What France got wrong
Nuclear Engineering International, August 2009, Mycle Schneider - The problem with past and
current energy policies is that
we keep asking the wrong
questions. As a result we get
the wrong answers. Steve Kidd's comment
on "Nuclear in France" [NEI July
2009, pp. 14-15] is unfortunately yet
another example.
Any sound energy policy must
ensure that citizens get affordable, reliable,
and sustainable energy services.
The question is not how many kWh a
system generates nor how many
barrels of oil it extracts, but whether
people have access to cooked food,
light, heat and cold, communication,
mobility and motor torque. These
energy services should be provided in a
way that is healthful and environmentally
sound today and doesn't constrain
future generations' options.
In the aftermath of the 1973 oil shock,
France launched its first large series of
nuclear reactors as a reaction to energy
shortages. Energy conservation was to
help in the short term, but nuclear powerwas supposed to bring the country independence
from oil in the longer run.
The strategy was dubious from the
start, because the power sector was
responsible for less than 12%of the total
oil consumed in France in 1973. The
key oil problem was not in electric generation
but in transport and inefficient
buildings, and those uses were neglected.
The result three decades later is
stunning. French per capita consumption
of oil is higher than in non-nuclear
Italy, nuclear phase-outGermany or the
EU on average - hardly proof of an
enviable level of oil independence.
France's nearly exclusive focus on
(nuclear) energy supply has meanwhile
eroded access to affordable energyservices. Even before the recession, the
National Housing Agency (ANAH)
found that ‘threemillion French are cold
in winter.' With energy poverty now
widespread, requests for social assistance
to pay energy bills is rising 15%per year.
Almost one household in four cannot
pay its power, gas, water or phone bills.
Electric space heating was heavily
promoted and now equips three-quarters
of new housing, in particular
multi-family homes. Electric heat is not
just inefficient end-to-end, it is very
costly for the user and creates severe
distortion of the power system, with
daily peak loads in the winter three
times those of summer loads. This in
turn leads to increasing use of old oiland
coal-fired power plants and to significant
power imports.
Contrary to Steve Kidd's claims,
since 2002 net French power exports
have been falling - by 2008 down 39%
to 47TWh, the lowest level since 1990.
During 2002-08, gross exports fell 12%
while imports more than doubled to 35TWh. The very day I write this The
Times is reporting massive power flows
from Britain to France, mainly because
about a third of French nuclear capacity
is offline for maintenance, refueling,
or insufficient cooling water. Thermal
power plants account for over half of
France's freshwater withdrawals or
about one-tenth of precipitation.
Moreover, peak-power imports are
priced far above baseload exports.
Cheap powerwas tomake French industry
competitive; however, as well as
reaching a record trade deficit of
EUR58 billion, France has even become
a net importer of German coal-based
power. The power-trade trend thus not
only further degrades the French trade
imbalance but also increases the carbon
content of the kWh consumed in France,
wherever it's produced. Per capita greenhouse
gas emissions in France, about 9t
CO2-equivalent in 2006, are lower than in other European countries, but
not bymuch: Italy, Spain and the whole
EU are around 10, the UK 11 and
Germany 12. Direct greenhouse gas
emissions fromthe French energy sector
have not decreased since 1985, while
transport emissions have risen 20%since
1990 alone.
French nuclear policy is neither green
nor sustainable. The decision to separate
and use plutonium- which French
and UK accounts show at zero book
value and negative market value -
entails a radiological impact equivalent
to all other nuclear activities in Europe
combined. Interest of foreign clients in
the plutonium business shrank to anecdotal
levels. By the end of 2008, the
1700t-capacity Areva plant at La
Hague had a total of 0.6t of foreign
spent fuel left in storage awaiting reprocessing.
That will hardly make it ‘a
major export earner,' as Kidd wrote.
How France will attain its legal target
of fourfold lower carbon emissions
by 2050 remains a mystery. Minor
identifiable reductions over previous
years all seemto be linked to non-energy
issues, such as the shift from industry
to service and displacement of
heavy industry. Housing is extremely
inefficient; a French household consumes
about 30% more energy than a
Dutch one. Efficiency implementation
capacity is low; the renewable energy
industry was destroyed; and few urban
planners and architects know anything
about sustainable cities and netenergy-
positive buildings.
For least cost and greatest security, the
energy future lies in affordable, distributed,
superefficient technologies, smart
grids and sustainable urbanism. France's
centralised, autocratic nuclear policy
symbolizes the opposite. It is a point of
pride with its planners - not with the
French people - that their energy policy
hasn't changed awhit in 35 years, under
14 prime ministers and five presidents.
But everything else in energy has
changed everywhere. France's energy
establishment is extraordinarily elitist,
invariant, and impervious to input.That
approach will hardly serve France well
in a world that,more than ever, requires
fast and profound change.
current energy policies is that
we keep asking the wrong
questions. As a result we get
the wrong answers. Steve Kidd's comment
on "Nuclear in France" [NEI July
2009, pp. 14-15] is unfortunately yet
another example.
Any sound energy policy must
ensure that citizens get affordable, reliable,
and sustainable energy services.
The question is not how many kWh a
system generates nor how many
barrels of oil it extracts, but whether
people have access to cooked food,
light, heat and cold, communication,
mobility and motor torque. These
energy services should be provided in a
way that is healthful and environmentally
sound today and doesn't constrain
future generations' options.
In the aftermath of the 1973 oil shock,
France launched its first large series of
nuclear reactors as a reaction to energy
shortages. Energy conservation was to
help in the short term, but nuclear powerwas supposed to bring the country independence
from oil in the longer run.
The strategy was dubious from the
start, because the power sector was
responsible for less than 12%of the total
oil consumed in France in 1973. The
key oil problem was not in electric generation
but in transport and inefficient
buildings, and those uses were neglected.
The result three decades later is
stunning. French per capita consumption
of oil is higher than in non-nuclear
Italy, nuclear phase-outGermany or the
EU on average - hardly proof of an
enviable level of oil independence.
France's nearly exclusive focus on
(nuclear) energy supply has meanwhile
eroded access to affordable energyservices. Even before the recession, the
National Housing Agency (ANAH)
found that ‘threemillion French are cold
in winter.' With energy poverty now
widespread, requests for social assistance
to pay energy bills is rising 15%per year.
Almost one household in four cannot
pay its power, gas, water or phone bills.
Electric space heating was heavily
promoted and now equips three-quarters
of new housing, in particular
multi-family homes. Electric heat is not
just inefficient end-to-end, it is very
costly for the user and creates severe
distortion of the power system, with
daily peak loads in the winter three
times those of summer loads. This in
turn leads to increasing use of old oiland
coal-fired power plants and to significant
power imports.
Contrary to Steve Kidd's claims,
since 2002 net French power exports
have been falling - by 2008 down 39%
to 47TWh, the lowest level since 1990.
During 2002-08, gross exports fell 12%
while imports more than doubled to 35TWh. The very day I write this The
Times is reporting massive power flows
from Britain to France, mainly because
about a third of French nuclear capacity
is offline for maintenance, refueling,
or insufficient cooling water. Thermal
power plants account for over half of
France's freshwater withdrawals or
about one-tenth of precipitation.
Moreover, peak-power imports are
priced far above baseload exports.
Cheap powerwas tomake French industry
competitive; however, as well as
reaching a record trade deficit of
EUR58 billion, France has even become
a net importer of German coal-based
power. The power-trade trend thus not
only further degrades the French trade
imbalance but also increases the carbon
content of the kWh consumed in France,
wherever it's produced. Per capita greenhouse
gas emissions in France, about 9t
CO2-equivalent in 2006, are lower than in other European countries, but
not bymuch: Italy, Spain and the whole
EU are around 10, the UK 11 and
Germany 12. Direct greenhouse gas
emissions fromthe French energy sector
have not decreased since 1985, while
transport emissions have risen 20%since
1990 alone.
French nuclear policy is neither green
nor sustainable. The decision to separate
and use plutonium- which French
and UK accounts show at zero book
value and negative market value -
entails a radiological impact equivalent
to all other nuclear activities in Europe
combined. Interest of foreign clients in
the plutonium business shrank to anecdotal
levels. By the end of 2008, the
1700t-capacity Areva plant at La
Hague had a total of 0.6t of foreign
spent fuel left in storage awaiting reprocessing.
That will hardly make it ‘a
major export earner,' as Kidd wrote.
How France will attain its legal target
of fourfold lower carbon emissions
by 2050 remains a mystery. Minor
identifiable reductions over previous
years all seemto be linked to non-energy
issues, such as the shift from industry
to service and displacement of
heavy industry. Housing is extremely
inefficient; a French household consumes
about 30% more energy than a
Dutch one. Efficiency implementation
capacity is low; the renewable energy
industry was destroyed; and few urban
planners and architects know anything
about sustainable cities and netenergy-
positive buildings.
For least cost and greatest security, the
energy future lies in affordable, distributed,
superefficient technologies, smart
grids and sustainable urbanism. France's
centralised, autocratic nuclear policy
symbolizes the opposite. It is a point of
pride with its planners - not with the
French people - that their energy policy
hasn't changed awhit in 35 years, under
14 prime ministers and five presidents.
But everything else in energy has
changed everywhere. France's energy
establishment is extraordinarily elitist,
invariant, and impervious to input.That
approach will hardly serve France well
in a world that,more than ever, requires
fast and profound change.