Interesting statistic, but I would really take it with a pinch of salt.
1. Firstly, the nuclear fleet has since 2014 been undergoing a planned "grand carénage" to refurbish the nuclear reactors and comply with safety standards in order to extend their lifetime beyond 40 years.
This can be considered as a medium term investment for the next few decades. On top of that, the corrosion issues discovered in 2022 unfortunately forced the shutdown of part of the fleet until the problem was fixed later that year. Production reductions in recent years could therefore be more conjunctural than structural or politically planned. In fact, data from the ENTSO-E transparency platform is showing nuclear production in 2024 was around 360 TWh, higher than in the previous two years.
2. Talking about politics, although there was a political will in 2019 to reduce the share of nuclear energy to 50% of the electricity mix by 2035, this has quickly been changed in 2023 in the aftermath of the energy crisis, with instead a will to support the build-out of additional capacity. Looking at future elections, anti-nuclear parties remain a minority, leaving politicians unlikely to reverse this trend. This makes it very different from the situation in Germany.
3. I'm a bit confused about your statement "The proportion of non-fossil electricity production is now little higher than a country such as non-nuclear Denmark which has built up its renewables". Looking at IEA data, the French electricity mix is 90% non-fossil in 2023 (and has been for a long time), as hydropower, wind and solar account for 25% of electricity production and nuclear accounts for 65%. This is indeed more or less equivalent to Denmark, which has a 90% renewable electricity mix (if you consider burning waste and imported biofuels as renewable), but I don't see how France can do much better (except phase out the last gas peakers, but that's not a problem specific to the French).
The share of nuclear production has indeed given way to some renewables, but that's just replacing one low-carbon source by another, and if anything, I see it as a healthy portfolio diversification.
This is not the case for nuclear reactors in other countries, where they were considered to deliver baseload, hence the scepticism on power ramping, as you report for Swedish reactors.
5. Talking about nuclear in the UK, you mention "Nuclear power plants are allowed to generate as much as they can, and it is renewable energy that has to power down in cases where there are grid constraints or an excess of supply compared to demand." I'm not sure that's correct. To my knowledge, the UK implements a day-ahead spot market: dispatch volumes are based on bid prices, not on centrally planned operation schedules. If inflexible nuclear power plants are operating during renewable overproduction, it might be because they are bidding at negative prices to ensure they get cleared and don't have to ramp up/down. Having flexible nuclear reactors is a necessity in any power system aiming to combine nuclear with renewables. And I'm not sure having less interconnections is a benefit either.
Bottom note, I wouldn't call the French nuclear industry dying. That being said, I agree with you: the halting rate of French nuclear fleet renewal is not very reassuring. The real question is, how can investment in additional nuclear capacity be aligned with the price volatility and uncertainty brought by a higher integration of renewables? The business model for EDF's nuclear reactors built in the 1970/80s needs to be seriously reevaluated, given the change in the power mix at a European level and the market rules which have changed accordingly.
Thanks David. I seem to remember about 58 of EDF's nuclear fleet in France is due to reach their sell by dates in the next decade or so with a huge decommissioning cost.
Hi David,
Interesting statistic, but I would really take it with a pinch of salt.
1. Firstly, the nuclear fleet has since 2014 been undergoing a planned "grand carénage" to refurbish the nuclear reactors and comply with safety standards in order to extend their lifetime beyond 40 years.
This can be considered as a medium term investment for the next few decades. On top of that, the corrosion issues discovered in 2022 unfortunately forced the shutdown of part of the fleet until the problem was fixed later that year. Production reductions in recent years could therefore be more conjunctural than structural or politically planned. In fact, data from the ENTSO-E transparency platform is showing nuclear production in 2024 was around 360 TWh, higher than in the previous two years.
2. Talking about politics, although there was a political will in 2019 to reduce the share of nuclear energy to 50% of the electricity mix by 2035, this has quickly been changed in 2023 in the aftermath of the energy crisis, with instead a will to support the build-out of additional capacity. Looking at future elections, anti-nuclear parties remain a minority, leaving politicians unlikely to reverse this trend. This makes it very different from the situation in Germany.
3. I'm a bit confused about your statement "The proportion of non-fossil electricity production is now little higher than a country such as non-nuclear Denmark which has built up its renewables". Looking at IEA data, the French electricity mix is 90% non-fossil in 2023 (and has been for a long time), as hydropower, wind and solar account for 25% of electricity production and nuclear accounts for 65%. This is indeed more or less equivalent to Denmark, which has a 90% renewable electricity mix (if you consider burning waste and imported biofuels as renewable), but I don't see how France can do much better (except phase out the last gas peakers, but that's not a problem specific to the French).
The share of nuclear production has indeed given way to some renewables, but that's just replacing one low-carbon source by another, and if anything, I see it as a healthy portfolio diversification.
4. Regarding flexibility, French nuclear reactors were designed from the start to be able to ramp up and down (https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf?sfvrsn=fb6f0903_1#:~:text=The%20nuclear%20reactors%20in%20service,on%20the%20type%20of%20reactor.).
This is not the case for nuclear reactors in other countries, where they were considered to deliver baseload, hence the scepticism on power ramping, as you report for Swedish reactors.
5. Talking about nuclear in the UK, you mention "Nuclear power plants are allowed to generate as much as they can, and it is renewable energy that has to power down in cases where there are grid constraints or an excess of supply compared to demand." I'm not sure that's correct. To my knowledge, the UK implements a day-ahead spot market: dispatch volumes are based on bid prices, not on centrally planned operation schedules. If inflexible nuclear power plants are operating during renewable overproduction, it might be because they are bidding at negative prices to ensure they get cleared and don't have to ramp up/down. Having flexible nuclear reactors is a necessity in any power system aiming to combine nuclear with renewables. And I'm not sure having less interconnections is a benefit either.
Bottom note, I wouldn't call the French nuclear industry dying. That being said, I agree with you: the halting rate of French nuclear fleet renewal is not very reassuring. The real question is, how can investment in additional nuclear capacity be aligned with the price volatility and uncertainty brought by a higher integration of renewables? The business model for EDF's nuclear reactors built in the 1970/80s needs to be seriously reevaluated, given the change in the power mix at a European level and the market rules which have changed accordingly.
A great source of information (which I used to back up my points) can be found here (in French only, unfortunately): https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/fiche-pedagogique/parc-nucleaire-francais#:~:text=2018%20%3A%20393%2C2%20TWh,2021%20%3A%20360%2C7%20TWh
Thanks David. I seem to remember about 58 of EDF's nuclear fleet in France is due to reach their sell by dates in the next decade or so with a huge decommissioning cost.
That -104 TWh vs -101 TWh is a striking insight, thanks for flagging it...