The nuclear law arrives before the National Assembly, while its funding is uncertain and cracks have been discovered on reactors. “This law alone does not answer all these questions”, adds Arnaud Gossement Monday on franceinfo.
“A set of questions comes to impact this will of the government to relaunch the nuclear fleet”, estimated Monday, March 13 on franceinfo Arnaud Gossement, lawyer specializing in the right to the environment, while the law on nuclear power arrives this Monday before the National Assembly. It must act on Emmanuel Macron’s desire to accelerate the development of the park with the construction, initially, of six new EPRs, in addition to that of Flamanville (Manche), which is supposed to come into operation next year. .
>> What we know about the cracks recently discovered in several French reactors
The discovery of cracks on reactors in Penly (Seine-Maritime) and Cattenom (Moselle), future droughts and uncertainties about funding, weaken the future of nuclear power in France: “This law alone, for sure, does not answer all these questions. We have a little hesitation, believes Arnaud Gossement. DIn any case, nuclear power will not be the only solution to achieve our objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.
franceinfo: This law comes to the Assembly at a delicate time for the French nuclear industry?
Arnaud Gossement : This law comes a little bit alone. It is difficult to think that this law alone will make it possible to keep the promise of the President of the Republic of a revival of nuclear energy because in this law, you have no announcement of financing, announcement on the changes in EDF’s legal situation. There are still uncertainties in the electricity market. We have these cracks just revealed in Penly and Cattenom as well. There is a whole set of questions today that are being revealed about the future of nuclear power. This law alone, of course, does not answer all these questions. It does not ensure this revival of nuclear energy which was promised. There is a little hesitation in this nuclear revival policy.
Can we build nuclear reactors in France without exploding costs?
What is certain is that in the case of the bill, the parliamentarians wanted to include an article to request a report from the government on the conditions for the revival, on the conditions for the construction of fourteen new EPR 2 reactors. MEPs considered that at the present time they did not have all the information to fully commit to this program to accelerate the construction of nuclear reactors. There haven’t been enough reviews. For example, nuclear reactors require a large amount of water. The French nuclear fleet in France, according to the figures, consumes between 20 and 30% of the water. It is consumption, it is not withdrawal, it is water that is not returned to the natural environment. Today, indeed, what are we going to do with water that is less available, less abundant, perhaps warmer? There is a whole set of questions which come to strike this will today of the government to relaunch the nuclear park.
Who will pay the 50 billion bill for the next EPR 2?
This is one of the big questions. For now, we don’t know. EDF communicated on the fact that it was not they alone who could assume this cost. The cost itself is not known. We are talking about 52 billion in the minister’s entourage. Other specialists speak of 100 billion. The timing itself is not known. And then, above all, the electricity market has changed a lot. We have an electricity price that is no longer the same as in the 1970s. Opposite, you have energy saving or renewable energy production systems that are becoming very competitive, which are growing all over the world. So sometimes, indeed, one can wonder whether France, through this nuclear ambition, is indeed taking the path taken by other States around the world.
Is nuclear power necessarily the enemy of renewable energies?
First, there is the legacy of history. The nuclear fleet was a tremendous industrial adventure, there’s no denying that. Nuclear energy produces electricity with many advantages, but also problems in terms of waste, in terms of water. But it is true that from the point of view of carbon dioxide emissions, it is an absolutely undeniable climatic asset. Today, we have a fleet that needs to be maintained. Today, it is not a question of phasing out nuclear power overnight. But, when we have to reduce by four, or even by six, our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, that is to say tomorrow, can we be satisfied with a project that , in any case will not produce new EPRs at best before 2030-2035? The problem is the long time. It takes a long time to build these new reactors when we don’t have time to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So in any case, nuclear power will not be the only solution to achieve our objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.