Can nuclear and gas be considered “sustainable” energies? The question reveals deep divisions between the countries of the European Union, while Brussels proposes to grant, under conditions and on a transitional basis, a green label to nuclear and gas power plants, which has already been awarded to renewable energies such as solar and wind power. The aim of this new classification (called “green taxonomy”) is to facilitate the financing of installations contributing to the fight against climate change.
The project, the still provisional text of which was sent on December 31 to the 27 Member States, wants to label nuclear and natural gas as transitional energies because of their “potential to contribute to the decarbonisation of the economy”. It is in line with the EU’s carbon neutrality objective by 2050.
Around nuclear, a low-carbon energy strongly defended by France, tensions are high because of the radioactive waste it generates. The misunderstanding about gas is due to the fact that it is for the moment mainly fossil energy. Franceinfo details the reasons for this discord.
Because EU countries have different strategies and challenges
Germany “agree to disagree” with France announced, Friday (January 7th), Anna Lührmann, German Secretary of State in charge of European Affairs. This declaration illustrates the disagreement not only between Paris and Berlin, but also between the 27 member states.
A dozen countries, led by France, actively defend the atom. With a large nuclear fleet (France derives 67% of its energy from nuclear) but aging, France wishes to relaunch its sector and has fought hard in the hope of benefiting from advantageous financing. Paris is supported by central European countries, such as Poland or the Czech Republic, which must, for their part, deal with another difficulty: the replacement of highly polluting coal-fired power stations.
Opposite, states are very reluctant, such as Luxembourg or Austria. “It is clear that natural gas, a fossil fuel, has nothing to do with taxonomy, and it is just as clear as nuclear either: it does not contribute to climate protection”, thus decided the Austrian Minister of the Environment, Leonore Gewessler. “Nuclear power and gas are harmful to the environment and destroy the future of our children.” And to warn: “If the Commission makes a proposal [incluant le nucléaire], we will make arrangements, including legal proceedings if necessary. ” Equally opposed to nuclear power, Germany remains on the path taken after the Fukushima disaster in 2011, with the desire to gradually close its nuclear power plants still in operation.
This taxonomy “was a big battle. It really rocked at European level”, comments for franceinfo Nicolas Goldberg, energy consultant at Colombus consulting. “France has pushed a lot because nuclear energy will need state aid, and it is easier to ask for it when you are classified in a green taxonomy”, he sums up.
Because the issue of radioactive waste is minimized
Nuclear power emits very little CO2, a well-known greenhouse gas (GHG) which is one of the main causes of global warming. This makes the atom an alternative of choice for those who advocate an increase in the production of electricity while defending the objective of carbon neutrality.
But recourse to nuclear power goes hand in hand with the thorny management of radioactive waste. “Nuclear is not a sustainable energy, because we do not know what will happen to nuclear waste“, judged Anna Lührmann, German Secretary of State for European Affairs, putting forward a recurring argument among opponents of nuclear power.
If the European Commission intends to demand guarantees, in particular by asking States to be able to manage the waste generated by nuclear activity, the NGO Greenpeace recalls that “nearly a million cubic meters of radioactive waste from EDF’s nuclear electricity production is already accumulating on French territory”. The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) also called on the French State to act as quickly as possible on this subject last June. “Decisions will be necessary, in the short term, so that safe management channels are available for all types of radioactive waste in the next 15 to 20 years”, underlined the instance. For the most dangerous and radioactive waste, known as “high activity and long-lived” (HAVL), ASN considers that “long-term storage cannot be a definitive solution”.
France, like Finland, is not the furthest behind since it has already developed plans for the management of this waste. In contrast, “Other countries will have to acquire it, especially concerning high-level nuclear waste. For example, if Poland wants to build a power plant, it will have to think about it”, emphasizes Nicolas Goldberg to The new factory.
Because the European Commission itself recommends reducing the use of gas
Classifying natural gas as a transitional energy is nonsense, according to Neil Makaroff of the Climate Action Network. “Gas is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector in Europe, ahead of coal”, he assures the specialized site Reporterre. “According to the European Commission itself, to meet our climate targets, we need to reduce our gas consumption by 36% by 2030”, he recalls. “There, we will do the opposite: invest in this fossil resource!”
“Fossil gas, which we mainly use today, is not compatible with carbon neutrality”, observes Nicolas Goldberg to franceinfo. However, according to him, gas is essential. And “for countries without nuclear power, it will be necessary”, argues the consultant.
“Gas is a vector that we will always need in the future. Electricity cannot do everything and neither can nuclear.”
Nicolas Goldberg, energy consultant at Colombus Consultingto franceinfo
The idea is therefore to develop “decarbonized gas”, or low carbon, such as biomethane or hydrogen, to meet the objectives of carbon neutrality. “Gas-fired power stations make it possible to accelerate the exit from coal – they emit today half the CO2 and will turn green – and fuel oil, and are a complement to the intermittence of renewables”, rejoiced in the columns of the economic daily The echoes Claire Waysand, Deputy Managing Director of Engie.
Because the conditions for gas power plants are unclear
According to the proposal presented by Brussels to the Member States, the green label will be granted to future gas-fired power stations under several conditions, in particular the reduction of their GHG emissions. If the new gas-fired power stations, which are to replace old polluting infrastructures, obtain their building permit before the end of 2030, they will have to generate less than 270 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced.
“All gas-fired power stations in Europe currently have upper thresholds”, remarks Nicolas Goldberg, who wonders about the measures to be applied to make them fit into the new classification. Another threshold has been determined for gas power plants obtaining their license before December 31, 2030: it is less than 500 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of capacity on average over twenty years. This point makes Nicolas Goldberg tick. “I do not understand this threshold. (…) With an average over twenty years, it is uncontrollable”, he judges.
Finally, if the building permit is issued from January 1, 2031, the emission threshold is set at less than 100 g of CO2 per kWh. Experts believe that this threshold is unattainable with current technologies.