France has long been the world’s leader in nuclear power. Prompted by the 1973 oil crunch, the French government began aggressively investing in the clean energy in 1974 with the passing of the Messmer plan. In 2021, nuclear power makes up around 70 percent of the country’s energy portfolio, producing 537.7 TWh. However, as many of those old plants approach the end of their 40-year-life-cycles, the question has become whether or not the Hexagon should indeed stay the world’s most nuclear nation.
The debate surrounding France's nuclear future began in earnest during the 2012 election between Francois Holland and incumbent Nicholas Sarcozy. Holland, who’d supported phasing out nuclear during the contest, won and went on to put in place some vague plans to decommission certain plants.
However, 5 years after Holland left office, most of those plants are still open and the debate rages on. The current president, Manuel Macron, has come out in support for continuing France’s nuclear project. Specifically, he’s proposed €30 billion strategy to build a fleet of modern, small-scale reactors. Detractors of the plan are mostly in favor of transitioning to renewables.
Anyone familiar with electric grids who’s been to France can attest to the fact that the country is horrible at energy efficiency. Plug your phone into the wall at any hour and it will charge to 100 percent in what feels like 15 minutes. The price of this energy inefficiency has been very low thanks to the country’s impressive nuclear fleet.
What happens if France does transition away from nuclear power? Certainly, to hit their ambitious carbon goals, they’d have to adopt a plethora of EE initiatives immediately. Is it reasonable to expect a country with essentially no experience in energy conservation to get it right on the first try? Or should they continue doing what they know, leading the way in nuclear?