenarios. It needs to be clarified whether Euratom merely aims at acceptance and promotion of nuclear energy or whether the goal is to support an open and inclusive debate about energy futures. We definitely favour and would support only the latter.


an

nEx

3

36


37


an

nEx

4a

nn

Ex 4

The European Commission’s Advisory Group on Energy (AGE) remains of the opinion that nuclear energy has a significant role to play in realisation of the objectives in the SET-Plan, and that the Euratom fission research programme in Horizon 2020 should maintain its focus on safety, fuel cycle and waste management in order to create a broader basis for public debate and acceptance of new nuclear plants and agreement on waste management strategies. The lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the stress tests must be taken into account. During FP7 Euratom has developed important initiatives that strengthen the collaboration across Europe. This has led to the technical fora for sustainable nuclear technology (SNETP) and low-dose radiation protection (Melodi) and the industrial initiative for sustainable nuclear power (ESNII) with generation IV reactor technology as the long-term goal.

Euratom research investments in fission have been modest and strategy has been mostly left to EU members coordinated by FP actions with limited scope. The Horizon 2020 Euratom programme should strive to create a broader basis for public debate and acceptance of new nuclear plants and agreement on waste management. Support should be devoted to enhancing coordination at the European level:

• Continued support to public education on nuclear energy but also coordination of, and sharing experience from, safety research and research on waste processing, packaging and disposal;

• Sharing and spreading of research results such as those related to lifetime extension, so that benefits are accessible throughout Europe; and

• Contribution to research infrastructures such as research reactors, irradiation facilities coordinated with the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) including seed money for start-up research (hybrid reactors, new applications of nuclear fission, etc.).

The roadmap on nuclear materials is a well-suited platform to harvest synergies between the fission and fusion programmes and other energy technology programmes. The common use of the ESFRI materials research infrastructures could catalyse the dialogue around fundamental research issues like quantum chemistry and nanotechnology and materials for energy applications such as solar cells and batteries as well as fission and fusion energy.

AGE has expressed the concern that the small effort will, in the long run, preclude Euratom from participating in work on high-temperature or fast-neutron reactors and hence from influencing the development of standards for these technologies, which are being actively developed elsewhere (e.g. Russia, China, Japan and India).

AGE finds that the Commission should seek to increase the funding for fission research and to alter the balance of the programme to reflect the SET-Plan with respect to advanced reactors, to develop generation IV reactors with a near-term focus on the qualification of sodium-cooled reactor technology.

AGE has often expressed the opinion that industry should also increase its research effort, particularly regarding lifetime extension of generation II reactors, but also that needed for the new generation III projects. On generation IV, although this can be seen as riskier and longer term, industry should at least take into account the competitive edge it could provide, especially in view of active international competition.

Dismantling and clearing of nuclear sites is an area which could become a big industrial activity with European added value stemming from research and development in processes, procedures and standards.

Contribution of the advisory Group on Energy(extract of May 2012 report)

38


The Euratom treaty (1957) gives the responsibility to the European Commission to “facilitate” nuclear research in the Member States, to complement it by carrying out a research and training programme, and to establish the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) (to carry out research and ensure a uniform terminology and a standard system of measurement). It is then reminded that “the Commission shall direct research towards sectors which are insufficiently explored”.

During FP7, the Euratom programme in the fission domain has been geared towards:

• Enhanced safety of design and operation of ex-isting and future reactors, including fuel safety;

• Lifting uncertainty about health risks after low radiation doses;

• Safe, harmonised management of radioactive waste;

• Development of reference data, measurements and materials;

• Enhanced nuclear safeguards and security (only the JRC);

• Ensuring development, maintenance and trans-fer of nuclear competences;

• Coordinating and integrating research at EU level; contribution to Gen IV International Forum; and

• Support to policy development.

As far as indirect actions are concerned, EUR 405 million would have been spent during the period 2007–12, with an average of EUR 57 million per year, focusing on “safety first”. As far as direct actions are concerned, EUR 747 million would have been spent during the period 2007–12, with an average of EUR 107 million per year, being distributed approximately equally among nuclear fuel and reactor safety, waste management and nuclear safeguards and security.

It is estimated that the Euratom funding corresponds to 9% of the public and private research and development spending in the EU in this field, with 47% spent by public bodies within the different Member States and 44% funded by industry (see graph below at start of FP7). When considering only the research on nuclear reactor technologies, the Euratom contribution is only 1%, highlighting therefore the strong focus of the European actions in the other fields, i.e. policy support, safety, radio-protection, waste management as well as in education and training or research infrastructure domains.

an

nEx

5 nuclear fission energy research in fp7 and beyond

MSs’ funding

0

100

200

300

400

500

50

150

250

350

450

CZ

€ millions

Nuclear reactortechnology

Total nuclearfission

FI

45%

1%

54%

47%

9%

ES SE UK NL BE DE IT FR

1 1 2

1: 2007 data (gap filled)2: Annual average over the period 2002-2007

1 2 1 21 12

12

2

1 2 11

2

Other nuclear fission (i.e. nuclear supporting technology)

Nuclear fission (mainly reactorresearch and fuel cycle, thus withoutsafety, waste, environment)

Public EU (EURATOM budget; annual average)Public R&D spending of EU MS (2007)Corporate R&D investment (2007)

44%

ca.€ 1250million

ca.€ 458million

39


The Horizon 2020 proposal continues highlighting two types of activities: indirect and direct.

a) Indirect actions: They should continue focusing on the support to safe operation of nuclear systems in use in the Union or, to the extent necessary, to maintain broad nuclear safety expertise in the Union for those reactor types which may be used in the future. They should also contribute to the development of solutions for the safe and cost-efficient management of nuclear waste to underpin development of a common European view and standards. In addition they should foster radiation protection, in particular for the risks from low doses (from industrial, medical or environmental exposure), and emergency management in relation to accidents involving radiation, to provide a pan-European scientific and technological basis for a robust, equitable and socially acceptable system of protection.

b) JRC direct actions: The nuclear activities of the JRC should aim to support EU directives and Council conclusions giving priority to the highest standards for nuclear safety and security in the EU and internationally. The JRC should notably mobilise the necessary capacity and expertise to contribute to the research in the area of nuclear installations and the peaceful use of nuclear energy and other non-fission applications, to support on a scientific basis relevant EU legislation and, if necessary, to react according to its mission and competence to nuclear incidents and accidents. To this aim, the JRC should carry out research and assessments and provide references and standards.

c) Support to training and education is a clear objective within the Euratom treaty. This should be pursued, both through direct and indirect actions.

d) Likewise, it is the duty of Euratom research programme to ensure availability and use of research infrastructures of pan-European relevance.

Framework ProgrammeTotal EU funding

(EUR billion)Total Euratom funding

(EUR billion)

Euratom funding (EUR million) for fission (indirect actions) fusion (indirect actions) JRC (direct actions)

FP4 (1994–1998) 11.88 1.23170 794 271

FP5 (1998–2002) 13.70 1.26191 788 281

FP6 (2002–2006) 17.88 1.35209 824 319

FP7 (2007–2013) 50.52

2007–2011= 1.45287

654* 514

2012–2013= 0,55118

197* 233

Horizon 2020 (Commission proposal)

86 1.79355

710* 724

Overview of Euratom Framework Programme funding(includes operational credits + Commission’s administrative costs)

an

nEx

5

* excludes ITER construction

40


Contribution of nuclear energy towards the 2050 Energy RoadmapThe European Commission issued its 2050 Energy Roadmap at the end of 2011. It was then discussed at Council level and led to Presidency conclusions in 2012. The objective of the roadmap is not to select “the” way forward, but to provide elements of reflection on how to reach at least 80% decarbonisation at the middle of the century, while maintaining growth and competitiveness. Of the five decarbonisation scenarios of the roadmap, three show an important contribution of nuclear energy for electricity production, i.e. between 14% and 20%.

• Noting that electricity demand is expected to rise by about 40% between today and 2050 (from 3,300TWh/year today to an average figure of the order of 4,800TWh/year in 2050), a 20% nuclear generation would mean a nuclear capacity in 2050 of 140GWe — compared to 120GWe today (in operation in 14 EU countries).

• From these 120GWe in operation today, around 20GWe are planned to be phased out (in Germany and Belgium) between now and 2025. But the 12 other countries have given signals that they want to keep nuclear in their energy mix on the longer term. Two others intend to start relying on nuclear energy. One might therefore expect that around 100 existing nuclear units with an average age of 30 years today will undergo lifetime extension and safety upgrades (including post-Fukushima actions) to allow safe long-term operation of these units.

Considering the above evaluation of needs, one can derive a vision for the development of nuclear energy in the EU:

• First, an extensive lifetime extension and safety upgrade programme of existing plants will take place over a period of about 20 years (2015–35). The estimated investment into the economy at wide EU level is of the order of EUR 4.5 billion/year and add 50,000 jobs to the 900,000 already associated with the nuclear sector in Europe today; and

• In a second phase, when the existing generation II plants reach their end of life, they will be replaced by new generation III plants — to match the needed 140GWe given above. This large new-build programme would take place over 20 years (2020–40). It would inject EUR 25 billion/year into the EU economy and add 250,000 jobs, over and above the 900,000 mentioned above.

Noting in addition that nuclear developments are also proceeding fast in other parts of the world (notably China, India, Russia, South-East Asia, the Arab world) it is important for the EU to maintain a strong research and development effort in support of the safe operation of existing plants, the construction of new plants, and the building of prototypes of the new generation of reactors, able to make a more efficient use of the resources and to reduce the load of nuclear waste.

What is at stake is the leadership position of the EU, which is a prerequisite to champion the European safety credentials.

an

nEx

6


41


Example of European cooperation in nuclear fission:

Learning from the past and from each other is a common process used within industries where a very high reliability is requested. Today nearly 440 nuclear reactors produce electricity around the world. Operating experience from these reactors is a valuable source of information which allows operators to improve continually both their knowledge and the safety of nuclear installations. This collective knowledge currently represents approximately 14,000 cumulated reactor-years of practical experience worldwide.

However an effective operating experience (OE) feedback implies access to a wide range of information as well as resources and expertise to process this information. Therefore, the need for enhanced coordination and cooperation on operational experience feedback between the national nuclear safety authorities of the EU was highlighted. Consequently, a regional initiative has been set up in support of the EU’s national nuclear safety authorities and technical support organisations (TSOs), international organisations and the broader nuclear community, to enhance nuclear safety through improvement in the use of lessons learned from operational experience.

This initiative, called “the EU Clearinghouse”, is organised as a network operated by the Commisison’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) from a centralised office located at the Institute for Energy and Transport (in Petten in the Netherlands). The Clearinghouse is comprised of dedicated staff from JRC and Member States that have joined the organisation. Membership is mainly composed of nuclear safety regulatory authorities and their TSOs within the EU. The setting up of this initiative at European Community level has allowed the leveraging of resources (experts, data), better identification of the Community’s needs for technical work and further enhanced coordination.

The work programme is decided by the participating safety authorities and is executed by the centralised office with the support of the safety authorities and TSOs when necessary. In cooperation with the safety authorities participating in the EU Clearinghouse, areas where a community approach could lead to significant added value are identified and prioritised. Currently, the main activities are:

• Trend analysis of several OE databases in order to identify the areas on which the efforts should be focused in the future;

• Preparation of topical studies providing in-depth assessment of event families, identifying lessons learned and concrete recommendations;

• Quarterly report on recent events in nuclear power plants;

• Contribution to improve the quality of event reports submitted by the participating countries; and

• Setting up of a common database for sharing of OE.

After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on 11 March 2011, a European approach for a comprehensive safety and risk assessment of nuclear facilities was broadly supported (stress tests).

an

nEx

7


The European Clearinghouse on operating experience for nuclear power plants

42


43


GLoSSaRyAcronyms

CBA Cost-benefit analysis

CCS Carbon capture and storage

E&T Education and training

ECTS European Credit Transfer and accumulation System

ECVET European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training

EFTS Euratom Fission Training Schemes

EHEA European Higher Education Area

EMINE European masters in nuclear energy

EQF European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning

ERA European Research Area

ETP European technological platforms

IfS Instrument for Stability

INSC Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation

LCA Life-cycle analysis

MS Member States

NPP Nuclear power plant

P2P Public-public partnerships

PLEX Plant lifetime extension

PPP Public-private partnerships

RDDD Research, development, demonstration and deployment

SoES Security of energy supply

SoS Security of supply

SRA Strategic Research Agenda

TP Technology platform

TSO Technical safety organisation

European and international organisations/groups/associations

AGE Advisory Group on Energy

BEPA Bureau of European Policy Advisers

EAC European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture

EC European Commission

EERA European Energy Research Alliance

EESC European Economic and Social Committee

EGE European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

EHRO-N European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector

EIRMA European Industrial Research Management Association

an

nEx

8

44


European and international organisations/groups/associations

EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology

ENEF European Nuclear Energy Forum

ENEN European Nuclear Education Network

ENER European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy

ENS European Nuclear Society

ENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group

ENSTTI European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute

ERC European Research Council

ERDO European Repository Development Organisation

ESARDA European Safeguards Research and Development Association

ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures

ESNII European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative

Foratom European Atomic Forum

GIF Generation IV International Forum

HERCA Heads of European Radiological protection Competent Authorities Association

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IEA International Energy Agency

IET Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC)

IGD-TP Implementing Geological Disposal – Technology Platform

INSAG International Nuclear Safety Group (IAEA)

INSC International Nuclear Societies Council

ITU Institute for Transuranium Elements (JRC)

JRC European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre

KIC Knowledge and Innovation Community

KIC InnoEnergy Energy Knowledge and Innovation Community

Melodi Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative

NCII Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency

NSSG G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group

Nugenia NUclear GENeration II and III association

RTD European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

SET-Plan European Strategic Energy Technology Plan

SNETP Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

STC Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WANO World Association of Nuclear Operators

WENRA Western European Nuclear Regulators Association

WNU World Nuclear University

an

nEx

8

45


Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Energy Roadmap 2050” [COM(2011)885 final, 15.12.2012]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: a strategic approach” [COM(2012)497 final, 14.9.2012]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Strategic Communication on Renewable Energy” [COM(2012)271 final, 6.6.2012]

European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union’s instruments for external action [COM(2011)842 final, 7.12.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation [COM(2011)808 final, 30.11.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Climate 2050 Roadmap” [COM(2011)112 final, 8.3.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy” [COM(2011)21, 26.1.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, Innovation Union” [COM(2010)546 final, 6.10.2010]

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “Communication on nuclear non-proliferation” [COM(2009)143 final, 26.3.2009]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A European strategic energy technology plan (SET-Plan) – Towards a Low-Carbon Future” [COM(2007)723 final, 22.11.2007]

Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, “An energy policy for Europe” [COM(2007)1 final, 10.1.2007]

Official Journal of the European Communities, 98/C 251/06, 1998

European Parliament, Opinion of the Committee on Budgets for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council regulation on establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, (COM(2011)841 – C7-0014/2012 – 2011/0414(CNS))

European Council, Council directive establishing a community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste [2011/70/Euratom], 19.07.2011

European Council, Security Strategy for the European Union: “Towards a European Security Model”, Brussels, 23.02.2010

European Council, Council directive establishing a community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations [2009/71/Euratom], 25.06.2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on energy education: TEN/474 – CESE 1054/2012 IT/CB/CAT/PM/HAT/gh, 2012

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Horizon 2020, INT/614-615-616-631, 28.03.2012

ENSREG, “Compilation of recommendations and suggestions; peer review of stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 26.07.2012

ENSREG, “Action Plan: Follow-up of the peer review of the stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 25.07.2012

REfEREnCES

an

nEx

9

46


ENSREG, Peer review report, “Stress Test Peer Review Board, Stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 25.04.2012

Technology Roadmap of the SET-Plan [CEU, SEC(2009) 1295]

SNETP, Strategic Research Agenda, May 2009

SNETP, Concept paper, October 2010

SNETP, Deployment strategy 2010

SNETP position paper, “Implications of the Fukushima accident for nuclear research and technology development in Europe”, summary paper, December 2011

SNETP task group on the lessons learnt after the Fukushima accident, “Identification of Research Areas in Response to the Fukushima Accident”, October 2012

SNETP position paper, “EU Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014–20: Aligning nuclear fission R&D budgets to reach SET-Plan targets”, 2012

SNETP, “A vision report”, EUR 22842, 2007

ESNII concept paper, October 2010

IGD-TP, Vision Report, 2009

IGD-TP, Strategic Research Agenda, 2011

IGD-TP, Deployment Plan 2011-2016, 2012

MELODI, Strategic Research Agenda 2012, 3rd draft, 18.08.2012

Cour des Comptes, “Les coûts de la filière électronucléaire”, Rapport public thématique, 31.01.2012

IHS CERA “Sound Energy Policy for Europe”; European Policy Dialogue, 2011

ENEF SWOT Parts 1 & 2, Strengths & Weaknesses; Opportunities & Threats, May 2010 & May 2012

Eurelectric, “Power Choices, Pathways to Carbon-Neutral Electricity in Europe by 2050”, Full Report, June 2010

IAEA report, “Status and trends in nuclear education”, ISBN 978-92-0-109010-2, 2011

IEA-OECD, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, Pathways to a Clean Energy System”, Paris, 2012

NEA-OECD, “The Interaction of Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-Carbon Electricity Systems”, 30.11.2012

NEA-OECD report, “Nuclear education and training from concern to capability”, 2012

IEA/NEA-OECD, “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity; 2010 Edition”, Paris, 2010

NEA-OECD, “Technical and economic aspects of load following with nuclear power plants”, Paris, 2011

NEA-OECD, “Nuclear Power and Climate Change”, 1998

UK House of Commons, “Financing EU external action: the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation”, European Scrutiny Committee, 25.1.2012

G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group Summit Report, May 2012

D.M. Judkiewicz, “Policies & Instruments for Research and Innovation: Necessary Synergies”, Warsaw European Industrial Research Management Association, 2011

Position paper of technical safety organisations, “Research needs in nuclear safety for Gen II and Gen III nuclear power plants”, Etson/2011-001, October 2011

J. Delbeke, “EU climate change policy”, European Energy Market Conference 2009, Leuven, Belgium, 28.05.2009

W. D’haeseleer, “Security of Supply — Appropriate Concepts & Definitions and the Role of Nuclear Energy”, Contribution to the NEA-OECD-study “The Security of Energy Supply and the Contribution of Nuclear Energy”, Working Paper, 13.12.2010

H. Larsen & L. Soenderberg Petersen, Eds, “The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future”, Risoe Energy Report 8, Risoe/DTU, Roskilde DK, 2009

L. Piekkari (TVO), 2009, “Workshop on Economics and Financing of Nuclear Power”, IAEA Vienna, 11.02.2009 (and abbreviated version at ENEF, 10.03.2008)

an

nEx

9

47


M. Liski (Helsinki School of Economics), “Nuclear power investments in Finland - a model for others to copy?”, Workshop Market Design, Stockholm, 2007

A. Heyes, “An assessment of the nuclear security centres of excellence”, The Stanley Foundation, May 2012

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “New trends in nuclear safety and nuclear security”, Beijing, April 2012

European Commission, “Long-term responses to global security threats, Contributing to security capacity building in third countries through the Instrument for Stability”, Luxembourg, 2011

I. Khripunov, “Nuclear and Radiological Security Culture: A Post-Seoul Summit Agenda”, Center of International trade and security, University of Georgia, 2012

Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Reducing Nuclear risks in Europe, A framework for action”, Washington, 2011

The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), Fact Sheet, 2012

Report of high-level and expert group on European low-dose risk research, 2009

EHRO-N report, “Putting into perspective the supply of and demand for nuclear experts by 2020 within the EU-27 nuclear Energy sector: JRC Scientific and policy report”, EUR 25291 EN, 2012

Eurostat, Key Figures on Europe 2012, Figure 2.1, p. 32. Data for 2010

V.H.M. Visschers and M Siegrist, Risk Analysis, “How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x, 4.07.2012

B. Fischhoff, S. Watson and C. Hope, “Defining Risk”, Policy Sciences, 17, p123-139, 1984 (Reprinted in Glickman T S and Gough M (eds), Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future, 1990)

W.J. Nuttall, “Nuclear Renaissance Requires Nuclear Enlightenment”, Chapter 16 of “Nuclear or Not?” Editor D. Elliot, Palgrave, 2007

UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee 3rd Report, HL 38, ‘Science and Society’, 14.03.2000

J. Chilvers at UEA, Norwich, The Future of Science Governance , April 2011

V.H.M. Visschers, C. Keller, and M. Siegrist, Energy Policy, 39, pp. 3621-3629. Describes a telephone interview study in Switzerland achieving 967 useful responses, 2011

W.J. Nuttall and P. Storey, EPRG Working Paper 1129, “Technology and Policy Issues Relating to Future Developments in Research and Radioisotope Production Reactors”, 2011

NTI Global Security Newswire, “Japan Devises HEU-Free Medical Isotope Production Method”, 28.11.2012

L. Pouret, N. Buttery and W.J. Nuttall, “Is Nuclear Power Inflexible?”, Nuclear Future, 5, (6) pp. 333-341 and pp. 343-344, 2009

MIT Energy Initiative Report, “Managing Large-Scale Penetration of Intermittent Renewables”, based on a 20.04.2011 symposium

K. Anderson and A. Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 366 no. 1882 3863-3882 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0138, 13.11.2008

A. Meyer, Viewpoint, “The fair choice for climate change”, BBCNews, 18.05.2006

UK Parliamentary News, “Government too complacent about Nuclear Energy Future”, say Lords, 22.11.2011

Kessides IN, Energy Policy 48 (2012) 185–208, 2012

R. Grove-White et al., The Political Quarterly, Vol. 77, No 2, pp. 238-246, April-June 2006

A.A. Moghissi, The need for regulatory science transparency at EPA, Institute of Regulatory Science, 30.11.2011

JRC, “Impact analysis of the JRC and its direct actions under the EU research framework programmes”, final report, August 2011

EU Cohesion Policy 2014–20: legislative proposals (regional policy – through partnership contracts agreed between the Commission and the Member States), 2011

an

nEx

9

48


European Commission, Energy, Renewable Energy, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency Directive , http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/eed_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, Technology & Innovation, SET-Plan, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm

European Commission, Climate Action, Policies, Climate and energy package, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

European Commission, Climate Action, Policies, The EU Emissions Trading System, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

European Commission, Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Regional Policy, Future cohesion policy , http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Public Opinion , http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

European Commission, Financial Programming and Budget, Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Research & Innovation, Research infrastructures, European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri

European Commission, Seventh Euratom framework programme, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom/home_en.html

European Commission, Europe 2020 strategy, http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

European Commission, Resource efficient Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, Agenda for new skills and jobs, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=958&langId=en

Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI), http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/wirkungen/MELODI.html

MELODI, DoReMi, http://melodi-online.eu/doremi.html

World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

EERA, Joint programme on Materials for Nuclear, http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=25

ENEN, Euratom Fission Training Schemes (EFTS - FP7), http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/training/for-nuclear-community/efts-fp7.html

CIA World Fact Book, 2011 estimate determined via Purchasing Power Parity, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Sciencewise ERC, http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/background

Imaginis, the Woman’s Health Resource, http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history-of-nuclear-medicine

Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities (GMF), http://www.gmfeurope.org

an

nEx

9

49


50


All contributors participated in a personal capacity. Affiliations are provided solely to assist with identification. More information is available on the websites: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission and http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

Experts who worked on the scientific-technological-political issues

Name Organisation Country

John Wood Association of Commonwealth Universities UK

William D’haeseleer Faculty of engineering science, University of Leuven (KU Leuven) Belgium

María Teresa Domínguez Bautista Empresarios Agrupados Spain

Gustaf Löwenhielm Private consultant, CGL Consulting (retired) Sweden

Francois Weiss Grenoble Institute of Technology and KIC InnoEnergy France

Victor Teschendorff Private consultant (retired) Germany

William Nuttall The Open University UK

Olivia Comsa Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects (CITON) Romania

Jozef Misak UJV Řež Czech Republic

Experts who contributed to the socioeconomic reports


Evandro Agazzi International Academy of Philosophy of Science Belgium/France

Anne Bergmans Faculty of political and social sciences, University of Antwerp Belgium

Soraya Boudia Laboratoire Techniques Territoire et Sociétés, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée France

Simon Burall Involve and Democratic Audit UK

Francis Chateauraynaud Groupe for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales France

Paul Dorfman Warwick Business School UK

Eberhard Falck Université de Versailles St. Quentin-en-Yvelines France

Romain Garcier Department of social sciences, Ecole normale supérieure, University of Lyon France

Armin Grunwald Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany

Markku Lehtonen Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex and Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée UK/France

Phil Macnaghten Department of geography, Durham University UK

Gaston Meskens Nuclear science and technology studies unit, SCK-CEN Belgium

Pia Oedewald VTT Technical Research Centre Finland

an

nEx

10 ConTRIBUToRS

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

51


an

nEx

10


Jacques Percebois Centre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de l’Energie, Université de Montpellier I France

Marc Poumadère Institut Symlog France

Ortwin RennInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research

Germany

Piet SellkeInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research

Germany

Judith Simon Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany

Heli Talja VTT Technical Research Centre Finland

Eugenijus Ušpuras Lithuanian Energy Institute Lithuania

Vivianne Visschers Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich Switzerland

Experts consulted for the individual reports


Roberto Adinolfi Ansaldo Nucleare Italy

Hamid Aït Abderrahim SCK–CEN and EUA-EPUE Belgium

Julio Francisco Astudillo Pastor ENRESA Spain

Krasimir Avdjiev Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (BNRA) Bulgaria

Peter Baeten SCK–CEN and ESNII (SNETP) Belgium

Bertrand Barré Areva and Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) France

Ronnie Belmans Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven) Belgium

Janis Berzins University of Latvia Latvia

Helmuth Boeck Atominstitut der Österreichischen Universitäten Austria

Alexandre Bredimas LGI Consulting and SNETP France

Milan Brumovski UJV Řež, Tacis and INSC Czech Republic

Giovanni Bruna Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Noël Camarcat European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) France

Ron Cameron NEA France

Frank Carré CEA France

María Luisa Castaño Marín

Ministerio de Economía, Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Spain

Vincent Chauvet LGI Consulting France

Alain Chevalier Amec UK

Cantemir Ciurea Comisia Nationala pentru Controlul Activitatilor Nucleare (CNCAN) Romania

Hans Codée Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval (COVRA) Netherlands

52



Antonio Colino Plataforma Tecnológica de Energía Nuclear de Fisión (CEIDEN) Spain

José Condé Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) Spain

Paolo Contri Enel Italy

Dave Corbett European Commission, Nuclear Safety Programme for Ukraine, Joint Support Office Ukraine

Sander de Groot NRG Netherlands

Jacques Delay IGD-TP and ANDRA France

Odile Deruelle Institut supérieur des techniques de la performance (ISTP) France

Céline Duc Institut supérieur des techniques de la performance (ISTP) France

Mamdouh El-Shanawany Imperial College London UK

Monica Ferraris Politecnico di Torino Italy

Hans Forsström Formerly IAEA Sweden

Bernard Fourest NucSafeConsulting (NSC) France

János Gadó Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Atomic Energy Research Insitute (AEKI-KFKI) Hungary

Javier García Serrano Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) Spain

Marco Gasparini Formerly IAEA Austria

Luc Geraets GDF Suez France

Enrique González CIEMAT Spain

Pilar González Gotor Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) Spain

Antonio González Jiménez Foro de la Industria Nuclear Española Spain

Martha Heitzmann Areva France

Helmut Hirsch Wissenschaftlicher Konsulent Germany

Chris Hope University of Cambridge UK

Peter Hughes IAEA Vienna

Göran Hultqvist Forsmarks Kraftgrupp, Vattenfall Sweden

Jan Husarcek Nuclear Regulatory Authority Slovakia

Sue Ion Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom (STC) UK

Richard Ivens European Atomic Forum (Foratom) UK

Tomasz Jackowski National Centre for Nuclear Research Poland

Philippe Jamet Authorité de Sureté Nationale (ASN) France

Emilia Janisz European Nuclear Society (ENS) Belgium

Ralf Kaiser IAEA International organisation

Yves Kaluzny CEA and SNETP France

Mujid Kazimi Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) USA

Ioannis Kessides World Bank International organisation

an

nEx

10

53



Joachim Knebel Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Germany

Latchesar Kostov Nuclear Regulatory Agency Bulgaria

Zdenek Kriz Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Wolfgang Kröger Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Switzerland

Petr Krs State Office for Nuclear Safety Czech Republic

Irina Kuzmina IAEA Austria

Mats Ladeborn European Atomic Forum (Foratom) Belgium

Philippe Lalieux IGD-TP and NIROND Belgium

Matthias Lauber Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk (RWE) Germany

Peter Liska VUJE and SNETP Slovakia

Carlo Lombardi Politechnic of Milan Italy

Niek Lopes Cardozo Technische Universiteit Eindhoven and Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)-Fusion Netherlands

Cayetano López Martínez CIEMAT Spain

John Loughhead UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) UK

Didier Louvat Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Antonio Madonna Iter Consult Italy

Gaudenzio Mariotti Enel Italy

Aníbal Martín Consultant Spain

Carmen Martínez Ten Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) Spain

Ashot Martirosyan Armenian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (ANRA) Armenia

Hans Menzel CERN and Melodi Switzerland

Sergey Mikheykin FNK Group of Companies Russian Federation

Michael Modro Formerly IAEA Austria

Alan Moghissi Institute for Regulatory Science USA

Steve Napier National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) and Nugenia UK

Andrea Nicic IAEA Austria

Marjatta Palmu IGD-TP and Posiva Finland

Guy Parker European Atomic Forum (Foratom) Belgium

Milan Patrik Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Frantisek Pazdera Ministry of Trade and Industry Czech Republic

Fidel Pérez Montes Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro de Energía (IDAE) Spain

Alessandro Petruzzi University of Pisa Italy

Nick Pidgeon Cardiff University UK

Edward Quinn Technology Resources USA

David Reiner University of Cambridge UK

an

nEx

10

54


an

nEx

10


Jacques Repussard Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Rauno Rintamaa NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia) Finland

Álvaro Rodríguez Beceiro ENRESA Spain

Martin Ruscak Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Joseph Safieh Institut National des Sciences et Techniques Nucléaires (INSTN) and ENEN France

Rainer Salomaa Aalto University and Euratom Association Finland

Anselm Schaefer Technische Universität München (TUM) Germany

Hideshi Semba Mission of Japan to the EU Japan

Veronika Simonovska EHRO-N Netherlands

Vladimir Slugen Slovak Technical University Slovakia

Robert Speranzini Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) Canada

Andrej Stritar Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration Slovenia

Madalina Tronea Comisia Nationala pentru Controlul Activitatilor Nucleare (CNCAN) Romania

Harri Tuomisto Fortum Finland

Ilie Turcu NRI Pitesti, ESNII, SNETP Romania

Ioan Ursu National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH) and CCE Fission Romania

Jean-Pierre Van Dorsselaere

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Eric van Walle SCK-CEN Belgium

Ivo Vasa Formerly UJV Řež Czech Republic

Djordje Vojnovic Slovenian Nuclear Safety Authority Slovenia

Ulrik von Estorff JRC-Petten and EHRO-N Netherlands

Jan Wallenius KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden

Wolfgang Weiss Melodi board Germany

Jean Pierre West NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia) Finland

Gerd Wolf European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) EU

Rick Wylie University of Central Lancashire UK

Jozef Zlatnansky Enel Slovakia

55


European Commission staff (who followed the experts’ work)

Name Organisation

Hervé Pero Head of Unit, Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Vesselina Ranguelova Head of Unit , Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Roger Garbil Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Georges van Goethem Directorate-General Research and Innovation (coordinator) EC

Marc Deffrennes Directorate-General Energy (LUX) EC

Willem Janssens Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Michael Fuetterer Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Vincenzo Rondinella Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Sharon Kearney Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Benoit Desjeux Directorate-General Education and Culture EC

Eddy Maier Directorate-General Development and Cooperation EC

Maurizio Salvi Bureau of European Policy Advisers EC

an

nEx

10


EUR 25817 - Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy

2013 — 58 pp. — format 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-28673-5

ISSN 1018-5593

doi:10.2777/7010

How to obtain Eu publications

Free publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);• at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

Pricedsubscriptions(e.g.annualseriesoftheOfficialJournalofthe European union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European union):

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

KI-N

A-2

5-8

17

-EN-C

Documents

Benefits and Nuclear Fission for a Low-Carbon …...Office CDMA 01/47 B-1049 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] February 2013 EUR 25817 2012 Interdisciplinary Study