This figure, which has just been published by the Ministry of Durable Development, has been completely unnoticed. Comments have been focused on EDF C.F.O. resignation and the risks associated with the building of two nuclear power plants in Hinkley Point, England. These two issues are much more connected than it is usually thought. But, don’t tell it !

Our power exports have increased by 10% in 2015 and if we deduct imports, the surplus reach 2,3 billions euros, 7,1% more than in 2014. This is one of the highest contributions to France trade balance, more or less equivalent to the whole pharmaceutical industry, which is rightly considered as one of the strongest sectors of our economy. So, why nobody dares to claim it? It is because of the nuclear taboo. We export such a high quantity of electricity thanks to the good performances of our nuclear plants, to the improvement of the production ratios and their competitiveness. We could even export more if we increased our production capacities. We must also kill two generally accepted ideas: the age of a nuclear plant does not affect its safety record, when an independent and competent body regularly checks it; and its production costs are reduced since they take into account depreciation and demolition costs which will be based on an increased lifespan of the plant.  

 Another accepted idea is that renewable, wind and solar, could be an alternative to nuclear production. It is what Germany is trying to convince us with its “energiewende”. Investment burden is supported by households who pay their electricity at an almost twice higher price than in France. Enterprises benefit from reduced rates. But renewable are intermittent: when there is no sun (during the night) or no wind (during summer) and when power is needed, power plants must be there. The closing of German nuclear power plants had as a consequence to increase the production of thermal power plants, mainly based on coal and, which is worse, on brown coal. Germany has such high CO2 emission ratios for this reason and cannot reduce them significantly. The closure, before 2022, of the last nuclear power plants will worsen this situation.

Countries which are investing the most in renewable, in addition to Germany, like China, Australia or Denmark, are those which have the highest coal dependence. They don’t reduce their CO2 emissions: renewable are used only to compensate excessive emissions resulting from coal combustion. The only significant exception to this trend comes from the U.S.: coal consumption fall is not coming from the development of renewable, which is significant, but from the shale revolution. In many countries, energy policy choices are linked to politician calculations. In Germany the coal-renewable mix permits to strengthen CDU position in eastern Landers where are located the coal and brown coal mines and to limit Greens influence, who, anyway, have kept the control, during the last elections, of Bade-Wurtemberg. This Lander is just facing, on the opposite side of the Rhin,  Fessenheim power plant, which explains why German ecologists are asking for the closure of the plant.

United Kingdom has made the exact opposite choice and has announced the closure, by 2025, of its last coal mines. It’s why the Tory government has decided to boost its nuclear production with several projects, including Hinkley Point power plant where two E.P.R. are supposed to be built. But, and it is a typically British method, it is asked to the builder to finance the power plants. The country is protecting its independence, with the condition that those who have the duty to guarantee it, are also suppose to give it, or, at least, to support all the risks associated to the project. During the past, when, in France, we exported our knowledge, we were paid. It was the case in South Africa, in Korea and of course in China, even if, sometimes, EDF kept a very minority stake in the power plant and participated to its management. In the Hinkley Point project, it is not any more the case. EDF doesn’t export a power plant, it finances it, it build it and then it operates it, taking in charge not only the risks associated to the construction, and the Finnish experience or the Flamanville backwardness should recommend  to be cautious, but also, in addition, those resulting from operating  the power plant, including tariff issues. So, we understand much better the debate which occurred at EDF and the resignation of its CFO.

But it is difficult to have the explanations about French State pressures to support the project, especially after the stigmatization of the nuclear industry coming from many leaders of the left. What is the interest for the French economy of this project? There is maybe the symbolic aspect, regarding French-British relationship, with in the backyard the Brexit, which definitely add another risk. Compared to that, economic repercussions are low because the 23 billions euros spent by EDF will mainly pay for job creations in England. Apart from some hundred engineers who will manage the construction on site, most of the work will be done by local firms. It is even considered to sub-contract the making of the heavy pieces of the reactor in Japan since there still doubts about the Flamanville tank made in France. Safety Authority certification is still expected. If the purpose is to offer work to engineers teams, or to Areva and GE plants, which has just been bought from Alstom, why don’t we build in France these two EPR and export a part of the power to England and all around continental Europe which will need it in the future with the closure of Belgium and German nuclear plants?

It is on this point that we see the inconsistency, not to say more, of the position of the French state. On one side, it procrastinates when it is asked to approve the increase of the lifespan of the nuclear plants on which is calculated their annual depreciation. In the same time a law is voted by the parliament putting a ceiling of the nuclear capacities in France, when, in another part of the law, it is supposed that these nuclear plants will have to produce during more than 40 years. And, in the same time, the government exercises pressures on EDF to convince it to build, with all the costs and the risks associated to the project, nuclear power plants in England. Instead of that, it would be quite possible to take these 23 billions to modernize the French nuclear plants and, why not, to increase production capacities in Penly, for instance.

So, instead of having German or Polish coal covering the deficit provoked by the closure of German end Belgium plants, it would be “made in France’ power. The last results of our trade exchanges show that we can do it on this very competitive market, even in keeping a price which is favorable to household purchasing power. Competitiveness is also there. And it is good for employment.