When the European Union sets an objective of a low-carbon economy and two-thirds of our energy needs to be met without CO2 emissions by 2020, it brings us face to face with our responsibilities. We have ten years in which to successfully complete the changeover and it is made more difficult by the fact that, in doing so, we also want to increase our security of supply and our competitiveness. Not to mention, our solidarity!
As Commissioner Günther Oettinger stated in Bratislava(1), the Single Market’s energy policy is lagging behind in terms of infrastructures and even more "in terms of solidarity and security of supply".
Nuclear energy now seems to be an essential part of the energy mix if we are to meet the challenges in the short and medium term. Worldwide, people describe it as a recrudescence; in Europe we speak of “revival”. The leaders of the main nuclear States are committed to responsible use. With events in Paris on 8th March, Washington on 12th April and Bratislava on 25th May, it is evident that public debate is no longer bounded by geographical borders. Nuclear power is no longer a taboo subject. "The concept of global security allows us to move together towards the setting up of a system of global guarantees providing a basis for positive management of difficult issues such as Iran and North Korea, so that the development of the nuclear industry can be achieved with a high level of security and safety, with protection against terrorism" declared Dominique Ristori. This is true, but we still have a long way to go to reach public debate, social acceptability and the acquisition of a nuclear “culture” which would allow societies to see nuclear power as acceptable and accepted, thereby building up sustainable nuclear energy for the longer term, beyond the next twenty or twenty-five years.
Massive investment is planned all over the world and competition is rife in the global marketplace. Will Europe lead the race? And if so, under what conditions? This is what we wanted to look at with stakeholders from the sector and Community institutions during informal discussions during the first half of 2010 through four lunch-debates in Brussels(2), and discussions will continue in Budapest on 16th and 17th September next.

Safety, a new element in competition
All sources of energy (as we have seen with oil and the terrible catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico) must be the subject of draconian safety measures and these measures will have an increasingly high cost because, as one leading businessman said, "You can never be 100% sure". Safety is therefore becoming one aspect of competitiveness but it would be disastrous to try and reduce it in order to cut prices. This is why it cannot be left to the operators alone. It is a public asset(3) a commitment binding all States and their citizens, and therefore the European Union. We need to fund new power stations, maintain and extend the lives of older plants, plan their decommissioning, manage waste and, to be able to do all that, train executives, technicians and engineers, increasing research to introduce innovation and improvements in the nuclear industry. It would be unimaginable to think that even a global corporation or a State could act alone in taking such decisions. The European Union must add a fourth pillar to its energy policy to include not only security of supply, competitiveness and climate but also safety (and non-proliferation).

Developing a nuclear culture
"When you commit to nuclear, you are making a commitment for a hundred years" said Paul Rorive, Director of Nuclear Power with GDFSUEZ. In other words, "We start building a power station; our grandchildren complete it". It takes ten years to obtain authorisation and build it. It operates for sixty years and takes twenty years to decommission. Then there is the problem of waste management. We have to create a nuclear culture that allows future generations to continue along the same track, and create the guarantees that allow for massive long-term investment. At present, Europe has 145 reactors in operation. Sweden and Belgium have decided to continue with nuclear production, the UK is rebuilding its nuclear sector, Hungary and Bulgaria are developing theirs, Italy and Poland have decided to begin making use of the technology and Germany is extending the life of its plants. However, the effects of the GFC should not be allowed to muddy the waters when it comes to investment. It takes approximately 6 billion euros to build an EPR and 850 million euros to extend the working life of a 10-year-old power station, especially in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, an issue raised by Edit Herczog, M.E.P. for Hungary. She repeated the need for nuclear energy in order to “gain freedom” from Russia. "How can we attract investors?" she asked. _ In this period of crisis, funds are being diverted to short-term investments and the new American gas fields. If a solution is not found, there will be no chance of seeing nuclear energy developing in Eastern Europe and the "each to his own, each in his own home" attitude is a real risk factor.
Europe will therefore require a great deal of unity, regulatory frameworks to encourage safety and security and a market framework. After the “Safety” directive adopted by the 27 Member States in 2008, a “Waste” directive is now being prepared. Its contents should be discussed. It is not sufficient to lay the responsibility on each individual State. The most difficult issue is knowing what can and cannot be done on a Community level. Care should be taken to ensure that good national examples (e.g. in Finland, Sweden or France where billions of euros have been invested over decades) do not discourage Eastern States, which will not be able to fund research or storage facilities. On the contrary, these good examples should provide a basis on which to find shared European solutions within a framework of solidarity. They should be beacons lighting the way forward.
Yet however necessary they may be, will these directives be sufficient to encourage the development of the nuclear industry when, unlike all the other technologies, it does not have the benefit of freedom of circulation? Should we create a specific market framework to encourage the European nuclear industry?

Building a market framework
At present, the licences that condition building schedules for a power plant are not standardised. The idea of a "nuclear Schengen" put forward by AREVA in 2009 to minimise costs and the time taken to set up nuclear projects met with little enthusiasm. Stakeholders prefer the Commission’s suggestion to move forward on the basis of the 27 existing Member States and, for the present at least, to support increased cooperation between safety authorities as regards standardised authorisation procedures in order to speed up the development of new capacities. Is there not a risk of wasting a great deal of time, given that 11 countries are opposed to nuclear power, some of them, such as Austria, having refused outright to even consider the issue?
Furthermore, the rules on competition do not allow contracts to remain in effect for more than three years! This being so, how can investments be secured? The benchmark prices on wholesale markets are based mainly on the price per KWh from coal and gas-fired power stations and are highly volatile. Currently, there are two interesting systems that allow large users to obtain nuclear energy at a stable, foreseeable price in the long term:
 The Exeltium system is a commercial contract signed by a consortium of leading industrialists(4) and EDF, supported by the entire system of production. The contract, which was signed in 2008 after 4 months of negotiations with the Commission (it will take 2 years to obtain the first instalment of funding) could be "the first of its kind" said André Merlin who acted as "go between" for the parties involved;
 The Finnish, or TVO, system is not a contract, as we were reminded by Kaïja Kainurinne, Director of European Affairs, but a company founded by the end-users, all of them massive energy consumers, to enable them to take advantage of electricity at a constant price based on their shareholding ratio. They are involved in the construction of an EPR in Olkiluoto and committed, in principle, to a fourth plant in Finland. However, this system, the only one of its kind, could not be introduced in France. Should we leave more room for long-term contracts? How could this be done without threatening the liquidity of the market and other stakeholders? One example might the Powernext type of contract, said André Ferron. Or should we penalise individual consumers who cannot access this type of contract? Such contracts will be limited to 15% of the market to avoid blocking market deregulation, decided the European Commission which, like some of the operators, seems to be underestimating the issues of funding and guarantees.

Creating long-term funding
Given the crisis in which the European Union finds itself, with debts of up 850 billion euros, we have to find new types of guarantee or risk seeing the nuclear revival disappear from view. Why not use “reinforced guarantees” within the EU, provided by several States? How about “purchaser guarantees” from outside the EU, provided by countries with available financial resources such as the Gulf States, for example? It is far from certain that the Euratom loans, which are nearing their ceiling, will be sufficient! These funds are concentrated on research and, while not denying their contribution as a driving force, they are but a drop in the ocean, said Marc Deffrennes from DG Energy regretfully, inviting us to do battle on the financial prospects for 2014-2020 to ensure that nuclear energy is not excluded from the SET Plan.
Confrontations Europe has recently held a debate on the European budget and is joining forces with players from the banking and insurance sectors to discuss regulations and financial stability for growth(5). This is a vast project requiring the reform of the economic and monetary Union but we have to create the conditions for long-term financing now and find long-term investors like the EIB, which could make a commitment to the nuclear sector.

Leaving the nuclear enclosure
Creating an incentive-driven European market framework would help us to move away from national policies and encourage the cooperation required for a European nuclear industry. At present, the nuclear sector has its PINC (illustrative nuclear programme for the Community) and a Forum in Prague/Bratislava, but the discussions are restricted to those within the nuclear enclosure! Opening it up to the entire society, in every territory, is becoming all the more urgent given that the nuclear revival requires a revival of skills and, more generally, a change in the way we view the nuclear industry i.e. a change in our very culture.
The sector employs 400,000 people in Europe but it is an aging workforce and there is no guarantee of replacement. The States yielded to the temptation of seeing nuclear energy as the “devil’s work” for too many years, failing to educate and train people for jobs in the industry. Nuclear energy was a sector staffed by specialists, with training programmes carried out in-house and non-transferable to other corporations.
With the internationalisation of companies, the multiplication of projects (to extend, operate or build), the diversification of technologies and the need for research/innovation at every stage of the cycle, we will have to share knowledge covering increasingly wide-ranging sectors: "innovation in the nuclear industry requires a range of knowledge including the science of materials, hydraulic chemistry etc. It attracts young high-level scientists and makes nuclear energy a more acceptable proposition," emphasised Franck Carré from the CEA. In addition to in-house training (AREVA trains 1,200 engineers every year; EDF 1,500), private projects are beginning to emerge e.g. the National Skills Academy in the United Kingdom (supported by the government) through which 67 companies join forces to define the qualifications and standards required by the nuclear industry. A “Skills Passport” has been created to “encourage mobility within the sector”, explained Jo Tipa, Director of Operations. ENELA (supported by the European Commission) was set up in Munich by 6 companies(6) to provide scientific, technical and legal training for managers.

Increasing cooperation in training and R&D
These good examples, completed by ENEN, the European Nuclear Energy Network of 50 universities, should not prevent us seeing the wood for the trees or conceal the gaps in education systems. Should the European Union not be encouraging increased cooperation between nuclear States, with particular attention being paid to Eastern countries where people used to train in Russia, or to countries in the South such as Morocco which has plans for a nuclear industry? Could the Union not promote PPP’s (public/private partnerships) to develop decentralised locations or European competitiveness clusters in regions that have power stations within their territories? That is difficult, said Rolf Linkohr "when the choice of nuclear power depends on the State". He suggested linking ENELA and IRENA, the European Institute for Renewable Energies, and was supported in this by Marc Deffrennes who wanted to consider these issues within the framework of the SET Plan (Strategic Energy Technology Plan). The European Commission estimated the costs of R&D and training requirements at 8 billion euros a year for the next 10 years. With the CCR (joint research centre set up by the Euroatom Treaty), the SET Plan paves the way for new cooperation on the nuclear industry of the 21st century by setting up technology platforms for sustainable nuclear energy, working on extensions to plants, the construction of Generation IV reactors (with a sustainable nuclear fusion project), safety, waste management and the building of prototypes. “This”, said Franck Carré, will enable the EU to "promote its objectives and standards and remain a leader in the international market”.

From acceptability to acceptance
Set against the background of a financial crisis, the European Union is proposing to build up a joint energy policy aimed at achieving sustainable development. However, an energy mix that is consistent with our objectives necessarily raises the question of nuclear power. Although the operation of nuclear power plants depends on individual States, it is an issue of general European interest, requiring new conditions that will enable those who wish to go down the nuclear path to do so in maximum conditions of safety and independence from outside sources. Forming a European market to encourage the spread of safe, competitive technologies is therefore something of a challenge. Giles Chichester recognised this when he stated, "Europe-wide regulation is not a luxury; it also provides a base on which to build dialogue and calm the concerns expressed by public opinion ". Eurobaromètre confirms that populations are ready to accept nuclear energy if we can solve the problem of waste management, because the problem exists and a legislative framework has not yet been found. Apart from that, though, should societies not be able to “appropriate” all the economic and social issues raised with regard to the future of the nuclear industry? This is a question of democracy and, by holding the Entretiens Economiques Européens in Budapest(7), Confrontations Europe intends to play its part in clarifying decisions and shedding light on areas currently under discussion.

Claude Fischer
President of Confrontations Europe
June 2010

Nuclear Energy in Europe - CF

To know more :
 Article of MEP Edit Herczog "Nuclear energy: its role and perception in the European legislation and in the Member States in 2010"
 The Lunch-debates cycle on "Nuclear energy: for a front runner Europe"
 the programme of the september 2010 EEE in Budapest on "Nuclear Energy in Europe : from Acceptance to Ownership"