This labeling project, concerning nuclear and gas power plants, aims to facilitate the financing of installations helping to fight against climate change.
© AFP
Member States and experts consulted by the Commission now have around two weeks to request changes to this document.
Brussels unveiled a long-awaited green labeling project for nuclear and gas power plants, which aims to facilitate the financing of installations contributing to the fight against climate change. The proposed text, debated for months and still provisional, was sent to member states on December 31, shortly before midnight, according to several sources contacted by AFP.
The Commission “started consultations yesterday (Friday) on a draft text” allowing “certain gas and nuclear activities” to be included in its green taxonomy, the European executive confirmed in a press release.
The document sets the criteria for classifying as “sustainable” investments in nuclear or gas power plants for the production of electricity, with the objective of directing private investments towards activities contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases. . The project is in line with the EU’s carbon neutrality objective by 2050.
Radioactive waste
France, which wants to revive its nuclear industry – a stable and carbon-free source of electricity – and central European countries, such as Poland or the Czech Republic, which must replace their highly polluting coal-fired power stations, demanded such a text. . Being part of this classification allows a reduction in financing costs, which is crucial for the projects concerned and the States wishing to support them.
Environmentalists oppose the recognition of gas power stations (which emit CO2) and nuclear power, due to the production of radioactive waste. And a small group of countries including Austria and Luxembourg, led by Germany, battled to exclude the atom. The Commission’s plan to include gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is “a mistake”, German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke told the Funke media group.
Nuclear technology “which can lead to devastating environmental disasters – in severe accidents – and (…) leaves behind large amounts of highly radioactive and hazardous waste, cannot be sustainable,” she said.
“Energy of the past”
Austrian Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler also criticized the project, denouncing nuclear as “an energy of the past”, “too expensive and too slow” to fight climate change, in a statement.
But both pro-gas and pro-nuclear argue that renewable energies (wind, solar, etc.), already labeled by the Commission, suffer from intermittent production and will not, on their own, meet electricity needs. The Brussels proposal, consulted by AFP, sets conditions for the inclusion of nuclear and gas, in particular a time limit.
For the construction of new atomic power plants, the projects must have obtained a building permit before 2045. Concerning the works allowing to extend the life of the existing plants, they must have been authorized before 2040. Guarantees in terms of waste treatment and dismantling of nuclear installations at the end of their life are also required.
Unattainable threshold
Regarding gas, qualified as a “transitional energy source”, the investments will be recognized as “sustainable” for power stations emitting little CO2. The Commission has set drastic thresholds: less than 100 g of CO2 per kWh, a threshold unattainable with current technologies according to experts.
However, a transition period is planned: the power stations obtaining their building permit before December 31, 2030, will see this threshold raised to 270 g of CO2 per kWh on the condition of replacing existing infrastructures that are much more polluting and meet a series of criteria. Member States and experts consulted by the Commission now have around two weeks to request changes to this document. The publication of the final text is expected in mid-January.
Then, for a period of four months, the European Parliament will have the possibility of rejecting it by a simple majority vote. The European Council could theoretically also oppose it, but it would need to bring together 20 Member States, which seems out of reach.