The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st century

Brussels – 2nd July 2008

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Commodities price

Oil 1

Coal 3

1) Brent Spot Crude Price2) Gas Italia price forecast3) CIF Northwest Europe4) Spot U

3O

8

($/Tep)

Uranium 4

Gas 2

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nuclear Coal Gas CCGT

€ /

MW

h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nuclear Coal Gas CCGT

€ /

MW

h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nuclear Coal Gas CCGT

€ /

MW

hProduction costComparison with other base load technologies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nuclear Coal Gas CCGT

€ /

MW

h

Jan 2002 Jan 2004

Jan 2006 Jan 2008

CO2

Range

18.5 €/tCO2 22.5 €/tCO2

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 4

Production mix and electricity costItaly and France

Production Mix 2007** Electricity price to Industrial Clients €/MWh ***

61

128

I taly France

-52%

17%11%

14%

5%

60%

9%

78%

4%2%

Italy France

nuclear

oil/others

gas

coal

renewable

* Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas, Commission de régulation de l’énergie

** Enel analysis based on anticipatory data from Enel, Eurostat, Terna, IEA data. 2007

*** Electricity price to industrial clients (24GWh/y)

1,50%

0,30% 0,30%

3%

8,90%

86%

EDF Electr-Suez Endesa Total GDF Others

13,10%9,20%8,70%

8,30%

4%

20,20%34,80%1,70%

Enel Edison Eni E.OnEdipower Tirr.Power Electr. Others

Electricity generation market*

Italy France

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 5

CO2 emissionsTechnology driven

C02eq emissions

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Lignite

Coal

Oil

Natural Gas

PV

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Nuclear

Tech

nolo

gy

gC02eq/kWh

Stack emissions

Other chain steps

Source: Spadaro, Joseph V., Lucille Langlois, and Bruce Hamilton, 2000: “Assessing the Difference:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generating Chains”, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 2, Vienna, Austria

Nuclear

Renewables

Hydro

Carbon Capture and Storage

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 6

Portugal

Source: Enel elaboration on data from IEA statistics, electricity information 2007 e WNA, Table of world nuclear power reactors, March 2008Source: Enel analysis based on anticipatory data from Enel, Eurostat, Terna, IEA data. 2007

197 reactors in operation

31% of produced electricity in Europe comes from nuclear

4 European countries produce more than 50% of their electricity with nuclear technology

% nuclear

Other sources

CO2 avoided emissions Nuclear contribution CO2 specific emissions (g/kWh) *

050

100150200250300350400450500

I taly France

- 84%

Greece

France78%

Ireland United Kingdom19%

Spain26%

Sweden48%

Finland29%

Netherlands4%

Germany28%

Russia16%

Norway

Slovakia56%

Czech Rep.30%

Bulgaria42%

Romania9%

Slovenia

Lithuania72%

Belgium54%

Ukraine47%

Switzerland40%

Austria

Italy

In the EU Nuclear is the most prominent energy source without

GHG emissions.

Compared with the substitutive fossil source with the least GHG emission

(CCGT), avoided emissions amount to nearly 410 Mton/year (10% European total)

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 7

Generation cost of low-CO2 technologies

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Solar PV Biomass Wind

€ / M

Wh

Cost range (sign. part)

Minimum

Nuclear

* Source: Padua University - 2007

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 8

New Operating Procedures and advanced HMI have improved operator response in any Plant condition, including the most severe ones

International cooperation: WANO, IAEA, WENRA ensures sharing of best practices and that there are no operators or plants with sub-

standard performances

Over 11.000 reactor*years of Nuclear industry operating experience

Operational Nuclear Safety

Some principles of Nuclear Safety Culture (WANO):

o Everyone is personally responsible for nuclear safety

o Leaders demonstrates commitment to safety

o Trust permeates the organization

o Decision-making reflects safety first

o A questioning attitude is cultivated

o Nuclear safety undergoes constant examination

All Nuclear Operators adhere to commitment of “strong nuclear safety culture” and to the personal and collective responsibility

for the Nuclear safety (WANO)

Some points on NuclearSafety

Technological innovation through research and engineering

Significant safety enhancement of the Nuclear Plants currently under construction:

o probability of Core Damage Frequency – CDF – decreased by a factor of 10 to 100

o Even in case of accident event, consequences are confined within the Plant boundaries and exclusion zone. Target is to have no significant effects on neighboring population and human activities.

Technology

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 9

Some points on NuclearDecommissioning

Nuclear generation cost

68%

11%

13%

3%

5%

Capex

Fuel

O&M

Final repository

Decommissioning

Decommissioning funds are created during Plant operation

Several NPPs have been decommissioned and brought green field: Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Saxton, Trojan, Yankee Rowe in USA, Greisfswald in Germany

Costs are now predictable with good accuracy (350-600 €/kW, including waste disposal)

Due to the financial lever and the time lag between Plant shut-down and de-commissioning phase to finance costs, decommissioning component only amounts to 5% of the nuclear generation cost

Reactors currently under construction are designed also for the decommissioning phase

Improved reactor design and technological development are expected to significantly lower decommissioning costs

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 10

Nuclear generation cost

68%

11%

13%

3%

5%

Capex

Fuel

O&M

Final repository

Decommissioning

Deep geological repository is the available technical solution for final disposal of HL wastes

At least one repository is under construction (Finland) and other are under authorization or development

Quantities to be disposed are small

Alternative strategies are considered by the different Countries in order to take into account technological developments in the fuel cycle and NPP’s (permanent disposal, temporary storage for full recycle)

Funds for final disposal of HL wastes are created during Plant operation

Due to the small quantities of HL wastes, financial lever and the time lag between Plant shut-down and final disposal of HL wastes, final disposal repository only amounts to 3 % of the generation cost

Radwaste for 8 billion kWh produced (1 year production of 1000 MWe NPP) (1.700.000 households):

300 m3 of low and intermediate level waste (cube of 6.7 m side)

30 tonnes of HL solid waste (~20 m3; 28 to 75 m3 after encapsulation)

If generated by fossil fuels:

1.5 billion m3 NG or 2.5 million tons of coal consumed

2.6 to 5.4 million tons of CO2 emitted

Some points on NuclearRadioactive wastes

The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st Century – 2nd July 2008 11

Other; 13%

India; 1%

China; 1%

Uzbek.; 2%

Ukraine; 2%

J ordan; 2%

Russia; 4%

Niger; 5%

Brazil; 6%

S. Africa; 7% USA; 7% Canada;

9%

Kazakh.; 17%

Australia; 24%

* ‘Red Book’ IAEA-NEA 2006** CISAC 2005

Geographical Distribution of U Reserves (*) Existing resources (*)

RAR & EAR I (cost <130 $/kg) 4,7 Mt

EAR II & SR 9,7 Mt

Total 14,4 Mt

Other existing resources (**)

Disposed spent fuel: 1,2 Mt

M to M: 2,0 kt

Duration at present utilization rate

Ore reserves: 70 years

Ore and other existing reserves (MOx): 360 years

Ore reserves with IV Gen: 4200 years

Some points on NuclearUranium reserves

Thorium reserves have not been considered (approx.: 3 times Uranium reserves)

RAR: Reasonably Assured ResourcesEAR: Estimated Additional ResourcesSR: Speculative Resources