Last February, the Belfort speech aspired, in the logic of communication of the executive, to record the return of nuclear power to the heart of the French energy strategy. Responding to the imperative needs of energy sovereignty, ecological transition and the newfound sympathy of public opinion for the atom, it has not yet translated into any concrete mobilization to safeguard the future of the nuclear sector in its globality. To remedy past mistakes, it is necessary to think about nuclear power over the long term and to make strong commitments now.
In the continuity of the now famous Belfort speech, in which the candidate president brought positive news to the defenders of nuclear energy, and “at the same time” to the supporters of renewable energies (ENR), moreover a bill for accelerating the development of renewable energy was on the agenda of the Senate as soon as it returned. To appease those who were worried that this text did not concern nuclear power, a summary draft bill for the acceleration of nuclear power was distributed on September 27 and examined by the Council of Ministers on November 2. ENR will not solve the crisis because of their intermittency, since this crisis is the consequence of a lack of our controllable electricity production capacities.
The Belfort speech in February announced an additional 150 GWe of ENR installed and “at the same time” 3 pairs of EPRs with potentially 4 other pairs. However, the delays between the decision to build a reactor and the coupling of the latter to the network is around fifteen years. Nothing concrete for our flyable capabilities has been done since. This wasted time is ruinous. It is worrying that the government has not approached this issue methodically: analysis of needs, definition of a program, legislative amendments, while moving forward without delay on the revival of the nuclear sector.
The deleterious effects of a pro-renewable policy
In this period of crisis, we are facing the deleterious effects of a policy that has constantly favored renewable, intermittent and random sources of electricity production to the detriment of our controllable production capacities. We can therefore only very marginally attribute France’s current energy difficulties to the war in Ukraine, as our dependence on Russian gas remains moderate. For the production of our electricity, it is marginal. These difficulties are, on the contrary, the consequence of procrastination and the decisions of successive governments which have seriously weakened the nuclear sector, once admired and envied in the world.
In ten years, 12 GWe of controllable fossil and nuclear electricity production capacity have been eliminated, including the final closure of the two Fessenheim reactors despite the ASN issuing a very favorable opinion on their condition and safety. A political, ideological decision, contrary to our energy, climate and financial interests. The closure of Fessenheim also took place one year after the shutdown of the ASTRID 4th generation experimental reactor project, putting an end to several decades of research and development on the closure of the uranium cycle, keystone and objective of the French nuclear sector since its inception. At the same time, 150 billion euros have been spent on the development of renewable energies. A colossal sum of which all or part would have made it possible to consolidate the nuclear fleet which has been under development for more than 20 years.
A systemic lack of anticipation across the entire industry
Nuclear power remains fundamentally a long-term energy, which presupposes a real capacity for anticipation. And it is the lack of anticipation that is pointed out by the leaders of the sector. A shame for a source of energy production planned to operate for at least half a century! Thus, if the French suffer power cuts this winter, it will be despite the repeated recommendations of the ASN which, since 2008, has warned of the need to maintain a controllable production safety margin in the dimensioning of our electrical system, in order to be able to cope with more or less foreseeable hazards, such as the pandemic and stress corrosion of certain circuits of several reactors, the large fairing being planned for a long time. RTE, in charge of the balance of the network, and the competent ministry remained deaf to these warnings. In short, we put ourselves in great difficulty because of an improvised and ideological change in energy policy.
Last August, the former chairman of EDF, Jean-Bernard Lévy, regaining his freedom of speech, exposed the reality of the contradictory injunctions of the various executives on nuclear power. He rightly deplored the absence of a strategic vision, the consequence of which was the very short-sighted abandonment of a real human resources policy for the entire sector. We are now paying the price and losing, each year, part of our industrial know-how, yet one of the cornerstones of our energy independence. The relativist discourse considering nuclear as “an energy of the past”, whereas it is an energy of the future, has diverted many talents from this sector of excellence to which France has contributed a lot.
This lack of anticipation was also recently underlined by Bernard Doroszczuk, President of the ASN. And it is not confined to reactors alone, it also encompasses the fuel cycle and waste management, for which it is high time to prepare for the ramp-up. Our storage capacities must be able to meet needs that have been identified for a long time, the CIGEO waste burial project cannot wait any longer and the fuel sector is also awaiting decisions.
Nuclear tends to assert itself as an energy of the future
If no delay is to be deplored, the first reactor that Emmanuel Macron calls for should not be commissioned before 2035, for a first stone laid at best before the end of his second five-year term. And this, not to mention the potential mobilization of the entire activist network of “anti” already at work, as illustrated by the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP). The repeated declarations of its president Chantal Jouanno – leaving her obligation of neutrality – to organize an Nth and vast public consultation on the place of nuclear power in France could, by additional deadlines imposed, not only threaten the share of the atom in our overall energy mix, but also delaying many projects and thus making the current crisis even longer and more costly. The repeated declarations of the president of the CNDP raise the question of the control of the independent authorities when they come out of their legal obligations, and in this case of the value of their opinions.
Tendentially, nuclear energy is making a strong comeback on an international scale with, in addition to the historical countries of the atom, which are the USA, Russia, China, Great Britain, Japan and South Korea. , a marked eagerness of several emerging giants, such as India or Turkey, to build reactors, in Europe several Member States are turning to nuclear power, Poland plans to order reactors from the USA and South Korea, the first coupling is expected for 2033, at least 2 years earlier than the first EPR2 announced in Belfort. Even among our neighbors the most historically hostile to the atom, the lines are shifting, and in the European Union the Member States favorable to nuclear are now again in the majority. In Germany, a citizens’ petition launched by eminent scientists forced the Bundestag a few days ago to look into postponing the nuclear phase-out. Environmental activist Greta Thunberg herself deplores the replacement of nuclear power plants by coal-fired power plants. Recently, a study published by EnergyVille showed that nuclear power remains, for Belgium, the least expensive option to make the country climate neutral by 2050.
Faced with the challenges to come and the accumulation of scientific data, France cannot miss this turning point and must reaffirm its leading role in what, more than ever, appears to be an energy of the future. It must restore the production capacities provided by its nuclear fleet as quickly as possible in order to regain its independence and escape the pharaonic prices of a European market that has become aberrant, from which we must leave.