1
Strategies for short-term intermittency
in long-term scenarios in the French power system
Rodica Loisel1,2
, Silvana Mima3, Lionel Lemiale
2 , Adrien Bidaud
4
Abstract
This paper depicts the flexibility provision with nuclear power in French energy scenarios.
The long-term energy model POLES is coupled with a power market module, EcoNUK, to
assess the interaction between nuclear and renewables. The paper addresses the issue of
optimal shares of nuclear and renewables that best regulate the system adequacy with concern
to nuclear ramping, minimum reactor stable power, and the share of the fleet needed to
operate load-following instead of baseload. Results show that depicting flexibility at half-hour
with EcoNUK results in more nuclear and gas power flows than in POLES, due mainly to
ramping constraints. Nuclear load-following is accounted in terms of cycling, with an annual
seasonality of cycles assessed by frequency and amplitude, and shows that by 2050 there are
more deep cycles than currently allowed by reactor’s license (250 instead of 200). A system
made of 25% nuclear and 65% renewables in 2050 needs deeper and longer flexibility than
frequent short oscillations observed in 2035, leading to excessive nuclear cycling. Policy
arbitrage is necessary among flexible nuclear and gas, both constrained by the French Energy
Law targets to reduce nuclear and carbon emissions. Coupling short-term operation with long-
term investment indicates that ultimately nuclear flexibility is a rigid long process with prior
organization, regulation and innovation; hence long-term scenarios need to comprehensively
include constraints to reach an informed decision on flexible nuclear fleet operation.
Keywords: scenarios, nuclear, load-following, long-term investment, short-term operation.
Highlights
• Long-term energy planning embeds short-term operation to assess flexibility
adequacy.
• Nuclear ramping and minimum rated power are the critical parameters of coupling.
• Power mix diversification needs to trade-off between nuclear energy and capacity.
• Excessive nuclear cycling indicates the need for faster reactors in the future.
• Revision of reactor transient limits would prevent early upgrading or retirement.
1 Corresponding author: [email protected].
2 LEMNA Lab. of Economics, Univ. Nantes, 44000 Nantes, France.
3 GAEL, CNRS, Grenoble INP (Institute of Engineering), INRA, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, 38000 Grenoble, France
4 IN2P3, CNRS, Lab. of Physics, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, 38000, France
2
1. Introduction
Scenarios are typically defined as the description of the possible system evolution for
supporting near-term economic and political decision-making in front of an uncertain future
(Braunreiter and Blumer, 2018). The degree of complexity depends on the target audience,
e.g. policy advisors, citizens, industrials or researchers. While based on models, scenarios
understanding is key to deal with results and conclusions derived from the assumptions and
inputs on the socio-technical development in the long term (Pedde et al., 2020).
This study builds energy scenarios aiming at decarbonization with nuclear and renewables, as
part of the literature on energy transition modeling with exploratory exercises. Energy
scenarios are based on quite familiar modeling approaches, yet the way the uncertainty on the
evolution is modelled makes the reliability of results and conclusions critical. Scenarios in
general combine a soft part describing qualitatively the societal development, and a hard,
numerical representation of the energy system that simulates the technology interaction under
the constraint of the descriptive frame (Weimer-Jehle et al., 2016). The paper will combine
political targets on nuclear and renewables with market mechanisms to test the technical and
economic feasibility in a given power system.
Two types of scenarios are relevant for our assessment: normative scenarios (or backcasting)
which set bounds on the desired final state, such as targets on carbon and renewables, and let
open the question of trajectories to reach them; and exploratory scenarios, which analyze the
effects of an unconstrained indicator at final date by maintaining fixed the other drivers. The
combination of both approaches leads to a multitude of trajectories by exploring the possible
pathways which make feasible the target under different context conditions. The way the key
energy constraint is introduced (since the beginning or at final state) and maintained (all along
a trajectory) has consequences on the scenario results. This critical issue of understanding the
scenarios component interaction is next developed in the French context.
The French Energy Transition Act sets out a roadmap to mitigate climate change and
diversify the energy mix (ETA, 2015). The law includes ambitious targets by 2050 aiming at
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% against a 1990 baseline, and cutting the energy
consumption by 50% related to 2012. In the power sector, the targets are to reduce the nuclear
power in favor of renewables, aiming to diversify the power mix and to decentralize the
power generation. This mix diversification has further picked up interest across researchers,
modelers and scenario builders. Among the long-term visions on the French power mix there
are scenarios of Ademe (Ademe, 2016; Ademe, 2020), the scenarios of the energy research
alliance (Ancre, 2013), the scenario Negawatt (2017), and studies of the French Transmission
System Operator (RTE, 2017), etc. They address the targets on carbon and nuclear by means
of different models, hypothesis and constraints, hence they are difficult to compare and to get
a collective overview of the French energy transition (Shift Project, 2019).
This paper develops in particular the flexibility needs of the power system in front of
increased variability of renewable energies. Models in general defend different views on the
power system adequacy, which strongly depends on the power mix and on the size of installed
capacities of nuclear reactors, gas turbines, hydro power plants and storage means (pumped
hydro, batteries, hydrogen). Therefore, a metrics of flexibility common to all models would be
difficult to set and irrelevant when isolated from the frame outside the power system, e.g. the
whole energy system, the demography, the growth rate, institutions, policies, etc. For
instance, Kraan et al. (2019) note that the common representation of scenarios with only
capacities installed by technology, along with the annual capacity factor, is unrepresentative
of the physical momentary potential of conventional technologies to fit the variability of
renewables.
3
Recent studies accurately embed policy targets and technology constraints. Alimou et al.
(2020) give a detailed representation of the adequacy needs in the French power system in
2050 by linking investment (TIMES) with dispatching (ANTARES), and carefully account
for technology constraints like ramping. Després et al. (2017) couple the energy planning
model (POLES, Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems) with dispatching
(EUCAD) to study the potential of storage to support renewables. POLES is further coupled
with a grid expansion module to evaluate the flexibility potential of the network (Allard et al.,
2020). Our study complements the literature on the way the scenarios integrate the nuclear
flexibility, with a focus on the management of the nuclear fleet, as baseload or mid and peak-
load, which influences the reactors’ fatigue and the future choice of investments.
Two time-frames are embedded by coupling long-term planning of capacities with short-term
operation of the power system. The technical-economic model POLES simulates the French
power system in 2050 under carbon emission constraint. Capacities installed, capacity factors
and demand and export-import flows are further integrated into a power market model
EcoNUK (Economic dispatching of NUClear reactors) to optimise the operation of the
nuclear power fleet. The market model tests the interaction between technologies at a detailed
time-scale, i.e. 30 minutes, such as to reproduce the final state of scenarios described by
POLES and to identify the link between societal carbon targets, physical reactor liability and
plant dispatching in deregulated markets. The infra-hourly loop shows for instance that
punctually nuclear reactors are cycling excessively and eventually substitute flexible gas-fired
units. Other technical provisions are needed to estimate flexibility, such as the gradients and
the amplitude of nuclear response, the minimum load limit, and the strategy of the uranium
management. Accounting for these parameters could ultimately change the portfolio
optimality for alternative paths of the transition while assessing the interaction between
renewables and nuclear.
In the following, Section 2 defines the nuclear load-following mode, Section 3 describes the
methodology reproducing the final state of a given scenario, Section 4 presents the main
results in support to the analysis of key parameters playing on scenarios’ inputs/outputs, and
the Final section concludes with policy design options.
2. Nuclear load-following
Load-following represents the change in the generation of electricity to match the expected
electricity demand as closely as possible (IAEA, 2018). Load-following covers predictable
events of large load variations, excluding small variations of primary and secondary
frequency control. Flexibility is supplied at the request of the Transmission System Operator
(in France RTE), in agreement with the plant operator (EDF), and the power output is set
manually at a lower level of the nominal power (Morilhat et al., 2019).
The effect of load variability has been investigated in the literature since a while for fossil fuel
power plants, yet the experience with nuclear load-following due to renewable intermittency
is limited. The topic has however been developed by operators and researchers from an
engineer point of view to analyze the physical and chemical consequences (Morilhat et al.,
2019; WNA, 2020), and to assess the market effect from technical-economic perspective
(Bruynooghe et al., 2010; OECD-NEA 2011, 2019; Bertsch et al., 2016; IAEA, 2018,
Mantripragada and Rubin, 2018). Among flexibility indicators there are the number of start
and shut down events (Cany et al., 2018), the loss or gains in profits (OCDE-NEA, 2015;
Ponciroli et al., 2017; Jenkins, 2018), the number of transients and the system cost (ANL,
2018; Loisel et al., 2018, etc). Results are method- and power-system dependent, function on
the way the residual demand is built, with or without load curtailment, and on the generation
4
mix and flexibility options such as trade flows, gas-fired units, storage means and demand
side measures.
Cycling. Load-following is measured by the transient from full power to minimum load and
back to full power. Technically, the modern light water nuclear reactors can operate flexibly
in the range of 100% to 50%-20% of the rated power in 30 minutes, with a ramp rate of up to
5% of rated power per minute (OECD-NEA, 2011). In practice, two situations occur: frequent
load-following over a small range of the rated thermal power, the so-called light cycles; and
less frequent cycling but over a large range of the rated power, or deep cycles (IAEA, 2018;
AREVA, 2009; EDF, 2013). Concerning design transients, some 12,000 load variations are
authorized over the 40 year license, and the regulation mentions that the frequency of deep
cycling should be at most once or twice per day (EUR, 2012; Persson et al., 2012). The
deepness of cycles depends on the refueling cycle: reactors are fully flexible at the beginning
of the cycle; less flexible at 65% of the fuel cycle and they run at steady power at the cycle
end (Morilhat et al., 2019).
Costs. Flexibility being included in the PWR design has no additional major costs until
reaching the maximum number of transients allowed by the license. For planned load-
following, no fuel cost adds for cycling, as the uranium fueled at the beginning of the
campaign adapts to flexibility based on EDF experience (EDF, 2013). Costs still occur due to
more maintenance for component upgrades, equipment life reduction and potential derating of
control rod drive mechanisms and of water and steam thermal cycle (IAEA, 2018), yet
compatible with vessel ageing.
Assumptions. Next the model considers free of cost ramping, and returns the solicitation type
and the frequency of cycling, differentiated by the deepness of load variations. The amplitude
is in the range of 0%-20% of the nominal power for light cycles (100%-80%-100%), up to
40% for mid-cycles (100%-60%-100%) and up to 70% for deep cycles (100%-30%-100%).
The budget of deep cycles is constrained by the license at 200 per year, and is set next for
mid-cycles at 300 cycles proportionately to the deepness, and to 3,000 cycles for light cycles
per year (see Ludwig et al. (2010) for comparable orders of magnitude).
Historically the nuclear power variation has remained since commissioning well below
allowed cycle-counting limits, hence an implicit respect of these values is assumed in
scenarios found in the literature while planning nuclear power. By explicitly looking at the
cycles’ profile, this study detects cases of excessive cycling and gives a normative vision on
the way the nuclear could adapt to increased intermittency in the future, beyond conservative
limits. We first formalize the problem and identify the market factors affecting the nuclear
operation, such as the capacity installed, the load factor and substitution possibilities, under
technological constraints and environmental regulation.
3. Modeling the power system
For nuclear load-following modeling, three types of assessments are identified in the
literature: (1) capacity expansion models for investment planning with cost-recovery approach
(JRC-EU-TIMES model; JRC, 2013); (2) technology studies where nuclear and renewables
match under physical and economic constraints including start-up costs (Jenkins et al., 2018);
and (3) power market models with plant dispatch based on marginal costs (Peng et al., 2018).
The framework developed here follows these trends and embeds capacity planning (POLES)
with technology constraints and market operation (EcoNUK): POLES provides the power
generation mix and EcoNUK depicts the nuclear operation over available technologies and
flows.
3.1. Model coupling
5
POLES model (Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems) is a long-term model
providing climate energy scenarios for the world, divided into 57 regions (Criqui et al., 2015;
Criqui and Mima, 2012). It is a bottom-up simulation model, representing the markets for oil,
gas, coal, biomass and hydrogen, with focus on the power sector module. Energy demand is
detailed for the main sectors such as industry, agriculture, service, residential, and transport,
each having its own demand profile. The electricity demand is endogenous and linked to the
GDP and population, and the supply is made of 41 technologies, of which ten are variable
renewables. With rich spatial and technology disaggregation, POLES limits the temporal
resolution to two-hour representative time-slices over 12 blocks by season, i.e. summer and
winter. POLES is simulated in Vensim language and is run annually from 2000 to 2100. For
renewable-conventional generator matching, the model ensures the capacity adequacy by
adding a ratio to renewable energies capacities.
EcoNUK dispatching model is run for three simulation years (2035, 2040 and 2050) with data
sent by POLES for the installed power generator and storage capacities, the total load, and
marginal costs by technology. EcoNUK uses the GAMS optimisation language with the Cplex
solver5, based on linear programming. The method has already been applied at a European
scale to the topic of nuclear load-following, with an hourly loop and more aggregated results
in terms of fatigue (Loisel et al., 2018). The version developed here follows similar dynamic
principles to describe the system operation over one year, with half-hour time slices and a
national loop.
The model simulates a centrally-dispatched market with the objective function of minimizing
the system short-term annual cost of operating generators, subject to satisfying the power
demand. The operating cost includes variable costs, the carbon price, and variable operation
and maintenance costs. When the system cannot absorb the natural inflow of fluctuating
renewables (wind, solar, marine energies and hydro run-of-river power), the energy in excess
is suppressed, the so-called load curtailment or lost load. Equations are listed in the Annex 1.
Within EcoNUK, the power plants are grouped into 12 technologies with similar technical
and economic characteristics as in POLES, yet some differences in specifications adapt to the
nuclear load-following description. There are two reactor types, used to operate either load-
following (called here Flexible, covering 2/3 of the fleet) or base-load (called Inflexible, 1/3
of the fleet). Although all reactors are technically capable to provide flexibility, the
management of the fleet is centralized, i.e. by the EDF operator, and some reactors, at the end
of the fuel cycle, are used as base-load units, and some others in flexible mode. The technical
constraints are minimum operational loads, maximum load factors, and ramping capability of
flexible technologies (see Annex 2).
Coupling. The EcoNUK model optimizes the power system for a given investment scenario
decided by POLES, together with the usage rate of power plants. A soft-linking one-direction
coupling is made to highlight the key characteristics of the nuclear planning. As no iteration is
further made, the flexibility obtained with the market operation model complements the long-
term planning with considerations on the short-term management of nuclear fleet, as an initial
step to long-term nuclear-renewable planning. Thus POLES captures the relevant properties
of the global energy system where the French power system integrates into, and EcoNUK
responds to the global model time-limitations by finely representing variable renewables and
nuclear dispatch. The two-model frame based on long-term energy planning (POLES) and
short-term operation (EcoNUK) is used to improve the understanding of the interaction
between technologies with some possible ways to use the nuclear power.
5 The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) is suitable for modelling linear optimization
problems, being especially useful with large database (https://www.gams.com). The solver Cplex is
designed to solve large, difficult problems quickly (less than five minutes).
6
Fig 1. Diagram of soft-coupling of planning model (POLES) with power dispatch model
(EcoNUK)
Figure 1 shows the steps of core linking between the two models. On the top, there are the
legal targets of the French power mix in terms of renewables, nuclear and carbon emissions.
POLES is run for the key years 2035, 2040 and 2050 which are of high interest with concern
to high shares of each nuclear and renewables; it further transfers the power generation mix to
EcoNUK, with a given cost-effective adequacy in terms of installed capacity, storage and
demand use.
7
Scenario building. The scenario generated with POLES is in line with the French Energy
Transition Act aiming at reducing the nuclear power while increasing renewables, under a
global constraint of keeping the temperature increase at 2°C by 2100. Trajectories are
endogenous in POLES, with intermediary targets to match the scenario Ampere of the French
TSO (RTE, 2017) in 2035 and to attain zero net emissions by 2050. Power mix diversification
is attained according to the French Law, by reducing the nuclear share from 75% to 50% by
2035, and by increasing renewables to 40% in 2030, and to more than 60% by 2050.
Fig. 2. Scenario generation with POLES for France under 2°C global climate constraint
subject to the French Energy Law
POLES energy plans build on the economic rationality of market mechanisms that minimize
the investment costs and operational expenditures. Political commitments for emissions
targets are supported by carbon signals which result from the model into taxes of 200
€2015/tCO2 in 2030 and more than 700 €2015/tCO2 in 2050 in Europe. The carbon price in
Poles is different by region and in the French case is closely related to the normative social
level used by the government to sustain clean projects. For the national low carbon strategy to
be in line with IPPC guidelines, France Strategie Commission (Quinet, 2019) recommends a
trajectory of social carbon value of 250 €2018/tCO2 in 2030, 500 €2018 in 2040 and of 775 €2018
en 2050, or a Hotelling rule at 4.5% discount rate.
The political target setting the share of nuclear power to 50% of the power generation by
2035, means that some 38 reactors from the current 56 will be in operation at that time.
Economic evaluations show that the balance between the cost of nuclear phase-out and the
cost of refurbishment of old plants (called carénage) is attained at 30 GW of nuclear capacity
(Ademe, 2018). Thus, nuclear power will continue to play a significant role for several
decades under increasingly stringent carbon limits and higher demand patterns of electricity in
transportation and industry.
The need to diversify the electricity mix by reducing nuclear is motivated by the end of the
license period but also by an overall need to decentralize the power mix. With large
economies of scale, the nuclear management remains highly centralized, at the opposite of
targets of governance transformation to locally deal with renewable variability. Economic
considerations add as well, such as the country full dependency on uranium imports, and the
ambiguous business model of a large nuclear fleet: the advantage of low cost carbon-free
uranium is balanced by the fact that locally French imports could be expensive while exports
could locally be very cheap. During the winter time, the French nuclear fleet does not cover
the peak load and the country needs expensive peaking imports. While over the year, it
81% 81% 79% 80%72% 72% 67%
60%
45% 45%
26%13% 10% 14% 16%
25%31%
43% 45%56%
58%71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Sh
are
in G
en
era
tion
, %Inst
alle
d C
apac
ity,
MW
France (National Targets + 2° C World)
Coal NUC Geothermal Wind on shore
Wind off shore Hydro Solar Biomass
Oil Gas Storage PHS Batteries
V2G DSM Nuclear share Oz axis RES share Oz axis
NUC%
RES%
8
produces excessively and exports power at a low cost, without inframarginal rents that cover
the nuclear cost estimated at 60 €/MWh by the Court of Auditors (2014).6
Figure 2 shows the scenarios generated with POLES and trends of reduced nuclear power and
increased renewables. Variable renewables (solar, wind, hydro run-of-river and marine
energies) reach 56 % of the total generation by 2050, 73% while including dispatchable
renewables (hydro-lake, geothermal and biomass). It should be noted that the model cannot
take into account the spatial complementarity among renewable sources to include the
correlation of regional wind or solar profiles (de Sisternes, 2014); therefore, the need for
back-up technologies could be overestimated due to reduced smoothing effect from spatial
aggregation of renewable inputs in POLES. The main substitutes to nuclear in the model are
storage (pumped hydro-storage, batteries, compressed-air and vehicle-to-grid), gas-fired units,
demand-load curtailment and grid interconnections.
Annex 3 describes scenarios in terms of capacity installed and projected power generation in
2035, 2040 and 2050 and shows statically the transition steps by comparing the final state
with the year 2017. The scenario returns high prices of carbon, gas and oil, which helps
building the merit order of plants’ entry in the power market; net export flows remain high by
the end of the period, due to high shares of nuclear and renewables with must-run power and
fatal nature respectively. Note that capacities installed are almost the double in 2050
compared to 2017, due to low capacity factors for solar power and for on-shore wind, related
to nuclear.
Outputs of the model EcoNUK. The market segment simulated is the wholesale market
where all plants bid and supply in real-time. The market model returns the power volume
generated by each technology, the half-hourly power clearing price, and derived indicators
such as actual load factors and curtailment rates. The reactors’ flexibility provision is
converted into light, mid and deep cycles which are further compared with the licensed design
to conclude on the nature of cycling and the flexibility needs. Interactions between nuclear
and the other technologies are analyzed from the status of complement or substitute for each
load-following and baseload operation mode. At the end, aggregated indicators obtained with
dispatching will support the long-term nuclear planning.
4. Results
4.1. Analysis of coupling matching
Results obtained with high temporal resolution models are in general different from results
obtained with long-term models due to the mismatch between data on constraints and on wind
and solar inflows (Poncelet et al., 2004; Alimou et al., 2020). Annual flows obtained with
POLES are different from half-hourly generation flows dispatched with the model EcoNUK,
in the way that more flexible flows are necessary in the later model, as shown in Table 1,
where gas flows increases from 2035 to 2050 along with the renewable penetration rate.
Simulations run with EcoNUK are built such as to respect the shares of nuclear and
renewables obtained with POLES. These targets being attained, the adjustment variables for
adequacy fulfillment are the usage of gas-fueled plants and storage, and load curtailment, e.g.
much higher in EcoNUK than in POLES.
6 The cost covers the investment cost, the operation of reactors, the maintenance and safety measures, the
dismantling provision and the investment for modernization and license extension program (the above-
mentioned grand carénage).
9
Table 1. Results with models POLES and EcoNUK; variations are computed as Δ = POLES-
EcoNUK
Nuclear flows being similar among the two models, the need for gas increases in time,
following the trend of increase in renewables and decrease in nuclear. The gas is higher with
5.6 TWh in the year 2035, and with 14 TWh in 2050 in EcoNUK than in POLES, revealing
challenges to dispatch flows informed by POLES. The three gas technologies (combined heat-
and-power, combined cycle and simple cycle turbines) cover the missing baseload, mid-
baseload and peak loads that the decrease in nuclear eventual induces when wind and solar
inflows are low. The additional gas supply in EcoNUK covers in this way the punctual lack of
capacity to ensure adequacy, and the need of positive flexibility when the system meets
technology constraints to ramp up generators.
For negative flexibility, all generators participate when demand is lower than supply; when all
possibilities are saturated, the system curtails the variable renewables in excess. The total
flow follows the same trend as the tensions from positive flexibility, i.e. the curtail increases
in time, with the deployment of renewables, as shown in Table 2. The detail by renewable
source shows the limits of the system to absorb the solar power in particular, with loss of
loads higher than for wind; the next to be curtailed is the hydro-power, due to higher variable
cost for operating turbines. The year 2035 represents a scenario mix made of 57% of nuclear
and 42% of renewables, showing that these ratios seem to be a convenient combination for
matching conventional generators with intermittent inflows: the curtailment of wind and solar
energy is zero.
Table 2. Flows of curtailment of renewables in EcoNUK, by source
The EcoNUK model shows that the profile of different variable renewables combined with
the plant size results in a firm capacity (or capacity credit; Tapetado and Usaola, 2019)
which increases in time, meaning that at any moment there are at least 2.4 GW of capacity
available to supply in 2035, and at least 15 GW in 2050 (see Table 3). When variable
renewables can offer firm capacity over the year, they fully substitute conventional
dispatchable power at ratio 1 MW of renewables to 1 MW of nuclear or gas, provided that
ramping constraints do not inhibit the substitution. For higher inflows of renewables, the first
Generation, GWh
Technology POLES EcoNUK Δ POLES EcoNUK Δ POLES EcoNUK Δ
Nuclear 309 175 309 175 0 239 187 239 187 0 159 697 159 697 0
Coal - - 0 1 634 0 1 634 6 613 - 6 613
Oil - 0 0 0 13 -13 - 1 -1
Gas 3 212 5 936 -2 724 5 584 15 638 -10 054 17 578 31 912 -14 333
Hydro-Power 59 075 59 077 -2 59 718 56 708 3 010 60 927 56 988 3 939
Wind On-shore 130 080 130 080 0 171 823 171 734 90 192 293 192 218 74
Wind Off-shore 2 623 2 621 1 4 760 4 725 35 14 558 14 490 68
Solar 32 072 32 072 0 53 488 52 254 1 233 106 376 103 119 3 258
Other RES 7 279 7 279 0 20 267 20 267 0 81 484 81 485 0
Total 545 159 546 240 -1 081 558 213 560 526 -2 313 641 175 639 910 1 265
DSM 82 13 69 277 223 55 1 304 1 394 -90
Storage 1 644 2 150 -506 1 752 5 691 -3 940 1 647 10 475 -8 828
NUC / Generation 57% 57% 0% 43% 43% 0% 25% 25% 0%
RES / Generation 42% 42% 0% 56% 55% 1% 71% 70% 1%
vRES / Demand 47% 47% 0% 64% 65% -2% 88% 88% 1%
2035 2040 2050
Curtailment, GWh 2035 2040 2050
Wind On-shore 0 90 75
Wind Off-shore 0 34 69
Solar PV 0 1 233 3 258
Hydro Run-of-river 0.18 933 1 294
Total, GWh 0.18 2 291 4 695
10
to be phased-out of the market are the most expensive technologies, according to a descending
order of their marginal costs, ranked as follows: coal power plants, oil-fueled units, combined
cycles gas turbines, demand side management, simple gas turbines, combined heat-and-power
and nuclear, followed by renewables.
Table 3. Aggregated indicators related to adequacy obtained with EcoNUK
Surprisingly, the highest tension for adequacy is obtained in 2040, as shown by the indicator
Value of Lost Load (VOLL) measured in EcoNUK by the maximum shadow price of the
equilibrium between supply and demand. This reveals challenges in ramping up generators
and the need for an additional unit to meet the marginal MWh of demand; the value of this
tension is close to the cost of installing one more MW of the technology with the lowest fixed
cost, i.e. 16,000 €/MW for an open-cycle gas turbine (Jenkins et al., 2016). This represents a
signal of capacity adequacy issue showing that a mix in 2040 made of 43% nuclear and 49%
RES is not well enough calibrated for EcoNUK to easily meet the demand at any moment.
The average shadow price is however lower in 2040 than in 2050, when the mix made of 25%
nuclear and 65% renewables anticipates more DSM and storage means, along with a decrease
in exports.
The mix diversification through lower nuclear generally implies lower nuclear capacity, and
higher tensions to ensure adequacy. The alternative for a similar mix diversification is to keep
large capacities of nuclear fleet and to use less the reactors, ensuring in this way the adequacy
over high peak loads. The trade-off between power (GW) and energy (GWh) for mix
diversification significantly plays on the use of the nuclear plants and on reactors aging.
4.2. Nuclear operation
Scenarios obtained with POLES meet a cost-efficiency criterion at the system level with
respect to each technology investment and maintenance cost. Hence the trade-off between
investing in nuclear – gas – renewables defines an overall planning strategy further imposed
to EcoNUK through coupling. The strategy results in values of usage rates of nuclear around
75% over each period simulated (see Table 4). The annual usage rate is further depicted with
EcoNUK at half-hour time slices by each operating mode of nuclear, i.e. baseload and load-
following. Results show similar annual use of nuclear reactors among the two models in 2035,
but different in 2050; by that time, the system needs more flexible than mid- and base-load,
since firm capacity increases from renewables and substitutes to a more extent nuclear
baseload fleet.
Table 4. Usage rates of the nuclear fleet, by model and by operating mode
Cycling is therefore more challenging in 2050, as shown in Table 5 by the number of deep
cycles that are increasing from the year 2035 to 2050, when they account 228 events, largely
overpassing the currently licensed 200 deep cycles per year. As a trend, light and mid cycles
are decreasing over the period 2035-2050, while deep cycles are increasing, showing that
Year 2035 2040 2050
Firm Capacity of vRES, MW 2 600 5 491 14 969
max VOLL, €/MWh 456 16 207 639
Average shadow cost, €/MWh 173 210 276
DSM, frequency 27 279 642
Capacity Factor / Year 2035 2040 2050
Flexible Nuclear in EcoNUK 75% 75% 78%
Baseload Nuclear in EcoNUK 74% 76% 71%
All Fleet (POLES = EcoNUK) 75% 75% 76%
11
large deployment of variable renewables comes with the need for deeper and longer flexibility
than for frequent short oscillations such as obtained in 2035.
Table 5. The number of cycles of flexible nuclear fleet obtained with the model EcoNUK
Table reading. Cycle Type shows the amplitude of load-following: light cycles have an amplitude in
the range of 0%-20% of the nominal power (100%-80%-100%), mid cycles are up to 40% (100%-
60%-100%) and deep cycles are up to 70% of the reactor rated power (100%-30%-100%).
The budget for both light and mid cycles is respected over the period, provided that the
management follows the schedule set in the model EcoNUK with respect to three conditions:
- The dispatch of the fleet baseload – load-following occurs at the ratio of 1 : 2.
- The minimum rated power threshold is 30% of the nominal power.
- The speed of reaction of flexible reactors is 5%/half-hour.
Any change in these assumptions has consequences on the nuclear dispatch, on renewable
integration and curtailment, and on gas-originated flows. The influence of each key parameter
is next tested by changing each value while keeping the other indicators constant. Table 6
indicates the sensitivity of results to these parameters for the year 2050.
Table 6. Sensitivity of baseline to changes in ramping rates, minimum rated power and baseload
share
The speed of ramping. Faster reactors substitute gas supply and storage, and renewables are
better integrated as indicated by lower volume of curtailment. This suggests that storage in the
baseline supports technologies with ramping constraints, like nuclear reactors, rather than
storing intermittent renewable energy as expected. Increasing ramping rates makes decreasing
tensions on the equilibrium and the maximum VOLL slightly drops. At fixed total nuclear
flows, the split by operating mode is favorable to load-following compared to baseload: the
capacity factors increase for the load-following fleet. Ultimately, increased flexibility comes
with a cost in terms of reactors cycling, deep cycles in particular, which will further raise the
issue of compliance with the annual budget preventing earlier maintenance of ageing
components. At slower response of reactors, tested at 1%/half-hour speed, results show more
gas power needed and more curtailment, despite higher use of storage in support to flexibility.
The minimum rated power threshold. The indicator tested at rates of 20% and even 50% of the
nominal power shows results which are not too sensitive compared to the baseline, run at
minimum rate of 30%. Results vary however in the expected way: at lower minimum
Year Light Mid Deep
2035 1 411 279 83
2040 601 167 179
2050 161 95 228
Cycle Type
Baseline
Ramp 5%
Pmin 30%
BL 33%
1%/half-
hour
10%/half-
hour
20%/half-
hour20% 50% 10% 50%
Cycling
Light 161 267 195 246 152 179 183 140
Mid 95 88 67 74 90 92 92 81
Deep 228 11 296 311 229 231 225 239
Capacity factors
Baseload 71% 66% 68% 65% 73% 64% 62% 73%
Load-Following 78% 81% 80% 81% 78% 82% 77% 78%
Dispatching
Gas, GWh 31 912 36 834 29 817 28 683 31 818 33 049 29 751 33 609
Storage, GWh 10 475 12 099 9 175 8 039 10 494 10 231 9 690 10 993
Curtailment, GWh 4 695 7 606 3 747 3 392 4 598 5 775 3 417 5 745
max VOLL, €/MWh 639 639 639 621 639 639 639 639
Minimum rated power Baseload ShareRamping
12
threshold, nuclear is substituting the gas power as more flexible capacity is provided; while
ramping down at deeper level allows renewables to enter the market to a larger extent. At
higher minimum thresholds, the opposite effect occurs, e.g. higher gas supply, higher
curtailment as well.
The schedule of flexible nuclear fleet. A lower share of baseload means that more flexible
nuclear capacity is made available to the system; load-following does not necessarily occur
more often, but it is the magnitude of flexibility which varies, having an eviction effect of the
gas supply on the market. A higher share of baseload puts more pressure on the remaining
flexible capacity which has to cycle more; the direct effect from lower flexible capacity is
similar to the above tests, i.e. higher gas supply, higher curtailment, and more storage use.
Crossing indicators allows concluding that the highest sensitivity of results is obtained while
varying the ramping speed, with effects at both levels, on the nuclear fleet with concern to
cycling, and on the system in terms of gas supply and renewables integration. The value of a
flexible fleet is next revealed into two ways: 1) in relative terms, by supposing that the fleet
operates baseload instead of load-following; and 2) in absolute terms, supposing that one
reactor is out of operation over the entire year, here 2050 for test purposes.
1) Load-following versus Baseload operation reveals the support of flexible nuclear to the
system, avoiding thus curtailment of renewables and reducing gas power generation. Figure
3 shows that solar power in particular induces large inflows at mid-day and flows are partly
lost if nuclear operates baseload (upper graph) or and it is smoothly integrated when nuclear
acts load-following (bottom graph).
Fig. 3. Comparison of load-following with baseload nuclear over one day in January 2050
2) Having one reactor out of operation for technical reasons. This test allows measuring the
value of one reactor and the margins that the system has to hedge against potential technology
risk of unavailability. Results show that the system has the necessary capacity in 2050, since
there is no increase in the shadow cost for eventual lack of supply. The equivalent of the
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
MW
Scenario Base-Load Nuclear
NucInfl Nuc Flex Wind Hydro RES GsCC CHP GsGT PV Storage
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
MW
Scenario Load-Following Nuclear
NucInfl Nuc Flex Wind Hydro RES GsCC CHP GsGT PV Storage
13
marginal reactor phased-out is 700 GWh of additional gas over the year, and 400 GWh of
renewable flows curtailed. The period where gas substitutes the missing reactor are in general
the hours without solar power; by seasonality, these events are more frequent during winter.
The number of hours where the reactor would need a dispatchable substitute is around 4,000
hours, i.e. 46% of the year. Interestingly, the substitution does not occur 1 MWh of nuclear
(less) to 1 MWh of gas (more), as less than 1 MWh of gas is needed. The reactor phased-out
is replaced by another operational reactor with spare capacity; hence, the remaining reactors
run more, attaining capacity factors from 71% initially to 80% in the stress test for Base-Load
and from 78% to 79% for Flexible fleet.
In terms of power, the maximum gas supply over the year is 1740 MW, showing that
removing 1,000 MW of nuclear would need more dispatchable capacity, due to ramping
constraints of the remaining fleet to attain full power during positive flexibility requirements.
The model assumes that the flexibility provision is uniformly distributed among reactors,
therefore one reactor less means eventually issues to provide flexibility to the same extent as
initially.
Scenarios matching among the two models has been based on the constraint that the total
nuclear power is similar over the year; results have shown constraints to attain the same
amount of gas power flows, largely overpassing the outputs of POLES, e.g. 14 TWh of gas
more in EcoNUK in 2050. Therefore, next we analyze the requirements from nuclear power
for constant gas supply among the two models.
Alternative paths for keeping gas similar while coupling. In 2050, the French power
system is dominated by renewables (71%), followed by nuclear power (25%) with punctual
inflows of gas (3%). These aggregated indicators obtained with POLES modify the mix
power obtained with EcoNUK: renewables (70%), nuclear (28%), gas (3%) and storage (2%).
Consequently, keeping the gas constant requires more flexible nuclear power, i.e. 18 TWh of
additional nuclear compared to POLES outputs.
Fig. 4. Flexible nuclear supply with model EcoNUK in 2050 in Scenario Gas_constant
(Sce_Gas) and Scenario Nuclear_constant (Sce_NUC)
More nuclear is necessary to supply both positive and negative flexibility, as shown by Figure
4, where nuclear load-following is represented in August which records high inflows of solar
power and large load variations. Results show similar trends among the two scenarios, with
gas constant and alternatively nuclear flows constant; however the scenario where gas is
constant shows deeper ramping down and upper ramping replacing gas and eventually DSM
measures. The number of light cycles increases by 8% and of deep cycles by 3% compared to
the constant nuclear scenario, leading to even higher budget of transient necessary to comply
with the license.
4.4. Long-term planning options
Results obtained with the dispatching model EcoNUK are overall consistent with POLES
scenarios, showing the robustness of our linking exercise. Yet, technical constraints of
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
18 000
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 10
1
10
6
11
1
11
6
12
1
12
6
13
1
13
6
14
1
14
6
15
1
15
6
16
1
16
6
17
1
17
6
18
1
18
6
19
1
19
6
20
1
20
6
21
1
21
6
22
1
22
6
23
1
23
6
24
1
24
6
25
1
25
6
26
1
26
6
27
1
27
6
28
1
28
6
29
1
29
6
30
1
MW
hour
Nuclear Load-Following over 6 days in August
Sce_GAS Sce_NUC
14
ramping and minimum rated power seem to be the critical parameters for obtaining similar
generation flows among the two models. In the absence of hourly technical constraints, long-
term energy models usually need less flexibility than time-disaggregated models. Similarly,
our dispatching model needs more flexible flows and tends to select flexible nuclear power
rather than gas-fired units, due to high costs of gas and carbon. Fulfilling nuclear reduced
share target counterbalances the respect of carbon emissions limit, as more gas is necessary to
ensure flexibility. Uncertainty on the development of gas issued from hydrogen and on gas
plant with carbon capture and storage system, makes us suppose that higher gas use in the
future might increase the green-house gases, from carbon and methane emissions. Therefore
the trade-off for an energy planner is between the nuclear policy and the carbon emission
target.
Admitting the urgency of climate change actions, deviations from nuclear target shares should
be the policy to adopt. Under long-term targets from POLES, the market model EcoNUK
shows some details on the way the nuclear operation should be anticipated, by depicting the
schedule of nuclear power obtained in the Scenario Gas-constant.
1°. Anticipation of the uranium use. Capacity factors obtained with EcoNUK show high
usage rates of both baseload (90%) and flexible fleets (82%), higher than historical values
which are around 75%. Well defining the capacity factors allows planning the refueling
campaign, since the material flow inventory takes into account the percentage of the reactor
use over one cycle. National targets aim at stabilizing the nuclear waste, plutonium in
particular (PNGMDR, 2018). By 2022, some more 15% of plutonium will add to the current
deposit (350 tons), if no recycling is made, i.e. MOx processing7, thus coping with the target
of inventory stabilization. According to the Court of Auditors (2019), the balance between the
deposit of waste and its reprocessing cannot be guaranteed in the future unless a large number
of reactors use MOx as input. Anticipating the waste infrastructure, such as pools for spent
fuel pending reprocessing or reutilization, is critical for scenario building as new facilities are
necessary at 2025-2035 horizon.
2°. New design of reactors. The future design of reactors is triggered by new flexibility
requirements. Few evidence is generally revealed by scenarios on the flexibility provided with
nuclear power. Yet, this information is key to determine the system needs in terms of ramping
speed and transient reliability. Our results show that the system will need faster reactors and
longer and deeper cycling technologies. Within the current design and license, complying
with carbon targets would imply in the future that reactors perform excessive cycling and bear
additional fatigue. This will call for two solutions: refurbishment or early decommissioning,
with additional cost in the first case for plant upgrading; and sunk costs in the latter case.
Alternatively, regulation could adapt the limit of deep cycles admitted per year to new system
needs, e.g. from currently 200 cycles to some 250 per year.
New types of solicitation will change the reactor design, for both new reactors and those
under modernization, and should integrate at their early stage of design the capability to
operate more flexibly. Scenarios should be able to inform on new gradients of the load
variations and manoeuvers, like the waiting time before starting a new cycle (or the
stabilization of the power output after ramping due to xenon oscillations), the boundary of
operation like minimum core power at which a reactor can safely generate, the solicitations
from the grid in term of frequency restoring, and cycling periodicity, etc. Two constraints will
7 Nuclear reactors have three input options: natural uranium, used uranium, and MOx fuel, which is
mixed oxide based on recycled plutonium. France is one of the few countries having adopted what is
called a partially closed cycle due to recycling phase of the plutonium, which is the element with the
highest radiotoxicity. In the nuclear power plants in France, MOx fuel represents approximately 10%
of total fuel and it is used in some 20 reactors of the French fleet (Thiollière et al. 2018).
15
add to nuclear industry, one related to the technology capability to increase the speed and to
decrease the security threshold to some 20% of the rated power; and one related to economic
considerations including the cost of design change which could give priority to speed over the
minimum rated power in terms of opportunity cost.
3°. Nuclear planning: energy versus power. The Energy Transition Act mentions that 14
reactors should be phased-out by 2035, and distribute the effort by closing one reactor per
power plant (ETA, 2015). This would limit the economic and social cost in terms of
employment, regional dependency of industrial sites, and geographical power mix equilibria.
Considerations being mostly political and social, the discussion on the future power system
could be oriented towards capacities instead of flows, i.e. maintaining as many reactors but
using them less, as mix diversification is attained in both cases, yet with varying capacity
factors. The need of the power system for low-carbon supply in EcoNUK is translated into
large capacity needs over some hundreds hours per year, in particular during winter and night
time, with large load variations over short seasons, like days. Decreasing therefore the nuclear
share could review the schedule of reactors’ closure subject to the additional stress put on the
remaining reactors. This further requires to better anticipate the substitution with storage,
demand side management and green gas supply, as locally perfect substitutes to nuclear
power, in order to avoid “unfeasible” solutions as returned by the model EcoNUK, over-
constrained by reduced both nuclear capacity and gas flows.
4°. Flexibilty provision: a market-based mechanism and a matter of central planning
The power mix operation optimized with EcoNUK has showed excessive cycling in 2050 and
however low shadow cost in 2050, raising the issue on the market incentives to supply
flexibility in the future. Methodologically, prices derived from a dispatching problem cover
the short-run operation, and make signals coincide with long-run capital cost, including
refurbishment. Yet, irregular non-convexities due to ramping and costs for upgrading deviate
from long-term cost, hence, the marginal cost-based mechanism, specific to liberalized
electricity markets, can discourage the investment in flexible technologies.
Incentivizing operators to supply flexibility might need additional regulatory provisions, such
as binding obligations to operate load-following at the request of the system operator. The
issue is even more challenging in front of reduced capacity of nuclear power in the future and
of limited output of flexible gas due to carbon emissions. In France, the market redesign
includes the forward capacity market, which is operational since 2017, but has a limited
horizon of four years. Other projects are contracts for differences which will concern the new
plants during the first seven years of their operation and are meant to secure the investor
incomes (CRE, 2018).
Nuclear load-following requires central planning at the plant level as well. Beyond technical
requirements, flexibility with nuclear reactors needs new O&M plant specifications, new
safety analysis, codes and standards, and mostly needs human resources for special controls
and monitoring (IAEA, 2018). As any innovative work and organization process, the timespan
will cover not only the human resource training, but would face inertial phases of the
historical load-following experience and instrumentation (Tillement and Hayes, 2019). New
managerial routines will be necessary for frequent maneuvering of reactors, such as to address
the periodicity of power calibration and surveillance.
The entities involved in the flexible operation of nuclear power plants are mainly the national
regulator body (ASN), the reactors operator (EDF), and the transmission system operator
(RTE).
The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has the critical and primary role in the flexible operation
and its main responsibilities are to authorize, maintain and review regulatory requirements
16
governing safe operation, and maintenance of the plant design and license, including the
flexible operation aspect, such as to ensure public health and safety.
The operator, EDF, has the ultimate responsibility for safe operation of nuclear power
plants, ensuring compliance with the plant’s license, and deciding the modes of flexible
operation (IAEA, 2018).
It works closely with the grid operator, RTE, which sets the technical and commercial
requirements for frequency control, reduced load and power ramping in line with grid codes.8
A common understanding is therefore key to ensure the compliance between grid
requirements and plant capability of power control, leading to well established protocols that
optimally ensure flexibility.
This analysis concludes that flexibility is not restricted to a momentary power adjustment, but
it is a long decision process which needs prior organization of the work and staff training, the
coordination between regulators, plant operator, grid operator and waste reprocessing facility,
along with the support and the expertise of scientists, general public and policy-makers.
Nuclear flexibility provision seems ultimately a rigid long process with prior organization,
regulation and innovation, hence long-term scenarios should more comprehensively include
all stakeholders to reach an informed decision on the need of nuclear flexible operation.
5. Concluding remarks
Decarbonization of the French electricity system will massively be based on renewables,
nuclear and carbon sequestration, yet it be built on lasting inertial conventional power
systems. Coupling long-term planning with short-term operation showed that including
nuclear detailed constraints on load-following is the linking necessary approach to assess the
French power system flexibility. The combination between renewables, gas and nuclear-based
capacities and flows multiplies the number of scenarios while testing the applicability of
carbon targets in particular in power systems with high shares of baseload and mid-merit load
generators.
The technological capability of power systems to face the instantaneous variability of
renewables makes in general energy scenarios ambiguous and new metrics to assess their
feasibility are necessary. The one-direction model coupling has transferred the planning
strategy from POLES to the market model EcoNUK to make a loop on the load-following
with nuclear power. More specifically we showed that high shares of intermittent renewables
in France by 2050 could add pressure on nuclear power plants in terms of ramping and
cycling, and according to the current license provision, could push nuclear reactors to retire
earlier. New metrics on the system flexibility and technology fatigue are necessary to steer
climate policy and investment decisions based on high-fidelity short-term representation of
the energy system. The study conclusions could be exploratory in understanding the way that
scenarios impacting the nuclear pathway choices fuel the scientific and societal debates.
The issue of flexibility and security of the supply is extensively discussed in the energy
system community; this study complements existing assessments with power generation
adequacy in the operational stage and how this could influence back the energy planning for
long-term investments. This paper has been motivated by several methodological issues raised
by the power sector planning practice: (1) scenarios on the power mix implicitly use the
nuclear power as flexible option to support massive integration of variable renewables; (2) the
measure of flexibility is often a matter of capacity adequacy, and need to be complemented by
the transient of reactors cycling and load variation types (short/ long, light/ deep cycles); (3)
the indicators which evaluate the feasibility of carbon targets vary in general with the
audience: a policy-maker use capacities installed (unit measure: MW), a policy planner
8 https://clients.rte-france.com/lang/fr/clients_traders_fournisseurs/services_clients/reglement_sogl.jsp
17
looking at the energy balance is using the total primary energy (tons oil equivalent), a
physicist looks at the amount of joules generated, and an economist at the flows sold on the
market (MWh). Our approach integrates these perspectives as political bounds and
technological constraints, and builds the bridge between the energy planning and the
operational stage to conclude on the use of the nuclear fleet.
Further developments should cover the normalization of cycling for modern reactors by
means of physics tools and expertise, and to develop the managerial aspects of work
organization to operate flexible reactors in a safe and reliable way. Scenarios, as static
pictures of the future energy mix, might ignore physical material energy principles, making
some scenarios infeasible; and from sociological and managerial perspectives, ignoring the
human resource component and the large spectrum of stakeholders involved in the nuclear
flexibility provision would somehow underestimate the length of the process. The balance
between renewables and nuclear should integrate the nuclear load-following accounting in
terms of cycles even in cases with reduced nuclear share, such as to dispatch a diversified
power mix in a well-coordinated and cost-efficient way.
Acknowledgment. We appreciate the financial support from the French National Centre for
Scientific Research CNRS Energy unit (Cellule Energie) through the project PEPS 2020 SCANNER
(SCenario Assessment of Nexus Nuclear Energy & Renewables).
References
Ademe 2020, Scenarios Energy-Climate 2035-2050, updated. In French. Report 010305.
Ademe 2018, Paths of the power mix to 2020-2060. In French. Report 010655.
Ademe 2016, Power mix with 100% renewables. In French. Report 8891.
Alimou Y., Maïzi N., Bourmaud J-Y., Li M., 2020. Assessing the security of electricity supply
through multi-scale modeling:The TIMES-ANTARES linking approach, Applied Energy 279:
115717.
Allard S., Mima S., Debusschere V., Quoc T-T., Criqui P., Hadjsaid N., 2020. European transmission
grid expansion as a flexibility option in a scenario of large scale variable renewable energies
integration. Energy Economics 87: 104733.
ANCRE, 2013. National Alliance for the Coordination of Research for Energy. Scenarios for energy
transition. In French. At http://scenarios.allianceenergie.fr/?app=ancre
ANL, Aragonne National Laboratory, 2018. Balancing nuclear and renewable energy. Press release.
AREVA-EdF, 2009, Preconstruction Safety Report, Sub-chapter 1.2, General description of the unit,
UKEPR Issue 01.
Bertsch, J., Growitsch, C., Lorenczik, S., Nagl, S., 2016. Flexibility in Europe's power sector — An
additional requirement or an automatic complement?. Energy Economics 53: 118–131.
Braunreiter L., Blumer Y.B. 2018. Of sailors and divers: How researchers use energy scenarios,
Energy Research & Social Science 40: 118-126. 2018.
Bruynooghe C, Eriksson A, Fulli G. 2010. Load-following operating mode at Nuclear Power Plants
(NPPs) and incidence on Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs.Compatibility with wind power
variability, JRC, European Commission.
Cany, C., Mansilla, C., Mathonniere, G., da Costa, P., 2018. Nuclear contribution to the penetration of
variable renewable energy sources in a French decarbonised power mix, Energy 150:544-555.
Court of Auditors, 2014. The cost of nuclear power generation. Update. In French. At
https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/20140527_rapport_cout_production_electricite_
nucleaire.pdf
18
Court of Auditors, 2019. The upstream of the nuclear fuel cycle. In French. At
https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2019-07/20190704-synthese-aval-cycle-combustible-nucleaire-
2.pdf
CRE, French Energy Regulatory Commission. 2018. Thesis on the market design of the electricity
sector. In French. Report E-cube. http://fichiers.cre.fr/Etude-perspectives-
strategiques/3Theses/3_These_MarketDesign.pdf
Criqui, P., Mima, S., 2012. European climate—energy security nexus: a model based scenario
analysis. Energy Policy 41, 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.061.
Criqui, P., Mima, S., Menanteau, P., Kitous, A., 2015. Mitigation strategies and energy technology
learning: an assessment with the POLES model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
90, 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.005
de Sisternes FJ. 2014. Risk Implications of the Deployment of Renewables for Investments in
Electricity Generation. PhD Thesis MIT.
Després J., Mima S., Kitous A., Criqui P., Nouredine Hadjsaid N., Noirot I., 2017. Storage as a
flexibility option in power systems with high shares of variable renewable energy sources: a POLES-
based analysis, Energy Economics 64: 638–650.
EDF, 2013. Load following. EDF experience feedback. IAEA technical meeting, Paris. At
http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-09-04-09-06-TM-
NPE/8.feutry_france.pdf
ETA, 2015. French Energy Transition Act, at https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/energy-transition.
EUR, 2012. European Utility Requirements for LWR Nuclear Power Plants. Volume 2, Generic
Nuclear Island Requirements. www.europeanutilityrequirements.org .
IAEA, 2018. Non-baseload operations in nuclear power plants: load-following and frequency control
flexible operations, Report NP-T-3.23.
JRC, 2013. European Commission – Joint Research Centre. The JRC-EU-TIMES model - Assessing
the long-term role of the SET Plan Energy technologies, Report EUR 26292 EN.
Jenkins J.D., Z. Zhou, R. Ponciroli, R.B. Vilim, F. Ganda, F. de Sisternes et al., 2018. The benefits of
nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy, Applied Energy 222:872–884.
Kraan O., Chappin E, Kramer GJ, Nikolic I., 2019. The influence of the energy transition on the
significance of key energy metrics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111:215–223.
Loisel R, Alexeeva V, Zucker A, Shropshire D., 2018. Load-following with nuclear power: market
effects and welfare implications, Progress in Nuclear Energy 109: 280-292.
Ludwig H., Salnikova T., Stockman A., Waas U., 2010. Load cycling capabilities of German nuclear
power plants, International Journal for Nuclear Power 55(8/9).
Mantripragada H, Rubin ES., 2018. Techno-Economic Analysis Methods for Nuclear Power Plants.
SSRN Electronic Journal. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3198421.
Morilhat, P., Feutry, S., Le Maitre, C., Favennec, J.M., 2019. Nuclear Power Plant flexibility at EDF,
hal-01977209.
Negawatt Association, 2017. Scenario Negawatt 2017-2050. In French. Report 170126a.
OECD-NEA Nuclear Energy Agency, 2019. The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High
Shares of Nuclear and Renewables. Report 7299.
OECD-NEA, 2015, Projected costs of generating electricity, https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/egc/2015/
OECD-NEA Nuclear Energy Agency, 2011. Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with
Nuclear Power Plants, http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf
Pedde, S., Harrison P.A., Holman I.P., Powney G.D., Stephen L., Schmucki R., et al., 2020. Enriching
the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways to co-create consistent multi-sector scenarios for the UK. Science
of The Total Environment. 143172. In Press.
Peng F, Zhou W, Sui X, Hu S, Sun H, Yu P. 2018. Equivalent Peak Load Regulation of Nuclear
Power Plant Considering Benefits of Different Power Generation Groups. Energy Procedia 152: 227-
232.
19
Persson J. et al., 2012, Additional Costs for Load-following Nuclear Power Plants. Experiences from
Swedish, Finnish, German, and French nuclear power plants. Elforsk rapport.
PNGMDR, 2018. French National Plan for the management of the Radioactive Materials and Waste
2016-2018. Report of the Ministry of Energy Transition. At https://www.ecologique-
solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/16308-GB_PNGMDR_2016-
2018_DEF_Web_pap_1%20ao%C3%BBt%2017_0.pdf
Poncelet K., Delarue E., Duerinck J., Six D, D’haeseleer W., 2014. The importance of integrating the
variability of renewables in long-term energy planning models. Rome, Italy.
Ponciroli R., Wang Y., Zhou Z., Botterud A., Jenkins J., Vilim R.B., Ganda F., 2017. Profitability
Evaluation of Load-Following Nuclear Units with Physics-Induced Operational Constraints, Nuclear
Technology, DOI: 10.1080/00295450.2017.1388668.
Quinet A, 2019. The value of social action. The social value of carbon to sustain the public
investments. In French at https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-
2019-rapport-la-valeur-de-laction-pour-le-climat_0.pdf
RTE, 2017. Generation Adequacy Report of the electricity supply-demand balance. In French.
Weimer-Jehle W, Buchgeister J, Hauser W, Kosow H, Naegler T, Poganietz WR et al. 2016. Context
scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios. Energy 111 (15):
956-970.
Shift Project, 2018. The carbon transition think tank. Future studies on the energy transition 2050.
Tapetado P., Usaola J., 2019. Capacity credits of wind and solar generation: The Spanish case.
Renewable Energy 143 :164-175.
Thiollière N., Clavel J.B., Courtin F., Doligez X., Ernoult M., Issoufou Z., et al., 2018. A methodology
for performing sensitivity analysis in dynamic fuel cycle simulation studies applied to a PWR fleet
simulated with the CLASS tool. EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 4, 13 (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2018009
Tillement S., Hayes J., 2019. Maintenance schedules as boundary objects for improved organizational
reliability. Cognition, Technology and Work, Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/s10111-018-0530-y.
WNA, 2020. Nuclear Power in France. Last accessed at 16 december 2020. At https://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Annex 1. Model equations
Symbols
NPP – nuclear power plants
Index
tech – technology type (1 to 12)
h – half-hours over one year (1 to 8760 x 2)
Fixed Variables (Inputs)
Cvom – variable cost of operation and maintenance (€/MWh_output)
Cfuel – cost of fuel (€/MWh_input)
Ktech – capacity installed by technology (MW)
PM – price of imports (€/MWh)
TaxCO2 – carbon tax (€/t CO2)
Variables (Outputs)
CostFuel – annual fuel cost of NPP operators (€)
CostVOM – annual variable costs of NPP operators (€)
Cycle_uph – the amplitude of positive flexibility of NPP at hour h (MW∙h)
Cycle_downh – the amplitude of negative flexibility of NPP at hour h (MW∙h)
Dh – hourly power demand (MW∙h)
20
EG – annual energy sale of nuclear power (MW∙h)
– total annual carbon emissions (t)
Fobj – the objective function of the system operator (€)
Gentech – power generation by technology (MW∙h)
Curth – output suppression (MW∙h)
Mh – hourly power imports (MW∙h)
REV – annual revenue of the nuclear operator from the sale of energy (€)
South – hourly power generated with the storage system (MW∙h)
Sinh – hourly power filled in the storage technology at hour h (MW∙h)
Sth – cumulated energy stored at hour h (MW∙h)
Sth-1 – cumulated energy stored at hour h-1(MW∙h)
Xh – hourly power exports (MW∙h)
Parameters
AFtech – plant availability annual factor (%)
cftech – carbon emission coefficient by technology (tCO2/MWh_input)
Effs – efficiency of storage technology (%)
Efftech – efficiency of power generation by technology (%)
MinLoadh,tech – minimum generation level (%)
LFh,tech – hourly load factors of variable renewables (in the range 0-1)
– transport and distribution loss rate (%)
– ramp up rate, by technology (%)
– ramp down rate, by technology (%)
Eq 1. The objective function = System costs minimisation:
Eq 2. Hourly power market equilibrium Supply = Demand:
Eq 3. Ramping constraints:
Eq 4. Used capacities are lower than installed capacities times the annual availability factor
and the natural input inflows for renewable energy technologies:
Eq 5. Minimum load condition = hourly generation has a minimum level of production:
Eq 6. Storage dynamics:
Eq 7. Power discharged is lower than the power charged over the year:
Eq 8. Total system CO2 emissions:
21
Eq 9. Total curtailment of on and off-shore wind power, hydro power and solar power:
Eq 10. Cycling accounting:
, if >0
if <0
Annex 2. Inputs of the model, by technology type in 2050
Note. Max Availability is the maximum load factors and defines the maximum use of a technology
due to a limited natural resource inflow, to the power plant unavailability, or to political will to limit
the use of imported fuels.
Annex 3. Scenarios obtained with the model POLES for the years 2035, 2040 and 2050
EfficiencyMax
AvailabilityRamp
VOM
CO2= 767 €/t
% %/year %/half-
hour €/MWh
Nuclear Inflexible 36% 90% 0.1% 22
Nuclear Flexible 36% 90% 5% 22
Hydro River 100% 42% 100% 3
Hydro Lake 100% 28% 100% 3
Coal 40% 70% 25% 509
Oil steam turbine 41% 70% 50% 639
CCGT (Combined cycles gas 55% 80% 10% 324
NGGT (Natural gas gas turbines) 40% 100% 90% 452
CHP (Combined heat and power) 70% 70% 10% 258
Wind On-shore 100% 24% 100% 1
Wind Off-shore 100% 38% 100% 1
Solar 100% 13% 100% 1
Other RES 100% 25% 100% 1
Technology
Capacity Generation CF Capacity Generation CF Capacity Generation CF Capacity Generation CF
MW GWh % MW GWh % MW GWh % MW GWh %
Nuclear 63 130 382 320 69% 47 225 309 175 75% 36 353 239 187 75% 24 030 159 697 76%
Coal 2 930 5 310 21% 1 572 - - 1 928 1 634 10% 1 369 6 613 55%
Oil 6 550 5 310 9% 2 955 - - 2 815 - - 4 330 - 0%
Gas 12 120 30 207 28% 13 660 3 212 3% 14 458 5 584 4% 16 301 17 578 12%
Hydro River 10 327 42 000 46% 5 727 21 152 42% 5 741 21 205 42% 5 766 21 297 42%
Hydro Lake 8 231 16 410 23% 15 393 37 923 28% 15 632 38 513 28% 16 085 39 630 28%
Wind On-shore 11 790 21 210 21% 89 039 130 080 17% 99 832 171 823 20% 91 929 192 293 24%
Wind Off-shore 10 30 34% 1 114 2 623 27% 1 716 4 760 32% 4 355 14 558 38%
Solar 6 550 10 620 19% 35 598 32 072 10% 53 033 53 488 12% 94 240 106 376 13%
Other RES 4 397 12 270 32% 8 265 7 279 10% 14 478 20 267 16% 37 289 81 484 25%
Total 126 035 525 687 48% 220 549 545 159 28% 245 987 558 213 26% 295 694 641 175 25%
DSM 873 82 1% 1 270 277 2.5% 3 979 1 304 4%
Storage (PHS + CAES +
Batteries)4 965 5 310 12% 3 940 1 644 5% 3 518 1 752 5.7% 7 599 1 647 2%
Connections Imports, MW 11 000 23 000 25 000 27 000
Connections Exports, MW 17 000 28 000 31 000 34 000
National Demand, GWh 480 000 413 276 427 420 471 478
Net Exports, GWh 38 000 60 084 55 524 54 611
Losses, GWh 7 687 1.5% 71 800 13.2% 75 268 13.5% 115 085 17.9%
NUC / Total Generation 73% 57% 43% 25%
NUC / Demand 80% 75% 56% 34%
RES/ Generation 16% 35% 49% 65%
Variable RES / Demand 7% 40% 54% 66%
Scenario POLES 2050Scenario POLES 2040Scenario POLES 2035Actual mix, 2017
Technology
22