I have to counter-disagree; but forgive me for using some numbers.

The issue is, how much do these subsidies save in natural gas imports? For Areva to ‘profit’ on its own would require a very different strategy. The French naturally want to start exporting reactors and create job opportunities. However, Areva and EdF lack the coordination as their Russian or Korean counterparts.

The question is, how to properly market nuclear technology.

S.Korea had several advantages. Without wishing to discredit their achievements, the Koreans acquired US-technology; improved on it, and now seek to both construct and export their latest technology. The French by contrast ‘over-invested’ in their CY-series (900 MW) of which they field 33 such examples. As such the Koreans offer ‘newer’ systems and greater standardisation; not to mention superior economics through exports.

EdF has not demanded new reactors for a while, and only limited projects are needed. Moreover, the sheer size of Areva projects (the 1600 MW EPR for example) are not demanded in droves. More will be constructed outside France than will be ordered by France, and hence you have a task of selling something that you will hardly use.

The 1100 MW Atmea1 (being offered to Jordan) is another casepoint. Based on a cocktail of proven and or improved technologies between Areva and Mitsubishi (many derived from the EPR) it is also not likely to be constructed in France; if at all, due to an already formidable overload. Germany’s 17 surviving reactors may be phased out, but France will benefit by exporting its surpluses to Germany.

The reality is, EdF benefits, not Areva, and EdF has shown itself unwilling to cooperate w/Areva internationally (unlike the Korean consortium). As such, selection of the Atmea1 would be interesting; if it happened, because neither EdF nor Areva are likely to want to be shareholders and investors (Russian or Korean) would push for their designs instead.

Thanks for all your great comments – it’s always a better discussion when both sides of an issue are represented.

I disagree with your statement that Areva is not a company operating “merely for profit”. I’d argue instead that it is only because they are largely publicly owned that they are still in operation. When the Areva ship does sink, it will cause Titanic impacts to French and German economies; there are powerful forces keeping the company afloat.

At its core (no nuclear pun intended), this is all about money.

==============================
The story of viable Uranium Mining in Jordan is a complete falsification of facts and a distortion of Public Opinion found in most 3rd world countries that lack liability, accountability, traciability & transparency. The excacation of uranium by French Areva has found that Jordanian Uranium is NOT commercially viable and have stopped its work and sent back 99% of its employees to France. But the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission refused to announce this fact and instead used different misleading releases just to keep the media focussed on mining and nuclear power plant (NPP) building. Areva, a company that is facing severe financial problems with loss of 70% of stocks value in the past 5 years is no better. There main aim now is to locate 3rd world countries to build NPPs, which is the only way to sustain their existance after Europe & Japan closed their doors on nuclear energy. Jordan will be the first victim in the MENA region for Areva.
==============================

It is true that uranium mining was found to have concentrations of up to 93ppm (w/a cut-off of 53ppm) and grand total of only 14000 – 14500 tonnes. In real terms this is about 19-24 years of power in a single 1000 MW LWR. Mind you, the economics of uranium mining is not as B&W as people may present.

The commodity is still of strategic importance, France mines uranium in Niger for one simple reason; although concentrations in Australia or Canada are much, much richer, they intend to push for energy security. Yet Niger (being a former colony) lacks the institutional infrastructure and capital to promote ‘fair’ terms. Jordan is not in that category; but still has sufficient data for future digestion. All the same 112,000 tonnes of ‘low-grade’ uranium ores is still a strategic commodity which will grow in importance in the coming years.

Another issue is that Areva is not a company that operates merely for Profit. In retrospect, it can be compared to the privatisation drive in Jordan to (supposedly) increase efficiency; France retained public ownership of Areva in the name of ‘national security’ because profitability was not the priority. As such it does not operate w/the ‘maximum profit’ mentality because its main shareholder (French government) is not focused on this issue. Likewise, France was a ‘captive market’ (no imported reactors were allowed) to enable Areva to reach economies. Only recently have exports become critical for them and South Korea, but the Koreans are about profit from the start!

That is a falsification. At least a dozen developed nations are opting for nuclear power. Only Germany and Switzerland are committed to a phase-out; Italy and Ireland to never to re-introducing and introducing (respectively), and Austria is just anti-nuclear. However, France, Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Poland and so on are all not only constructing new reactors, but are also introducing them (Poland for example). Sweden’s referendum which urged a phase out of nuclear power came/went (2010) and new systems are being developed.

On top of that S.Korea, Brazil, Argentina and other nations are also developing nuclear power; Indonesia and Malaysia have put it on their agenda and are making great strides. Of course, Russia, China and India top the list of nations.