Berlin The Federal Government is clearly opposed to the EU Commission classifying nuclear power as a sustainable energy source, but supports a corresponding classification of gas as a bridge solution. This emerges from the German statement on the so-called taxonomy, which is available to the Handelsblatt. It was sent to the Commission on Friday evening.
While there was early agreement on the classification of nuclear energy in Berlin, there was a struggle to the end about positioning for gas. The statement now states that the use of natural gas is not sustainable in the long term. “However, for the federal government, fossil gas fuel in ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transition period – until the conversion to an energy sector based on renewable energies – to enable the rapid phase-out of coal and thus to achieve short-term CO2 savings and the to accompany the ramp-up of renewable energies.”
The EU Commission’s proposal provides for gas and nuclear power plants to be classified as “green” investments under certain conditions. The “taxonomy” defines which areas of the economy are considered climate-friendly. Germany and the 26 other EU member states were able to comment on the Commission’s proposal until midnight on Friday. The Commission then intends to turn the draft into an official so-called delegated act – and thus initiate the next step towards implementation.
In the debate about natural gas as a sustainable investment opportunity in Berlin, it was primarily between the FDP and Green Trenches that emerged. While the FDP wanted to classify gas as sustainable and party leader Christian Lindner even insisted on expanding the investment opportunities, the Greens Robert Habeck expressed doubts. The Economics Minister told the German Press Agency on Saturday evening: “The EU Commission’s proposals dilute the good label for sustainability”. Habeck criticized the proposed inclusion of fossil gas in the so-called taxonomy. “At least the EU Commission makes it very clear here that gas from fossil fuels is only a transition and it must be replaced by green hydrogen.”
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) had previously clearly contradicted the gas plans in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”: “It is a myth that we will need more gas in the future, we have a constant need for a transitional period.”
The federal government makes suggestions for improvement
The statement now obviously represents a compromise, even if some of the Greens are not likely to be satisfied. Because a specific time for the conversion of the power plants to hydrogen-generated gas is not mentioned. Rather, it says: The decisive factor for the classification as a transitional technology is that the gas-fired power plants support the rapid conversion to renewable energies and the reduction of emissions in the energy sector as a whole.
However, the taxonomy presented so far by the EU Commission does not support this enough. The Federal Government is therefore listing a number of suggestions for improvement. The decisive point is the determination of when the power plants have to be converted from fossil natural gas to hydrogen in order to continue to be considered sustainable. The taxonomy does not specify a point in time for the complete conversion, only intermediate stages. Berlin is now demanding a specific date for the final stage.
Brussels had previously proposed the following intermediate steps: by 2026, the power plant operators would have to add 30 percent and four years later 55 percent of green gas in order to continue to meet the criteria. The federal government warns that this approach could hinder the switch to renewable hydrogen in other sectors such as industry because it is still too scarce at these early points in time.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) had referred to the coalition agreement of the traffic light government, which expressly provides for new investments in gas-fired power plants, which can then later also be operated with hydrogen. There is a determination “that we need gas, that it will also play an additional role in the transition phase,” emphasized the Chancellor.
“It is difficult to predict what volume of gas will ultimately be needed,” countered Climate Minister Habeck. He also emphasized the need to build an infrastructure that can process gaseous substances – first natural gas, later hydrogen. If you do without coal, you need more gas. If you then expand the renewable energies, you need less gas. “It’s difficult to predict how the whole thing will be quantified,” added the still incumbent Green co-boss.
Nuclear energy unsustainable
The government is clearly more united when it comes to nuclear power. “From the point of view of the federal government, nuclear energy is not sustainable,” the letter says. Serious accidents endangering people and the environment cannot be ruled out. “Nuclear energy is expensive and the issue of final storage has not been solved,” it says.
As expected, Berlin is thus on a confrontational course with French President Emmanuel Macron and some Eastern European countries, which absolutely want to see nuclear power in the taxonomy.
On Friday evening, the Greens emphasized that they wanted to continue to push for a waiver of nuclear power in the taxonomy. Economics Minister Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (both Green) told the German Press Agency: “As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy.” It is risky and expensive, and there are also legal concerns. In the gas sector, more precise information was given to the Commission. From the Federal Government’s point of view, separate limit values are needed for district heating networks and the replacement of old gas-fired power plants with new ones.
“Should the delegated legal act remain unchanged and the Commission ignore the critical opinions of a number of member states, including ours, Germany should, in our opinion, reject it,” emphasized the two Greens ministers.
The energy policy spokesman for the FDP, Michael Kruse, welcomes the Federal Government’s statement on the EU taxonomy. “The German commentary on the taxonomy is clear and future-oriented: On the one hand, it speaks out against nuclear energy, on the other hand, clear objectives are formulated for gas as a transitional technology,” Kruse told the Handelsblatt. The German commentary balances the different aspects of the German position very finely.
With agency material.
More: Energy experts agree: liquid gas from the USA cannot replace supplies from Russia in an emergency