From The Economist, December 12:
Emmanuel Macron envisions a national nuclear renaissance. First France’s reactors must survive the winter
Nuclear power seems tailor-made for this day and age. It emits next to no carbon. It provides reliable baseload electricity, vital when sun isn’t drenching solar panels or wind isn’t wafting through turbine blades. And it does not leave its operators hostage to dictators like Vladimir Putin, who has throttled the supply of Russian natural gas to Europe in response to Western sanctions over his war in Ukraine. With memories of the Fukushima meltdown in Japan 11 years ago fading, countries from Britain to India view fission as a critical part of their future energy mix. Even in nuclear-sceptical Germany, which vowed to shut its nuclear reactors in that disaster’s wake, the government has extended the lifetime of the three remaining ones until April 2023.
If there is one country that should already be enjoying the benefits of abundant carbon- and autocrat-free power, it is France. A fleet of 56 reactors make up around 70% of its electricity-generating capacity, the highest share in the world and more than three times the figure in America. The average French resident emits just 4.5 tonnes of CO2 a year, much less than gas-addled Germans (7.9 tonnes) or car-crazy Americans (14.7 tonnes). As for Mr Putin’s energy blackmail, on European minds again as a mild autumn gives way to a frigid winter, you might expect the French to react with a Gallic shrug.
France should, in other words, be basking in the warm glow of controlled fission reactions. Instead a decade of mismanagement and political mixed signals has brought its nuclear industry to the brink of implosion. A quarter of the fleet is out of action owing to maintenance and other technical problems. Experts warn of possible power outages during extreme cold spells later this winter. To keep up with demand, France has to import pricey electricity, from Germany of all places. The fleet’s state-controlled operator, EDF, is being fully renationalised to save it from bankruptcy. The company’s newly appointed boss, Luc Rémont, talks of a “serious crisis”.
A lot is riding on its resolution. Europe is counting on the French nuclear industry to stop being a drag on the continent’s strained energy system. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, is counting on it for a national nuclear renaissance. And its success may determine whether the world’s newer nuclear converts see the French experience as an inspiration—or a cautionary tale.
To understand France’s nuclear predicament consider its roots in the oil shock of 1973. At the time, most French power plants ran on petroleum. As the fuel became scarce, French politicians concluded that true sovereignty required an energy source France could control. Nuclear power fitted the bill. France knew something about the technology, having built an atom bomb and nuclear submarines. It boasted a cohesive corps of engineers, most of whom attended the same university, the École Polytechnique. And a centralised political system allowed the powerful executive branch to ram through the ambitious programme with little input from the French public or their elected representatives.
This rapid ramp-up enabled France to enjoy what industry types call the “fleet effect”. Building a reactor is complex and requires a lot of learning by doing. So long as you keep doing, the expertise grows, making each new project easier. Between 1974 and the late 1980s EDF brought reactors online at a rhythm of up to six a year, with construction crews moving swiftly from one plant to another (see chart).
However, the French approach has created lingering problems. On the technical side, squeezing a lot of construction into a few years means that reactors undergo their big decennial refit (le grand carénage) around the same time. And since they are built to the same standard, problems found in one trigger repairs in others. As a result, French reactors’ “load factor”, a measure of whether a plant is running at full capacity, hovers at 60% or so, compared with more than 90% in America....
....MUCH MORE
