U.S. Nuclear IndustryLife in the Fast LaneEd PetersonManager Strategic PlanningAREVA NP Inc

An energy mix that meets our customers’ requirements

Organization of AREVA

Mining Business

Group

Reactors & Services Business

Group

Engineering & Projects Organization

Executive Board& Committee

Renewable Energies Business

Group

Back End Business

Group

Front End Business

Group

Functional Departments

AREVA

World leader in the energy business

� N°1 in the entire nuclear cycle

Our mission

� Enabling everyone to have access to ever cleaner, safer and more economical energy

Our strategy

� To set the standard in CO2-free power generation.

x Capitalize on our integrated business model to spearhead the nuclear revival:- Build one third of new nuclear generating capacities- Make the fuel secure for our current and future customers

x Expand our renewable energies offering.

AREVA - The Leader of the Nuclear Industry

W

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

AREVA FAAE Westinghouse& Toshiba

MHI Hitachi USEC GE Nuclear URENCO CAMECO AECL

Front End (excl. fuel) Reactor & Services + Fuel Back End

W

Ź No. 1 worldwide; No. 1 in Europe and the USŹ No. 1 in Plants / FuelŹ No. 1 in the Back End

Ź No. 3 WorldwideŹ No. 2 in Plants / Fuel

Relative Sales in the nuclear business

T

M$

AREVA across the globe100 countriesMarketing & Sales

Two-thirds of AREVA’s sales revenuecame from outside France

43 countriesProduction & Manufacturing

Bridging the Gap: Workforce CertaintyResources for existing and new build projects

Hiring Integration Training

Hiring

Investing in human capital: more than one new hire every hour

2006

8 600

2007

11 50015 000

2008

»Goal of 12 000

»2009 (e)

The Energy Highway

Recession impacted U. S. energy demand and pricingFuel costs

x Dropped for the most part, although oil is reboundingx Due to reduced demand, coal inventories at utilities are high which will depress coal

pricesx Natural Gas Prices dropped from $8/MMBtu in 2007 to $4/MMBtu

Electricity prices dropped due to recessionx Electricity demand will increase as economy improves

New generation delayedIncreasing environmental obligationsPersonnel resource shortages

Energy is a key issue facing the Obama Administration

Current U.S. Plant Capacity and Age

100 - 499 500 - 999 1000+Natural Gas 19 12 8

Coal 43 33 32Nuclear 35 26

Average Age of Plants (years)

“New” gas, “Old” Coal

and Nuclear

583

272

12

937

270

1448 57

0

200

400

600

800

1000

100-499 500-999 1000+

Nameplate Capacity

Num

ber o

f Uni

ts

CoalGasNuclear

Source: Global Energy Decisions

New Coal Plant Construction Slowed Due to Regulatory Uncertainty

141

175 13 15

113

020406080

100120

Propos

ed

Feasib

ility

App P

endin

g

Permitte

d

Under C

onst.

Postpo

ned

Canceled

No. o

f Pla

nts

Current status of 500+ MW coal-fired plants since 2000

Utilities are closing coal-fired plants in anticipation of more stringent emission standards

Source: Global Energy Decisions

Coal Production Cost Example

• 2 coal-fired units @ 1300MWs each

• Both on line in 1973

• Burns pulverized #9 bituminous coal (3% sulfur & 10% ash)

Nitrogen oxide Sulfur Dioxide

TVA’s Cumberland plant is one of their largest baseload plants

Clean Coal Backfits Substantially Raise Their Costs of Production; eg – TVA Cumberland Coal

Plant (1265 MWe X 2)

2000 avg. production costs ($/MWh)

Fuel $10.32Variable $ 0.46Fixed $ 1.85

Total prod. costs $12.62

2009 avg. production costs ($/MWh) (after backfits)

Fuel $27.00Variable $ 1.74Fixed $ 6.80

Total prod. costs $35.54

Results of DOE Carbon Capture Costs StudyCompared thermal efficiency & costs of supercritical & ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plants

Thermal efficiency reduced by 13%Capital costs increased by 73% - 90%Increased costs of electricity produced by 60% to 70%

Source: Global Energy Decisions

Emissions Reductions = SOX – 93% , NOX – 78%

Declining Coal Prices Due to Reduced Demand in All Regions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Coal Nuclear

$/M

Wh

17

17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

17.5

17.6

17.7

17.8

Coal Nuclear

$/M

Wh

Nuclear vs. Coal Production Costs2000

2007

2015 – Gen III

Small

Substantial Financial Advantage For Gen III

Nuclear Production Cost

Coal costs have increased

010

20304050

6070

Coal Nuclear

$/M

Wh

CO2

Nuclear costs reduced 30%

Uncertain coal production

Source: Global Energy Decisions

Reserve margins get dangerously low

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Perc

ent

PJM East PJM W ERCOT VACAR SERC

New baseload neededSource: Global Energy Decisions

PJM Daily Loads and Locational Marginal Pricing

(LMP)

Source: Global Energy Decisions

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

8/9/09

8/9/09

8/10/0

9

8/11/0

9

8/12/0

9

8/13/0

9

8/14/0

9

8/15/0

9

8/16/0

9

PJM

Loa

d M

Ws

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

LMP

$/M

Whr

LoadPrice $/MWh

Value of a Nuclear Power Plant

2015

2010

Estimated 2015 Curve

2007

Peak Load Price Value of Nuclear Source: Global Energy Decisions

PRODUCTS

BIOENERGIES

SOLAR

ENERGY CARRIER AND STORAGE

�Wind 2 ADAGE projects generating revenue for AREVA

�As an equity owner

�As the EPC for $400M

�Wind one Thermal Power plant project of 15 MW ($100M+)

�Purchased AUSRA, now AREVA Solar, and build a US EPC

practice

� Identify a US customer ready to invest in pilot

Renewable storage solutions

WIND POWER

AREVA’s growing renewables activities• Wind in 2010 one pilot project of 20 to 30 MW operational by 2012 ( $ 40M to $60 M) leading to a larger Wind farm of 200MW + by 2014/1015

• Finalize an industrial scenario to manufacture in the US

AREVA is entering the utility scale solar market with both CSP and CPV

20

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Concentrated Photovoltaics (CPV)

• Equipment/ OEM•Solar Steam Plants

•CPV Arrays

•Turnkey Solar Steam & CPV Power Plants

• Specific projects •Hybrid solutions

•Storage

• Distributed generation

• “Beyond steam with AREVA” •Operations and maintenance

AREVA portfolio of technologies AREVA portfolio of services

AREVA announced its acquisition of Ausra –a US solar company

Renewable Energy Should be a Part of the New Energy Mix

Continued R&D can provide technologies to:� Improve efficiency� Lower costs

Storage options can address intermittent capacity factors� Wind power peaks in non-peak usage times

Presents challenges to grid due to intermittent generation� Often in locations where no existing grid� Difficult to predict capacity

Useful for peaking and intermediate power production needs

Requires larger footprint than nuclear or other baseload generation

Requires back-up carbon-producing generation

Renewables Footprint Much Larger Than Other Generation Types

For 1000 MW plantSolar: 40 sq. miles of land

Wind: 40 sq. miles of land

Nuclear: 1/3 sq. mile

Renewables Must Be Part of Energy Mix But for Baseload?

The Reality of Renewables

Method Needed for 1000 MW Capacity

Land Area (sq. miles)

Wind 300 - 1000 Wind Turbines 40-70

Biogas 60 million pigs or,800 million chickens

2,400

Bioalcohol potatoes corn

wheat

2,8006,200

104,000

Solar @ 10% efficiency 40

Biomass wood 12,000

Nuclear 1 plant 1/3

Renewables Should be Part of the Electricity Mix

Nuclear Energy: the Only Available Baseload Technology That Can Replace Fossil Fuels

9 Electricity

9 Hydrogen

9 Desalinization

9 Heating

Source: Patrick Moore

Historical US Nuclear Plant Construction Costs Were Out of Control Due to Regulatory Changes

and Escalating Costs

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Con

stru

ctio

n C

osts

$/k

We

DresdenQuad Cities

Oconee

McGuire 1 & 2

Catawba

LaSalle 1

Palo Verde 1

Braidwood

Perry

Vogtle

Hope Creek

Wolf Creek

Beaver Valley 2

March 1979TMI Accident

Diablo Canyon

From 10CFR 52.63(a)(4): “ for issuance of a combined license the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in

connection with the issuance of a design certification”

Old vs. New NRC Licensing Process

Early Site Permit

DesignCertification

Combined LicenseIssued Construction ITAAC

Verification Operation

Apply forConstruction Permit Construction

Apply for Operating License

Operating License Issued

Operation

Construction Permit Issued

Announced COL Projects in U.S. MarketTechnology (Qty.) Company Site # Units

AP1000(14)

Duke Power William Lee, SC 2

NuStart (TVA) Bellefonte, AL 2

Progress EnergyHarris, NC 2

Levy County, FL 2

SCE&G V.C. Summer, SC 2

Southern Vogtle, GA 2

FPL (COLA Review Not Yet Scheduled) Turkey Point, FL 2

US EPRTM

(4)

UniStar Nuclear Energy Calvert Cliffs, MD 1

Ameren UE (COLA review suspended) Callaway, MO 1

PPL Bell Bend, PA 1

UniStar Nuclear Energy Nine Mile Point, NY 1

ESBWR(1)

Dominion (Reselecting technology) North Anna, VA (1*)

Entergy (COLA Review Suspended) River Bend, LA 0

NuStart (Entergy) ( COLA Review Suspended) Grand Gulf, MS 0

DTE Fermi, MI 1

ABWR (2) NRG South Texas Project, TX 2

APWR (2) Luminant Comanche Peak, TX 2

Unspecified(4+)

Transition Power (Expect COLA 2010) Blue Castle Generation, UT 1

2 Unannounced Applicants (Expect COLA 2010) Unspecified 2 or 4

Southern (Expect COLA 2011) Unspecified Greenfield Site 1 or 2

COLA filed with NRC Selected For DOE Loan Guarantee*Reselecting TechnologyRef. U.S. NRC New Reactors Data 10/13/09

AREVA’s Third Generation US EPR is Designed to Meet Today’s Needs

EPR Generation III+ Reactor

Each safety train is independent and located within a physically separate building.

Four Train Concept

Four-Train Concept

On-line maintenance without entering action statementsRadial arrangement simplifies layout and reduces pipingActive cross-connects eliminated� Simplifies systems� Minimizes components� Reduces operator burden in case of accident

Reduced component sizesSeparate safeguards buildings� Physical separation� Improved hazards mitigation

x fire, flood, external events

SYSTEMEPR Westinghouse 4-Loop

Pump HX Tank Valve Pump HX Tank Valve

SI / RHR 8 4 4 335 4 6 5 351

CVCS incl. Boration, Demin/Seal Water 11 6 8 397 11 13 14 751

CCW 8 14 6 404 7 13 7 758

Total 27 24 18 1136 22 32 26 1860

5 More Pumps8 Less HX

8 Less Tanks724 Less Valves

Aircraft Hazard ProtectionNRC Website – New Reactors Rule MakingsNRC proposed a modification to the ruling for "Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for NewNuclear Power Reactor Designs," that would require new plants applicants to incorporate“design features and functional capabilities that avoid or mitigate, to the extent practical andwith reduced reliance on operator actions, the affects of the aircraft impact on core coolingcapability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity.” Ingeneral, the staff said , the aircraft impact would be considered on a large commercial aircraftused for domestic flights and fueled for such a flight. This new ruling would apply to all newlicense applicants.

BASEMAT

Post-Tensioned Concrete ContainmentBuilding

Reinforced Concrete Shield

Building

Annulus

4.3 FT

Steel Liner

4.3 FT*

6 FT

*Exposed section of Shield Building (above surrounding buildings) is 5.8 ft thick

BASEMAT

Post-Tensioned Concrete ContainmentBuilding

Reinforced Concrete Shield

Building

Annulus

4.3 FT

Steel Liner

4.3 FT*

6 FT

*Exposed section of Shield Building (above surrounding buildings) is 5.8 ft thick

EPR the FIRST Generation III+ under construction: Nth of a Kind

Predictability based on experience

Olkiluoto 3, Finland Flamanville 3, France

Under Construction

Calvert Cliffs 3, U.S.

Project Preparation

P6 –S1

Taishan 1&2, China

Under Construction

OL–3 EPR UnderConstruction

The largest nuclear plant contract in historyEPR in China: Taishan

Progress at Flamanville

U.S. EPR Reference Project Schedule

Updated 3/20/2008

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

EPR Design Certification

DC Application Preparation & Review DC Rule(Review - 24 mos, rulemaking - 10 mos)

COL Licensing

Site Selection

COL Application Preparation & Review(preparation - 24 mos, review including hearing - 36.5 mos)

Project Execution

Procurement Long-lead Component/Fabrication

Procurement & Related Engineering

Detailed engineering for Construction

Simulator Procurement / Installation(Simulator required operational 12 months before fuel load)

Plant Construction, Commissioning(Construction - 54 months) Site Prep

Detailed engineering for Construction (Generic and Site Specific)Planning

NRC Review

Hearing

DCA Prep & NRC Interactions

Procure/Fabricate/Deliver

2014 2015 20162013Activity 20122008 2009 2010 20112005 2006 2007

COLA Prep, NRC Mtgs NRC COLA Reviews

Plant Construction, Start-up Testing

Long lead component procurement and fabricationPlanning

Planning

Planning

Plng Manufacture, Test & Install

Complete

NSSS Components On-Site

Simulator Order Placed Start Software Development

Simulator Operational

First Safety Related Concrete Pour

Start Fuel Load

DC Rule Issued

COL Issued

Provisional Turnover

DC Application Submitted

COL Application Submitted

Elect. Mech.

CPCN Approved

Estimated 2008 Production Costs

$14.0

$31.4

$23.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4-Loop Plant US EPR Coal

$/M

Wh

New build will cost less to operate than existing plants

Investing in the U.S.AREVA Newport News, LLCThe First New Nuclear Heavy Component

Manufacturing Facility in the U.S.

¾ Ground-breaking in summer 2009¾ Manufacturing operations commencing

in January 2012

¾ Groundbreaking in 2011

¾ Capacity 3 MSWU/yr

¾ Centrifuge technology

¾ First production in 2014

Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility

In Summary - It’s an Exciting and Challenging Time

This is a critical time in the energy generation industry –demand supports the Nuclear RenaissanceWe face greater economic and environmental challenges than ever beforeNuclear is making a comeback� Environmentally friendly� Energy independence

We have the new technologies but success depends on� New approaches, innovation, enthusiasm and dedication� A new generation of “employees”

Our business is growing fast –we’ll be here for a long time

Combined Cycle Power Plant

Source: Duke Energy

Pollutant Potential to Emit(tons per year)

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 219 *Carbon Monoxide (CO) 108 *

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

30

Particulate (as PM 10) 117 *Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 22

Formaldehyde 1Benzene 0.2

H2SO4 Mist 6Ammonia 212

500 – 600 MW Class CC: Air Emissions

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

“Because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”

“A lot of people are stuck in the '70s. people haven't caught up with the fact that climate change has changed the whole climate of the environmental debate on this planet. The one technology that is contributing most to reducing greenhouse gases in America today is nuclear energy, and we could do a tremendous amount to increase that.”

—Patrick MooreCo-founder, GreenpeaceCo-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition

“We have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year emotional debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.”

—Christine Todd WhitmanFormer Environmental Protection Agency administratorCo-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition

North American Operating Nuclear Sites

Original Equipment ManufacturersB&W 7W 48CE 14GE 34

A small part of the US is deregulated

New Build Scope Yesterday and Today

10%

90%

1970s - 1980s Typical Scope

2010 – 2020 Typical Scope

AREVA scope will be 50% of total plant contract

NSSS, Equip. RV, SG, RCP

Nuclear system design & licensing

I & C , NSSS

Fuel handling equipment

Reactor containment: equipment design &

supply

Nuclear auxiliary building: equipment design &

supply

Emergency diesel generator: building

design & supply

Safeguards buildings equipment supply &

design

Total Plant Contract

50%50%

Total Plant

EPR the first Generation III+ under construction: AREVA never stopped

buildingGeneration I Generation III+ Generation IV

4 PWR & BWR 1 unit, France 3 units, Germany PHWR1 unit, Argentina

85 PWR & BWR(up-to 1400 MWe) 54 units, France16 units, Germany 15 units, exportFBR (Gen IV prototype) 1 unit, France

7 PWR (1300 to 1500 MWe) 4 units, France3 units, Germany

4 PWR under construction(1600+ MWe) 1 unit, France1 unit, Finland2 units, China

Under development

1950 1970 1988 2010 2040EPR, ATMEA1

& SWRN4, KONVOI .

Proven project and operational experience by building 102 new plants and maintaining existing nuclear fleet

7 models

P12 -S1

5 models

Generation II