1. Infrastructure Development TM/WS Infrastructure Development 9-12 February 2010 Breakout session – Group 2

2. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 2 Group2Infrastructure Development 1. EXPERIENCES 1. How is nuclear energy considered in the energy matrix:  Technical-economic approach (projected marginal cost, fossil fuel prices, nuclear investment cost, etc.)  As a way to diversify the energy mix and strengthen energy security.  Discussed as a strategic political decision, not so much based on economics (specially in countries that rely heavily on fossil fuels or are net importers of electricity). 2. Kind of indications expected at the level of national government:  National policy or clear statement (to avoid the uncertainties associated to the political cycle).  To clearly define a generic framework and hopefully to formally state the convenience to develop a NPP. 3. Type of structure established (NEPIO):  Most countries haven’t adopted formally a NEPIO, but have established a similar organization that performs basically the same tasks.  This organization usually adopts the form of an inter-ministerial steering committee.

3. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 3 Group2Infrastructure Development 1. EXPERIENCES 4. When to perform the feasibility study:  Early on in the process => It requires to have already selected a site and performed an initial environmental assessment. 5. Main directions for the promotion of national participation:  Different countries are pursuing different objectives. i.Generating competitive energy => Turnkey approach with limited national involvement. ii.Developing a local nuclear industry => An important national involvement and technology transfer is established as a strategic goal. 6. Good practices already in place:  Multiple-Bilateral agreements. 7. Self-assessment exercise:  Useful guide, but needs to be reviewed and improved (it is redundant and it has a lot of overlapping).  Good starting point.

4. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 4 Group2Infrastructure Development 1. EXPERIENCES 8.Other particular challenges:  Public acceptance.  Cost: i.Financial cost. ii.Costs associated to the development of all infrastructure.  Availability of vendors and/or suppliers.

5. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 5 Group2Infrastructure Development 2. LESSONS LEARNED 1. How is nuclear energy considered in the energy matrix:  Importance to clearly establish economic viability of nuclear power compared to other energy options (good signal for potential investors).  Importance of using technical models (IAEA models and/or others). 2. Kind of indications expected at the level of national government:  Once a statement is issued as a law, it is more difficult for the decision to be reversed. It also gives a good signal for potential investors.  The kind of statement needed depends on the phase of the process where the country is => to adopt a gradual approach.  The energy strategy needs to be supported by solid facts to survive political cycles. 3. Type of structure established (NEPIO):  The creation of a formal NEPIO might not be beneficial for the process since it gives the impression that the decision has already been taken.  It might be beneficial to include politicians from all parties in the process.

6. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 6 Group2Infrastructure Development 2. LESSONS LEARNED 4.When to perform the feasibility study:  The kind of feasibility study needed depends on the phase of the process where the country is => to adopt a gradual approach. In phase 1 pre- feasibility study should be enough. 5. Main directions for the promotion of national participation:  Different approaches have different implications (it depend on which are the goals set by the country).  They might be trade offs in terms of time and money depending on which approach the country adopts in terms of local participation.  A minimum level of local participation is required. 6. Good practices already in place:  Having a strategic consultant involved early in the process (some decisions that need to be made very early on have a huge impact later on). 7. Self-assessment exercise:  Rigid approach. It is difficult to use for countries that already have nuclear experience.

7. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 7 Group2Infrastructure Development 3. DIFFICULTIES/CHALLENGES 1. Private investors face several uncertainties that make assessing the nuclear option difficult and therefore, getting involved in the nuclear business unattractive. 2. To ensure the long term sustainability and timely development of the project.

8. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 8 Group2Infrastructure Development 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All countries should perform technical and economic studies to determine what would be the cost of nuclear power (regardless of whether the nuclear option is being considered an economic or strategic decision). 2. Kind of indications expected at the level of national government  A clear policy statement is required, hopefully included on a nuclear law (to ensure the long term commitment to develop a NPP).  At the end of a government to hand a comprehensive well-document report explaining the process and main conclusions to the next administration. 3. Type of structure established (NEPIO):  To include all relevant ministries involved in the process early on.  To include the regulatory body involved in the process early on.

9. TM/WS – Breakout session9-12 February 2010 9 Group2Infrastructure Development 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.When to perform the feasibility study:  The pre feasibility study should be performed before the decision is taken. Onwards, feasibility studies should become more comprehensive. It would be helpful if the IAEA could clearly define what elements should be included in the feasibility studies on the different phases. 5. Main directions for the promotion of national participation:  Countries must be realistic on the level of local participation that can be achieved. 7. Self-assessment exercise:  The guide should allow for some flexibility in its usage.  It needs to better define what is understand as “evidence”.