SWOT Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
European Nuclear Energy Forum Bratislava - Prague ENEF Working Group Opportunities – Subgroup on Competitiveness of Nuclear Power Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats (SWOT) Analysis Part 1: Strengths & Weaknesses May 2010 Acknowledgement Contributors (Status March 2010): Mr Beutier Didier AREVA - Chair of the Subgroup Competitiveness Mr Allehof Dieter EnBW Mr Bobo-Perez Emilio ENUSA Mrs Brozek Stella FORATOM Mr Büchner Heinz-Jürgen IKB – Deutsche Industriebank AG Mr Buet Baptiste AREVA Mr Catenos Laurent EDF Mr Chellini Igino ENEL Mr Cloquet Daniel BUSINESSEUROPE Mr Contri Paolo JRC NL Mr Daire Jean-Christophe Bouygues Construction Mr Debresson Thierry Rio Tinto ALCAN Mrs Dellero Nicole AREVA Mr Dierick Christian AGORIA – Belgian Employers’ Organisation Mr Ehlert Andreas E.ON Mr Fritze Ralf Jürgen Siemens Mr Gilchrist David ENEL Mr Gordelier Stan OECD-NEA Mr Hirschberg Stefan Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) Mrs Horova Lucie CEZ Mr Janouch Frantisek Czech Ministry of Industry & Trade Mrs Kainurinne Kaija TVO Mr Katmeridis Kristo SUEZ Mrs Krejcirikova Zuzana CEZ / EURELECTRIC Prof Kröger Wolfgang ETH Zürich Mrs Kynclova Hana Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Langlois Jean-Paul CEA Mr Lauber Matthias RWE Mr Lefhalm Cord-Henrich RWE Mr Leon-Lopez Pablo ENDESA Mr Lorenz Gunnar EURELECTRIC Mr Misak Jozef UJV / SNE-TP Mr Nuttal William Cambridge University Mr Ott Nicolas Permanent Representation of France to the EU Mrs Popescu Elena Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU Mr Rakhorst Huub URENCO Mrs Rompel Susanne RWE Mr Sebellin Eric AIRLIQUIDE / BUSINESSEUROPE Mr Sellier Emmanuel EDF Mr Servajean Jean-Bernard EDF Mr Temboury Juan IFIEC-Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers Mr Tóth Gabor EURELECTRIC Mr Tulonen Sami FORATOM Prof Voß Alfred Universität Stuttgart This list includes both „permanent“participants to the working group and “external” contributors who have kindly accepted to supply material, i.e. data and analysis results, to the working group. Mr Jan Haverkamp and Mr Jan Van de Putte (GREENPEACE) and Mrs Charlotte Mijeon (Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire) decided to leave the ENEF process in May 2009. This report has therefore not been endorsed by them. Nevertheless this report makes several factual references to statements they made and information they provided in the context of the Subgroup Competitiveness, until that time. 4 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 7 PREFACE........................................................................................................ 15 1. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ....................................................................... 16 2. EXAMPLES OF SUMMARY INTEGRATED EVALUATIONS.................. 21 2.1. Eurelectric 2005 Snapshot of energy technologies....................................................... 23 2.2. All Indicators (Electrabel contribution)........................................................................... 24 2.3. All Indicators (Vattenfall contribution)............................................................................ 25 3. ECONOMIC DIMENSION......................................................................... 28 3.1. Financial requirements .................................................................................................. 28 3.1.1. Production costs........................................................................................................ 29 3.1.2. Fuel price increase sensitivity ................................................................................... 39 3.2. Security of supply / resources ....................................................................................... 44 3.2.1. Availability and capacity factor .................................................................................. 44 3.2.2. Access to Resources................................................................................................. 47 3.2.3. Long-term sustainability (energetic resource lifetime in years)................................. 50 3.2.4. Long–term sustainability (energetic and non-energetic resource consumption) ...... 51 3.2.5. Peak load response................................................................................................... 53 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION ............................................................. 56 4.1. Global warming.............................................................................................................. 56 4.2. Regional environmental impact ..................................................................................... 61 4.3. Non-pollutant effects (land use)..................................................................................... 63 4.3.1. Power Densities in Generation.................................................................................. 63 4.3.2. Power Densities in Consumption .............................................................................. 64 4.3.3. Land Requirements for Different Generation Technologies ..................................... 64 4.4. Severe accidents ........................................................................................................... 66 4.5. Total waste .................................................................................................................... 69 4.6. Aggregation of environmental effects............................................................................ 71 5. SOCIAL DIMENSION............................................................................... 73 5.1. Employment (technology-specific job opportunities)..................................................... 74 5.2. Human health impacts................................................................................................... 74 5 5.3. Local disturbances (noise, visual amenity).................................................................... 77 5.4. ”Necessary” waste confinement time ............................................................................ 77 5.5. Proliferation.................................................................................................................... 80 5.6. Risk aversion ................................................................................................................. 81 5.7. Public acceptance.......................................................................................................... 81 6. AGGREGATION....................................................................................... 84 6.1. External and social costs............................................................................................... 84 6.2. Multicriteria approach .................................................................................................... 86 7. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 88 7.1. General Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 88 7.2. Strengths .......................................................................................................................88 7.3. Weaknesses .................................................................................................................. 90 8. OUTLOOK ON OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS................................. 92 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................. 94 REFERENCES ADDED IN THE TEXT............................................................ 99 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report aims at providing a sound background document for the discussion on the competitiveness of nuclear power in Europe on its way to a more sustainable, less carbon intensive and secure electricity production. "Competitiveness" can no longer be restricted to economic attractiveness but should address issues of environmental impact and social acceptance - in short, the degree of sustainability. The work was focused on evaluating the competitiveness of nuclear power in comparison with other currently available technologies for generation of base-load electricity supply. Examined data originate from studies funded by the EU (e.g. NEEDS) or other international organisations (OECD-IEA, OECD-NEA, IAEA), or from national energy studies and calculations performed by industry, research institutions and NGOs. This work is regarded as an important element within the multi-stakeholder dialogue of the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF). It integrates the views and the knowledge of different stakeholders. Views and knowledge have been presented and discussed in meetings of the Working Group "Opportunities" - Subgroup on "Competitiveness of Nuclear Power" throughout 2008 or have been reported by individual Subgroup participants to the Commission in 2008-09. The documents entail information/data provided until 2008 while it makes reference to the NEEDS-project where appropriate, e.g. for reflections on indicators and for data updating. Some environmentalist groups decided to leave the ENEF process in May 2009. This report has therefore not been endorsed by them. Nevertheless this report makes several factual references to statements they made and information they provided in the context of the Subgroup Competitiveness, until that time. Comparisons of energy options