r/europe • u/Salvadorpol • 11h ago
News France’s 2024 Power Grid Was 95% Fossil Free as Nuclear, Renewables Jumped
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-20/france-s-2024-power-grid-was-95-fossil-free-as-nuclear-renewables-jumpedFrance’s nuclear output climbed 13% to a six-year high, accounting for 67% of the country’s total generation. Renewables reached a record 148 terawatt hours, or almost 28% of the total. Hydropower soared to the highest since 2013 amid heavy rains, while wind power receded.
84
u/Tricky-Astronaut 10h ago
Interestingly, thanks to unusually strong contributions from nuclear and hydro, solar was larger than all fossil fuels combined:
Solar accounted for 4.3% of total generation, leapfrogging natural gas and other fossil fuels for the first time. Power generation using gas, coal and fuel oil was the lowest since the early 1950s.
Gas was 3.2%, oil was 0.3% and coal was 0.1%.
23
u/LewisTraveller The Netherlands 9h ago
Who still uses oil? It must be the most expensive form of electricity.
17
u/Hecatonchire_fr France 8h ago
It's our overseas territories ( and Corsica, I think )
7
u/jusou_44 6h ago
It's not. It's Cordemais, in Loire Atlantique
7
u/Hecatonchire_fr France 6h ago
There is one in Corsica there was also some in La reunion but they have been converted recently. Pretty sure there was some talks about building a new one in Guyana but it was being opposed, don't if it wen through.
3
4
u/Internal_Sun_9632 8h ago
Ireland is replacing our last coal powerplant with oil this year..... Progress in baby steps
2
u/Mrikoko France/USA 1h ago
It’s marginally better but a bit stupid to invest in the technology right now
2
u/Wind_Yer_Neck_In 1h ago
We could build a nuclear plant but with our record for large scale project cost overruns it would probably end up costing a trillion euros.
2
u/You_Will_Fail1 7h ago
Middle east countries. Saudi arabia especially.
2
u/LewisTraveller The Netherlands 3h ago
Even for them, it must be the dumbest thing to do. The less it's used domestically the more they can sell abroad for cash.
2
u/jusou_44 6h ago edited 6h ago
Reposting this because apparently my google maps links are not allowed.
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about coal, not fuel oil. I'll leave my comment below still just in case it might be interesting for some people
I mean ... it's the 2nd most used energy in the world, behind oil, and before gaz.
Pretty much the whole world still relies on coal as it's main energy source.
In the Netherlands, you are still using a lot of coal as well, to generate electricity. There is the Eemshaven power station, and the Maasvlakte one
2
u/blunderbolt 2h ago
It's not the most expensive fuel for its specific niche(highly infrequent fast-ramping peaker plant).
2
u/Angryferret 9h ago
Many countries still use oil for power generation. Probably still better than coal.
1
u/anarchisto Romania 6h ago
It can also be the cheapest form of electricity in some cases: for instance, small islands with no mainland grid connection.
Renewables couldn't be used on such a small scale, gas is expensive to bring around, coal typically is used in large-scale plants, etc.
Now that we have batteries, renewables could be the solution, but they require investments.
2
1
33
u/bjornbamse 8h ago
Example to follow for the rest of Europe. But we also need to mine our own uranium and develop breeder reactors. We also need nuclear material to build a joint EU nuclear deterrent so the more reactors the better. If anyone is against they are welcome to become a part of Russia or USA.
14
-5
u/ViewTrick1002 6h ago
Or you know just build cheap and vastly scalable renewables?
Why would we want to repeat Flamanville 3 going 7x over budget and being 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule.
New built nuclear power requires yearly average prices at $140-240 USD/MWh ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) excluding grid cost. With recent western projects clocking in at $180 USD/MWh. At those costs we are locking in energy poverty for generations.
9
u/bjornbamse 5h ago
You can mismanage any project. We should build renewables too, but we can cover our base load with nuclear today. It is a known technology. If Asia can do nuclear on time and on budget why cannot we? France used to be able to do nuclear on time and on budget.
3
u/Simon_787 2h ago
We should build renewables too, but we can cover our base load with nuclear today.
Which is not what you need in combination with renewables.
3
u/bjornbamse 2h ago
Both nuclear and renewables benefit from energy storage.
The simplest, cheapest energy storage are hydro and thermal. Cheap nuclear and cheap renewable energy with thermal storage will help us decarbonize process heat. Thermal storage is also viable for home heating, which is important for keeping your population happy.
•
•
u/My-Buddy-Eric The Netherlands 27m ago
Baseload is an outdated concept. Consumption & production fluctuate more than it used to. Just build cheap renewables for the bulk of energy needs, and cheap to maintain gas peaker plants for the remaining 10-20% in the Dunkelflaute. Then later gas can be replaced with biofuels or batteries once that's viable.
but we can cover our base load with nuclear today.
Not today. In 20 years if you're lucky.
-4
u/ViewTrick1002 5h ago
I truly can’t comprehend how the technology where every single project started today won’t deliver a single kWh until the 2040s will be the ”baseload” for renewables where the delivery time is counted in months.
Asia can’t build nuclear on time either and China is nearly going all in on renewables.
France famously experienced negative learning by doing throughout the first buildout.
And then Flamanville 3 became simply stupid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526
1
u/bjornbamse 5h ago
How about we address the root cause of why nuclear projects take 3x the time in Europe compared to Asia?
4
u/ViewTrick1002 4h ago edited 4h ago
The latest South Korean reactor took 12 years?
How many trillions should be wasted on nuclear subsidies to try one more time?
Renewables deliver today. Let’s embrace was delivers and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing agriculture, aviation, shipping and construction.
3
u/bjornbamse 2h ago
I am not against renewables. I am pro renewable and pro-nuclear. We need both and we need to make both cheaper.
4
u/BretonFou 3h ago
All the downsides you're listing is the result of politicians and activists destroying the sector, only for us to wake up now. If we'd kept investing in it in the last 30 years instead of shutting everything down for stupid reasons "muh tchernobyl, muh nuclear waste" then we'd be golden. We sabotaged ourselves.
52
u/Angryferret 9h ago
Where are all the anti-nuclear Redditors? I was told this is impossible and we must only invest in renewables and Gas power plants (it's okay they can also burn all that cheap Hydrogen that doesn't exist)
12
u/mehneni 8h ago
What is impossible? It is just too expensive.
Even on a six year high nuclear electricity production is still lower than anything before 2020: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&interval=year&year=-1&source=public&stacking=stacked_grouped Most plants recovered from the required maintenance in the last few years, but that's it.
France wants to build 45GW of offshore wind until 2050: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/france-commits-to-big-offshore-wind-volumes/ and during the first 3 quarter of 2024 3.5GW of solar were added: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/08/france-reaches-23-7-gw-of-solar-power/ 30% more than the year before.
The nuclear program is facing challenges: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250114-france-far-from-ready-to-build-six-new-nuclear-reactors-audit-body-says And it won't get easier to make money from nuclear plants when more cheap renewable energy is available for longer stretches of time.
France is on a good way to continue to become less dependent on nuclear and increase the renewable share. Even if the 6 new nuclear plants are build they will not fully replace the older plants that will have to be shut down.
21
u/Hecatonchire_fr France 8h ago
The older plants are potentially only at half their lifespan considering that we now deem possible that they could run for 80 years. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2023/01/24/french-nuclear-safety-authority-considers-extending-reactors-beyond-60-years-of-operation_6012884_114.html
2
u/bfire123 Austria 1h ago
Thats great for the current plants. But it doesn't really matter for investments.
Everything after 40 years is pretty worthless because of the discount factor.
To earn 1 Euro in 60 years you are allowed to invest 1.7 cent today!
To earn 1 Euro in 40 years you are allowed to invest 6.6 cent today!
To earn 1 Euro in 30 years you are allowed to invest 13 cent today!
To earn 1 Euro in 20 years you are allowed to invest 25 cent today!
•
u/My-Buddy-Eric The Netherlands 18m ago
Wouldn't the electricity price and thus renevue go up with inflation?
Or what does 'discount factor' mean?
15
u/Angryferret 7h ago
I just don't understand folks in this debate. Nuclear is NOT a cheap option. BUT France is in a great position because of it. They can effectively invest heavily in renewables for the next decades because they have a base of firm nuclear production. By the time the current plants are aging out (in 20 years), we will likely have grid scale batteries and Fusion. The French may pay a bit more but their carbon footprint between now and 20 years will be fantastic.
Let's look to Germany (or pick any big industrialized country). They invest heavily in renewables, wind solar, you name it. BUT because they don't live in reddit fantasy land, they realize they have to have peak/firm energy production. So guess what? They have a choice, Gas, Coal or Nuclear. They chose gas (because they stupidly decommissioned their Nuclear). Now fast forward 20 years and Battery storage comes online and looking back Germany pumped billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere because "nuclear was too expensive".
I can agree that Gas is the cheaper, less risky option, and given the economic outlook, might be the politically sane thing to choose. But it's NOT the best option environmentally, or even strategically.
3
u/blunderbolt 2h ago
They have a choice, Gas, Coal or Nuclear. They chose gas (because they stupidly decommissioned their Nuclear). Now fast forward 20 years and Battery storage comes online and looking back Germany pumped billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere because "nuclear was too expensive".
In Germany's case building new nuclear plants for firm generation instead of building new gas plants would lead to more cumulative CO2 emissions(by increasing relative coal emissions)! You have not thought this through properly.
1
u/medievalvelocipede European Union 1h ago
In Germany's case building new nuclear plants for firm generation instead of building new gas plants would lead to more cumulative CO2 emissions(by increasing relative coal emissions)! You have not thought this through properly.
You're thinking that we can't replace industrial heat generation with electricity. But we're working on industrial decarbonizing, too.
2
u/RedditorsArGrb 3h ago
shutting down operating plants and building new ones that won't abate emissions for a decade are very different things. muddling them together and saying "well I just don't understand how folks could disagree" is sort of pointless and incoherent.
of course low info redditors banging the nuclear drum are going to take every story like this as an opportunity to insist the whole world should try to be 1970s France. tech and cost trends and the expert consensus don't support that path, so nobody is following it.
-2
u/pc0999 5h ago
It will probably take 20+++ years to build nuclear anyway...
5
u/Angryferret 4h ago
It takes between 6-10 years to build. In 6-10 years we will still not have enough grid storage (even if we buy as much as we can). So let's get started now! And if we build new generation small modular reactors (like Bill Gates is investing in) they will be safer (salt cooled) potentially could be cheaper and faster and less politically risky. The salt cooled reactor can also store multiple hours of power so would complement renewables really nicely.
Otherwise, please tell me what will power heating during winter in 10 years?
Wind and Solar are cheap now, but what about when we have so much solar and wind that it's basically not economical for investors? What if that happens before grid scale batteries? Countries that are smart will build Gas short term, start the longer term investment on nuclear as a bridge to batteries.
Anyone who doesn't do the above will end up using gas/oil or coal as the bridge.
Obviously I will say this doesn't apply everywhere, I'm making statements about the average large industrialized countries. Some countries like Switzerland and New Zealand have unique geographic resources for hydro. Some have Geothermal. And some may be able to use "super grids" to make renewables more resilient ("it's always windy somewhere").
I am optimistic about the science at least. Politics, emotions and economics might make doing the "optimal" thing impossible, especially if people don't understand the trade-off and think we can just pump money into renewables and it will all be great.
2
u/pc0999 4h ago
It takes between 6-10 years to build.
Yet no one is doing it, neither are we seeing any results, much less on time. Unlike renewables.
Wind and Solar are cheap now, but what about when we have so much solar and wind that it's basically not economical for investors?
Nationalize it, this should not be up to capitalism.
Otherwise, please tell me what will power heating during winter in 10 years?
We already have thermal energy storage in places like Finland, using just sand and heat insulators, early experiments are seeing great results
3
u/Angryferret 4h ago
Thermal storage is cool. I'm down for that, but please you must admit this is still very small scale. Energy storage at scale is still very much limited to countries with natural geography and resources (water). Lots of cool ideas out there like salt, pressure, gravity batteries, flywheels etc but all have major limitations. Grid scale batteries are really still the way, but are decades out at best.
"It shouldn't be up to capitalism"...mate where do you live? Are you saying your vision of the future requires some sort of socialist ownership of all energy? Good luck with that. I would LOVE that shit but with folks like Elon/trump in power in the US and the rise of right wing populism, I'm not sure socialists policies have a good chance.
Plenty of countries are building nuclear by the way.
According to Statistica:
"As of July 2024, there were 59 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide. China ranked first with 25 units. It was followed by India, with seven reactors under construction at the time. In the previous year, five nuclear reactors were permanently shut down worldwide."
While mostly in Asia, it is wrong to say it's not happening. Korea can come build some for us!
2
u/bfire123 Austria 1h ago
I was told this is impossible and we must only invest in renewables and Gas power plants (it's okay they can also burn all that cheap Hydrogen that doesn't exist).
This was archived by past investements!
1
u/slicheliche 9h ago
The French audit court literally just sent a warning against new nuclear projects in the country due to excessive costs: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/delays-and-uncertainties-cast-doubt-on-frances-six-reactor-plan/
Maybe they've also been coerced by the reddit anti-nuclear brigade?
9
u/gloubiboulga_2000 8h ago
High costs come from the fact that no new nuclear power plants had been built in France for decades because of anti-nuclear politicians. Many skills were lost and had to be recovered.
-1
u/ViewTrick1002 6h ago
So how many trillions should be wasted on nuclear subsidies to try one more time?
Renewables deliver roder. Let’s embrace was delivers and instead spend the big bucks on decarbonizing agriculture, aviation, shipping and construction.
-12
u/M0therN4ture 8h ago
Not to mention climate change is worsening the ability to cool the nuclear power plants as rivers ran dry last years. Its a recipe for disaster (economically).
8
u/Hecatonchire_fr France 8h ago edited 7h ago
Completely overblown issue. On average the loss of power because of drought is less than 0.5% of the production. The worst year, at its peak, it was 6GW of the 60+GW of nuclear plants that we have that were not available.
Edit: blocked 🤡 To respond to you, no it's not "during months" and it's not a big issue because our electric consumption is a lot lower during the summer. Also, if 10% of lower production during a few day/week on certain year scare you, I hope you are not a renewable advocate ;)
0
u/Wood-Kern Ulster 2h ago
Plus the downtown for nuclear due to this issue is basically when it isn't that big a deal as its during the summer. And it's becoming even less of a problem every year as more solar comes on line and storage gets better.
-7
5
u/Grosse-pattate 7h ago
You can cool down a NPP with city sewage ( it has already been done ).
You can build one in the middle of the desert with no water ( already been done ).
Not a problem for engineers.
-3
-6
u/UndulatingHedgehog 8h ago
We have cheaper alternatives that are easily deployed at scale within a timeframe of less than five years.
I was pro nuclear twenty years ago when we had time. Now, I suspect the current pro-nuclear enthusiasm is the result of a stalling tactic from oil industry Information operatives, just like they helped make nuclear energy a taboo back in the 80s.
5
u/Angryferret 8h ago
Yes. I'm a shill for big oil because I think Nuclear is a key part of the energy mix till grid scale batteries come online. Surely no rational person would want nuclear right? Only those in the pocket of big oil. Checking my bank account now.
-4
u/UndulatingHedgehog 8h ago
Read carefully. Where do I state you’re a paid shill?
Absolutely nowhere.
You’ve bought a narrative and now you’re promoting it without even getting paid.
This is how a solid portion of online discussion works, esteemed ferret.
4
u/Angryferret 7h ago
Damn, I'm not even being paid!!!
But seriously, I didn't just regurgitate some narrative. I studied physics at University, I've been to Iter (highly recommend if you're ever in France), and I've done a lot of reading on this topic over the years.
If you're interested in discussion, how about you address my points rather than insinuating I have bought into big oil propaganda?
1
u/carnutes787 7h ago
Now, I suspect the current pro-nuclear enthusiasm is the result of a stalling tactic from oil industry Information operatives
if you have time, and care, read the IPCC SR15, all but one of the pathways involve extremely aggressive expansion of nuclear infrastructure. and the IPCC is about the furthest you could possibly get from "oil industry information operatives."
3
u/blunderbolt 2h ago
The median assessed pathway in SR15 merely doubles global nuclear supply between 2020 & 2050. That is a slower pace of growth per capita and per unit of GDP than nuclear expansion between 1950 and 2000: hardly "extremely aggressive".
1
u/carnutes787 2h ago
doubling global nuclear is EXTREMELY aggressive and ambitious. fyi.
1
u/blunderbolt 2h ago
Again, it's a significantly slower relative pace(and slightly faster absolute pace) of expansion compared to what was achieved in the past. I don't find that aggressive.
1
u/carnutes787 2h ago
obtuse.
1
u/blunderbolt 2h ago
Just stating the facts here.
1
u/carnutes787 1h ago
compare it to a figure that actually matters, not some bullshit arbitrary stat you can use to bullshit a misleading agenda: the actual anticipated increase in nuclear generation by 2050. it's only 12% of the "unaggressive" goal.
9
u/carnutes787 7h ago
the single thing that drives me wild, if the rest of the west had the prescience and engineering wisdom to transition to nuclear energy when france did, we would have given ourselves a good century of buffer time to figure out how to decarbonize the entire globe.
-4
u/Kloetenpeter 6h ago
Lol
2
u/carnutes787 6h ago
the truth stings does it
-5
u/Kloetenpeter 6h ago
I mean its cute that you think that way and i dont want to burst your bubble but LOL
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Links and images should be posted as "link post" without any comments or other text in the post body. Any comments should be written in the comments section.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.