Published on: December 30, 2024 / Update from: December 30, 2024 - Author: Konrad Wolfenstein
Record costs, record time: Europe's most expensive nuclear power plant 'Flamanville 3' finally goes online in France after 17 years - symbolic image/creative image: Xpert.Digital
New nuclear power plant in France online after 17 years of construction - opportunities, risks and perspectives
“The Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant in France went online after a long delay on December 21, 2024.” With this announcement, the French energy authorities made headlines at the end of the year. In fact, it is a major project that is in focus for many reasons: extremely high construction costs, a very long planning and implementation period, comprehensive safety requirements and, last but not least, the debate about the future of energy supply in Europe. The next months and years will show how this new reactor can hold its own in the overall context of security of supply, economic efficiency and climate protection. One thing is certain: Flamanville 3 is a symbol of the challenges of generating electricity through nuclear power in Europe and is therefore a central component in the discussion about the future energy mix.
“With an output of 1,650 MW, Flamanville 3 is the most powerful nuclear reactor in France” is how many observers described it when the reactor fed electricity into the French grid for the first time. Although it initially only produces 100 megawatts - a fraction of what it is ultimately intended to achieve - it is already noticeable that a piece of history is being written with this project. After 17 years of construction, one of the most modern nuclear power plants in the world is now in operation. But what does this commissioning mean specifically for the energy industry, climate protection, economic viability and the future role of nuclear energy?
A look at the costs and timeline
The construction costs for Flamanville 3 amount to 13.2 billion euros. Originally the sums were expected to be significantly lower, but the cost explosion has continued to escalate over the years. “The power plant therefore costs 8,250 euros per kilowatt of installed power.” This comparison becomes even more meaningful when you compare the costs of renewable energies. Modern open-field photovoltaic systems currently cost less than 600 euros per kilowatt of installed power (or 600 euros per kilowatt peak). Although these figures should always be viewed with caution because photovoltaics only provide electricity when there is sunlight, the pure investment amount is undoubtedly significantly lower.
A construction period of 17 years, which was originally planned to be significantly shorter, can be explained by a number of factors: approval procedures, high safety standards, technical difficulties in building the reactor pressure vessel, delivery difficulties for components and political discussions that repeatedly slowed down progress. “The reactor was connected to the national power grid for the first time on this day” – this news came rather late for many observers because commissioning was originally planned for 2012. The fact that it ultimately happened in 2024 underlines the complexity and effort of such large-scale projects.
The technical side: European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR)
Flamanville 3 is a third-generation reactor, a so-called European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR). This model is intended to provide both higher performance and improved safety standards compared to older reactors. “It is the first new reactor in France in 25 years,” which further underlines its great symbolic power. The EPR is characterized by state-of-the-art technologies, such as thicker reactor pressure vessels and an improved safety system, which is intended to make it much more difficult for radioactive substances to escape in the event of a core meltdown.
In theory, EPRs are expected to provide more efficient fuel use and longer operating life. At the same time, the operating costs (OPEX) for personnel, fuel, disposal and maintenance are around 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Proponents of nuclear power argue that these costs are justified by reliable energy production. Critics, however, point out that the comparison with renewable energies, whose operating costs are relatively low for photovoltaics, for example, calls into question the economic viability of nuclear power.
Economic efficiency and competition from renewable energies
“You could build PV systems with an output of over 22 gigawatts for the cost of the Flamanville reactor.” This statement underlines the dimension of the construction costs. Although photovoltaic systems have a yield that is heavily dependent on hours of sunshine, the price advantage when purchasing them is evident. In addition, the operating costs for solar systems are low, as only maintenance and cleaning are required. “With photovoltaics, the operating costs are around 1.5% of the investment amount per year” – fuel, however, does not have to be purchased, which is always necessary in nuclear power plants due to the use of uranium.
However, it is also true that photovoltaics alone cannot guarantee a permanent power supply. Dark lulls, i.e. periods without sun and wind, represent a major challenge when integrating renewable energies. Nevertheless, the example of many countries shows that a clever combination of various renewable sources, storage technologies (batteries, Power-to-X), load management and more intelligent Infrastructure can enable a stable and largely carbon-free power supply. “Of course, photovoltaics alone cannot ensure 100% electricity supply, but in combination with other renewable energies, storage and intelligent infrastructure, this is possible.”
Safety and disposal
A controversial issue regarding nuclear power is the disposal of radioactive waste. “If you take into account the ongoing subsidies and the costs associated with the ongoing problem of nuclear waste, nuclear power plants currently make no economic sense.” This sentence reflects the opinion of many critics who argue that the final storage of highly radioactive waste is not within a clearly calculable cost framework. A large part of the financial and technical challenges for nuclear power plant operators is shaped by the safe storage of nuclear waste for an indefinite future.
Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize that the actual amounts of highly radioactive waste are relatively small and that there are responsible storage concepts for the resulting waste. Here too, assessments vary widely and the question of final storage remains unresolved. Many countries – unlike France – have decided to phase out nuclear power and are now faced with the task of organizing dismantling and final storage. France, on the other hand, continues to invest in the nuclear industry and hopes to cover its own energy needs independently and at the same time in a low-carbon manner.
Climate protection goals and time factor
“More importantly, it doesn’t help us achieve our climate goals because the construction times in Europe are far too long.” Anyone who follows the current climate policy debates will notice that the time factor plays a central role in the decarbonization of electricity generation. While wind and solar farms can be planned and built within a few months or a few years, new nuclear power plants often take a decade or longer. Especially in Europe, where strict safety standards and complex approval procedures apply, delays such as those in the Flamanville 3 case can quickly lead to massive increases in costs and significant shifts in the schedule.
If you look at the desired reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the time that passes between planning and commissioning of large projects such as new nuclear power plants is a decisive factor. Climate protection targets by 2030 or 2040 require rapid emissions reductions - any delay in the expansion of low-emission technologies, be it through nuclear power or renewable energies, carries the risk of missing these targets. One reason why many governments prefer to rely on established, quickly installed solutions such as solar and wind power instead of building new nuclear power plants.
Flamanville 3 as a symbol: pride or memorial?
Many supporters of nuclear power see Flamanville 3 as a symbol of the dawn of a new era of nuclear power. “The reactor was connected to the national power grid for the first time that day and initially generated 100 megawatts of electricity.” In the future, it will be 1,650 megawatts, which will provide significant potential for base load electricity. Supporters of this approach argue that only such capacity can reliably deliver enough electricity to ensure a stable grid, especially at times when demand fluctuates.
Opponents, on the other hand, see the project as more of a deterrent warning. For them, the massively exceeded costs, the years of delays and the structural challenges in building such high-tech plants are clear indicators that nuclear power in Europe is difficult to reconcile with political and economic realities. “Of course, photovoltaics alone cannot ensure a 100% power supply,” but combinations of renewable energies and storage systems could achieve the goal faster and cheaper in many cases.
Suitable for:
Between hope and skepticism
The fact that Flamanville 3 is finally coming online after 17 years of construction will reignite the debate about the future of nuclear power. Although the project is far from complete, as further test phases, switching on and off and optimizations are pending, the symbolic effect remains: France shows that it continues to rely on nuclear power and sees it as an important pillar for domestic electricity supply.
However, the question arises to what extent this model is still relevant for other countries in Europe or elsewhere. Some countries are building new nuclear power plants or sticking to existing ones, others like Germany have recently decided to phase them out for good. New reactor projects are planned in the UK, but are also facing huge costs and delays. In Eastern Europe there is also some discussion about new nuclear plants in order to become more independent of fossil fuels.
“Despite the official commissioning, further tests and optimizations still need to be carried out before the reactor reaches its full performance.” This note makes it clear that the challenge does not end with grid synchronization. Especially in the start-up phase of a new nuclear power plant, technical problems can arise that can cost even more time and money.
In the longer term, the question remains how Flamanville 3 fits into the overall European electricity market and whether the investments will ever be recouped. At the same time, the timing of the final commissioning is a powerful demonstration of technological competence for France itself: “The total costs amounted to 13.2 billion euros, about four times as much as originally planned.” That's no reason to be proud, but it shows that France can, despite all odds, complete a high-tech project of this magnitude.
The role of renewable energy and smart grids
Regardless of the debate about nuclear power, wind and solar are on the rise. More and more countries are relying on the expansion of renewable energies because the costs for solar and wind energy have been falling for years and can be installed very quickly in many places. Energy storage, be it in the form of lithium-ion batteries, pumped storage power plants or Power-to-X solutions, is becoming increasingly important. A smart grid could compensate for fluctuations in the production of renewable energy by better matching electricity production and consumption.
Suitable for:
If such concepts can be implemented efficiently, fluctuating energy sources such as sun and wind can be integrated into an economically viable and ecologically sensible overall mix. Nuclear power plants could – according to the vision of some energy experts – cushion these fluctuations and provide a constant base load. “The nuclear power plant also has high operating costs for personnel, fuel, disposal, etc.,” which is a serious cost factor in direct comparison with wind and solar. Still, some states may value the benefits of constant electricity generation more highly than the disadvantages.
Nuclear power debate reignited: What the Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant means for Europe
The Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant will go online on December 21, 2024 after a construction period of 17 years. “With an output of 1,650 megawatts,” it is not just a power plant, but a symbol of the ongoing controversy over nuclear power in Europe. The criticism is sparked by the immense costs and delays, which make it clear that nuclear energy projects in Europe are exposed to enormous financial and administrative risk. On the other hand, for many supporters, nuclear power is a central pillar of baseload supply and a way to produce large amounts of low-CO₂ electricity.
The comparison to renewable energies such as photovoltaics is often in favor of the latter in terms of economic efficiency, especially when you consider the time factor in implementation. New PV systems or wind power projects can be set up within a short period of time, while the construction of a nuclear power plant often takes a decade or longer - time that is limited in the context of the climate crisis. The unresolved question of the final disposal of highly radioactive waste also continues to cast a shadow over nuclear power.
Last but not least, Flamanville 3 shows us that the debate about nuclear energy is not only a technical debate, but also a political and social one. For countries with a strong nuclear sector, it is a sign of sticking to proven technology and trust in innovative security concepts. Critics, on the other hand, see every new reactor as a risk and a misguided investment. How well Flamanville 3 will prove itself in the long term and whether the enormous costs can one day be justified remains to be seen. The fact is, however, that today's energy landscape is in flux due to the rapid expansion of renewable energies and the development of new storage technologies. In this dynamic environment, it remains questionable to what extent a large-scale project like Flamanville 3 will influence the energy world in the future.
With its commissioning, France's new nuclear hope comes into the spotlight. Whether this lighthouse project will prove to be evidence of the need for nuclear power plants or a deterrent example of construction time extensions and cost overruns will be decided in the coming years. However, one conclusion is already emerging: “At Flamanville 3, supporters and opponents of nuclear energy clash in a concrete case study,” which is likely to further fuel the discussion about energy supply, climate protection and economic viability in Europe.
Suitable for: