Science, Tech & Environment

French sour on nuclear power

IMG_9138_355165368.jpeg

High-tension power lines loom over Flamanville, Normandy, delivering electricity from the local nuclear plant to the French power grid. (Photo by Liam Moriarty.)

Behind a fence outside the small town of Flamanville on the Normandy coast stands a growing mountain of concrete and steel that represents the future of one of France’s most important industries.

Player utilities

Listen to the Story.

It’s the worksite of the country’s first next generation nuclear power plant, known as the European Pressurized Reactor, or EPR. France already gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and France’s powerful nuclear industry is betting heavily on the new design.

The government-owned utility company that’s building the Flamanville reactor declined to be interviewed, but the plant’s designers say the so-called “third-generation” reactor is safer, more fuel-efficient and more economical to operate than older reactors. And the industry hopes it’ll not only maintain nuclear power’s strong dominance in France but also be the flagship technology that France exports throughout the world.

But the reality of the EPR has so far been less impressive. The Flamanville plant is four years behind schedule and nearly $4 billion over budget. And another EPR under construction in Finland has also been plagued with delays and huge cost overruns.

Tarik Choho, an executive with Areva, the government-owned company that designed the EPR, concedes it has had a less-than-auspicious debut.

“We have gone through some issues, some growing pains,” Choho said. “We are learning from that.”

Choho said you’re going to run into kinks building a new design for the first time. But when the plants in Finland and Flamanville finally go on line, he said, “people will be so excited about this new generation of reactors starting that maybe some of these pains will be forgotten.”

A year or so ago, Choho may have been right. France gets a bigger share of its electricity from nuclear power than any other country, and the French public used to consistently support nuclear technology. But as in other countries here in Europe and elsewhere, last year’s disaster in Fukushima, Japan, has caused many here to have second thoughts.

“Clearly, what Fukushima changed in France is that now, people know about nuclear energy,” said Greenpeace France activist Sophia Majnoni.

Majnoni said the accident in Japan, plus the upcoming French presidential election, has triggered a national debate.

“It’s a political debate, but also a technical debate, which gave a lot of information to the people which they didn’t have before,” she said. “So I would say that the debate is now much more mature in France than it was a year ago.”

Once rock-solid support for nuclear power here has fallen dramatically. Recent polls have found that more than 80 percent of French voters now object to building new nuclear plants, and nearly two-thirds support phasing out existing plants.

Those poll numbers may have played a role in the decision by France’s opposition Socialists to support a plan by the smaller Green Party to close almost half of the country’s 58 nuclear plants by 2025. Socialist presidential candidate François Hollande told France 2 TV that while he doesn’t want to eliminate nuclear power, he does want to diversify the country’s electricity sources.

“I’m focussed over 15 to 20 years on reducing the share of nuclear power in the electricity supply from 75 to 50 percent,” Hollande said, “while at the same time increasing renewable energy.”

Many Greens say that doesn’t go far enough. But just the fact that a leading presidential candidate is talking about cutting back on nuclear power is a big change here.

Still, electricity analyst Manuel Baritaud at the International Energy Agency in Paris doesn’t expect France to follow the lead of some of its neighbors and go nuclear-free anytime soon. Baritaud said a recent French government report calculated that phasing out nuclear would cost more, create energy instability and boost greenhouse gas emissions. He said the report’s main conclusion is that “the optimal trajectory concerning nuclear in France is to operate the existing fleet of reactors until the end of their technical and economic life.”

For his part, current French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to extend the life of those plants from 40 years to 60 — way longer than any commercial nuclear plant has ever run.

But Yves Marignac, of the non-profit Negawatt Institute, has a very different vision. A negawatt — a term coined by American clean energy guru Amory Lovins — is a megawatt of electricity that can be saved through conservation. Marignac said France has the potential to “shift to a fully sustainable, renewable-based energy system by 2050.”

The government’s big energy report, Marignac said, paid scant attention to the huge potential for reducing energy demand.

“Two-thirds of the answer (is) the demand side, mostly energy efficiency, not only in electricity but in transport, in houses, heating systems,” Marignac said.

Of course such a transition would be hugely expensive. But Marignac points out that the alternative — extending the operating life of the nation’s nuclear plants for 20 years is itself expected to cost upwards of $70 billion.

In a country so deeply invested in nuclear power, it’s likely that any dramatic shift won’t come soon, if at all. But Majnoni said a lot could hinge on the upcoming election.

“If it’s Sarkozy who is re-elected, I will say it will be very difficult to have an anti-nuclear movement in France," she said. "If the left-wing party wins, then a debate will start on the first closure of a nuclear power plant. And it will be the first time in France.”