Areva has a lot of trouble hiring new engineers. Nuclear power is not as popular in France as it once was. Also, you don't only need engineers: you need lots of industrial workers (such as welders), which, because of deindustrialization, are not that common in France anymore.

It's not only the loss of knowledge, it's also the higher security standards. The last reactor being built, Flamanville 3, was supposed to be ready by 2012, is still being built and not estimated ready before the end of 2022.

Probably on the basis of not expecting a rapid increase in people wanting to become nuclear engineers...

That would contradict "even if she wanted to, France couldn't". If she wanted to, France could make nuclear engineering a highly-paid profession with strong job security. It would just cost more money.

It's impossible to make binding long-term promises in a democracy. Voters are allowed to change their minds, and the risk that they do that and completely destroy nuclear engineering as a career option is always present.

Something like software engineering is a much safer career option, because the risk that your country will categorically ban it is pretty low. And because it doesn't tie you to a small number of possible employers or force you to live in a specific location.

And thus we arrive at today's world, where the best and brightest of our generation are working on optimizing ad clicks instead of solving grand challenges. le sigh

Austria comes to mind - they built the fully functional nuclear power plant, and never had it started - because the public referendum was narrowly (50.47%) against it. Billions of dollars down the drain, hundreds of careers derailed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

> It's impossible to make binding long-term promises in a democracy. Voters are allowed to change their minds, and the risk that they do that and completely destroy nuclear engineering as a career option is always present.

That's true of any political system, the problem with democracy is more that it's invariably fickle. A dictator may also be fickle, but there's a least a chance he has a long term vision with a late payoff that he pursues for a his lifetime.

But somebody has to maintain all those nuclear missiles and nuclear subs.

What's the percentage split for civilian vs military employment for nuclear industry jobs?

> It's impossible to make binding long-term promises in a democracy.

We can make binding financial promises at least. It's entirely possible to grant nuclear workers each a personal 60 year annuity managed by a consortium of foreign banks, and requiring the worker to pick between working as an engineer, returning the annuity, or sitting in prison.

This, it really is just a question of political will and cost.

It's difficult to ascribe a single will to a nation. It's more of a split-brain issue.

And making certain professions high-paying isn't as viable a strategy as you might think. Multiple factors go into that. Nuclear engineering isn't a popular thing, just like animal testing.

I have serious doubts that would ever happen. Everything is gridlocked for programs like that in France.