Brussels, Berlin The future of nuclear energy is decided by one word: “Significant”. Sounds absurd, but it gets to the, well, crux of the matter. In future, technologies must meet the “do no significant harm” principle if they are to be considered as a green asset class in Europe. The “Taxonomy”, an EU law, aims to give investors clarity about the consequences of their investment decisions for the environment and thus channel more capital into combating climate change.
For months there has been an argument in Brussels about whether nuclear energy will receive the climate seal. This is supported by the fact that nuclear fission does not produce any CO2, which means that nuclear power is far more climate-friendly than electricity from coal or gas. What speaks against it is that nuclear power is a high-risk technology and is met with massive rejection in parts of the population.
One thing is certain: the debate will become more explosive after the general election. Because in France, which covers more than 70 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power plants, nuclear power has a determined champion – and with Germany, which will take the last nuclear reactor off the grid next year, an equally determined opponent.
In order to defuse the conflict, the EU Commission has proposed to exclude the question of whether nuclear power can be considered green for the time being from the taxonomy law – as well as the question of whether natural gas is considered to be climate-friendly as a bridging technology. But the member states have now thwarted this plan. With a narrow majority they voted to postpone the decision on the law to the second half of November.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
The French feared that separating the decision on nuclear power from the rest of the taxonomy would weaken their bargaining position. The federal government was concerned about the bridging technology status of natural gas, so it also voted for a postponement. For a moment, Berlin and Paris stood side by side in the taxonomy dispute. “Without any need, the federal government saved the French nuclear lobby,” said Sven Giegold, spokesman for the German Greens in the European Parliament, the Handelsblatt.
Agreement between Germany and France only tactically
The unity between Germany and France is fleeting anyway, because it is only tactically motivated. Their positions remain irreconcilable on the matter. The next federal government, in which the Greens will in all probability have a significant say, will have to continue the fundamental dispute over taxonomy – and, one may assume, take an even tougher course. The rejection of nuclear power is a question of identity for the Greens.
Giegold also points out that France has already acquired a national seal for green investments with “Greenfin”, which explosively does exactly what the Greens demand from the EU taxonomy: exclude nuclear energy. “The specialty of the seal is that funds that invest in companies that are active in the field of nuclear power and fossil fuels are excluded,” says the website of the French Ministry of the Environment about Greenfin.
A legal opinion by the law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs provides the critics of nuclear energy with further arguments. The authors come to the conclusion that nuclear energy cannot be regarded as “ecologically sustainable” in the sense of the EU taxonomy regulation. This would mean that it would be ruled out as a sustainable investment.
Nuclear energy also “does not make a significant contribution to climate protection”, the experts continue to write. There are also convincing arguments against the fact that nuclear energy can be viewed as a “transitional activity” in the sense of the relevant EU regulations, because this relates to CO2-intensive activities for which there is currently no low-carbon alternative. Nuclear energy could “not meet the requirements for transitional activity if it is also viewed as low in CO2,” the report says.
The sustainability of nuclear power is also to be denied because it lacks resilience to the effects of climate change, especially with a view to rising water temperatures and periods of drought.
Indeed, in France, for example, there have been repeated interruptions in the operation of nuclear power plants in the summer because there is a lack of cooling water from rivers or the water of the rivers is too warm. In addition, there is an empirically proven risk of serious accidents; In addition, there would be the risks of the final storage of highly radioactive waste.
The conclusions of the report are not undisputed
The law firm prepared the report on behalf of the Austrian Ministry of the Environment, headed by the Green politician Leonore Gewessler. In the past few years, the renowned law firm has often worked for the operators of nuclear power plants in connection with the debate in Germany on the exit from nuclear power. The “taz” first reported on the report.
However, the firm’s conclusions are not without controversy. The EU Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC) scientific service came to the conclusion in March that the operation of nuclear power plants and the final storage of radioactive substances caused “no significant damage” to the environment EU taxonomy are considered to be climate-friendly.
This position had sparked sharp criticism in Germany. Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) described the conclusions of the JRC as “technically inadequate and not tenable”. She warned against a “fraudulent label” by nuclear power. “The damage would be immense for the credibility of the taxonomy and thus for everyone who needs capital for really sustainable investments,” said Schulze.
Observers in Brussels, however, expect that nuclear energy will ultimately receive the EU’s sustainability status. Because for France, the taxonomy has become a question of prestige. It would be an embarrassment for Paris if the French energy strategy were labeled as unsustainable.
The French position is also supported by EU Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton. The French are in favor of a comeback of nuclear power – as an energy source for the production of climate-neutral hydrogen.
“We should use this transition energy to facilitate the development of a clean hydrogen industry in Europe,” Breton recently called for. He advocates not only relying on “green”, that is, hydrogen obtained from renewable energies such as wind and electricity, but also on “yellow” hydrogen – in other words, hydrogen that is produced from nuclear power in a climate-neutral manner.
“Breton did not understand his task”
The Greens are taking this proposal seriously. Breton pursues a one-sided interest policy for France, criticized Felix Banaszak, head of the NRW Greens.
“Apparently, Breton did not understand his task of shaping the industrial future of the entire European Union – and that does not lie in nuclear power as a supposed bridging technology, but in the massive expansion of renewables in the network and with the potential in Europe as a whole,” said the Greens. Politician. The inclusion of “yellow” hydrogen in the EU taxonomy would distort competition enormously at the expense of those who really rely on future technologies.
More: Nuclear power comeback? France is putting Germany under pressure