Final Assignment proposal – Aymeric Conry
Executive Summary
Human activities consequences are now undoubtedly leading to global warming, or a form of climate change, depending on the area or timescale considered. Over the last year, from February 2023 to January 2024, average global temperature was exceeding by 1.5°C, the pre-industrial levels.
Studies are estimating that climate hazards in Europe will further increase during the 21st century, even under optimistic scenarios compatible with the Paris Agreement. The magnitude and rapidity of change will then depend on global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the efficiency of the methods selected and set up.
“Climate change is the biggest challenge humanity is facing”. “It affects everyone, in particular the most vulnerable ones”, by Celeste Saulo, WMO -World Meteorological Organization- General Secretary. According to Mrs. Saulo, the need for greenhouse gases emissions reduction is more urgent than ever, and the need to accelerate transition to renewable sources.
In parallel, the need and demand for energy is keep increasing: the IEA (International Energy Agency) estimates that the energy demand will keep increasing by 1% by year up to 2040, mainly due to the increase of electricity consumption: +70% between 2013 and 2040.
The resulting interrogation will rely on the tools used to produce this supplementary energy demand. Which source will be sufficient to anticipate the energy needs in the future, not threatening a fragile path to a sustainable future way of living?
Introduction
To answer what appears to be an unsolvable dilemma and answer the demand will require we adapt and change our daily habits. The way we are moving has been identified as one of the root causes: air pollution, with cars engines indeed recognized as the main emitter of pollutants. An alternative solution is being imagined, with the intensification in the use of
electric vehicles, and by preventing the associated emission of air pollutants.
But then, the question appears on the source used to produce the electric energy our societies will need. Solar and wind will not be sufficient the covers the needs required by a society totally depending on electricity, for its daily needs, and daily moves.
In this context, an alternative and historical solution, seems to be relevant again, to realize a carbon free electricity.
Nuclear energy, a technology based on the fission of uranium molecules, appears to be effective again. This technology has proved in the past to be an effective solution, to produce a carbon free electricity.
In this context, the paper will consider the limits of the current proposed carbon free solution, and why nuclear technology seems to be relevant again to answer the need for electricity, and the limits of this solution.
We will analyze the pathway of nuclear energy in France, where the current
administration pushes this technology forward, in a context of a search for carbon free source of energy.
The paper will consider the reasons and consequences of this choice of technology, and the proposed solutions to remedy to drawbacks of this solution, especially the question which remain unsolved up to now: how to effectively treat nuclear waste?
- Energy at the basis of Sustainable Development Goals
Thanks to its 2030-2050 Agenda, United Nations have established 17 goals, in which member states have committed in 2015. These goals are planning to find concrete solutions to issues populations are facing. The objectives identified would allow to:
1/ reduce poverty,
2/ eliminate hunger,
3/ provide means for a healthier life,
4/ ensure inclusive and equitable quality education,
5/ achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls,
6/ ensure availability and sustainable management of water,
7/ ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all,
8/ promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth,
9/ build reliable infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization,
10/ reduce inequality within and among communities,
11/ make cities and human settlement inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable,
12/ ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns,
13/ take urgent action to combat climate change and is impacts,
14/ conserve and sustainably use the oceans seas and marine resources for a sustainable
development,
15/ protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of ecosystems,
16/ promote a peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
17/ strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.
By studying these goals, it appears that each of them depends, directly or not, from what is listed in the seventh position: ‘ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’. For the goals 5 and 10, the link is not obvious at first sight. But to reach these objectives, require host structures, trained professionals, educational systems equipped with computers, phones…all these tools require energy.
The seventh objective is asking for an affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. Which is understandable in this context as a form of energy used, whatever the quantity, will not threaten the environment. An affordable energy will also allow to find an answer to the objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
The World Energy Council (WEC) has identified in a 2010 rapport, the need for an energy trilemma to answer these objectives: a sustainable energy is required to fight climate change, an accessible energy needed to guarantee a universal access to development, and a safe energy
required to rule out any malfunction. The main challenge then appears: how to answer the trilemma accessibility/sustainability/safety?
In his essay, Le nucléaire nouvelle génération, M. Jean-Luc Alexandre has identified solutions to answer the energetic trilemma:
- Ensure a dynamic to economic activity, which is for now questioned,
- An energy as a key element for development,
- The need for an abundant and accessible energy.
The only valid logical to answer these questions, appears not to enter a decline logic, and reconcile the environment and human activity, or make nature capable of eliminating waste, according to nuclear proponents.
We will then in this work, examine arguments promoting nuclear energy, and understand why this solution appears to be relevant again, or what is justifying the quote of M. Jean-Marc Jancovici in
May 20221:
“The share of industrial and developed civilization we will be able to save in the future will essentially depend on the share of nuclear energy we will be able to preserve.”
2. Limits of the complete renewable sources model
The average electricity consumption varies significantly across counties. On average, the annual individual consumption is about 2.5 kW. In United States, Western Europe or Australia, the consumption is about 10kW.
2.1 An unequal distribution
The distribution of resources relies on the same uneven distribution across countries.
The model relies on a deep inequality: resources are estimated from 2500 to 3300 MTep (‘Million de Tonnes Equivalent pétrole’ – million tons oil equivalent) in 2020, which are unequally distributed, according to the scenarios of Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), between:
- 760 Mtep in developing countries ;
- 175 Mtep in northern countries.
The dissymmetry between Northern and Southern countries is even stronger, as renewables energies significantly easier to promote in the North.
Indeed, renewable energies can replace fossil ones in the North, answering an existing and measurable demand. Instead, their implementation in the South would ask an additional demand, to create the corresponding demand.
For example, the argument for an “off-grid’ photovoltaic, would be to answer energy deficit access of the 2 billion inhabitants of the Third World countries. Unfortunately, results are mixed after 20 years promoting renewable energies. It is estimated that about 500 000 inhabitants in the South countries are benefiting from photovoltaic benefits, leaving 1.9 billion inhabitants still missing energy.
It is estimated that 400 years would be needed to cover the need of all the population, by respecting the same pace.
The main argument limiting the progression of renewable energy is the same: off-network electricity is still 3 to 5 times more expensive than its competitor, based on diesel fuel operated engines.
The condition for a drastic improvement in the renewable energy diffusion would be oil price to reach 150 to 200 dollars per barrel. In this case, any hope for development would be ruined.
It appears that the only possible market, would be for an off-grid photovoltaic.
Some solutions have been identified to increase the share of renewable energies:
- Primarily, control and master energy consumption. If energy demand continues to increase, no solutions, renewable or not, would be sufficiently and rapid enough, to avoid climate catastrophe.
- That developed countries finally use their available potential and let access to a cheaper oil for developing countries. It will avoid these countries to adopt inappropriate polices to answer the short-term needs. One of the possible solutions, is the example of Germany leading large scale photovoltaic or wind programs.
- Those South countries having important biomass, hydraulic or solar resources, would be supported to mobilize their own research and development methods, in order to lead plans for rational resources use, with high local added value.
2.2 Is energy produced from renewable resources limited?
Aside the fact that resources are unequally distributed, the potential production from renewable energies, will not answer the local corresponding demand.
2.2.1 An unequal capacity to produce.
The average consumption for France is about 0.62 kW/inhab., 1,2 kW/inhab. in Germany or 2.6 kW/inhab. in Kuwait. By making the product of this consumption, by the density of inhabitants by surface (results in W/m), allow to assess the average flux of energy to produce by country, in order to answer the needs of the local population.
2.2.2 Specific example of France
In the specific example of France, solar energy is estimated in average at a flow of 25W/m². To cover 3% of the surface of the country, is estimated2
to be enough to cover the energy needs of the country. The current limit for the conversion efficiency is estimated from 15 to 20%, allowing to recover from 20 to 30W by m²surface of solar panel. Then appears the question of the physical and economical limits of industrialization at a large scale.
With an average speed for wind estimated at 6m/s, it is estimated that 2 W/m² can be produce from the flux of wind energy. Then the theoretical limit of wind turbine efficiency, limit the energy produced to 59%. It estimated that about a third of the territory of the country would be required cover the energy needs.
Bioenergy’s are limited by the photosynthesis yield: which is estimated to 12% under laboratory-controlled conditions. With the specifical example in France, the average annual yield for photosynthesis is estimated below to 0.3%. To cover the complete surface of the country would not
be enough to complete the energy needs.
The complete resources model applied in the specific case of France, is proved to be limited.
These models are affected by the wind and solar sources variability: the maximum consumption period in a day; does not correspond to the time of maximum consumption.
The maximum production on a year, does not neither correspond to the maximum consumption on a year: the maximum electricity production for solar panels for example in summer, is when the consumption is the less important on a complete year…
2.3 A succession of attempts to propose answers.
By organizing collectively, has been an attempt to answer the needs and challenges populations were facing, and to answer the inequalities populations are facing in the local access to resources. Different forms of agreements at various scale, are trying to answer the direct visible
consequences of human impacts on its environment.
Agreements focusing on concrete solutions, especially through the question of energies, have the most impact.
Moreover, it appears that energy questions are impacted by external factors, which are not simply linked with technical or scientific issues.
2.3.1 Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement, hailed by Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN from 2007 to 2016, as what has been called at that time, a ‘monumental triumph’ (UN News, 2015). The original target, to
limit global warming to ‘well below 2°C’ and targeting to achieve a 1.5°C compared to preindustrial levels by the end of the 21st century.
The mechanism was based on the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), serving to encourage national governments to compete, but also cooperate with their counterparts across the globe to enact highly drastic reductions in GHG emission.
The Paris Agreement has then been criticized, because of a lack of enforceability, and the lack of an international collective action to achieve the NDCs. Paris Agreement was based on the principle of a collective effort, then national contexts have proved the collective mobilization difficult to achieve.
2.3.2 European Green Deal and RePowerEU
To fight against climate change has then been at the forefront of another multinational executive body: the European Commission.
In 2020, the context of a pandemic spreading over the world, has been the first test for the ability for European authorities to organize and act collectively: the following European Green Deal (EGD) has proved the pertinence of organizing at a regional level first.
The EGD is made of different targets, leading to specific objectives: Fit for 55, a strategy set up by the European Commission in021. The original objective is to realize a 55% reduction in the GHG emissions by 2030, relative to 1990 emissions. The objective to realize an effective emissions reduction was organized through energy efficiency, especially in buildings.
The ambitious target Fit for 55, has then been affected in 2022 by the RePowerEU Plan: green energy transition was understood as a way to reduce European dependence on Russian fossil fuels.
The Commission considered the Plan will achieve this objective through 3 ‘focus areas’:
- 45% of the energy mix coming from renewables in 2030.
- 600 GW solar capacity by 2030.
- Doubling the rate of heat pumps.
- Simplifying and accelerating the major installations of renewable energy projects (European
Commission 2022).
The European aim to involve private and public sectors in order to save up an estimated EUR 100 billion, and reinvest to realize the goal of RePowerEU, in the context of difficulties and perturbations
following Ukraine’s invasion.
The war started in 2022, has strengthened the need to secure access for energy sources. Independence and resourcefulness became inextricably linked: populations do not accept anymore the access for energy depends geopolitical or macroeconomic situations, which do not depend on them.
Realizing these objectives would allow European Union to:
- 1. Reduce its dependency on fossil fuels originated from Russia.
- 2. Limit the increase of gas prices by setting a ‘celling price’.
- 3. Reduce the energy demand by 20%.
- 4. Develop the share of renewable energies.
European Union aims to realize these objectives, by applying a strategy dedicated to 4 different goals:
1st goal: diversify energy supplies.
European policy on energy is finally more affected by exterior events, rather than by evolution of technologies and uses by citizens. The Commission wishes to diversify the energy sources, by:
- Concluding agreements with non-EU countries for gas pipeline imports; or natural gas exportation, such as Israel or Egypt.
- Investing in joint purchases of liquidized natural gas (LNG).
- By developing supply of a form on hydrogen considered as renewable, with Namibia, Egypt and Kazakhstan.
The goal pursued by European Union, is to secure its energy supply for the next winter to come.
The search for an affordable and reliable energy supply, comes at the expense of human rights principles, which is yet the basis of European values.
The partnership concluded with Azerbaijan is thereby considered as an involvement in the crisis happening at the border Armenia-Azerbaijan. By replacing its energy source in order not to fuel the conflict Ukraine-Russia, EU has turned to another source, and is now consequently involved in a second border conflict.
2nd goal: ensure an affordable energy supply:
EU has proposed, through an ‘EU Energy Platform’, to coordinate EU action and negotiations with external gas suppliers to prevent EU countries from outbidding each other. By proposing a common gas procurement, EU is willing to secure an affordable energy supply, and avoid energy disruptions.
In 2023, EU has managed to attract bids from a total number of 25 supplying companies, representing contract for more than 13.4 billion cubic meters of gas.
The original goal was to reach 80% of underground capacity filled by 1 November 2022. Finally, EU countries have surpassed this objective, by reaching 95% of gas storage filled, the original 90% objective being reached mid-August.
3rd goal: saving energy.
At EU level, Member States propose to voluntarily reduce gas use by 15%, compared to previous winter. This goal has been reached and overpassed the original target, with a gas demand reduced by 18% between August 2022 and March 2023.
In order to limit the gas price increase, a price ceiling for gas transactions will be applied.
The year 2022 was marked by an unprecedented peak in EU gas prices.
These last years, the gas price was in average between €5/MWh and €35/MWh. Due to the situation on the gas market, TTF month-ahead and day-ahead reached an all-time high of over €300/MWh, and during the consecutive trading days from 22 to 26 August 2022, prices were above €265/MWh.
4th goal: invest in renewables.
The objective of the REPowerEU plan is to accelerate on the question of the green transition, through massive investment in renewable energy.
The incentive lead by EU has allowed to achieve long-lasting goals.
Indeed, about 41GW of new solar energy capacity was installed in EU in 2022. Wind capacity increased by 16GW, allowing a production estimated to 39% from renewable sources.
2.4 Consequences of REPower EU
European Union is planning to reduce the impact of price hikes on citizens and the economy following recent events. A price ceiling for gas transactions is applied, to limit the price increase.
The funding is made by collecting funds from what is called “surplus profits.” The form of the funding is a direct fund to the most vulnerable, a form of direct support for those struggling to pay their energy bills.
REPower EU can also be understood as a tool to ‘rapidly reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the energy transition’
But the long-term consequences have not been anticipated and are open to criticism.
Renewable energies need time to be settle and be able to produce the quantity of energy required. EU must answer the needs for energy, and other origins for gas has been chosen as a temporary solution, without considering consequences in producing countries and their neighboring.
Indeed, by turning to available and affordable alternative sources of energy and gas, the EU is accused of being indirectly responsible of an indirect ‘fueling’ of a long-lasting territorial dispute, along the border Armenia-Azerbaijanii’
The main reason of the RePowerEU strategy, is to provide an accessible energy. It can be described as a short-term strategy, which consequently appears to be at the expense of any human, environmental, or social cost.
The long-term consequences will then appear: how then to meet populations energy needs, without increasing sanitary, health consequences on one side and political instability on the other; in the consuming and producing countries and their direct vicinity?
In this context, the choice made in France to maintain and further develop its parc of nuclear power plants to produce an independent, carbon free and accessible energy, worth to be considered again.
3. Nuclear technology: towards a promising future?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recognized a ‘promising future’ for nuclear technology, in its 2023 general report. Through an innovative use for technology, notably the Atoms4NetZero initiative, is demonstrating the nuclear potential in terms of decarbonization.
3.1 Global situation of the nuclear industry
In its 2023 last general report, the Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based in
Vienna, Austria, has enumerated 438,reactors, producing 393,8 GWe (Gigawatts electric).
At the end of 2022, 58 new reactors, representing a capacity of 59,3 GWe, were under construction.
The current fleet of nuclear reactors is ageing, with about 291 reactors,
producing 258,7 GWe; having more than 30 ans. 3% of them – or 13 reactors are even operating for more than 50years.
Electrification is understood as a solution to decarbonize polluting
sources. The current level represents 9.8% of the energy mix, is expected
to reach 14%, if the current construction pace is maintained.
In case the production pace remains stable, the share of energy
coming from nuclear technology would fall to 6.9%, or 400 GW.
In terms of geographical progression, 26 countries are acting or preparing the development of civil nuclear technology on their territory.
3.2 Nuclear & decarbonation
In an initiative called ‘Atoms4NetZero’, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is demonstrating the importance of nuclear energy in the transition to net zero.
Areas have been identified, where the use of nuclear power would allow a real decarbonation:
- 1. Nuclear power plants can substitute coal fired boilers for district heating and industry,
- 2. Nuclear power are well suited to replace fired power plants for low emissions electricity
generation, - 3. Nuclear power is a significant driver of economic growth, generating jobs in many economic
sectors.
3.2.1 Nuclear as a tool to replace coal fired power plants.
Coal fired and nuclear power plants share a number of technical similarities and using the principle to transform steam produced by coal combustion, or fission reaction in a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear technology is furthermore offering other advantages. Reactors can indeed be more flexible than coal or gas: they can quickly ‘ramp’ up or down, as necessary. It would then allow to match demand and support the integration of variable renewable generation.
In the presented diagram, nuclear technology is the most efficient technology, allowing the highest electrical power output, compared to gas or coal solutions for any ramping time required, resulting in a nuclear technology more reactive to adjust to electricity demand, and supply. In a
combination with renewable energies, which are weather-dependent, nuclear energy appears to be the right solution, to ensure demand is answered and to adjust to demand.
In addition, nuclear power plants will require less space on the plant site, than a coal or gas solution. Indeed, the plant site for fuel storage for nuclear can store sufficient fuel for more than a year, compared to a few weeks for a coal fired plant. Nuclear technology is then producing less
disturbances on local environment, due to less frequent deliveries via road, rail, for an equivalent final energy production.
Nuclear technologies and coal plants are sharing technical infrastructure (transmission, cooling systems, steam generators, alternators), resulting in significant emissions savings and faster deployment, in the case of a transformation from coal to fossil fuels.
3.2.2 Nuclear power plants to supply heat.
An approximated 40% of carbon dioxide emissions, are energy related emissions: from the direct combustion of fossil fuels for heat production or transportation. Emphasizing the need for a rapid reduction, either by electrification or by replacing fossil fuels by other means. And a potential
other mean can be understood as nuclear: nuclear power can replace coal fired boilers producing steam, used to feed district heating networks.
The solution is being implemented in Finland: decarbonization is effective through nuclear district heating in the metropolitan area of city of Helsinki.
3.2.3 Nuclear as a tool to realize a ‘just’ transition?
The goals identified in the Paris Agreement, require a rapid shift away from coal and other fossil fuel. In this context, and nuclear technology is answering challenges identified.
When transforming an existing coal power unit, nuclear is proving to be solution. Nuclear is based on the same electric generation tools and can be a solution to limit significant economic and social disruption. Indeed workers, communities, and businesses reliant on the existing coal power can be trained and empowered to operate and work with this new form of technology, limiting the economic and social resulting disruption.
Nuclear will in this case, be an option for a ‘just transition’ from fossil fuels, by empowering workers and communities.
Indeed, consequences on communities of adaptations have been considered: in the preamble of Paris Agreement and in the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration, was mentioning the importance of a ‘just transition’, involving and empowering communities.
A ‘pathway’ has been identified to recognize transition to a carbon free electricity source, based on nuclear energy.
In 2022, the nuclear energy has been integrated in the European Union ‘taxonomy’ which is describing the requirements to characterize sustainability in investments.
The Atoms4NetZero initiative, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is demonstrating the potential of nuclear power, to other purposes than energy production. Nuclear energy is presented as a solution to answer the intermittency renewable sources are suffering. In this context, the IAEA has organized conferences, which were an opportunity for policy makers, academics and other experts to discuss the role of nuclear power in mitigating climate change, and in contributing
to the transition to net zero emissions. The conference was also an opportunity to actively engage in a dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, at the policy and technical levels.
3.2.4 An innovation from private sector possible?
Private companies and individuals are involved in the energy transition and are promoting alternative solutions, originally proposed as innovative solutions.
In an AEIA interview, Bill Gates is promoting an alternative solution on the question of resources management, as he highlights the need for climate to attract attention on the place of energy an electricity. The role of solar and wind is recognized as gigantic but will require important improvements in the energy storage. Nuclear appears to be the right solution, by being non-weather dependent, completely green, a reliable source and be cheap enough.
In this context, M. Gates is highlighting the disappointment for nuclear energy, due to disturbances in the realization of the third generation of nuclear, an example would be delays in the construction process of the third unit, in the Flamanville, France, nuclear power plant. The FA3 (for Flamanville 3) EPR (for European Pressurized Reactor) construction process has started in December 2007, and was originally expected to start commercial operation in 2013.
The reactor is finally expected to deliver its first electrons in the coming weeks, in July 2024. The final construction cost of this plant has largely exploded, reaching an expected cost of 19.1 bn€, which is 6 times the original cost: originally, the plant was designed for a cost of 3.3 bn€.
Reasons for this industrial failure are multiple, but it appears that large scale projects are no longer relevant as a single solution to provide the energy used, and by now taking into account climate long term consequences.
3.2.5 NUclear forWARD – NUWARD
A specific example of smaller scale device based on a form of private innovation, would be the NUWARD (for “nuclear forward”), a type of SMR (for “small modular reactor”) led by the consortium of French companies EDF (Electricité de France)-TechnicAtome-Naval Group-CEA-Framatome and Tractebel.
In the context of the recovery plan called ‘France 2030’, led in the years 2020-2022, the government has subsidized a design for ‘small’ scale nuclear reactor, to replace electric plants based on fossil fuels combustion. The company EDF has created the company ‘NUWARD’, which has
submitted in July 2023 a first design to the ASN (‘Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire), and is planning to achieve conception in 2026, and realize a first 10 MW reactor in 2030.
Comparing to previous EPR devices design, the project ‘NUWARD’ is based on an innovative design.
The reactor will be based in a 4m diameter cylinder, with 13.50m height. The innovation is based first on the dimension, the final power delivered, and the type of fuel used.
In contrast to the large projects recently developed, such as EPR type, authorities are now pushing for the development of smaller devices, which a capacity between 50 and 300 Mwe. NUWARD is a type of what is called a ‘SMR’ for ‘Small Modular Reactor’. The ‘SMR’ models are conceived to be smaller than classical units, which would allow an output less than 300 Mwe, compared to 1600 Mwe for the EPR design. SMR reactors will be using the same principle of pressurized water and be implemented
starting from 2030.
This functionality would allow to adapt to the needs, and allow new uses, such as low carbon fresh water or hydrogen production, and be directly integrated into industrial processes, the goal being to reach a ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2050.
3.2.6 Alternatives uses.
SMR are presented to be based on a known, proven and used technical solution. The limited size would allow them to integrate into existing systems and become a complementary with intermittent renewable resources.
- The first objective would be an electricity production. The increasing share of electricity uses, would require an extension of the lifetime of existing devices, and the need for flexibility.
The ramp-up capabilities would be optimized, with about 5% of the power available per minute, and compatible with intermittent power sources. Indeed, in order to reach the carbon neutrality by 2050, the renewable sources need to be integrated, and constraints relying on networks
controlled.
- NUWARD/SMR are presented as a solution to integrate in the existing network, and limit land and resource use.
SMRs are size limited, and the needs for water used for cooling are consequently limited. EDF estimated that a 0.5 m3/s water flux would be needed for the cooling system, 0.2 m3/s being evaporated, 0.3 m3
/s returned to the original source.
About 60% of the heat used in France, is produced from fossil
fuels combustion, representing a first step in a decarbonation process.
- NUWARD/SMR are a solution for water desalination and contribute to resilience to water stress.
This innovation will require innovation and research in the management of the resulting brine from desalination. Desalination would use the electricity produced, by the principle of ‘inverse osmose’, or heat produced with the principle of distillation of salted water.
A NUWARD/SMR device is considered to emit 100 MWthermic for 25 MWelectric produced, during the cooling process, allowing desalination process. 10 Mm3/year potable water would be produced, with is potable water volume used by 180 000 inhabitants. Constraints will then appear on the efficient method to treat resulting salt.
4. Hydrogen production.
SMR are presented to be a solution to avoid up to 600 ktCO2/an emitted during the hydrogen production process. 2 solutions are being developed: an electrolysis using electricity produced, and a high temperature electrolysis, resulting heat acting as a simulator in the process. The high temperature electrolysis is under development and is expected to be achieved towards 2030-2040.
3.3 Realistic solutions?
The European network will not be the most suitable, it can indeed absorb and manage the larger amounts of energy. The main interest of this technology will be in countries starting to build or improve their carbon free networks.
This technology can instead replace fossil fuels units. A partnership was signed between the Czech company CEZ, and the company EDF, to replace coal-based plants. Czech Republic is the third carbon dioxide emitters in Europe after Poland and Germany and is equipped with 6 existing nuclear reactors.
EDF company is seeing the 3000 coal production units existing in the world in 2024, as a potential source that can be replace by nuclear technology.
But this promising solution is facing prominent issues.
Indeed, one of the main arguments justifying the technology, was a potential scale economy.
According to Mrs. Karine Hervious, Deputy Director-General of the IRSN (Institut de Radioprotectionet de Sureté Nucléaire), about a hundred units would be needed to reach a form of economic rentability, which are for now considered as too important costs and risks. SMR nuclear reactors are running the risk of being too expensive in a first time and finally not to be economically competitive with othersolutions. EDF is estimating the final cost of the EPR2 – SMR program to 67.4 bn€, or 11 bn€
per unit.
3.4 Or a late solution?
The governmental schema relies on the development of a second generation of EPR, with the objective that a simplified design, will reduce construction time. But other factors must be taken into account.
One the main argument justifying nuclear energy compared to renewable energies was the cost.
The solar and wind energies have experimented an important reduction in the construction and production costs, with the increase of production series and installed power. This dynamic will continue but will depend on 2 contrary effects: the rising in the cost of raw materials and lands.
On the other hand, for nuclear technology, the construction cost keeps increasing, time for construction is following the same tendency, especially in democratic countries where the cost of safety and security is better taken into account. On the following graphic is presented the evolution in
the construction time of nuclear project. The evolution of construction time is stable, and one of the main arguments, the advantages of numerical tools are not obvious.
Indirect costs are also appearing during the lifetime of the proposed solutions, costs due to existing networks adaptation.
For renewable solutions the indirect cost, due to networks adaptation to intermittency have already largely decreased with use of numerical and will keep decreasing with the massification of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The solution proposed will allow an optimized management of demand, and
seasonal storage.
For the nuclear energy, indirect costs are costs of decommissioning, and nuclear waste management. These costs are theoretically integrated in the original cost estimation for EPR2 program is led by EDF: representing a cost of 67.4 bn€, or eleven bn€ per unit. But the estimation is by itself
limited: indeed, noncomplete dismantling has been made on the six units already dismantled, since 1985.
The EPR2 program will consequently increase the quantity of uranium waste, which were partly treated by the Russian state company Rosatom, which was up to now untouched by occidental sanctions.
4. Nuclear waste, or a set aside problematic
The third problematic in the originally identified trilemma to answer
(accessibility/safety/sustainability) lead to consider the long-term consequences and remaining of the nuclear technology exploitation.
The estimated total quantity of nuclear waste is 320 000 tons ML (‘Métaux Lourds’), and this quantity is increasing by 7000tons each year.
Historically, the adopted solution was based on the burial of nuclear waste. Similar methods are leading to consider an increase in the storage capacity, and the duration of storage.
The program ‘France 2030’ is a governmental economic strategy with the objective to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and revive the French economy following the economic crisis linked to the Covid19 pandemic consequences. One of the objectives identified of the program, lead to consider an industrial alternative to the historically used method of the nuclear waste management, based on deep geological disposal (Cigéo project in Bure, France).
The program ‘France 2030’ through a call for projects, aims to support innovation in the nuclear waste management. The first objective is to clarify and improve the management of nuclear waste, by conducting a periodic review and identify targets to achieve, to be able to valorize nuclear waste. The final objective is to reach alternative solutions to deep geological disposal.
The ‘renew’ of nuclear technology is based on 4 identified ‘pillars’:
- Diversify uses.
- Volume and radioactivity reduction of the nuclear waste generated.
- Strategic autonomy increased by a multi-recycling of nuclear material.
- Improvement of nuclear safety and security.
Historically, France has made the choice since to valorize used nuclear fuel to produce MOx fuel, for ‘Mixed Oxide Fuel’. The only plant producing and transforming fuel used in nuclear reactors is based in La Hague, in Normandy. MOx fuel is then re-used in 24 reactors out of the 58 built in France, in a partial manner. On the other hand, the new EPR FA3 in Flamanville is designed to be using 100% MOx fuel. The EPR developed in Flamanville would allow to finally ‘close the cycle’ and realize a
completely ‘sustainable’ nuclear technology.
But the strategy selected is not without consequence.
4.1Environmental consequences
The first step in the nuclear disposal process is sorting: The waste lifetime is leading to a different strategy: ‘Short’ lifetime goods and waste, can be treated by decreasing radioactivity. ‘Long’ lifetime and high activity waste are buried in adapted facilities (Cigéo in Bure).
In France, the management of nuclear waste is precisely framed by the law of the 28th of June 2006. Responsibility of the management and decommissioning of nuclear waste is precisely described in the article n° 2006-739 of the 28th of June 2006. Article 2 is highlighting the responsibility relying on energy producers: Art L. 542-1: “the sustainable management of raw materials and nuclear waste, resulting from exploitation and installation dismantling […] is ensured in accordance with the protection of the health of persons, safety and the environment. Research and implementation of the necessary means for safety final radioactive waste is undertaken to prevent or limit loads that will be
supported by future generations”.
The evaluation of consequences is therefore postponed in the future, leaving next generations to live with today choices and decisions.
The possibility of a technical improvement in the future, on the technical and scientific conditions in the nuclear waste treatment has been imagined. Article 12 in the L542-10 is indeed precising that ‘authorization in the creation of a nuclear waste disposal in a deep geological layer which
is not ensuring reversibility conditions in the conditions given by the law, cannot be delivered’. And the reversibility in the storage has been planned, with ‘the authorization is setting the minimum duration in which, as a precautionary measure, storage reversibility must be ensured. The duration
cannot be inferior to one hundred years.’
The design of the tool used is itself in contradiction with this principle: indeed, nuclear waste is imagined to be sealed among a concrete layer, removing the possibility of a future access to nuclear waste.
The question of long-term consequences has been considered by ‘Conseil Constitutionnel’, which is preconizing a specific strategy in the ‘Cigéo’ tool planned.
4.2Social consequences
Nuclear wastes are concentrating radioactivity with higher levels than what can be found in the environment. The selected strategy, based on the long term deep geological storage, will leave on future generations the management and weight of these resources management.
The Constitutional Council has ben seized by a priority question of constitutionality, concerning the ‘Cigéo’ storage project in Octobre 2023, which anticipates a maximum volume of 85 000 m3 nuclear
waste storage.
The Constitutional Council is indeed recognizing for the first time the right for protection of ‘generations to come.’ The decision provides a framework for the protection of the successive generations, understood as the not yet born generations. The responsibility of legislator is recognized
and must ensure compliance when adopting measures likely to cause serious and lasting harm to the environment.
The Constitutional Council is finally estimating that the ‘reversibility principle’ is respected, by identifying 2 phases during the lifetime of the ‘Cigéo’ project:
- A pilot phase, which should allow to comfort the technical reversibility, and demonstration of facility safety, by leading in situ tests and analysis,
- A second operation phase, with each package of nuclear waste to be easily recoverable. Reversibility will be ensured by recovery tests conducted during the first phase.
The Constitutional Council, in the 27th of October 2023 decision however is recognizing for the first time the long-term consequences of today’s decisions and projects, and the right of future generations.
This evolution is a novel approach in the large projects implementing decision, especially those affecting climate and environment.
The Constitutional Council decision is also an answer to critics from opponents to Cigéo project: the project by itself would not not respect the Environment Chart, especially the reversibility principle, because of the technical choices selected to close nuclear waste compartments.
By identifying 2 different phases in the Cigéo project lifetime, would allow to identify a method to ensure the reversibility in the access for nuclear waste, method that would then be applied in the second phase, and be definitive.
5. ‘France 2030’: an opportunity for a re-new nuclear?
The plan ‘France 2030’ was presented in 2021, with the goal ‘to catch-up the French industrial discrepancy’. The scenario imagined pass trough the revitalization of the nuclear sector, based on the apparition of SMR – for Small Modular Reactors -, units with a limited design and dimension.
The plan trough different goals, aims to answer limits nuclear industry is facing, throughout lifetime of a nuclear plant, and find an answer to what appears to be an unsolvable dilemma.
5.1 A 2 steps strategy
Following the limits met during the construction of the EPR project in Flamanville, with a delayed and project which has overpassed the initial calendar and budget assessment, the option of a SMR device is studied. Used in parallel with larger units, it would achieve a decarbonation of the
European energy system and realize a complete decarbonation by replacing units powered by gas and coal.
The second objective of the strategy is to support an ecosystem of ‘nuclear start-ups’. The call for projects, led from the 2nd of March 2022 to the 28th of June 2023, had the objective to “better produce, while also identifying new stakeholders and offering them solution to better innovate”.
The strategy is reflected by an industrial effort to foster multi-recycling strategies, by on one side developing the historically technologies used with the pressurized-water reactors, through SMR units.
On the other side, a potential objective is to restart research on a technology left aside: fast neutron reactors. The solution developed in France, the ASTRID unit -for Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration-, was launched in 2010. ASTRID unit original goal was to save resources used by valorizing used uranium 238 and plutonium, and finally reduce the quantity of long-life nuclear waste. ASTRID project was then stopped in 2019, in a context of a cheap
and available uranium resource. The original decision to stop ASTRID unit tests need to be re-assessed, to consider technical evolutions and economic and social context.
Stimulate research and development would allow research to answer an unsolvable issue: which long term solution for nuclear waste would be effective and efficient?
5.2 Innovative calls for project as a solution?
Innovative calls for project are presented as a solution to identify and foster breakthrough solutions in the production technologies and energy distribution.
With the call for project ‘France 2030’, the objective is to ‘produce better, decarbonized, while also identifying new actors, and offering them ways to innovate’. The following funds will dedicate 50% of expenses on solution to decarbonate the economy, the other 50% will be dedicated to innovation which is respecting the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle.
This program was based on a call for project, launched the 2
nd of March 2022, and closed on 28th of June 2023, and was operated by BPI -Banque Publique d’Investissement- France. The program
is supporting the development of an European SMR, to realize the decarbonation of electric mix at the European scale. The objective is to create an eco-system of nuclear start-ups, to foster innovation.
The revival of nuclear power is understood as a tool to answer the need for diversification of uses, the reduction of volume and radioactivity of waste originated from nuclear facilities.
The improvement of a strategic autonomy is accomplished thanks to what is an improvement in nuclear safety and security.
6. Conclusion
The problem countries and societies are appearing to be a trilemma, having to answer the needs for safety/accessibility/sustainability, with the necessity of an abundant non-intermittent energy. Nuclear energy is answering the challenge of intermittency posed by renewable resources, by
providing a reliable and controlled energy.
On the other hand, the management of nuclear waste require a sustainable method for an end-of-life nuclear waste. Research and development will require existing potential solutions to be revived, and existing solutions to be reassessed.
Accessibility will be the key: how to guarantee an equity in the access for energy, with the necessity for nuclear technology to be deliverable everywhere, including in the most difficult areas to reach, with the solution identified not made at the expense of safety and security?
Safety criterions require mature and tested technology. A possible solution has been identified through the development of XAMR devices, which would allow to adapt to the industrial needs. XAMR
is presented as a 4th generation nuclear reactor, using the spent nuclear fuel which does not require water at the cooling stage. By avoiding water, we also avoid the risk of explosion in presence of hydrogen and temperature excess. The structure and process are considered to be better controlled, because the fuel is in the liquid form.
The XAMR technology is presented to be sustainable, by avoiding the high activity long life nuclear waste. A theorical possibility, which needs confirmation, is the possibility to be based on radioactive waste resulting from the neutron bombardment of used uranium. It would also be a
solution for the recycling the used radioactive materials. Researches will be needed on fast breeder technology reactors to ‘recycle’ nuclear waste, transforming it as a resource, and restoring nuclear waste.
The historical solution of a ‘Small and Modular Reactor’, that can be industrially designed and assembled in a controlled industrial environment, would allow to be directly implemented among the users and answer the needs. A form of decentralization of energy production is considered to be
strengthening sovereignty trough autonomy. Moreover, the need for occupied surface is limited compare to existing technology, to reach the same level of production.
The imagined solution would answer the need of an energy at a low cost (need for a form of equity), safety (understood as resilience and sovereignty) and environmental sustainability (with the use of nuclear waste as fuel and decarbonation objective).
A possible evolution can be a form of ‘transition energy’, which would allow to ‘spread’ electricity and nuclear plants production. A solution could be identified through the reverse osmose of water and hydrogen as a solution to ‘carry energy’ without networks and to avoid the associated limits and costs. Hydrogen then would be used to produce electricity through a fuel cell, the resulting energy would be associated with the reverse electrolysis product: water.
The solution can be improved by using energy from natural resource, wind solar or water, to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen would be used to “carry” energy.
Hydrogen originally extracted from water cells, would return to water, realizing a complete cycle.
The future of nuclear technology, in any case, has to be made as a tool included in societies, and by taking under consideration its torments: multiply civil nuclear installations would increase the
risks of diversion or misappropriation, in a context of increasing geopolitical tensions in a troubled context. According to its opponents, the argument of climate crisis is not pertinent enough to justify
the future of civil nuclear. Nuclear energy can be the answer of nowadays biggest question: how to efficiently fight climate change. The place of nuclear energy in the 2024 electric mix has never been so important, but
further development and research are needed to avoid contrary effects.