France is at a crossroads, writes Jules Hebert, program coordinator at the Heinrich Böll Foundation office in Paris. It can pursue a renewed nuclear model – or follow the German example and invest massively in renewable energy. It is often said that the French people support the nuclear path, notes Hebert – but a recent survey comes to a different conclusion. Article courtesy Energy Transition/Global Energiewende.
In November 2017, French Minister Nicolas Hulot announced that the government target of increasing renewable energy in the electricity mix would be postponed, His announcement came as a surprise. He explained that the target of increasing the quota of renewable energy in the electricity mix “will be difficult to maintain”, and that the French government will propose a clear program to reach their postponed targets within a year.
Respondents perceived the German Energiewende much more positively than their economic and political elites
The plan to reduce the share of nuclear energy in the electricity mix from 75 to 50% was set out in the energy transition law, which was passed by the previous government in 2015. However, it is still lacking a concrete plan, as well as specific steps toward a new energy model – a bit like launching a boat into the water, setting out a course, but forgetting to hoist the sail and pull up the anchor.
France is at a crossroads: the government could now choose to invest a lot of public money in a renewed nuclear model. Or it could choose to invest massively in renewable energies.
Energy transition as major opportunity
It is often said that the French people strongly support nuclear energy as a jewel of the French industry. However, a survey commissioned by the French office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation and the French think tank La Fabrique écologique, carried out by the research institute Harris Interactive, shows that the French people would rather like to pull up the anchor and set sail for a new model based on renewable energy.
Indeed, 91% of interviewees consider the energy transition as “priority issue” (47%) or a “major issue” (44%). 63% see the energy transition as an opportunity rather than as a threat (11%).
But what should energy transition look like, according to them?
A clear preference for renewable energy
The trend is very clear: 83% of French people think France should prioritize investments in renewable energy. Only 12% of the interviewees prefer that investments go towards the modernization and life extension of nuclear power plants. 66% of respondents come out against the construction of new nuclear power plants.
It shows that the advertising and constantly repeated arguments that nuclear energy – often described as “clean energy” – is the only adequate solution when it comes to fighting climate change is not having the intended effect on French public opinion.
Also surprising is the fact that the actor in which the French people have the most confidence to lead the energy transition is neither the state (trusted by 49% of the interviewees) nor the energy producers and providers like the state owned EDF (trusted by only 46%). Rather, people trust citizen energy cooperatives (trusted by 78%), as well as NGOs and associations (trusted by 66%).
A positive view of the Energiewende
Another salient point of the survey is the opinion of the French people about the German energy transition. Respondents perceived the German Energiewende much more positively than their economic and political elites.
The French people think France should work more closely with Europe (54%) and with Germany (51%) on energy issues
In the French public debate the German energy transition is often described as a “return to coal” or a financial abyss. The results of the survey by Harris Interactive show that although 72% of the interviewees judge that “the German energy transition has not contributed enough to the reduction of CO2 emissions” (which is true), 65% of them also think that it has contributed to the creation of jobs and to a more dynamic economy.
Over half of them see the Energiewende as “a good example for the energy transition.” Last but not least, the French people think France should work more closely with Europe (54%) and with Germany (51%) on energy issues.
The winds of change
There are many signs that the wind in France is changing. Earlier this month, the French government launched a ten-point plan that should double wind power capacity by 2023.
Furthermore, state-owned energy company EDF (whose market share in France is around 85%) seems to have understood that nuclear energy could not be the only path for the future. The company announced a new plan for solar energy on December 11th, only one day before the One Planet Summit organized in Paris (two years after the Paris Agreement). €25 billion will be invested between 2020 and 2035 to develop 30GW of solar plants in France – four times greater than its current capacity.
The next months will show if French President Macron and his Environment Minister Hulot are heading towards a new energy model, based on renewable and decentralized energy production, creating market value and jobs on a local level. This would align with Macron’s ambition to reduce inequalities between rural and urban areas, as well as to encourage small and growing innovative businesses.
Editor’s Note
Jules Hebert is program coordinator at the Heinrich Böll Foundation office in Paris. He works mainly on energy issues as well as on the transition to a more sustainable economy in France. He holds a Master in Environmental Policy from the Paris School of International Affairs – SciencesPo.
This article was first published on the website of the Energy Transition/Global Energiewende blog of the Heinrich Böll Foundation and is republished here with permission.
The complete results of the survey are available here (in French).
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Jan Ebenholtz says
Why would anyone support German energy policy of fossil burning and renewables when nuclear makes this unneccesary? […]
Mike parr says
A cursory glance at france shows: very good PV resource in the South (& no shortage of roofs to park it on) and an ace wind resource to the west and north west both on-shore & off shore, not forgetting the two valleys that generate the Tramontane and the Mistral (both in the south). Couple that to a hydro resource that is “must run” in the spring and France surely is the go-to place for RES. Build out the interconnectors to Germany, Benelux, Spain and Italy and things become quite interesting.
Sadly, the big problem in this happy picture is the “state within a state” also known as EdF. We are talking the French establishment here and like the Burbons they move at a glacial pace (if at all). They want to “own it all” & would rather see nothing happen that others get even a little bit “piece of the action”. I don’t blame them for this approach (I do pity them for their mindset – it must be quite nasty having a French establishment mindset – yech) – I do blame Pres’ Macroon – he is a young chap and one would hope has the mental toughness to sort out EdF. If he does, France could become the powerhouse of Europe (with the nukes as a bolt on). If he doesn’t – well that would be a great pity.
Skept says
No edit option? 🙁
I just hope that people of france will have a rational discussion on this matter, backed up with facts not fantasy. They have a chance of actually do sth for the climate/world.
Not like germans who gave up to fearmongering and antinuclear, so that now it costs them 4000 deaths/year (air pollution), €-40B/year (environmental cost) and €-30B/year on energy transition which does not results in lowering co2 emissions and in the future, they will likely to stay depended on fossil fuels imports (mostly gas). Some say this a cost of democracy, but if your voters aren’t informed and are frightened into irrational decisions then it is really?
As a result of cleaner energy sector, france does not have many deaths related to pollution, it saves a lot of money on environmental costs and imports are lower. One of many pathways would be to expand nucelar and rather building renewables massively deploy subsidized EV vehicles/trucks to clean transportation sector. That will drive co2 into the ground. On grid clean like this, it actually makes sense to deploy EV vehicles. And as a pioneer of nuclear energy, building domestic plants will help them sell abroad, generating revenue. Heck that could even boost their auto-makers to go down the EV path.
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-than-frances-in-2016
https://i.imgur.com/DkdeDmx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UatdufN.jpg
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/hgp_umweltkosten_en.pdf
onesecond says
We are only at the start of the renewable energy revolution, which will accelerate massively in the next decade. Although the current and most likely German government led by the Conservatives (backwarded) tried a lot to slow the Energiewende, which was started by the Greens and enjoys over 90% of public support, down, renewables might even provide 50 % of domestic electricity demand by 2020.
It is only a sad political decision that not more coal plants are shut down only because of the powerful historically entrenched coal lobby. If the Jamaica coalition with Green participation had come to pass then a lot of lignite would have been shut down before 2020 and the German CO2 emission reduction targets for 2020 would have been achieved. Sadly the coal profiteers now will probably hold out another few years. On the upside more voters will probably now understand that Merkel is only green talk while her governments have only tried to slow the Energiewwende down. The failure to reach the CO2 reduction targets for 2020 will be a huge embarrassement for Merkel and the CDU in the public eye, because it was her governments promising it and not the Greens.
Jan Ebenholtz says
Macron is a realist not a dreamer. Nuclear energy is the most efficient clean energy there is. Compared to solar and wind it works around the clock. To build and produce nuclear energy is cheaper then wind and solar and cause less dead per Mh. The materials used for a nuclear plant is also less then solar and wind. So nuclear is favourable in all aspects.
The problem is fossil fuel and not nuclear which Denmark, Germany and California so clearly shows when there is no sun and the wind do not blow. Why France should delibrately make its grid depending on intermittent sources is beyond me. There is a lot of new 3 gen reactors starting up and there will be a 4 gen in China this year that will pave the way for many more reactors within the nearest 5-10 years. So the battle for 100% RE is already lost. Mark Jacobson idea has been tried and found not working. Before this is clear for Western politicians it will take a few years because the invested a lot of prestige in REs but they will sober up. Note that a lot of fossil fuel companies have invested in RE because of the obvious reason it requires fossil as backup and nuclear do not.
Germany went the wrong way due to Gethard Schröders wish of saving the coalindustry and Merkel did the same.
In the end it is all about the money. To let nuclear be developed will mean the end of using fossil to generate heat, electricity and fuels.
I sincerly think you should check what is happening within the nuclear sector. It has not been standing still. Here is a link to investigate http://www.world-nuclear.org
Mike Parr says
“To build and produce nuclear energy is cheaper then wind and solar and cause less dead per Mh.” I can’t comment on the dead/MWh (interesting stat). Recent nuclear projects in Europe & recent RES projects in Europe suggest that your statement that nuclear is cheaper than RES is wrong.
“The materials used for a nuclear plant is also less then solar and wind. So nuclear is favourable in all aspects.” Do you have some facts to back up that assertion? I’d also observe that it is fairly easy to reuse most of the materials embodied in a wind turbine or PV panel. Tell me – how are things going with the safe storage of old nuclear fuel rods these days? Sorted out the storage of long term nuclear waste have we?
Denmark sits next to Euro’s largest battery (Norway). California has the potential to solve the “where does A/C get power from when the sun goes down” which is the question to answer in that location & so on & so forth.
In terms of “There is a lot of new 3 gen reactors starting up” – enlighten me – where? With respect to “France should deliberately make its grid depending on intermittent sources” I was not aware that anybody has suggested that. You will have seen that my suggestion was to mix RES with nuclear (France already does with hydro). On-shore & off-shore wind and PV (south) will be much cheaper than Flammenville II – oh hang on – there ain’t going to be a Flam’ II is there? (I can’t think why not 🙂 ) which means that the current nuke fleet will have to last a long time – pace – some cost effective nuke tech turning up.
By the way, one of my business partners was on the French team that went to the US in the 1970s & brought back the PWR tech to France. His view was that the designs were somewhat old fashioned then – in his view, the kit they build now is antique (in design terms). Know what he does now? he develops renewable projects – as he says – more interesting & more fun & you don’t have to wait a couple of decades to get a result.
Jan Ebenholtz says
Well the cost of intermittent sources never includes upgrade of grid and storage. When this included it becomes very expensive.
Regarding new reactors read
http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
At the worl nuclear homepage you can read about 4 generation of nuclear, recycling fuel, waste storage and decomissioning and much more.
Flammanville 3 EPR will start in 2019.
To think Norway could act as a battery for Europe is wrong. The main part they use themselfes. Both Denmark and Germany use gas and coal as backup when wind and solar are non-productive and they import nuclear and hydro and fossil energy.
See how electricity is generated imported and exported
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
Nuclear energy is today heavy overregulated which makes it very hard to build and initially expensive but it is changing. Fossil, wind and solar do not have the same problem so I can understand your friends joy.
IAEA is a regulatory body of nuclear products including nuclear energy medicin weapons etc.
Check its homepage to.
The idea of reducing France nuclear energy capacity and instead use intermittent sources is to me absurd. Developing nuclear energy to be more efficient and cheaper is the way to go.
And that is what is happening. Breeders and burners will be common in the future and with that abundant fuel supply.
Mike Parr says
“.. the cost of intermittent sources never includes upgrade of grid and storage”. And how that is relevant to PV on a roof top on a supermarket in the South of France where 100% of the output goes to power the supermarket? Ditto a house with A/C. RES embedded in a network is usually/can be substitutive. Your comments on storage implies 100% dispatchability for RES – this is rather old thinking.
“Nuclear energy is today heavy overregulated” – is that your personal view? over-regulated how?
“The idea of reducing France nuclear energy capacity and instead use intermittent sources is to me absurd.” This sentence implies an either/or choice (nuclear or RES). Some questions: Will EdF build another reactor after Flam? Do they have plans? Will some of the current fleet of reactors need to close as they age. If the answer to the 1st 2nd questions is No and the 3rd yes, then you have a choice: RES or fossil generation.
Good luck with “Developing nuclear energy to be more efficient and cheaper” – I’ll keep my fingers crossed but won’t hold my breath.