2012
Interdisciplinary
Study
Synthesis
Report
Benefits and
Limitations of Nuclear Fission
for a Low-Carbon
Economy
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 2013
Co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee
Contact:
Georges VAN GOETHEM
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate K – Energy
Unit K.4 – Fission
Office CDMA 01/47
B-1049 Brussels
E-mail: [email protected]
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
February 2013
EUR 25817
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 1018-5593
doi: 10.2777/7010
© European Union, 2013
Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed on white chlorine-free paper
Cover image © suravid/shutterstock.com
Table of Contents
Mandate
4
Rationale
5
Introduction
EU collaborative research in nuclear fission to face tomorrow’s energy challenges
6
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
8
Towards a renewed Euratom fission research programme for 2014
Annex 1
Summary of the EGE ethics group report
16
Annex 2
Topical scientific-technological reports: expert viewpoints
19
Annex 3
Topical socioeconomic reports: expert viewpoints
29
Annex 4
Contribution of the Advisory Group on Energy
37
Annex 5
Nuclear fission energy research in FP7 and beyond
38
Annex 6
Contribution of nuclear energy towards the 2050 Energy Roadmap
40
Annex 7
The European clearinghouse on nuclear power plant operating experience
41
Annex 8
Glossary
43
Annex 9
References
45
Annex 10
Contributors
50
4
Mandate
Mandate from the
European Council
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.”
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
5
Rationale
Rationale
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 socioeconomic 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
2
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission
available online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm
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
Introduction
6
EU collaborative research
in nuclear fission to
face tomorrow’s energy
challenges
The 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.
Research challenges
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 cuttingedge 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.
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.
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.
Through the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETPlan), 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 socioeconomic 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.
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).
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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.
Introduction
7
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 “Resourceefficient Europe — Towards a resource-efficient, lowcarbon 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.
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.
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
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
8
Towards a renewed
Euratom fission research
programme for 2014
John WOOD
Association of Commonwealth Universities
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 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”.
Global Trends 2030, ESPAS report, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2012
S y n t h e s i s
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 longterm 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.
The task
3
The reality
R e p o r t
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 capacitybuilding 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 costeffectiveness; 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.
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
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
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 longterm 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 undertaken 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.
available on the website:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/competitiveness_en.htm
4
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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 crossdisciplinary 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 nonprofessionals 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.
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
5
http://www.citizencyberscience.net/events/lccs12
ELI has made extensive use of Structural Funds for its construction and this is a
route to pursue in the future.
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
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
11
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
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 nonproliferation 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.
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 useraccessible 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.
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.
7
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldsctech/221/22102.htm
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 encouragement 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 excellence 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 masters 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 develop 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
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
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
13
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
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.
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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 underinvestment 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).
Synthesis of the experts’ studies
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 especially related to nuclear fission. The group should include the research and innovation, energy, communication 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.
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
Annex 1
16
Summary of the EGE
ethics group report
Fossil 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 underinvestment 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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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.
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.
• 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-groupethics/publications/proceedings-ege-roundtables/
index_en.htm
• 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.
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
Annex 1
17
18
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
19
Annex 2
Topical scientifictechnological reports
Expert viewpoints
The 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-onnuclear-fission
and http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_
en.htm.
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
Annex 2 - Topic 1
20
EU energy policy
Contributing to the three pillars of EU energy policy: sustainability, security of supply, competitiveness
for a future low-carbon economy
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.
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 turbinegenerators 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/
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
The expert highlights that an externality is commonly defined as a cost that arises when the social 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 recommends, therefore, introducing further the concept 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.
Set-Plan
Contributing to the execution of the SET-Plan, with emphasis on the objectives
defined for nuclear fission
María Teresa Domínguez BAUTISTA
Empresarios 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.
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
13
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.
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.pdf
Energy Roadmap 2050, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF
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
Annex 2 - Topic 2
21
Annex 2 - Topic 3
22
Research and development
Promoting research and development in the nuclear field through increased coordination of national
programmes, joint programming
Gustaf LÖWENHIELM
CGL 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 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.
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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.
Education and training and skills
Further development of expertise and high skills in nuclear fields
François WEISS
Grenoble 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).
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 intersectorial 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.
http://www.enen-assoc.org/
CESE1054/2012-TEN/474-25/04/2012-http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.
en.ten-opinions.21812
16
KIC InnoEnergy: Knowledge and Innovation Communities, http://www.kicinnoenergy.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 nonacademic 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.
14
15
http://www.ecvet-team.eu/
17
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
Annex 2 - Topic 4
23
Annex 2 - Topic 5
24
EU nuclear safety
and security aspects
Fostering 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
Victor TESCHENDORFF
Private 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.
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 longlived 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.
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
• 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.
People, quality of life
and the environment
Possible contribution of nuclear fission to worldwide challenges in particular regarding people, quality of
life and environment
William NUTTALL
The 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.
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 socioeconomic 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.
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
Annex 2 - Topic 6
25
Annex 2 - Topic 7
26
Safety and security culture
beyond EU borders
To promote highest safety culture at international level in all sectors of nuclear
fission and radiation protection
Olivia COMSA
Centre 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.
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.
Council Regulation (EURATOM) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an
Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, OJ L 81, 22.3.2007
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.”
18
19
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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
21
Science based policies and safety
and security legislation
Better 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.)
Jozef MISAK
UJV 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.
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 combination of various sources should be considered, including national and regional funding and funding from
private industry. Euratom research has the potential to play a key role in efficient use of scarce resources in terms of people, infrastructure and funds
and in the past it helped maintain know-how, common understanding of issues and harmonisation of
solutions; it should therefore remain a key component in fission research funding.
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
Annex 2 - Topic 8
27
28
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
29
Annex 3
Topical
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:
Euratom research:
• 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 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?
• 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 strategy22)?
• 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?
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)?
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
22
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
30
Annex 3
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.
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.
Gaston Meskens
Anne Bergmans and InSOTEC partners
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.
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.
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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
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.
Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald
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.
Unlike for many other energy systems, including 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 technologies 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
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.
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
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
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
Annex 3
31
Annex 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.
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
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.
Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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
33
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.
Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald
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.
Annex 3
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)?
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.
Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald
Francis Chateauraynaud, Soraya Boudia,
Markku Lehtonen
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
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
34
Annex 3
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.
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
Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald
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?
Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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.
Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald
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
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
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.
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.
Francis Chateauraynaud, Soraya Boudia,
Markku Lehtonen
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.
Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald
Marc Poumadère
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
Annex 3
35
36
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
37
Annex 4
Contribution
of the Advisory Group
on Energy
(extract of May 2012 report)
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 fastneutron 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 SETPlan 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.
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
Annex 5
38
Nuclear fission energy
research in FP7 and beyond
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 existing 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);
• 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, radioprotection, waste management as well as in education
and training or research infrastructure domains.
• Ensuring development, maintenance and transfer of nuclear competences;
€ millions
Public EU (EURATOM budget; annual average)
Public R&D spending of EU MS (2007)
Corporate R&D investment (2007)
500
Other nuclear fission (i.e. nuclear
supporting technology)
450
Nuclear reactor
technology
45%
Total nuclear
fission
350
300
ca.
€ 458
million
9%
250
54%
44%
200
150
ca.
€ 1250
million
1: 2007 data (gap filled)
2: Annual average over the period 2002-2007
100
1
50
47%
2
Nuclear fission (mainly reactor
research and fuel cycle, thus without
safety, waste, environment)
400
1%
1
0
1
12
12 12
12
CZ
FI
ES
UK
SE
12
NL
BE
12
12
DE
IT
FR
MSs’ funding
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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 panEuropean 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.
Overview of Euratom Framework Programme funding
(includes operational credits + Commission’s administrative costs)
Euratom funding (EUR million) for
fission (indirect actions)
fusion (indirect actions)
JRC (direct actions)
Framework Programme
Total EU funding
(EUR billion)
Total Euratom funding
(EUR billion)
FP4 (1994–1998)
11.88
1.23
170
794
271
FP5 (1998–2002)
13.70
1.26
191
788
281
FP6 (2002–2006)
17.88
1.35
209
824
319
2007–2011= 1.45
287
654*
514
2012–2013= 0,55
118
197*
233
1.79
355
710*
724
FP7 (2007–2013)
Horizon 2020
(Commission proposal)
50.52
86
* excludes ITER construction
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
Annex 5
39
Annex 6
40
Contribution of nuclear
energy towards the
2050 Energy Roadmap
The 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%.
Considering the above evaluation of needs, one
can derive a vision for the development of nuclear
energy in the EU:
• 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).
• 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 newbuild 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.
• 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.
• 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
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.
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
Example of European cooperation
in nuclear fission:
The European
Clearinghouse on operating
experience for nuclear
power plants
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).
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
Annex 7
41
42
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
43
Annex 8
GLOSSARY
Acronyms
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
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
Annex 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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
REFERENCES
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/614-615-616631, 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
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
Annex 9
45
Annex 9
46
ENSREG, Peer review report, “Stress Test Peer
Review Board, Stress tests performed on European
nuclear power plants”, 25.04.2012
NEA-OECD, “The Interaction of Nuclear Energy
and Renewables: System Effects in Low-Carbon
Electricity Systems”, 30.11.2012
Technology Roadmap of the SET-Plan [CEU,
SEC(2009) 1295]
NEA-OECD report, “Nuclear education and training
from concern to capability”, 2012
SNETP, Strategic Research Agenda, May 2009
IEA/NEA-OECD, “Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity; 2010 Edition”, Paris, 2010
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
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
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 CarbonNeutral 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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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)
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.15396924.2012.01861.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
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. 333341 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
UK House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee 3rd Report, HL 38, ‘Science and Society’,
14.03.2000
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
Annex 9
47
Annex 9
48
European Commission, Energy, Renewable Energy,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_
en.htm
Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative
(MELODI), http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/wirkungen/
MELODI.html
European Commission, Energy, Energy Efficiency,
Energy Efficiency Directive , http://ec.europa.eu/
energy/efficiency/eed/eed_en.htm
MELODI, DoReMi, http://melodi-online.eu/doremi.
html
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 20142020, 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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
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/fornuclear-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-ofnuclear-medicine
Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear
Facilities (GMF), http://www.gmfeurope.org
49
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
Annex 10
50
CONTRIBUTORS
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
Name
Organisation
Country
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
Name
Organisation
Country
Jacques Percebois
Centre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de
l’Energie, Université de Montpellier I
France
Marc Poumadère
Institut Symlog
France
Ortwin Renn
Institute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart
and Dialogik Institute for Communication and
Cooperation Research
Germany
Piet Sellke
Institute 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
Annex 10
51
Experts consulted for the individual reports
Name
Organisation
Country
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
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
Annex 10
52
Name
Organisation
Country
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
Ukraine, Joint Support Office
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
Annex 10
53
Name
Organisation
Country
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 Netherlands
Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)-Fusion
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
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
Annex 10
54
Name
Organisation
Country
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
S y n t h e s i s
R e p o r t
Annex 10
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
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
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);
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the
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-NA-25-817-EN-C