The science unambiguously tells us that nuclear energy is sustainable and should be included in the EU taxonomy. It is vital for effective decarbonisation that this finally happens, writes David Hess
Nuclear energy is the largest single source of low-carbon electricity in the European Union and has been for over four decades.
Nuclear plants produce 25% of the region's electricity and provide a reliable and geopolitically stable alternative to fossil-fuels. Despite this massive contribution to climate mitigation and energy security, nuclear energy has struggled to gain acceptance from EU lawmakers, with its treatment in the EU taxonomy development being a case in point.
Back in June 2019, a sub-group of the so-called Technical Expert Group eventually concluded that it was simply not competent to determine whether nuclear energy caused significant environmental harm, and whether it should therefore be included in the taxonomy.
While the subgroup acknowledged that "the potential substantial contribution of nuclear energy to climate mitigation objectives was extensive and clear", it somehow failed to recognise the international consensus amongst genuine experts that sustainable solutions for the long-term management and disposal of radioactive waste already exist.
To the TEG's credit, it never actually recommended excluding nuclear energy, rather it recommended that more extensive work be undertaken by a group with "in-depth" "technical expertise" of the nuclear lifecycle and fuel cycle. Nuclear was the only energy source earmarked for this special treatment.
The Commission subsequently appointed its own independent scientific adjudicator to carry out this assessment. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) evaluated nuclear against each of the taxonomy's stated objectives.
The JRC's final report, released in March 2021, is a magnum opus that reflects the state of the art on scientific and expert knowledge on the sustainability and safety of nuclear energy. It runs to almost 400 pages and covers nuclear issues comprehensively, with about 100 pages dedicated to nuclear waste alone. The report surely marks a turning point in the debate on nuclear energy, both in the EU and beyond.
Crucially, the JRC assessment "did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy as activities supporting climate change mitigation". This was later confirmed by two independent reviews carried out by other scientific committees.
Just as crucially, the JRC also reviewed the science of existing energy lifecycle assessments, covering all the main energy technologies. It appears these studies had not informed the TEG's work. The JRC report therefore offered to restore scientific integrity to the taxonomy, but only if its main conclusion regarding nuclear energy was acted on.
The first taxonomy Delegated Act was released in April 2021. With the JRC assessment already available, it was clear that nuclear energy should rightfully have been included, and the Commission could have added it with only minor delay.
Instead, the Commission deliberately chose to keep nuclear separate from the main legislation. In an accompanying communication it promised a Complementary Delegated Act (CDA) that would include nuclear energy... alongside natural gas.
"The inclusion of natural gas in the EU taxonomy was pure politics"
The inclusion of natural gas in the EU taxonomy was pure politics. It followed intense lobbying from certain EU member states, including Germany. While a case can be made that gas is a bridge-fuel that can help some countries to quit coal, it clearly emits too much CO2 for 2050 net-zero targets and could only ever play a transitional role. Bundling it with nuclear in the CDA was an attempt to force a compromise between feuding member states.
After many months the CDA text finally materialised and was adopted by the Commission in February this year. It will enter into force by the start of 2023, providing it is not blocked by the European Parliament.
Disappointingly, the Commission decided to deepen the connection between nuclear and natural gas by labelling both as transitional activities, despite the overwhelming evidence of nuclear energy's low lifecycle emissions and its proven ability to replace high-emission technologies.
Some of the criteria set for nuclear projects are also excessive and inconsistent with those imposed on other technologies. Nevertheless, it is commendable that the Commission has come this far in addressing its own nuclear blind-spot.
Similar to all low-carbon technologies, nuclear energy is capitally-intensive, and the long planning and construction times makes projects more sensitive to the costs of capital than almost any other energy technology. Inclusion in the taxonomy is therefore vital for unlocking access to affordable financing for nuclear energy and for making nuclear projects investable to a larger pool of private investors.
This, in turn, will reduce nuclear costs and help ensure that a major tool is available for the transition to a net-zero economy – reducing the costs, risks and timescales for deep decarbonisation.
It is sad to see that, in apparent ignorance of the JRC findings, radioactive waste is still often cited as the primary objection to nuclear energy. The nuclear energy industry is, in fact, proud of its track record in managing its waste. What other energy sector can claim that it can account for all hazardous wastes produced over five decades of operation, and that it has continuously set aside funds to pay for the ultimate protection of deep geological disposal?
If the fossil fuel industry had done the same, then the world would not be dealing with the impacts of climate change today. There is simply no comparison between the small and carefully managed risks of radioactive waste and the potentially epoch-ending ones of climate change.
The EU clearly needs nuclear energy for net-zero. It's time to bite the bullet, and include nuclear energy, the largest historical climate emissions avoider, in the main tool designed to channel investment towards a low-carbon, sustainable future economy.
David Hess is a policy analyst at the World Nuclear Association.
Channels:Policy
