Paris (AFP)

The thick report, launched in 2019 and on an unprecedented scale in France and in Europe, should reassure supporters of nuclear power, because it concludes that, from a strictly economic point of view, it remains a cheaper route than relying on nuclear power. only renewable energies to achieve carbon neutrality in the middle of the century, as France has committed alongside dozens of countries.

The publication comes at a time when France's energy future is shaking up the pre-presidential campaign of 2022, some candidates advocating a more or less rapid exit from nuclear power (environmentalists or radical left for example) while others (notably to the right but also to the Communist Party) are in favor of this energy.

President Emmanuel Macron, in favor of nuclear power, reserves for the moment his decision on the launch of six new EPRs, this new generation reactor, the first copy of which must finally start next year in Flamanville in Normandy (north-west).

Being carbon neutral in 2050 will result in massive electrification of uses - transport, heating or industry - to the detriment of oil and natural gas.

Even if total energy consumption must fall, France will therefore consume more electricity in 2050 than today, including in the most "sober" scenario.

"France must simultaneously face two challenges: on the one hand to produce more electricity to replace petroleum and fossil gas and, on the other hand to renew the means of nuclear production which will gradually reach their operating limit. 'here 2060 ", summarizes Xavier Piechaczyk, president of RTE.

Six scenarios

The French nuclear fleet, built in the 1970s to the 1990s, is indeed aging and will gradually become obsolete over the decades to come.

The Fessenheim nuclear power plant on June 21, 2021, in Fessenheim in the Haut-Rhin SEBASTIEN BOZON AFP / Archives

To “shed light on the public debate”, RTE presents six possible production scenarios, ranging from 100% renewable in 2050 to “proactive” nuclear development with the construction of 14 EPRs as well as small reactors.

"All these paths are possible even if some are more difficult or uncertain", judge Xavier Piechaczyk.

These scenarios, which had already been sketched out from a technological point of view, this time take into account the economic, environmental and societal dimension of the choices to be made.

RTE does not take one option rather than another but presents "their advantages, their disadvantages, their impacts and their consequences", underlines Mr. Piechaczyk.

"Achieving carbon neutrality is impossible without a significant development of renewable energies", once again underline the authors.

Thus, even the most massive nuclear development scenario will not be possible without a significant boom in renewables, with solar capacity multiplied by 7 and onshore wind multiplied by 2.5.

"Controllable cost"

But from an economic point of view, novelty of the report, "building new nuclear reactors is relevant", he concludes.

Indeed, even if the costs of renewables have fallen sharply, solar or wind power require greater investments for the electricity networks (because they are more scattered) and for flexibility (because they do not produce permanently), with the need, for example, for more storage and back-up thermal power stations running on hydrogen or biomethane.

So "the scenarios including new nuclear reactors appear more competitive".

The difference is of the order of 10 billion euros per year between a scenario with new nuclear reactors (14 EPR) and another without, posing the postulate of the development of large renewable parks.

The gap is even widening to some 20 billion per year if we compare this nuclear option to another which bet on a "diffuse" development of renewables, with in particular a strong recourse to solar installed on the roofs.

In the midst of a debate on purchasing power, RTE also concludes that "the carbon neutral electricity system can be achieved at a manageable cost".

It would indeed result in an increase in electricity costs (of the order of 15%) but with in return the end of spending on fossil fuels to refuel the car or fill the fuel tank.

© 2021 AFP