This morning I was interviewed by Canadian radio CBC regarding the visit of New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham to France, where there is talk he could be looking at striking a deal for a French-made nuclear reactor for New Brunswick.

Following is an edited and updated transcript of that interview.

What kind of success have the French had when it comes to exporting nuclear power technology?

RD: I’d say pretty good, especially when you consider that Areva is the world’s largest integrated nuclear company. Areva NP, the nuclear energy branch of the company, had EUR3 billion in revenues in 2005, and employees over 14,000.

Also, Areva has built over 100 reactors in 11 different countries, and there is a growing interest in North America.

On top of that, 30% of the world’s electricity that comes from nuclear energy, is provided by Areva designed reactors.

How about North America?

RD: Areva does operate in North America, and in Canada in particular, primarily through subsidiaries in mining, and the company has over 7,000 employees in North America.

That said in 2005, Areva set up with stakeholder Siemens a joint venture specifically aimed at developing commercial nuclear generation in North America. The licensing and engineering work is done primarily in our Charlotte, North Carolina, and Lynchburg, Virginia.

One of the interesting things about Areva’s North American venture is that they are developing what is called a Generation IV high temperature gas reactor.

What sense do you have that Areva would be willing to take a run at building a Nuclear power plant in Canada?

RD: I would say that Areva would be very interested in such a project, given that they have setup a North American company just for that purpose. That said, there would have to still be done feasibility studies, to see if it’s even worth doing such a project.

What kind of public support is there for nuclear within France?

RD: In France there is very broad support for the nuclear industry, this is a direct result of the government taking the line in the 1970s that the country needed to be energy independent.

In other words, if you want to think of it this way, it was nationalism to a certain extant that led the government to be nuclear energy friendly.

The support of the government is such that in 2004 nuclear power represented almost 40% of the country’s total energy produced.

Here is another number to compare … In 1973 65% of France’s gross electricity output came from hydrocarbons. Now compare that to in 2004, when nuclear power represented 79% of the national total.

How much government support does the industry have?

RD: Well one of the reasons for the success in France, is the model is a bit different. Basically you have a state-controlled company, Areva,that controls all aspects related to the generation of nuclear energy.

Nuclear power works in France because primarily it is extremely efficient and it’s done at a low cost. And more importantly, for consumers, French electricity tariffs are the lowest in Europe.

You could say that this is one clear example of where a monopoly has actually worked in favour of consumers.

How about France's neighbours? (Germany? Spain? Scandinavia? UK?)

RD: Things are a bit different throughout Europe.

Nuclear power provides around one-third of the European Union's electricity supply, making it the most dependent region on nuclear power.

But to understand that, you need to look a bit deeper at the numbers …

Of the eight Member States of the European Union operating nuclear power
plants, five have adopted or announced a moratorium. Those countries are Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands (one plant), Germany and Belgium.

In the cases of Sweden, German and Belgium, these three countries in western Europe get between 30% and 50% of their power from nuclear power.

Italy renounced nuclear power after a referendum in 1987.

Austria, Ireland and Luxembourg remain antinuclear

This leaves three Member States in favour of nuclear energy – Finland, France and the United Kingdom, minus the new Member States.

UK

The UK has 19 reactors generating one fifth of its electricity, but current plans will see all but one of those retired by 2023. That said the government’s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is firming due to energy security concerns as current reactors approach the end of operating life and the need to limit CO2 emissions.

However, there may be some PR work that needs to be done …

Support for replacing nuclear power plants that will close due to their age has dropped to 35%, from 39% in November 2006 and a high of 41% in November 2005. But the change was not mirrored by an increase in opposition, which has stayed at around 28-30% since December 2004. Instead, more people say they are unsure.

Finland

Finland has four nuclear reactors providing 27% of its electricity. A fifth reactor was approved by the government in 2002, on economic, energy security and environmental grounds. This is now under construction for 2011 start-up.
Finland's reactors are among the world's most efficient, with average capacity factors over the 1990s of 94%.

Germany

The opposite case is probably Germany, where that country is phasing out by 2015 its 17 reactors.

Germany is also an interesting case, as the International Energy Agency recently warned Germany that if it intends to continue with phasing out its nuclear reactors, then it will be very difficult for that country to lower its carbon emission and Kyoto requirements.

And I think that is actually quite ironic, because now we have a scenario where the so-called green environmentalists who demanded the closing of reactors can actually find themselves on the same side as that of the polluters.

Spain

In Spain, the plants still run although there is no current hope of building a new plant given the moratorium. Spain has 8 nuclear reactors generating a fifth of its electricity

What is the EU attitude toward nuclear energy

RD: In the last few months here in Europe the subject of nuclear energy is beginning to creep up a bit more in the press.

Part of the reason for this is because this past January - for the first time ever - the EU made a stab at creating a comprehensive EU energy policy, and openly supported new nuclear generating capacity.

According to some research from the European Union, if something isn’t done now, within the next 20 to 30 years more than 70% of Europe’s energy requirements will be covered by imports.

Compare that to around 45% of all hydrocarbon imports now.

Interestingly, the EU also argued that these new plants were needed not only to guarantee the supply of energy, but also to lower carbon emissions to meet Kyoto objectives.

What plans do those countries have to deal with rising energy costs?

RD: At this stage, most countries are banking still on hydrocarbons, such as natural gas and liquefied natural gas.

There is also a lot of talk about renewable energies, but as it stands now renewable energies are actually more expensive – meaning in turn consumers will actually be paying more. Now some people do argue that this is indeed what is needed, to help lower energy use you should charge people more.

Then there is the talk about switching over to bio-fuels, but even here this is creating problems – especially in Germany, where land speculation for biofuel crops is driving land and food prices higher.

Are there any European companies outside of France the Premeir should also be talking to?

RD: I personally think that any time you are talking about spending billions of dollars to build a nuclear reactor, of course you need to take a look at the competition.

If anything so that you can come back to taxpayers and say that you did your homework.

And I am sure that this is something that indeed the Premier and his team will do, if they decide to go ahead with any such project.

That said, as mentioned Areva is indeed a heavyweight and the world leader in the sector. Of course there are other companies such as Fortum.


But saying that, I wouldn’t want to recommend any specific company.

Are there questions of health concern and safety?

RD: Well I understand that several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer among people living near nuclear facilities.

Also the third generation reactors are said to be designed to be safer and more efficient. Besides being “less susceptible to a terrorist attack,” each of these third generation reactors will produce around 1,600 megawatts of electricity, almost double the current amount that second-generation reactors produce.


Click here to return to homepage