Is nuclear a sustainable energy? Brussels postpones its decision

The decision was expected, it is finally postponed. Under pressure from member states and environmental associations, faced with scientific controversies, the European Commission is postponing the arbitration on the integration of nuclear energy into the green taxonomy "until later this year", indicated its vice-president. President, Valdis Dombrovskis, Wednesday 21 April. To support sustainable finance, this taxonomy will be used to sort activities according to their beneficial character, or not, in the fight against climate change - in order to achieve the ambitious objectives defined in this area.

And the question of its perimeter has been agitating the political and industrial spheres for several weeks. Initially confined to a debate of experts, the business community has seized on it with passion, and the subject has gradually gained ground in public debate. At the Medef climate meeting on April 15, its possible repercussions were on everyone's lips. Until making shudder the giant EDF which, worried about the future of its activity, knew how to multiply the praises of the atom. For good reason, this centerpiece of the European action plan touches on a crucial issue, even existential for French companies: that of their future financing.

Read also: EDF wants the contribution of nuclear power to be recognized in the fight against global warming

Battle over nuclear power

So, unsurprisingly, in France, the classification raises the thorny question of nuclear energy: on which side will it be located in the typology? This certainly emits little CO2, allowing France to offer low-carbon electricity. But the infrastructure is getting old and the problem of waste remains unresolved.

In the face of scientific arguments, it is clear that the subject has taken a political, sometimes militant turn. If the atom has "a future in France", assures the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, without which "we will not be able to succeed in the ecological transition", its integration would kill the spirit of taxonomy, warn several NGOs. And when Hungary or Poland defend it body and soul, Germany and Austria firmly oppose it.

Industrialists in the sector, of course, got involved. For them, the stakes are high: the activities excluded from the label will therefore risk being labeled “unsustainable” for investors, in their strategic choices of non-risky assets over the long term. "They will not want to finance an activity that will not bring them any increase in their green share, and which will no longer meet its future value", says Eric Duvaud, founder and head of the sustainable development team. from EY.

Out of the question for EDF, which, based on capital expenditure, calculated that its compatibility with the criteria of the taxonomy would be 43% if nuclear power was excluded, against 96% otherwise. “If we want to succeed in the energy transition, we will need significant investments. It is not smart to add obstacles to us, with an additional cost for the community”, declared on April 8 Bernard Descreux, director of financing and treasury of the group.

Read also: The end of nuclear power in Belgium pushes Engie into the red

Caught in a vice in this fierce battle between a range of "pro" and "anti" actors - States, industrialists, companies, scientists or associations - the Commission thus explained that nuclear power was neither excluded nor included: its usefulness for the climate will have to be decided later, alongside natural gas - also a source of heated debate, particularly in Poland. “The trade-offs about these two energies are structuring. But the Commission does not want them to prevent the start of the taxonomy, by interfering with the delegated acts presented today”, explains Eric Duvaud.

Hasty analyzes

Because apart from these burning issues, the Commission unveiled its first criteria for the activities included in the classification on Wednesday. In addition to the cases of nuclear and gas, therefore, they concern 13 sectors, themselves divided into 100 categories, analyzed within the framework of the regulation. By defining emission thresholds below which they are considered “green” (less than 100g of CO2/kWh), the Commission is thus launching its first version of the taxonomy.

“But all the activities have not been analyzed”, warns Eric Duvaud, who regrets the absence of a practical implementation phase, “necessary” to refine the system.

Moreover, while the main issue is that of financing the transition, Eric Duvaud wonders about the relevance of an absolutely defined threshold. "It would have been more interesting to introduce thresholds in percentages of progress, to identify the efforts of polluting companies today, in order to integrate them into the change rather than exclude them", he specifies.

Lack of technical data from companies

Above all, he insists, it is impossible today to measure the information necessary for the implementation of the green taxonomy, the first stage of which is nevertheless on track. While a draft revision of the directive on non-financial reporting is presented today by the Commission, for entry into force in 2023, the consultant notes a "problem of consistency" of the timetable.

Read also: Europe enters the battle of leadership for a sustainable capitalism in the 21st century

According to him, without comparability or reliability of data at European level, it is impossible for companies to really define the contribution to such and such an environmental objective of their turnover. “For a few years, we will find ourselves in a situation of imprecise data, when we have chosen to operate this classification of sustainable activities”, concludes Eric Duvaud.

6 mins

Share :