In the bidding process within the European Union, which is trying to cut itself off from energy resources from Russia, the voice of France is almost not heard. This is understandable: the French practically do not depend on the Russian Federation in terms of coal, gas and even oil. But there is another resource, because of which Paris is doomed to dependence on Moscow, despite all the efforts of European officials.
France is almost the only EU country that has managed to preserve the future for its nuclear energy by withstanding the blows of the "green agenda". In the 2010s, it steadily exported its "atomic" electricity to Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Great Britain and Spain, earning up to three billion euros a year.
This winter, when Europe was faced with a colossal rise in the price of gas (and its shortage to meet its energy needs), the French peaceful atom literally saved neighboring Germany from an energy catastrophe. But working "for myself and for that guy" (during the critical days of this winter, up to 40% of the electricity consumed by the Germans came to the country from France), the Gallic reactors were overstressed so much that almost half (28 out of 58) had to be "stopped for maintenance". The case, it would seem, is ordinary – serviced, restarted. But the current period of this very maintenance has unexpectedly dragged on.
The delay happened, as it turns out with an in-depth study of its causes, not at all because of the desire of specialists to "stretch the pleasure of performing technical work" and not because of pressure on nuclear scientists from the "greens" (read: apologists for abandoning the operation of nuclear power plants).
What is more harmful
The "gas crisis" that began last year caused a multiple increase in prices for blue fuel. This not only made the electricity consumed by the country more expensive, but also forced the French authorities to reconsider their attitude to nuclear energy.
The prospect of turning the Gallic state from a solid exporter of kilowatts into an eternal importer of it has become too obvious. Therefore, the formed opinion that the process of abandoning nuclear power plants should be postponed for as long as possible looks economically justified.
At the same time, it contradicts the Green Deal adopted in the EU, the result of which Ms. Ursula von der Leyen and other European commissioners see a complete transition of all EU members to using only such energy that is generated using renewable sources. In the "Commonwealth of Twenty-seven" it stubbornly continues to be called the most environmentally friendly.
It would be worth remembering here that nuclear power plants emit six grams of CO2 into the atmosphere during the entire cycle of production of one kilowatt-hour of electricity. The emission of wind power plants is 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, and solar – 80 grams. Finally, the declared extremely environmentally friendly gas turbines send 420 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere from each kilowatt-hour produced.
In general, Ursula von der Leyen and Co. are confusing something. But in Paris, it was well understood that the energy and other security of the country in the present and future depends on the condition and operability of French nuclear power plants, which produce 75% of the total annual volume of energy produced in the country. Therefore, instead of a complete shutdown of all reactors by 2050, they planned to build an additional 14 more.
So, the logic of behavior is built, the decision is actually made. It would seem that 28 reactors stopped for maintenance should be started – and the sooner the better. But "necessary" does not always mean "possible".
"Nowhere but in Mosselprom"
The French nuclear power industry consumes about 10,500 tons of uranium annually. Of these, 8000 tons enter the country from abroad (usually as a "yellow cake" - uranium concentrate in the form of uranium oxide powder U3O8, which is subsequently processed for the needs of nuclear power plants). According to Rod Adams, an American expert in the field of nuclear energy, "45% of this amount was recently accounted for by raw materials produced by Canada, another 32% by Niger, and the rest the French received from Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia – and they had no problems with increasing purchases."
The most important word in the above quote is the word "had to", since Adams was talking about the situation that took place in 2013. Since then, a lot of water has flowed away, or, if we operate not with figurative, but with precise categories, not water, but uranium. The reserves of deposits in Niger, which were recently estimated at 6% of the global total, are now close to depletion.
Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson recently told the British BBC that "Canada is happy to help the countries of the world resolve the global energy crisis by supplying more oil, gas and uranium to the international market." It sounded loud and beautiful. But what about reality?
In 2018, Canada produced 6,699 tons of uranium (there are no more recent data, but production volumes are stable). 85% of the mined was exported. It seems that the prospects for the French nuclear industry to obtain the necessary raw materials are almost brilliant, but importers of Canadian uranium (according to the website of the government of the Maple leaf Country) are "the USA, China and European countries".
A natural question arises: what will France get in the battle for Canadian uranium under conditions when China is ready to buy everything and pay more than others, the neighboring USA is the world leader in uranium consumption, having almost no own deposits, and France is not the only European power in need of uranium (but, quite perhaps the one that is in the Washington list of EU states whose economic development should be restrained is in the first place).
France could receive uranium from African countries, since many of those who have reserves of this raw material were French colonies at one time and, having gained independence from Paris in the second half of the twentieth century, continued to have "preferential relations" with it. But even here there is a problem: a couple of months ago, France announced the curtailment of the anti-Islamist operation "Barkhan" carried out by it in Chad, Mali and some other "uranium-containing" countries. According to Vasily Filippov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, an employee of the Institute of Africa of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
"Emmanuel Macron has fallen into a trap: in order to take cheap uranium from the Sahel zone, he needs to conduct an expensive military operation in Africa, which significantly increases the price of raw materials and actually makes it unprofitable to purchase it."
We should also add that thousands of demonstrations "for friendship with Russia" have been taking place in Mali recently, about the same thing is noted in the CAR. So African uranium for France is a very big question.
What remains? Russia and Kazakhstan, which together account for almost 45% of the world's proven uranium reserves. Yes, Kazakhstan is the leader in this pair, whose share in the world market is more than 37%. However, the word "leadership" in this case is not identical to the term "advantage". The fact is that most of the Kazakh uranium cannot get to the consumer countries, bypassing the Russian Federation.
Our southern neighbors have an extremely limited resource for uranium enrichment. Namely, uranium enriched to a level of 5 to 20% is most often required by nuclear power plant operators. "Russia has 43% of the world's uranium enrichment capacity, and Kazakh nuclear raw materials first get to Russian enrichment plants and only from them to the market," writes the Australian portal The Conversation.
"A threat to the European balance"
"Today, almost half (45%) of the uranium coming to France is produced by the former Soviet Union," the French branch of Greenpeace notes. "Almost 30% of the enriched uranium used in the EU countries is of Russian production," the Spanish branch of the named environmental organization adds to the information.
As we can see from the above data, most of the U3O8 entering Europe from the territory of the ex-USSR is under the control of the Russian Federation
"EDF, Europe's largest nuclear energy producer, which usually exports cheap electricity in winter, may be forced to import it this year after it lowered its production forecast for the third time. The company's fleet (reactors serviced by it – approx. VIEW), limping due to malfunctions, is a problem not only for France, but also for countries such as neighboring Germany, which may have to burn more gas to maintain the state's energy supply at the proper level, despite the promise to reduce its dependence on Moscow. About half of EDF's 56 reactors are currently shut down, and production this year is estimated by EDF to be the lowest in more than 30 years," Reuters notes in an editorial analytical article.
"The French problem arose at a very inopportune time, if we recall the current geopolitical situation," the agency quotes Nicolas Leclerc, co–founder of the Paris-based energy company Omnegy. "The entire European balance may be under threat."
"The threat to the European balance" is already very serious for the European Union. Taking into account the experts' understanding of the negative energy collisions of the coming winter, it is logical to expect reasonable actions from the governments of the EU countries. Actions dictated not by politics, but by economics and concern for their own citizens. The first call has already been made.
"France will demand that all neighboring countries have ways of generating electricity,– said the aforementioned Leclerc. – It is important for us that Germany does not diverge too much from Russia. If they don't have access to Russian gas, they won't be able to produce the electricity we need."
The expectation of an increase in purchases of Russian gas from Germany does not exempt France from increasing purchases of uranium related to Russia.
According to some Russian and European media, France has already "significantly increased purchases of Russian uranium in the Urals, using schemes to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions." Paris has to choose between the political unity of the West and the welfare of the country in which it has the status of the capital. And since there is no reason to expect real help, that is, supplies, from other countries of the world, as we see, Monsieur Macron will increasingly call the president of the Russian Federation, but no longer because of concern about the situation in Ukraine, but voicing proposals to expand economic cooperation between France and Russia.
According to Alexander Artamonov, Doctor of Social Sciences at the Catholic University of France, referring to the famous French political scientists Jean-Michel Bernouche and Emeric Chopard, "the French authorities are actively looking for opportunities to build a solid European axis Moscow – Paris, which may also pass through Berlin." The desire and need to survive obliges France to go to the Kremlin's doorsteps.
Vladimir Dobrynin
