The French State Audit Office (Cour des Comptes) warned on Thursday of the “uncertainties” surrounding the ability to build a new nuclear fleet “within reasonable timescales and at reasonable costs”, just as President Macron has decided to launch a new EPR program.
The construction of new means of electricity production – whether nuclear or renewable – “calls for decisions that are now urgent to guarantee our supply by the decade 2040”, the magistrates emphasize in a thematic note.
This was already the conclusion of the recent report by grid operator RTE, at a time when France’s nuclear fleet is ageing and electricity needs must increase to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Following the report’s publication, Emmanuel Macron announced on November 9 the launch of a new nuclear power program, a topic that had become a key issue in the run-up to the 2022 presidential election.
France is currently building a single new-generation EPR reactor at Flamanville (Manche).
Recalling “the slippage in construction times” for the latter, the Court highlights “uncertainty in terms of the ability to build a new fleet of reactors within reasonable timescales and at reasonable costs.”
EDF has made a proposal to the French government to initially build 6 new EPR models (EPR2) at an estimated construction cost of 46 billion euros.
But the magistrates note that many more would be needed (up to “25 to 30”) to maintain a 50% nuclear share of electricity production beyond 2050.
This would require “an accelerated mobilization and recovery effort by our nuclear industry” and would raise “the question of the number of available sites”.
They also point out that EDF alone will not be able to finance new construction, and that “risk sharing with the State” will be necessary.
But it’s not just nuclear power that raises questions: “the challenges facing new renewable energies appear to be just as great”, notes the report.
Even if there is no technological uncertainty with wind and solar power, they face other challenges, such as storage and siting difficulties.
The Court concludes by calling for a debate “on a more informed basis”, given that there is in particular “a significant risk for public finances”.
“There is no simple decision, no low-cost solution, no zero risk”, stress the authors.
