Reply to the 7th annual report of the European Nuclear Energy Agency
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly debate on 26th January 1966 (20th Sitting) (see Doc. 2012, report of the Economic Committee). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26th January 1966 (20th Sitting).
The Assembly :
1. Thanks the Council of OECD for the transmission of the 7th report on the activities of the European Nuclear Energy Agency ;
2. Welcoming the continued progress achieved by the Dragon and Halden Joint Nuclear Reactor Projects, notes with satisfaction that, as suggested in paragraph 2 of
Resolution 282 voted by the Assembly in reply to the 6th annual report of ENEA, discussions are now taking place to review the scientific and technical knowledge gained and to plan for an extension of both Projects for a further period ;
3. Continues to believe that having regard to the decline in the present value of Plutonium, and to the declining costs involved in transporting spent reactor fuel, it might be wise for the time being to use existing fuel reprocessing capacity in Europe rather than to press ahead unduly rapidly with completing more capacity than can presently find profitable employment ;
4. While welcoming the continued fall observed in the level of environmental radioactivity as a result of the agreement to ban nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, believes that the work done by ENEA in harmonising the methods of sampling and measuring such levels in Europe, and in compiling an annual report on the levels of radioactivity recorded, is of great value in enabling the public to compare national statistics with similar statistics from neighbouring countries in a field which is of vital significance from a health point of view, and would deplore any decision to terminate this work ;
5. Reiterates its conviction that the competitiveness of nuclear power for the generation of electricity has now reached a stage where there is an urgent need for ENEA further to develop that part of its annual report dealing with this matter, in particular by presenting in future reports a considered overall annual review of the state of progress in this field in addition to the mainly country-by-country approach hitherto adopted ;
6. Aware of the difficulties of making valid comparative estimates of the cost at which different types of nuclear reactors are capable of producing electric power, except on the basis of firm tenders for a specific project at a given location as was done, for example, in the case of Dungeness "B" reactor, continues to believe that a great deal of public misunderstanding could be avoided if ENEA were to set an example in its annual report and in that part of the forthcoming report of its Study Group dealing with an assessment of the characteristics of power reactors envisaged in Western Europe, by assuming common criteria with regard to the rate of interest, the period of amortisation and the load factor ;
7. Believes it to be of the utmost importance that the ENEA Study Group referred to above should ensure, in that part of its work relating to the long-term energy demand in Western Europe and to the possible part of that demand which could economically be satisfied by nuclear energy, that its estimates take the fullest account of the views on general energy developments emerging from studies being pursued elsewhere in OECD.
