nuclear-news

Nuclear energy is not ‘clean’ or ‘green’ in the European Union’s taxonomy

In the end, however, the poor economics of nuclear technology raise doubts that any labeling of nuclear energy as “clean” or “green” will spur private sector investment. Today, despite the industry’s self-proclaimed nuclear renaissance, private investment in nuclear technologies is minimal, and nuclear proponents are pinning their hopes on massive public sector handouts.

BY SUSAN O’DONNELL, MADIS VASSAR | November 8, 2023  https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/11/08/nuclear-energy-is-not-clean-or-green-in-the-european-unions-taxonomy/402401/

As calls are increasing for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to release the government’s “transition taxonomy” of energy sources aligned with climate goals, misinformation is circulating about the role of nuclear energy in the European Union’s taxonomy.

The Canadian government is expected to identify technologies for priority private sector investment to help Canada meet its “net-zero” targets.

An Oct. 13 letter to MPs from the Canadian Nuclear Association, a nuclear lobby group, states that “The European Union (EU) formally voted to include nuclear energy in its EU taxonomy.” This statement is partially true, but misleading.

On May 16, at a meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee, Bloc Québécois MP Mario Simard asked if Canada was one of the only countries that considers nuclear to be clean energy. In response, Mollie Johnson, assistant deputy minister of Natural Resources, said “under the taxonomy of the European Union, they have classified it as clean energy as well.” This statement is incorrect.

The European Commission (EC) established its Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance to develop scientific guidelines for the taxonomy. The group was asked to develop recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities that can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, while at the same time avoiding significant harm to sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, address pollution prevention control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

 After the report excluded nuclear because of the generated toxic radioactive waste, the lobby group convinced the EC to commission another report by the nuclear-friendly Joint Research Centre which concluded that nuclear was eligible. After weeks’ more lobbying, a slight majority of the European Parliament voted in favour of adding nuclear and fossil gas in the taxonomy only as “transitional technologies”—definitely neither as green, clean, nor sustainable. Also, the members of the European Parliament did not approve any public investments in nuclear energy.

The transitional technology classification requires a country seeking funding for nuclear energy to fulfill stringent safety criteria. This means having solid plans within five years, including financing, for an operational deep geological disposal for used fuel and high-level waste in 2050. This criteria will be a huge challenge for states other than Sweden, France and Finland. The Onkalo used nuclear fuel repository in Finland was built at a cost of 5-billion euros, and after some 40 years, is still not licenced. Most other countries do not have those funds available, meaning that potential nuclear power-plant operators would have to contribute to the costs, making nuclear even less competitive in the energy market.

A similar political power play lacking wider environmental considerations surrounds another recent document, the Net-Zero Industry Act. The aim is to promote investments in the production capacity of products key to meeting the EU’s climate neutrality goals, and, again, nuclear was initially not included. Once again, strong lobby efforts won the reintroduction of nuclear, first as a “non-strategic” technology due to its long build times and staggering costs—factors that push any tangible climate benefits far into the future, as opposed to “strategic” climate mitigation options such as solar panels, batteries, and heat pumps. In the latest text, however, any distinction between different technologies is gone. As the Greens in the European Parliament commented, the Act has lost the initial focus, and it’s now for just about any technology.

Given that nuclear energy is not considered “green” in the EU taxonomy, financial analysts have questioned its value as a global “gold standard” because investors might prefer to use other taxonomies that value their real green investments. Canada has the opportunity to learn from these blunders.

In the end, however, the poor economics of nuclear technology raise doubts that any labeling of nuclear energy as “clean” or “green” will spur private sector investment. Today, despite the industry’s self-proclaimed nuclear renaissance, private investment in nuclear technologies is minimal, and nuclear proponents are pinning their hopes on massive public sector handouts.

However, aside from the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $970-million ‘low-interest loan’ for Ontario Power Generation to develop an American design for a small modular nuclear reactor, the public funds for new nuclear proponents from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada have been just under $100-million in the past three years. Those funds require matching private sector funding that has not materialized. This is a far cry from the billions of dollars required to develop just one small modular nuclear reactor, and where that money will come from is still an open question. #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, is lead investigator for the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University. Madis Vasser, PhD, is senior expert on SMRs for Friends of the Earth Estonia.

November 12, 2023 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster