The NuclearSub Deal – What’s in a Name?

On January 11, 2023, the Belgian government claimed to have a deal with Engie on the future of KCD-4 and CNT-3. Whether this deal involves EDF is yet unclear. 

To shed some light, here’s my definition of a deal.

A deal is closed if and only if:

1. the contract is legal and signed,

2. … and the services and/or goods are delivered,

3. … and the services and/or goods are accepted,

4, … and the invoice has been payed,

5. … and the money is on the bank,

6, … and the warranty period has expired.

Some more afterthoughts on the deal:

1. The deal includes a new company carrying the name “NuclearSub”? As if we’re producing nuclear submarines?

2. One does not pay to buy amortised goods, unless you’re a metal scrap dealer.

3. One does not participate for 50% of less than 100% in a strategic company.

4. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) should never be declared as waste, it the most valuable asset in the house.

5. Do not fund  SMR (Small Modular Reactors). It’s not because they carry a cute name, that they are less filthy or dangerous  then the current NPPs (they are not).

Amortisation is not just a gimmick.  It’s a legal construct. It serves a purpose. And it has financial consequences.

1. It reduces the tax invoice of a company, and it therefore comes with a cost to society, represented by the government. 

2. In return, a company receives an obligation or incentive from the government to reserve means to replace to worn equipment at the end of the amortisation, rather than draining means from the company to the shareholders.

However, IF the amortised equipment is NOT replaced by new equipment, AND the government, i.e. society, is paying a buyers price to acquire the amortised equipment since it is considered strategic, the tax payer pays twice. Hence, again, one does not pay to buy amortised goods, unless you’re a metal scrap dealer. And unlike SNF, nuclear scrap is not an asset. It’s a liability.

3. Buying amortised nuclear power plants without the intention of a 20-year LTO is not smart, especially when 20-year LTOs are pretty standard FSAR procedures in other countries, and perfectly possible from a safety point of view.