There's a quiet confidence about the French nuclear industry. The kind of confidence that you have when you know you are good at something, but don't brag because you don't want the attention.
The confidence is reflected in the way the sector treats the largest political threat to its dominant position in decades. The current government's energy policy, “La transition energetique”, aims to reduce the country's carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. At the same time it wants to slash France's nuclear capacity in half by 2025.
France derives more of its electricity from nuclear than any other country. The country's fleet of 58 reactors provides more than 70% of the country's electricity. It's nuclear sector is one of the biggest in the world. It sells around €2 billion worth of electricity to its neighbours every year and exports around €6 billion of nuclear goods and services.
Nuclear is the third biggest industrial sector in the country, with some 2,500 companies employing around 220,000 people. The companies in its supply chain include one of the biggest reactor developers in the world, Areva, and the operator of the largest fleet of nuclear power stations, Electricité de France (EDF). Internationally, it is in an enviable position at a time when the global nuclear industry is the strongest it has ever been. According to the World Nuclear Association, 70 reactors are in construction around the world, with another 160 planned to start-up within the next 10 years, more than at any other time.
Yet, “La transition energetique” will restrict the French nuclear sector's future growth by placing a cap on the number of new nuclear plants it is allowed build in France itself. The draft law, which was approved by France's lower house last October, is progressing through the country's political system. Most recently the upper house, the Senate, has proposed to raise the cap on the amount of new nuclear power plants that can be built. The original proposal was to keep nuclear capacity at the present level of 63.2 GW. This meant that when EDF switches on any new reactors, such as the 1,650MW European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) under construction at Flamanville, it would have to close two other, older reactors.
Despite the political wrangling, in the trendy new offices of the French nuclear society SFEN (Société Française d'Énergie Nucléaire) in Paris, its chief executive Valerie Faudon is nonplussed by the political threat. The policy, she says, was created as a result of political brokering between the Socialist and Green party at the last election, to enable President Hollande to be elected. SFEN is an organisation that has its roots firmly in both nuclear science and industry. It sees “La transition energetique” as fading away as reality bites. To SFEN there are some immutable facts about France's nuclear sector: it provides cheap electricity; it has a world-leading industrial position that provides jobs, and it provides the low carbon source of electricity that France needs one to meet carbon reduction targets.
Faudon says: “We feel there is a contradiction. The proposed law says we should not oppose one energy versus another. Then, they set an objective to first reduce CO2 and second to reduce fossil fuel consumption, which is still 70% because of transport and heating. But the only energy that they want to cap is the low carbon one – nuclear.
Proponents of the energy bill believe France has become over-reliant on nuclear. Problems with the technology or drastic changes in European law may leave it open to weakness from its singular approach. The also say the government has so far failed to sufficiently encourage the development of renewable sources of electricity. La transition energetique attempts to redress the balance and give the country a more diverse energy mix. However, Faudon says: “Diversity no longer makes sense at the country level in Europe. French nuclear makes a big contribution to the energy system of the West of Europe, as is recognised by our neighbours because they buy our electricity. We play a role not just for the French but for all our neighbours. We have a specificity that is complementary to what our neighbours have.”
“Projections of all the scenarios where we cap nuclear at 50% in 2025 show an increase in emissions. But one of the amendments is that we should not reduce nuclear if the consequences lead to an increase in CO2 emissions, which is absolutely critical.”
Another crucial amendment to the proposed law, she says, is the inclusion of an annual cost review of the different types of energy generation. She is confident that if this reveals a mistake in the policy, it will be adjusted.
Another key factor is that environmental thinking is moving on. Many environmentalists in the UK and US have begun to consider nuclear power as a lesser evil, because it can help combat climate change. “But in France we are not there yet with this view, which is a pity,” says Faudon. “But this will change in the future and environmentalism will take nuclear into account. All of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports clearly state that all low carbon energies available now industrially are needed to achieve their goals.”
French nuclear companies continue to operate while politicians debate the industry's long term future. There are clear international markets for French nuclear technology and expertise in countries pursuing nuclear new build, such as China, India and the UK. Faudon is keen to point out that the opportunities in maintenance, upgrades and fuel supply are long term.
The French nuclear industry is also focussed on a massive €55bn retrofit programme of its reactor in the short term. This will extend the operation of its reactors to 60 years and involves the upgrade of a number of large components and safety features. Construction of the first 1650MW Generation III+ reactors at Flamanville in France, Olkiluoto in Finland and Taishan in China is also ongoing, but has not been straight forward. Flamanville will be four years late and over budget when it starts-up in 2017. Olkiluoto will be at least five years late when it is commissioned as expected in 2018. Legal disputes involving billions of Euros between the Areva-Siemens consortium building the Olkiluoto plant and its customer, Finnish energy company Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO), are also disrupting the project. However, the first of the two EPRs in Taishan should be switched on at the end of this year and the second in 2016, two years late.
Such large delays and cost overruns do nothing but harm French nuclear's reputation, both at home and abroad. It's a fact that France's nuclear power delivers cheap electricity for consumers, but the same universal downsides to nuclear power also apply. Not one nuclear power plant has ever been built that hasn't been the recipient of some kind of state aid. Nuclear power plants are almost irredeemably capital intensive, with payback periods that can stretch into half centuries. They are technically complex to build and operate. Waste is still an unavoidable problem.
Many critics point to the delays and costs with the EPR projects as proof that nuclear technology has had its day. Faudon says: “We would have liked Flamanville to start earlier. But it's a very big project and is first of a kind, which will always have delays. It's important to take the experience and get the series effect from the knowledge we build.”
She adds that it took eight years to build the first 900MW Generation II reactor in France at Fessenheim, which was commissioned in 1977, even though it was a copy of a US design. The last Generation II reactor built in France took four years to build. Similarly to elsewhere, there has been a long hiatus, around 15 years in France, since any new nuclear plants were built. In the interim, key personnel and skills have been lost. Nevertheless, Taishan, she says, is already benefitting from the “series effect” of experience gained from Flamanville. The UK's Hinkley Point EPR project, which if it goes ahead is planned to be online by 2023, will benefit from the experience gained in both.
The growth in the size, cost and complexity of nuclear power stations can be attributed to the extra layers of safety and controls placed on reactors and the commercial demand for larger reactors. Reactors have more layers of redundancy. Safety requirements have become stricter since the Fukushima disaster in 2011. However Areva does offer and is developing a variety of reactor sizes, including the 1100MW Atmea reactor.
A capability in smaller modular reactors (SMR) is also being built-up, mainly via joint project with the US, says Faudon. There are a large number of French nuclear research projects which support the future growth of the industry. The international Iter nuclear fusion project is being built at Cadarache in the South of France, as is the lesser-known 100MW Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR). Once complete in 2016, the JHR will provide half of the medical isotopes used by hospitals throughout Europe and be a key centre for materials research.
In addition, engineers are working to complete the prototypes of Areva's Generation IV reactor, Astrid. The sodium cooled reactor will produce less waste and make more efficient use of uranium. It will also be able to burn depleted uranium, the uranium left over from spent-fuel processing and plutonium. “It's important for the European capability that the Gen IV research is completed and is in the portfolio of projects for 2040 to 2050,” says Faudon. “We need to maintain our leadership. Russia, India and China are very active on Gen IV. The design is there but needs to be optimised for cost and safety.”
The French public supports nuclear energy. An annual survey of the population asking if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks always polls above 50% in favour of nuclear. Historically, support has been strong since the 1970's, since the first oil shock. The country lacks natural fossil fuel resources, so the French government embarked on its nuclear build program to ensure energy security, which still remains a priority. There has also been a concerted effort by the sector for a long time to be open and transparent to combat fears about safety.
But there are still anti-nuclear French groups, who still object to the waste and danger of the processes. There is a core of environmentalists that remain staunchly opposed. Younger people under 30 have more support for renewable sources of energy than nuclear. The latest designs may promise to reduce and eliminate nuclear waste, but the largest downside of nuclear power remains the high level radioactive of waste produced by plants, which is costly to process and has to be stored for centuries. France has an established inventory and recycling procedure and has decided on a geological storage plan for the remaining high level waste, including a potential site at Bure. “People are reassured by the solution,” says Faudon.
However, at the heart of “La transition energetique” remains the issue of energy diversity. France relies on its fleet of nuclear power plants, for better or for worse, and there is a desire from some sections of the public, political and environmental groups to diversify their energy sources and encourage renewables. But it seems, at least to pro-nuclear groups like SNEF, that la transition energetique will equal plus ça change.