At 31 December 2021, the gross amounts estimated under year-end economic conditions (amounts still to be spent) and the present value of those amounts are as follows, presented by type of reactor technology:
(in millions of euros) | Costs based on year-end economic conditions | Amounts in provisions at present value |
---|---|---|
Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Chooz A | Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Chooz ACosts based on year-end economic conditions288 |
Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Chooz AAmounts in provisions at present value259 |
Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Fessenheim * | Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Fessenheim * Costs based on year-end economic conditions829 |
Pressurised water reactor – PWR – Fessenheim * Amounts in provisions at present value707 |
Natural uranium graphite gas-cooled reactors – UNGG – Bugey, Saint Laurent, Chinon | Natural uranium graphite gas-cooled reactors – UNGG – Bugey, Saint Laurent, Chinon Costs based on year-end economic conditions5,478 |
Natural uranium graphite gas-cooled reactors – UNGG – Bugey, Saint Laurent, Chinon Amounts in provisions at present value3,136 |
Heavy water reactor – Brennilis | Heavy water reactor – Brennilis Costs based on year-end economic conditions323 |
Heavy water reactor – Brennilis Amounts in provisions at present value284 |
Sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor – Superphenix at Creys Malville | Sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor – Superphenix at Creys Malville Costs based on year-end economic conditions534 |
Sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor – Superphenix at Creys Malville Amounts in provisions at present value479 |
*Excluding interim storage and processing of steam generators.
Provisions for decommissioning of permanently shut-down nuclear plants also cover dismantling costs for related facilities such as the APEC Fuel Storage Workshop at Creys-Malville and the BCOT Operational Hot Unit at Tricastin.
Compared to decommissioning costs for the PWR technology, the cost at completion (all costs both settled and remaining) for decommissioning of the other reactors is higher, to different extents depending on their specific characteristics:
The following progress has been made on decommissioning work:
These provisions cover the future expenses resulting from scrapping fuel that will only be partially irradiated when the reactor is shut down. It is measured based on:
These unavoidable costs are components of the cost of nuclear reactor shutdown and decommissioning. As such, they are fully covered by provisions from the commissioning date and an asset associated with the provision is recognised. In a decision of 11 December 2020, France’s Council of State challenged the tax- deductibility of the consequences of immediate recognition of a provision for dismantling of the last core (“front-end” last core expenses) (see note 14).
In 2020 after the Fessenheim plant was definitively shut down, €99 million of the provision for last cores, concerning the two reactors at Fessenheim, was reversed with a corresponding reduction in the inventories of non-irradiated fuel in the reactor at the time of the shutdown, and in parallel, provisions for spent fuel management and long-term radioactive waste management were recognised for the cost of processing this fuel and storage of the waste that will result.
In 2021, apart from the effects of extending the depreciation period for 1,300MW- series plants at 1 January 2021 (see note 2.1.1), there were few changes in provisions for last cores.