The intent is to give countries that have nuclear a free pass to do nothing.
So Sweden and the Netherlands have joined the original group of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Proud of my country and proud to be in this union with you all. Sounds like we are finally going to put a stop to climate change! 🙂
If gas has green label then nuclear should as well otherwise it’s BS. But tbh neither of these are technically green
The rules are pretty clear, it must be shown that nuclear adheres to the requirements set by the taxonomy. The JRC report didn’t manage to do that, so why are the countries that want nuclear to be a green investment not trying to get the necessary studies done?
I suspect it is because it is actually very hard to show that nuclear is not harmful for the point of pollution prevention and control, which indirectly includes the economic impacts of severe accidents.
Considering that a renewable solution would currently cost less than a fossil fuel solution, and that prices are still falling, it is unlikely, that this decision will matter much at all.
It could provide green energy, but the investment isn’t green by itself. It’s just so much money, effort and time spent over a decade without results…
IMHO the cut off should be something like 100gCO2eq/kWh. The goal is not to do a little bit better than yesterday, but dramatically better.It exclude gas, coal, petrol but also biomass (at 130-230 gCO2eq/kWh).
Even shitty solar panel project should be exclude.
For the “but nuclear is expensive” argument: that’s the point. For a nuclear central you have a huge upfront cost, the construction. You have years without any revenue. How do you manage that ? By borrowing a lot of money which cost you a lot of interest. And that’s why a low carbon taxonomy is very IMPORTANT : it decreased the cost of nuclear electricity.
It also help hydro/solar/wind projects.
No company in europe wants to build a nuclear power plant on their own, because it would mean financial suicide.
8 comments
does it need 100% agreement? then it will never happen
Total bullshit.
[Nuclear is way too expensive to build new plants. ](https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ )
The intent is to give countries that have nuclear a free pass to do nothing.
So Sweden and the Netherlands have joined the original group of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Proud of my country and proud to be in this union with you all. Sounds like we are finally going to put a stop to climate change! 🙂
If gas has green label then nuclear should as well otherwise it’s BS. But tbh neither of these are technically green
The rules are pretty clear, it must be shown that nuclear adheres to the requirements set by the taxonomy. The JRC report didn’t manage to do that, so why are the countries that want nuclear to be a green investment not trying to get the necessary studies done?
I suspect it is because it is actually very hard to show that nuclear is not harmful for the point of pollution prevention and control, which indirectly includes the economic impacts of severe accidents.
Considering that a renewable solution would currently cost less than a fossil fuel solution, and that prices are still falling, it is unlikely, that this decision will matter much at all.
It could provide green energy, but the investment isn’t green by itself. It’s just so much money, effort and time spent over a decade without results…
It should be call “low carbon” instead of “green”. It would then be trivial to include or exclude energy source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources.For)
[For](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources.For) gas the median is 490 gCO2eq/kWh, for nuclear it is 12 gCO2eq/kWh.
​
IMHO the cut off should be something like 100gCO2eq/kWh. The goal is not to do a little bit better than yesterday, but dramatically better.It exclude gas, coal, petrol but also biomass (at 130-230 gCO2eq/kWh).
Even shitty solar panel project should be exclude.
For the “but nuclear is expensive” argument: that’s the point. For a nuclear central you have a huge upfront cost, the construction. You have years without any revenue. How do you manage that ? By borrowing a lot of money which cost you a lot of interest. And that’s why a low carbon taxonomy is very IMPORTANT : it decreased the cost of nuclear electricity.
It also help hydro/solar/wind projects.
No company in europe wants to build a nuclear power plant on their own, because it would mean financial suicide.