France’s struggle to deliver a second nuclear era
By Paul Homewood
h/t Hugh Sharman
President Emmanuel Macron, who was already doubling down on the low carbon technology even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dialled up concerns across the continent over energy security, is pushing to have the first in a series of six new reactors up and running by 2035. The plans, which could be extended by at least another eight reactors, are the linchpin in France’s vision to reduce its net emissions to zero over the next three decades, in line with international agreements to limit the rise in average global temperatures. In order to stand a chance of turning this vision into reality, the government estimates it needs to find another 100,000 nuclear specialists of all guises, from engineers and project supervisors to boilermakers and electricians, over the coming six years. Looming large, beyond hurdles with design approvals and financing for the €52bn programme, is an even more basic question — whether France, Europe’s main atomic nation, still has the industrial capacity and people to make the projects happen on a scale it has not contemplated since the 1970s. “The biggest challenge is whether we know how to orchestrate a very large industrial project. No one really does these in Europe any more. It’s China, India,” says Antoine Armand, a lawmaker in Macron’s Renaissance party who steered a recent parliamentary probe into the state of France’s energy sector.
For others, doubts over when France will be able to deliver are a reason to pursue the rollout of renewable energy in a much greater way in the short term. “We’re going into this with a sort of forceful optimism saying everything is going to be fine. However, today, there is nothing to guarantee that,” says lawmaker Barbara Pompili, a minister under Macron in his first term, but who has just left his party.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Madness for France or anywhere in the west to run energy policy ON A BIG FAT LIE – there is no ‘climate crisis’, there is no ‘global warming’ that we can do anything about and CO2 is NOT a problem.
A quick calculation leads me to conclude that I have passed the point where I should care. By 2035 I will be 94. My grand-daughter on the other hand will be 24 and I care very much because unless we come to our senses very soon there WILL be a “climate crisis”, just not the sort that the eco-nutters and the hardcore leftist totalitarians are trying to foist on us.
The next significant temperature shift is likely to be down and all the wind farms, solar farms and even nuclear “farms” (as currently envisaged) will not be enough to stave off the increased mortality which is likely to follow.
France was a leader in the decision to switch to nuclear for electricity generation and deserves full credit for doing so. Armand, however, is correct in querying whether France — or indeed any other European country — has the will and the skill to continue down that road.
Nuclear (in some form) is the best available low-emission means of generating electricity (assuming low-emission is important and there are reasons why it is, not least that emissions from virtually every other method are polluting ones). If we plan to maintain our current standard of living and raise the standard elsewhere in the world while paying some attention to the environment there is no alternative. The problem is initiating REASONABLE safeguards to avoid the potential problems associated with nuclear and so reducing both costs and timescale of new build.
Hear, hear.
Finland is WAY AHEAD:
Mike, you will remember the cold period of the 50s-70s and I’m sure, like me, wouldn’t want that to return. Even in Central London where I lived at the time the winters were not something I would want to return but several scientists have called time on our warm period. I haven’t read anything new on it for quite some time. Has anybody got anything up to date on the subject? If they are right, and I sincerely hope they’re not, Macron better get his nukes working pretty quickly.
To answer Mad Mike.
I remember 1947 and 1963 and 1979. But that pattern has continued. ’97 and 2010 should have put paid to the pointless handwringing of Mann and his pseudo-scientific pals.
We will return to the 50s because we know — as should any half-competent meteorologist — that weather is cyclical. What matters is whether we are prepared for the next phase of this cycle or not.
At the moment gullible governments not only are not prepared but their actions suggest they have no intention of becoming prepared. When the the next big snow hits the fan the climate activists will find some totally implausible excuse and the pollies will, as they do now, swallow it hook, line and sinker and continue to insist that it is mankind’s CO2 emissions that are to blame.
Mad Mike
Try David Dilley talking with Tom Nelson on Podcasts 64 & 67.
No.64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNSPiMmuIvI
Sorry no link recorded to No.67 but it was this month on Utube about 18TH.
Mike,
I would refine your statement that nuclear is the best for no emissions. It is the only one (except hydr0 but that is limited by geography and rainfall) that really works.
Renewables cannot work without support.(gas in the U.K. at the moment).
You do say later there is no alternative which is true.
My point about renewables is, if my information is correct, that their “poisonous” emissions (mining of rare earth metals, processing, transport, construction of turbines, etc) over the lifetime of any given unit far exceeds those from an equivalent output from gas — as does their non-toxic (ie CO2) emissions.
Precisely how much CO2 nuclear emits over the lifetime of any given station I wouldn’t know but given their potential lifespan in comparison with turbines and their ability to produce 24/7 (in theory) compared to about 40% at best and that unpredictable ……
And it’s not just the unpredictability which is the killer; it’s the appalling lack of energy density. It’s so totally useless in comparison with virtually every other form of generation. We’d be better off with hamster wheels. At least with enough hamsters you would know what your production figures would be. Quadruple the number of wind turbines and you’re still in trouble when there’s no wind! (And you’ve used up a lot of space which could be put to better use!)
Thanks Graeme. Scary stuff and the follow on video should be shown to every “Just stop Oil” nut. Buy some long term copper futures I reckon.
Mike J: I’m not sure whether by 2035 (or sooner) nuclear won’t be the ONLY way of providing reliable electricity.
You got that right George
This looks like a U-turn. Wasn’t it Macron who wanted to shut down nuclear?
That said, basing anything on the “green”, “climate and “CO2” scams is madness.
What a lovely irony in that down south in Provence is the largest engineering project in the world in the form of a fusion reactor – ITER. Perhaps Macron doesn’t know about it.
It’s a myth that ITER will produce as much energy as it uses. Also, it will not produce enough tritium to replace the amount it burns (it is estimated it will produce about 1%). All it will succeed in doing is burning off much of the free world’s remaining stock of tritium (only about 60kg I believe).
On the other hand, we had the technology to have breeder reactors and reprocessing to support a fission fuel cycle back in the 1950’s. This could’ve powered the world for centuries, especially if it is extended to include the thorium fuel breeding cycle.
Yes – I recall that the famous author Neville Shute once predicted that aircraft would never fly faster than 300 mph.
johnfromcabanyl: I’m not saying fusion is impossible. One day they will crack it, but we are not going to see commercially viable fusion power in our lifetimes, or even our childrens’ lifetimes.
Tritium is “manufactured” as required – the Earth does not have a stock of the stuff. It has a half life of 12 years and so any “stock” would self destruct in quite a short time.
Fusion as a viable energy source depends on it being able to breed more tritium than it uses. The idea is that it will be made by the fast neutrons reacting with lithium. It needs a breeding ratio of at least 1.15 to be viable but this has never been achieved in experiments.
If only it was a fusion reactor. At the moment, as with every other fusion project over the last 50-60 years, it’s just an attempt to build a fusion reactor. I remain unsure why they keep building things when they really have not worked out how to actually build what they need – which is simply way beyond our capabilities anyway. Fusion is something that can only happen when a whole bunch of other technologies have advanced a great deal further.
Everywhere you look the Nut Zero insanity is running into a lack of manpower because everyone is trying to do it all at once. Has France added to their nuclear fleet over the decades they would still have the workforce but also would not need a rushed building programme. Germany doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture or install all the heat pumps their insane leaders want. Although they could, I suppose, retrain all the redundant car workers but then the manufacture won’t be in Germany as the energy costs are too high.
The answer may not well be these large EPR’s
‘The Flamanville EPR reactor, which is already a decade behind schedule and has been dogged by repeated cost overruns, is now expected to start operations in the first quarter of 2024 and cost 13.2 billion euros, EDF said.
The works causing the latest delay and higher costs are linked to 150 thermal treatments needed for some welds so they are resistant enough when the reactor produces power.’
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-delay-flamanville-epr-reactor-2022-12-16/
This is anti-nuclear Project Fear from the FT, “100,000 nuclear specialists” is BS, 1000 is probably near the correct figure, most of the plant has diddly to do with nuclear. No mention of the fact that nuclear power stations were a doddle to build 50 years ago. No mention of the really scary reliance on intermittent sources of electricity.
I suspect it is pro-renewables BS from the FT, who for some reason think renewables are the answer to every problem. As you say, 100,000 nuclear specialists is absurd – someone pouring the concrete for the boilers or the turbines doesn’t need to be a nuclear specialist.
Agreed. It’s fact-free BS, sadly typical of the FT these days.
The Finnish plant has now been handed over and Flamanville should come on stream next year, freeing up engineering resources. Within this timescale HPC is scheduled for completion – hopefully.
More significant in resource terms is the pending completion of the massive refurb programme covering all but one of the existing fleet – over 50 reactors. That has involved replacing major components, upgrading systems and adding safety features. All of the “specialist” manpower involved will come available in the next few years.
I agree.
The RR SMRs outperform wind energy on all metrics, building and electricity costs, reliability and security. Even using 1/1000th of the building materials required per watt of power compared to low energy density wind.
The fact that nuclear is not selected as our preferred choice of low carbon power generation is proof that the reason for Net Zero is not to curb emissions of anthropogenic CO2, but destroy our wealth and curb our freedoms.
If anthropogenic CO2 emissions were an issue a nuclear program would have been started immediately the CCA became law in 2008, such as replicating the very successful Sizewell B.
The obsession with “low carbon” is the problem. What is needed is _reliable_ power generation, i.e. coal, gas and nuclear. Even oil would be reliable, but that has better uses for the thousands of products based on it and what is still left as transport fuels.
>>low carbon power generation
@climanrecon The “100,000 nuclear specialists” point is probably a fair position for the FT to take.
We don’t have a definition of “nuclear specialist” here to limit interpretation, so I’ll focus on total skills needed to build and support a future GB nuclear industry to be publicly acceptable (to make the safety case for operation).
This is what the UK Government suggested in 2016 (quote from following link):
“The Nuclear Workforce Assessment shows that construction of 5 sites for 16 GWe new generation capacity, has a significant impact on total nuclear workforce demand, causing it to rise from 78,000 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in 2015 to 111,000 by 2021. In addition, the new build programme will see the UK move from Magnox gas-cooled graphite moderated reactors and Advanced Cooler Reactors (AGRs) to light water reactors (LWRs). This places even greater demand for new knowledge and understanding right across the sector.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/launch-of-national-nuclear-skills-strategic-plan-unites-sector-on-skills-as-it-embarks-upon-renaissance
In 2017, Balfour Beatty suggested the following (quotes from following link):
“Building Hinkley Point C, Wylfa Newydd, and Moorside, will require 50,000 new workers during the construction phase, as well as 3,000 permanent roles once they are operational.”
“The highly skilled workforce the country needs to recruit and train to build and operate the new nuclear power stations is in addition to the 65,000 people currently employed across the UK’s civil nuclear sector who will be needed to keep the existing stations operational, decommission the older ones and safely process nuclear waste.”
“Furthermore, new experts will need to be ready to enable the UK to be an intelligent customer and regulator throughout the new build programme. For those regulating the sector for example, a vital role in nuclear, an in-depth knowledge of standards, legislation and the principles for ensuring nuclear safety are required, skills and understanding which take time to develop.”
https://www.balfourbeatty.com/how-we-work/public-policy/building-nuclear-skills-a-workforce-for-the-future/
It takes a lot to have a nuclear industry. If we start from the position that this should be done on a shoestring, it will never happen. If you really want this, you’ve got to accept it takes big bucks.
As both you and Phoenix44 rightly point out this is just anti nuclear rhetoric from the FT – no doubt bought and paid for. There really is no such thing as a “nuclear specialist” as far as 90+% of the build out is required…unless of course you want to call pouring concrete a “nuclear speciality” or on site catering a specialism on a “nuclear” site.
Whilst we (the UK) may possibly (but probably not) be short of a few suitably trained engineers in certain areas, we can always “buy in” expertise for the immediate short term. We do, after all, have a spectacularly large higher education sector that could train people quickly in relevant subjects rather than wasting their money learning advanced flower arranging, detailed Farriery etc.
On the basis of this FT argument, it would have been impossible for the UAE to have built 4 Kepco 1400 reactors at Barakh for just 20 million dollars in under 10 years. But, of course, they did and we could build much more, even quicker, if the will was genuinely there.
Contrary to the view that many journos would like us older ones to think, I can guarantee there is a huge number of highly motivated, younger people willing and eager to train up for these sorts of roles.
I can’t agree with all these “not nuclear specialist” claims. Nuclear needs a large number of the highest level of qualified welders who we simply don’t produce any more. At the same time we will be building all those steam reformers to produce hydrogen and as I posted a few days ago the number of welders who could weld the Incolloy pigtails today can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Macron, like so many other leaders, can’t manage the PRESENT. So, they pretend to manage the future.
Riots in Paris? “We’re working on zero emissions by 2050!” Which helps no one today, which is what their actual charge.
They have no authority over the future. Macron’s authority is in the present, not the future. This is characteristic of climate action: do nothing but tell the future what they are going to have to do. Most people do what THEY choose to do, not what some ancient told them they have to do.
Wanna ban petrol vehicles? Do it NOW, while you still can! They announce bans ten years out, then take credit like they actually did something.
Love this line:
‘in line with international agreements to limit the rise in average global temperatures’
It seems weather is controlled by international agreement.
With any luck, that would promote instant riots and ordinary people searching out such control freaks with pitchforks and Madame Guillotine.
>>Wanna ban petrol vehicles? Do it NOW, while you still can!
gosh as I write our Wind is producing 2%
of our electricity (1345 26 April). We’ll need a lot of French Nuke but the interconnector is only 4GW – it’s at max right now! Actually none of this is very funny.
yes, small chance of blackouts today as wind is very quiet and there’s not much to import. Who knows what the prices ae like!
I’ve been looking at some of the projects from the Ocean Winds JV between French ENGIE and Spanish EDP because they just closed £2bn of finance for Moray West, 882MW (with 100MW share of capacity 12 year PPA to Google as part of the security, along with 350MW to Amazon AWS and just 297MW of CFD at a loss making 45.37/MW at current prices). Of course, that excludes the equity financing for the project, making the likely cost of the order of £3m/MW. Moray West is an AR4 project, which means that it is not obligated to take up its CFD: it can benefit from higher market prices instead (which are doubtless the basis for its PPAs). PPA = power purchase agreement.
Somewhat cheaper than their French project off the coast of the Vendée at the mouth of the Loire, which is €2.5bn for 500MW. €5m/MW.
https://iles-yeu-noirmoutier.eoliennes-mer.fr/espace-presse/
That is not very competitive: even an EPR might be cheaper. Doubtless the result of French protectionism excluding cheap Chinese steel. But the French really need to adopt a lower cost, buildable proven design if they are going to pursue nuclear.
No doubt this will go down as the ‘Snowflake generation’ who spent more time on their smart phones being offended than actually doing something constructive.
France could be minting it selling nuclear power to renewables-crazed Germany in 20 years’ time.
They’ve been minting it for decades. Electricity has long been France’s second-biggest export, and not just to Germany.
Indeed. UK importing 8.8% of its electricity from France right now, wind being in short supply at 7.2% due to calm weather.
Exports are not “minting it”. They are domestic production consumed by foreigners. So that’s a load of production not consumed by your own citizens. The only way to make up for that is to consume the production of foreigners via imports paid for with the money you get from exports. If you don’t import you are poorer. If you can import with the minimum of domestic production exported, you are richer. Trade is about imports – what we consume – not about exports.
Phoenix44: In this case domestic demand is satisfied (excluding the recent problems with shutdowns). EdF are able to run their generating sources at the optimum mix and ramp up nuclear production for export. Running nukes at higher output has negligible cost and can even be beneficial for fuel management.
Phoenix44
It may be fashionable to believe that we can carry on importing without having to pay for it in real terms. But it would be wrong. We have been mortgaging the country to foreign interests to pay for our imports. Those mortgages have to be serviced if they are not going to be called. If they are, importing will stop: ask the Venezuelans or Zimbabweans about how that goes. We will soon run out of things to sell and pledge.
The reality of trade should be the result of comparative advantage: where we can make things more cheaply we can trade them for things we find it difficult or impossible to make. Where we are destroying any comparative advantage we may have had we are hastening our economic demise.
” … a series of six new reactors up and running by 2035. The plans, which could be extended by at least another eight reactors, …”
In the USA, just getting the permits would take about that long and then followed by an equally long build. This amounts to much cost and no return on investment for 20 years.
Because the U.S. borrowing is now underway to create EVs and related structure
there is no reasonable way nuclear power can be supported until the current nutty programs fizzle.
France must have found a new gold mine!
“America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
― Claire Wolfe
“This amounts to much cost and no return on investment for 20 years.”
It’s worse than that. After Mario Cuomo cancelled Shoreham, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS BUILT, it was clear that politicos can cancel any project anytime they want to for whatever reason – or no reason – they want.
Hence, any nuke project in the US must be 100% financed by government; no private concern is going to risk any money at all.
I missed this story I haven’t seen it elsewhere.
Dozens of giant turbines at Scots windfarms powered by diesel generators
Scottish Power admitted 71 of its windmills were hooked up to the fossil fuel supply after a fault developed with their power supply.
The firm said it was forced to act in order to keep the turbines warm during very cold weather in December. But a whistleblower has told the Sunday Mail the incident is among a number of environmental and health and safety failings.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dozens-scottish-power-wind-turbines-29135763