At a national level, the main benefits of nuclear power are security of supply, steady costs of base-load electricity and a contribution to a low- carbon electric mix. It is difficult (and slightly artificial) to distinguish the social and economic impacts of nuclear power for a country. Access to electricity at a steady and low cost is an economic benefit, which results from the production costs of nuclear electricity, but there is also a social impact in access to electricity, particularly in developing countries, as it conditions development, health, access to knowledge, and so on. Building a nuclear plant is cost intensive but, in operation, the fuel cost represents less than 10% of production costs so that, even if the price of uranium increases, it will not have significant impact on the kWh production cost. According to a 2000 study in Finland, cited in WNA’s The Economics of Nuclear Power (WNA, 2010), a doubling of fuel prices would result in the electricity costs from nuclear energy rising by about 9%, for coal by 31% and for gas by 66% (see also Chapter 15 on economics). For a newcomer country, in an opportunity study, it will be necessary to draw up forecasts of the country’s energy demand (for instance, with high and low scenarios, taking into account growth of GDP), and to compare the competitiveness of the different electricity production options — whether coal, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, or (possibly in oil countries) an oil-fired plant. In coun­tries which produce high-value fossil sources (oil or gas), the revenues ‘saved’ by nuclear production and generated by exporting oil or gas also have to be taken into account. However, in the case of nuclear kWh produc­tion, all life-cycle environmental costs need to be internalized, notably including those associated with waste management and decommissioning (though if CO2 emissions were priced, it would increase nuclear competi­tiveness against fossil fuel sources).

Several international studies have been undertaken to quantify the exter­nal costs of nuclear power, i. e. to look at ‘externalities’, or those effects that are not included in the economic production costs of nuclear power. These externalities may be negative or positive. At a national level, nuclear elec­tricity (like other new renewable sources in national policies against climate change) should be recognized as a low-carbon option, and the tons of CO2 saved should be considered as positive externalities and evaluated for that. In its study Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change (NEA, 2009), the NEA suggests that, in terms of CO2 emissions/kWh produced in the most modern plants, among the different sources of electricity production, nuclear power emits about 8 g CO2/kWh, as opposed to 400 g. eq. CO2/kWh for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) and 1000 g. eq. CO2/kWh for coal. In this respect, nuclear power, with hydraulics, is an essential tool to reduce base-load electricity CO2 emissions. The new renewable energies have the same low-carbon characteristics but they cannot be used in base-load production.

Another social or political impact on a national scale which should be considered is the risk of proliferation, even if this is less a risk for a country itself than it is for all other countries (see Chapter 13).