In his book A secret so well kept (Ed. Grasset), the former owner of Areva Anne Lauvergeon describes him as one of the best specialists in energy issues. Passed by CEA, EDF and Goldman Sachs, before creating his company E-Pango, a gas and electricity supplier, Philippe Girard returns for L’Express on the multi-year energy program (PPE) of France, whose new version is debated this Monday, April 28 at the National Assembly. For the expert, this text is largely perfectible. Despite recent parliamentary surveys, energy and electricity prices discussions remain polluted by a lack of scientific rigor and unhappy ideological choices.
L’Express: What is wrong with the PPE? In recent weeks, this text has raised a lot of criticism from parliamentarians and energy specialists.
Philippe Girard: This text has many faults. In general, it lacks precision. For example, it does not look enough at the evolution of the different components of the price of energy. Without these elements, it is difficult to predict anything. Unless you make hazardous assumptions. The document also does not rule on the place of different energy sources in our mix. Instead of deciding, he juxtaposes.
Thus, the PPE supposes that households will invest in energy sovereignty, without really approaching the question of the capital they have. We start from the principle that there will soon be a million new heat pumps in individuals per year. If you have 2,000 euros per equipment – a really prudent hypothesis – that means that the French will spend more than 2 billion euros. It’s a big sum. Recall that gas or fuel boilers can largely last several decades. Changing it at mid-term is not rational.
On the energy supply side, the PPE avoids angry subjects. That of gas for example. I do not understand the French strategy in this area. Buying gas in Qatar, Algeria, or in the United States goes against our goal of energy independence. This is to expose yourself to the variations in market prices, not to mention the additional cost linked to the transport, liquefaction and regzéification of this raw material. The possibility of producing it in France has never been discussed. Under the mandate of François Hollande, France even prohibited to seek less polluting and more effective means in extracting shale gas. It’s wonderful! Instead of Gazprom and its American counterparts, I would have applauded.
In France, we highlight the reduction of CO2, forgetting that it is inherent in certain industrial processes, such as steel production. We also forget that before spending a lot to clean up the atmosphere, it is better to be rich. The example of Norway is enlightening. Why does this country manage to deploy electric vehicles to this point? Because he has the means to finance them. And where do its budgetary resources come from? Of the past selling of hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas).
Does the PPE save nuclear, which is one of the forces of France?
Again, it would be necessary to review the copy. First anomaly, arriving at 361.4 terawatt hours (TWh) nuclear production in 2024 is presented as a victory. However, this means that the load factor for EDF reactors, that is to say their effective production compared to the one that could have been reached if they had worked at full speed, barely reached 67 %. However, studies show that you should not descend below 85 % because otherwise, the cost of electricity by megawatt hour becomes too high. Americans manage to maintain themselves slightly above 90 %. If we did the same, we would have a production close to 500 TWh. Compared to the current situation, the gap would be considerable. We would not need to consider 14 new EPRs. To say that we relaunch nuclear by keeping such a low load factor does not make sense.
Second anomaly, EDF has still not increased the production capacity of existing reactors. When I travel abroad, I see that park managers do it as soon as they can. Logical: this allows them to produce more at identical fixed cost. The record also goes to Sweden which has increased by 40 % the capacity of one of its reactors.
In France, it has become a fantasy. Over the years, EDF has changed many elements in most of its reactors: alternators, steam generators, tanks. But without ever increasing the declared capacities of their reactors.
Last anomaly, the new EPR2 reactors, which still exist only on paper, will certainly produce too expensive electricity. Their announced power exceeds 1,600 megawatts (MW). However, studies show that the economic optimum is rather at 1,000 MW. It is no coincidence that China mainly produces reactors of this second caliber. No one seems to have said it to Emmanuel Macron.
Does the decrease in the load factor for our reactors are explained by the too rapid rise in renewable energies, as some denounce it?
Not entirely. In France, we have hardly changed nuclear fuel for 25 years. We are forced to change it every ten months for a large number of reactors. Inevitably, that makes more stops than in other countries. In the past, change the fuel of a reactor took between 40 to 50 days at most. This year, in anticipation, if everything is going well, we will be 100 days! It is not quite the same thing. EDF may invoke several regulatory constraints, one can seriously wonder if they have not lost control of this kind of operations.
Should we worry about the future of our energy system?
There is indeed a series of problems, which are also exceeding our borders. At European level, the situation is wobbly. In the name of decarbonation, the different nations develop intermittentness and count on their neighbors, if by chance they lack wind or sun or if they have too much. Except that we realize that in Europe, in terms of renewable energy, everyone is surplus or in deficit at the same time! One can also wonder what will be used for all the lines of interconnection which are being built. They do not prevent the prices of electricity from falling or flying suddenly, depending on the differences between supply and demand.
In the past, there were contracts linking different countries to limit risks. They allowed, for example, to France to import – for twenty days a year – of Italian electricity even if it was more carbon. Today, Europe is not concerned with knowing how to balance the system. We closed the coal, the fuel. Over the next ten years, nuclear capacity should decrease slightly, time to build new reactors. In parallel, we develop a lot of intermittent energy sources. How to balance it? No one knows it, but we continue.
As such, the document sent by RTE in Brussels as part of a forecast exercise called ERAA-2025 is eloquent. There is no battery investment for France in order to store electricity by 2035 and no improvement in the nuclear capacity installed! Admittedly, the document mentions more hydraulic storage. But it does not provide an electron as a nuclear side.
If we do not develop certain means of production and storage, there will be cuts. For example, during episodes of cold without wind or sun, like what we knew last winter. In the past, technical questions on the balance between supply and demand or reactor load factors were present in all reports. It really allowed to know where we were and where we were going. This analysis layer seems to have disappeared today. It’s worrying. With this PPE, we go to the wall.
.
The analysis presented by Philippe Girard highlights important shortcomings in France’s multi-year energy program (PPE). To further illustrate the points of concern,a comparative analysis of key metrics and strategies is provided below. This table, along wiht supporting data, underscores the need for a more pragmatic and adaptable approach to energy planning, safeguarding France’s energy security and economic competitiveness in the face of variable market dynamics and global policy shifts.
Comparative Analysis of Energy Strategies
Table of Contents
- Comparative Analysis of Energy Strategies
- FAQ: Addressing Key Concerns About france’s Energy program
- what is the Multi-Year Energy Program (PPE)?
- What are the main criticisms of the current PPE?
- Why is the nuclear load factor important?
- What are the implications of France’s gas procurement strategy?
- How does the integration of renewable energy relate to the problems identified?
- What are the specific recommendations for addressing these issues?
- How does the PPE affect electricity prices?
- What about CO2 emissions?
- Why is the example of Norway relevant?
| Aspect | French PPE (Criticized) | Alternative Approaches (Examples) | Impact/Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear Production Target | 361.4 TWh by 2024 (Low Load Factor) |
|
|
| Nuclear Reactor Capacity | No increase in existing reactor capacity. |
|
|
| Gas Procurement Strategy | Reliance on foreign gas suppliers (Qatar, Algeria, USA) |
|
|
| Renewable Energy Integration | Heavy reliance on intermittent sources, lacking robust storage solutions. |
|
|
This comparative data points to a critical need for France to reassess its energy strategy. The current plan, as criticized by Girard, lacks the precision, foresight, and pragmatism required to ensure a stable, affordable, and sustainable energy future.
FAQ: Addressing Key Concerns About france’s Energy program
To provide further clarity and address potential reader questions, here’s a thorough FAQ section on the discussed issues related to France’s energy policy:
what is the Multi-Year Energy Program (PPE)?
The PPE (Programmation Pluriannuelle de l’Énergie) is France’s long-term energy strategy, outlining goals and actions for the contry’s energy transition. It covers areas such as energy production, consumption, and infrastructure development.
What are the main criticisms of the current PPE?
Critics, including experts like Philippe Girard, point to several weaknesses, including a lack of precision in forecasting energy price components, insufficient focus on the role of various energy sources, and an unrealistic approach to household investment.
Why is the nuclear load factor important?
The nuclear load factor, representing a reactor’s actual energy production compared to its full potential, directly affects the cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy.A low load factor results in increased electricity costs.
What are the implications of France’s gas procurement strategy?
France’s reliance on gas imports from countries like Qatar and Algeria exposes it to price fluctuations. Girard argues that this compromises energy independence and adds costs related to transportation and processing of natural gas.
How does the integration of renewable energy relate to the problems identified?
the PPE’s heavy reliance on intermittent renewable sources (wind, solar) without adequate storage solutions (batteries, enhanced hydraulic storage) increases the risk of supply disruptions.
What are the specific recommendations for addressing these issues?
Girard suggests improving the production capacity of existing nuclear reactors by, as a notable exmaple, upgrading reactors capacities rather of only changing components, ensuring a higher load factor. He also recommends reconsidering domestic gas production, and investing in robust energy storage options to balance supply and demand consistently.
How does the PPE affect electricity prices?
Various shortcomings in the PPE impact electricity prices. Inefficient nuclear production, reliance on foreign gas, and insufficient storage solutions all contribute to greater costs and price volatility.
What about CO2 emissions?
The rush to reduce CO2 emissions is a worthy goal, but as Girard points out, certain industries, like steel production, inherently involve CO2 emissions. Moreover, it’s best to ensure economic prosperity first to facilitate investment in emission reduction.
Why is the example of Norway relevant?
Norway’s success in deploying electric vehicles stems from its ability to finance them through the revenue generated from the sale of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas). This brings up the problematics of getting rich before implementing such policies.
These FAQs aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the key issues surrounding the PPE,clarifying concerns,and offering context for a better understanding of France’s energy challenges and the debate over its future.
