If I had to choose a symbol, it would undoubtedly be this one. Ten years ago now, on September 14, 2012, Japan wiped the slate clean of its former energy policy. Still bruised by the dramatic consequences of the Fukushima disaster, the archipelago and its Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gave themselves thirty years to get out of civilian nuclear power. On August 24, 2022, the current head of the Japanese government, Fumio Kishida, undoubtedly sent this promise back to the dustbin of history. By announcing his desire to restart as many reactors as possible stopped after 2011, as well as a reflection on the construction of new models, the Liberal Democrat is reconnecting with the thread of his country’s history with the atom.
If this choice had been in the making for a few years, the decision suddenly accelerated with the start of the war in Ukraine. “The Russian invasion has largely transformed the world’s energy landscape,” argued the Japanese Prime Minister last Wednesday. For the Asian country, the aggression has been characterized by a spike in the cost of gas, oil and coal, which it imports massively since the share of the atom in the archipelago’s electricity mix has been reduced to the congruent portion. The risks of power cuts that appeared during the summer with the increased use of air conditioners finally convinced the government.
“Can the Japanese learn to love nuclear power again?” the local Bloomberg correspondent wondered a week ago. The question also applies to Europe, the epicenter of the crisis. Also faced with a deadly dependence on Russian fossil fuels, and the risk of shortages this winter, the Belgian and German governments are re-examining their position on the initially planned closure of their reactors. The first postponed its exit from the atom by ten years. On the side of Berlin, herald of the anti-nuclear fight at European level for ten years, maintaining the last three units in operation and restarting the three units closed in 2021 are no longer taboo.
Resilience and climate
How to explain such a comeback? “Governments are realizing that energy supply is not theoretical models. There is a concrete implication on people’s lives. The combination of security of supply and the imperative of decarbonization leads to a moment of clarification on the place nuclear,” said Michel Berthélemy, an analyst at the OECD’s nuclear energy agency. As the expert points out, the current energy crisis – the worst since the oil shocks of the 1970s – is a catalyst. But the attraction for the atom is part of a slightly older dynamic linked to the need to fight against global warming. “It was striking at the COP26 in Glasgow. Countries must take action. This involves closing coal-fired power stations or carbon resources, and we see that it is difficult to ignore nuclear power. alongside renewable energies”, continues the analyst. And the announcements follow one another. China, which promised Glasgow the construction of 135 nuclear reactors by 2035 to reduce its dependence on coal, is the most striking example. India, which wants to double its production within ten years, but also France (project of six reactors) or the United Kingdom (eight reactors) are not left out.
An effort that should be generalized. In a report published in early July on the place of the atom in energy transition, the International Energy Agency estimates that the world’s nuclear fleet must double by 2050 to achieve the objective of carbon neutrality. A carbon-free future with less nuclear power is certainly possible. But according to the IEA, this is based on much larger investments, a significant increase in consumer bills (around 600 billion dollars over the period), as well as increased dependence on critical metals. of the transition or fluctuations in the coal and gas markets.
The IPCC itself, in its latest report, judges “very unlikely that all the systems [électriques] sources in the world are based on a supply exclusively of renewable origin”. At the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we also note this revival, with new entrants alongside countries already nuclearized. Many countries are now in various stages of reviewing or planning nuclear energy programs,” the organization told L’Express.
An energy that is no longer taboo
“Nuclear could appear as a taboo subject in the past, it is no longer at all”, confides Stéphane Aubarbier, general manager of operations at Assystem. Present on the engineering side, the French group is a front-row seat to this comeback. A revival which is logically accompanied by a return of strong competition between the players. This is of course true for the market for high-power reactors, where the race between the major nuclear nations – Russia, China, the United States, France, South Korea – has never been so strong.
But maybe more in the small modular reactor (or SMR) market, where new entrants also want to make their place. According to the IAEA, more than 70 models are currently under study, spread over 17 countries, with the idea of generalization by 2030. The market to be shared being estimated at up to 300 billion per year, by 2040. “Large reactors have to be useful, which is not always the case in countries in Africa or South America or Southeast Asia. SMRs respond this need”, notes Stéphane Aubarbier. These miniature reactors can replace coal or gas-fired power stations, but could also be used in the future to decarbonise certain particularly high-emitting production sites. In the United States, the multinational chemical company Dow Chemical also announced in early August a partnership in this direction with the start-up X-energy.
An offer with reactors of different powers, adaptable to the needs of States and industrialists… This advantage will be decisive for weighing in the future. But not enough. To be truly credible, the sector must also turn its back on its old demons. Too slow, too expensive, the atom industry, especially in the West, has tripped over the carpet during the last decade. At a time when wholesale electricity prices in France have exceeded 1,000 euros per megawatt hour (compared to 85 euros a year ago), the question of cost seems to be less of a priority. That of deadlines, on the other hand, remains essential. “The crucial point is the ability to build in series. By building with an approach by parks, we do it faster and therefore cheaper. When it comes to financing, the crux of the problem is the cost. capital, on which the States can play via regulation”, estimates Valérie Faudon, director general of the French Society of Nuclear Energy.
A geopolitical weight
The regulation. A weapon that US President Joe Biden did not hesitate to brandish. Alongside renewable energies, the atom carves out a good share of the enormous subsidies provided for in the climate and health plan which has just been voted in the United States. A manna which follows the aid of 6 billion dollars voted at the beginning of the year to maintain part of the current fleet in operation, as well as 3.2 billion for research on advanced reactors.
Effervescence of the start-up sector, public-private partnerships, massive development of R&D, export projects, particularly in Central Europe…, nuclear made in the USA has been gaining momentum for three years. “The United States has really decided to keep this nuclear leadership, partly in reaction to the efforts of China and Russia”, indicates Michel Berthélemy, of the agency for the nuclear energy of the OECD. And for good reason. Of the 31 reactors under construction in the world since 2017, only 4 are not of Russian or Chinese design. While the confrontation between these three great powers is raging, the use of nuclear power as an instrument of energy sovereignty within borders or as a tool of international policy abroad is more relevant than ever.