Great piece! Would be interesting to consider the impact of very low rainfall as well on French nuclear and hydro availability. Feels like a perfect storm of bad timing is coming together...
I think it's still a second order effect for nuclear - it does have an effect on the flexibility of hydro.
There's also the rules on the temperature of the water used in the nuclear plants and then resent into the river - it's an issue on some rivers with the current high temperatures. The rules has been waived already for some plants
Love this level of analysis. Thanks for the piece. Really eye-opening to learn that France has turned into a net importer of power and to learn just how difficult it is to build new RE generation capacity in both France and Sweden. This does not bode well for the green transition
Brilliant article! Apart from the generation side, what is rarely discussed is lowering demand altogether, because the greenest form of energy is the one that isn't used. Energy efficiency and grid improvements can make up to some degree for lost generation. Not only to connect demand centres with large generators within a country, but also to create better interconnectors between countries where renewable power from one country can be used in an other. This would lower renewable energy curtailment and allow for more flexible demand response. Thank you Jérôme à Paris, you have one more subscriber.
If France goes for wind and solar, how large extra investments in grids and pumped hydro storage will be needed, compared to if a new large nuclear program is launched?
The reality is that nuclear requires a lot of backup (to cover the daily difference between maximum load and baseload) and that is provided to a decent extent by hydro (the Alps are a giant battery for EDF). That flexible capacity can be used, differently, to deal with renewables, to a larger extent than most people assume (when coupled with other flexible sources and, increasingly, smart demand).
The grid is learning how to do that better every year. The interesting nugget is that while nuclear and lignite have gone down significantly, in Germany, and renewables by the same volume, the use of flexible capacity (gas and hard coal) has actually declined. So we know it's feasible to deal with a switch of 30% of overall demand from baseload to renewables, in a well-integrated system.
If we are serious about decarbonising, we need a lot of not currently electrified things electrified, such as H2 for industry / fertilizer and overnight EV charging will use up the gap between normal demand and constant supply. The electolysers etc. Will have far higher usage rates (CF) than using excess wind and solar, and need less storage to buffer the end users.
It is a fair point on the two types not helping each other though.
There will certainly be a distinction between new uses of electricity that are easily interruptible (and can thus take advantage of the volatility of power prices linked to intermittency of renewables) and those that are less interruptible (whether for physical or economic reasons) and value baseload-type supply. I expect we'll see a combination of both and many new patterns of power used generation.
Sure, but having a well-integrated system isn't free either. Nor is more flexible stuff like gas and pumped hydro.
To take the example I know best: Sweden.
Most Swedish demand is in the south, while most hydro is in the north. In the old days this was managed by running nuclear in the south 24/7, and sending hydro from the north to the south during the day and during the winter, roughly speaking.
Then we recenty lost 2800 MW of nuclear in the south due to political phaseout. This was replaced by lots of onshore wind, in the north and in the south. But the transmission lines between the north and south weren't expanded, which means southern Sweden now enjoys the doubtful pleasure of German gas-driven day-time power prices, unless there is a windstorm happening. Spot prices are currently often 100 times higher during the day than during the night, or in the south compared to the north.
On top of this, new flexible generation capacity cannot be built in the south due to politics. Coal is bad for the climate, gas is Russian, and pumped hydro is unknown. Optimizing current hydro plants (the ones we do have in the south) for generating MW's rather than MWh's is legally extremely fraught, and just the legal stuff could take a decade. You also ususally need to optimize all the hydro plants in the same river for the same time, to get full effect for such a plan.
This will all eventually be fixed (maybe by 2030), by building new massive north-south transmission lines. But it will cost perhaps €10 billion in extra grid investments, which wouldn't have been needed if we had stayed with the reactors, or replaced them with new nuclear instead of the seemingly cheap €30/MWh onshore wind.
I guess my point is that just looking at a specific kind of generation isn't good enough. A holistic top-down perspective of the entire generation and transmission system is needed. And then, sometimes, variable sources of power will create new transmission and balancing cost which previously weren't there.
All fair points, but note that it is possible to make wind pay for transmission costs, either by directly charging them for the cost of the new infrastructure, or by using nodal pricing, which gives more value to power generated "in the right place" and gives incentives to build new transmission lines that will pay for themselves with the arbitrage opportunities they create.
Note as well that the grid needs modernisation anyway, so it's not all additional spending, and it is also upgraded to be smarter, which will also allow demand side management, which promises to literally rebalance the power markets very differently from what we were used to.
All work in progress, but it's happening (the long HV transmission lines being the slowest item, in fact)
Firstly, what the previous poster didn't mention, is that the transmission network in Sweden is very old and completely inadequate for our needs in the next 50 years.
Secondly, as we go through decarbonisation, our energy needs will double or even triple depending on which industries move to Sweden; we additionally have lots of heavy industry and mining with high energy needs. This requires substantial rework of our transmission network together with a massive expansion of energy production capacities (renewables and/or nuclear).
Thirdly, only one reactor could have been refurbished and allowed to continue working for another 10-20 years, but that wasn't done because Vattenfall wanted gov. money; back at that time electricity prices were so low that the reactors wouldn't have made them any money. The other reactors were long in the tooth and had to be shutdown.
Lastly, people in Southern Sweden resist any and all wind power like it's the coming of the antichrist. They resist it TOOTH AND NAIL. The result is that most of our wind power is in the north and middle of the country, while there's very little generation capacity in the South, which now suffers from high energy prices.
Many thanks for this very clear and sobering analysis. It is baffling that these issues were completely absent from the political debate during the campaign for the presidential election and that they are not aknowledged by someone like Jean-Marc Jancovici.
This is the best piece I’ve read, by far, on the issue. Excellent!
Great piece! Would be interesting to consider the impact of very low rainfall as well on French nuclear and hydro availability. Feels like a perfect storm of bad timing is coming together...
I think it's still a second order effect for nuclear - it does have an effect on the flexibility of hydro.
There's also the rules on the temperature of the water used in the nuclear plants and then resent into the river - it's an issue on some rivers with the current high temperatures. The rules has been waived already for some plants
Brilliant article! I've learned so much from this. Thank you Jérôme à Paris, you have another fan!
We have to be careful when analyzing market coupled prices ; Italy and Switzerland are also putting a strong pressure on the curves those days.
Indeed - but North Italy is quite dependent on French imports and its prices are clearly correlated to the French ones (as visible on the RTE site)
The IT (North) - FR spread averaged in July at 50.5 €/MWh with only 6 negative hours but 466 positive hours (and 272 fully coupled)..
Your article is quoted in RenewEconomy: https://reneweconomy.com.au/frances-troubled-nuclear-fleet-a-bigger-problem-for-europe-than-russia-gas/
Thanks, nice summary
Love this level of analysis. Thanks for the piece. Really eye-opening to learn that France has turned into a net importer of power and to learn just how difficult it is to build new RE generation capacity in both France and Sweden. This does not bode well for the green transition
Brilliant article! Apart from the generation side, what is rarely discussed is lowering demand altogether, because the greenest form of energy is the one that isn't used. Energy efficiency and grid improvements can make up to some degree for lost generation. Not only to connect demand centres with large generators within a country, but also to create better interconnectors between countries where renewable power from one country can be used in an other. This would lower renewable energy curtailment and allow for more flexible demand response. Thank you Jérôme à Paris, you have one more subscriber.
"If only we could brainlessly put solar panels and windmills on top of literally everything... the issue would have been solved, solved I tell you!!!"
Thank you for your helpful comment
Really good analysis, merci !
If France goes for wind and solar, how large extra investments in grids and pumped hydro storage will be needed, compared to if a new large nuclear program is launched?
The reality is that nuclear requires a lot of backup (to cover the daily difference between maximum load and baseload) and that is provided to a decent extent by hydro (the Alps are a giant battery for EDF). That flexible capacity can be used, differently, to deal with renewables, to a larger extent than most people assume (when coupled with other flexible sources and, increasingly, smart demand).
The grid is learning how to do that better every year. The interesting nugget is that while nuclear and lignite have gone down significantly, in Germany, and renewables by the same volume, the use of flexible capacity (gas and hard coal) has actually declined. So we know it's feasible to deal with a switch of 30% of overall demand from baseload to renewables, in a well-integrated system.
If we are serious about decarbonising, we need a lot of not currently electrified things electrified, such as H2 for industry / fertilizer and overnight EV charging will use up the gap between normal demand and constant supply. The electolysers etc. Will have far higher usage rates (CF) than using excess wind and solar, and need less storage to buffer the end users.
It is a fair point on the two types not helping each other though.
There will certainly be a distinction between new uses of electricity that are easily interruptible (and can thus take advantage of the volatility of power prices linked to intermittency of renewables) and those that are less interruptible (whether for physical or economic reasons) and value baseload-type supply. I expect we'll see a combination of both and many new patterns of power used generation.
Sure, but having a well-integrated system isn't free either. Nor is more flexible stuff like gas and pumped hydro.
To take the example I know best: Sweden.
Most Swedish demand is in the south, while most hydro is in the north. In the old days this was managed by running nuclear in the south 24/7, and sending hydro from the north to the south during the day and during the winter, roughly speaking.
Then we recenty lost 2800 MW of nuclear in the south due to political phaseout. This was replaced by lots of onshore wind, in the north and in the south. But the transmission lines between the north and south weren't expanded, which means southern Sweden now enjoys the doubtful pleasure of German gas-driven day-time power prices, unless there is a windstorm happening. Spot prices are currently often 100 times higher during the day than during the night, or in the south compared to the north.
On top of this, new flexible generation capacity cannot be built in the south due to politics. Coal is bad for the climate, gas is Russian, and pumped hydro is unknown. Optimizing current hydro plants (the ones we do have in the south) for generating MW's rather than MWh's is legally extremely fraught, and just the legal stuff could take a decade. You also ususally need to optimize all the hydro plants in the same river for the same time, to get full effect for such a plan.
This will all eventually be fixed (maybe by 2030), by building new massive north-south transmission lines. But it will cost perhaps €10 billion in extra grid investments, which wouldn't have been needed if we had stayed with the reactors, or replaced them with new nuclear instead of the seemingly cheap €30/MWh onshore wind.
I guess my point is that just looking at a specific kind of generation isn't good enough. A holistic top-down perspective of the entire generation and transmission system is needed. And then, sometimes, variable sources of power will create new transmission and balancing cost which previously weren't there.
All fair points, but note that it is possible to make wind pay for transmission costs, either by directly charging them for the cost of the new infrastructure, or by using nodal pricing, which gives more value to power generated "in the right place" and gives incentives to build new transmission lines that will pay for themselves with the arbitrage opportunities they create.
Note as well that the grid needs modernisation anyway, so it's not all additional spending, and it is also upgraded to be smarter, which will also allow demand side management, which promises to literally rebalance the power markets very differently from what we were used to.
All work in progress, but it's happening (the long HV transmission lines being the slowest item, in fact)
Firstly, what the previous poster didn't mention, is that the transmission network in Sweden is very old and completely inadequate for our needs in the next 50 years.
Secondly, as we go through decarbonisation, our energy needs will double or even triple depending on which industries move to Sweden; we additionally have lots of heavy industry and mining with high energy needs. This requires substantial rework of our transmission network together with a massive expansion of energy production capacities (renewables and/or nuclear).
Thirdly, only one reactor could have been refurbished and allowed to continue working for another 10-20 years, but that wasn't done because Vattenfall wanted gov. money; back at that time electricity prices were so low that the reactors wouldn't have made them any money. The other reactors were long in the tooth and had to be shutdown.
Lastly, people in Southern Sweden resist any and all wind power like it's the coming of the antichrist. They resist it TOOTH AND NAIL. The result is that most of our wind power is in the north and middle of the country, while there's very little generation capacity in the South, which now suffers from high energy prices.
Many thanks for this very clear and sobering analysis. It is baffling that these issues were completely absent from the political debate during the campaign for the presidential election and that they are not aknowledged by someone like Jean-Marc Jancovici.
Fascinating. Time to explain this to French politicians.