The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21 st century

1. The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21st century • Brussels – 2nd July 2008

2. Commodities price ($/Tep) Oil 1 Gas 2 Coal 3 Uranium 4 • Brent Spot Crude Price • Gas Italia price forecast • CIF Northwest Europe • Spot U3O8

3. Range CO2 Production costComparison with other base load technologies Jan 2002 Jan 2004 22.5 €/tCO2 18.5 €/tCO2 Jan 2008 Jan 2006

4. Production mix and electricity costItaly and France -52% 9% nuclear oil/others 60% 78% gas coal renewable 14% 2% 4% 5% 17% 11% Italy France Production Mix 2007** Electricity price to Industrial Clients €/MWh *** Electricity generation market* * 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) France Italy

5. CO2 emissionsTechnology driven • Nuclear • Renewables • Hydro • Carbon Capture and Storage 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

6. CO2 avoided emissions Nuclear contribution 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 Norway Finland 29% Russia 16% Sweden 48% Ireland United Kingdom 19% Netherlands 4% Lithuania 72% % nuclear Ukraine 47% Other sources Belgium 54% Czech Rep. 30% Germany 28% Slovakia 56% Romania 9% Austria Switzerland 40% France 78% Bulgaria 42% Slovenia Spain 26% Italy Greece CO2 specific emissions (g/kWh) * - 84% 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) Portugal Source: Enel elaboration on data from IEA statistics, electricity information 2007 e WNA, Table of world nuclear power reactors, March 2008 Source: Enel analysis based on anticipatory data from Enel, Eurostat, Terna, IEA data. 2007

7. Generation cost of low-CO2 technologies Nuclear * Source: Padua University - 2007

8. Operational Nuclear Safety All Nuclear Operators adhere to commitment of “strong nuclearsafety culture” and to the personal and collectiveresponsibility for the Nuclear safety (WANO) Some principles of Nuclear Safety Culture (WANO): • Everyone is personally responsible for nuclear safety • Leaders demonstrates commitment to safety • Trust permeates the organization • Decision-making reflects safety first • A questioning attitude is cultivated • Nuclear safety undergoes constant examination Over 11.000 reactor*years of Nuclear industry operating experience International cooperation: WANO, IAEA, WENRA ensures sharing of best practices and that there are no operators or plants with sub-standard performances New Operating Procedures and advanced HMI have improved operator response in any Plant condition, including the most severe ones Technology Significant safety enhancement of theNuclear Plantscurrentlyunder construction: • probability of Core Damage Frequency – CDF – decreased by a factor of 10 to 100 • Even in case of accident event, consequences are confinedwithin the Plant boundaries and exclusion zone. Target is to have no significant effects on neighboring population and human activities. Technological innovation through research and engineering Some points on NuclearSafety

9. Some points on NuclearDecommissioning • 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

10. Some points on NuclearRadioactive wastes • 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

11. Some points on NuclearUranium reserves 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 Thorium reserves have not been considered (approx.: 3 times Uranium reserves) * ‘Red Book’ IAEA-NEA 2006 ** CISAC 2005 RAR: Reasonably Assured Resources EAR: Estimated Additional Resources SR: Speculative Resources