In a long-awaited report leaked to the press, the European Commission’s in-house scientific service, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), has found that nuclear energy meets the criteria for inclusion in the EU’s Taxonomy, which is intended to give investors a clear idea of which activities are considered environmentally sustainable.
“The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy”, says the report, which is due to be officially released this week.
The objective of the JRC was to assess whether nuclear power generation meets the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of the EU Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852), after the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEG) left the issue open (see EUROPE 12442/14).
According to this regulation, an economic activity must meet at least two conditions to be considered environmentally sustainable under the EU Taxonomy. It must not only 'contribute in a sustainable way' to one or more of the six environmental objectives set out in the Regulation, but also ‘do no significant harm’ to one of the other objectives.
These objectives are: (1) climate change mitigation; (2) adaptation to climate change; (3) sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; (4) transition to a circular economy; (5) pollution prevention and reduction; (6) protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
However, while the TEG had classified nuclear power as a technology that contributes to climate change mitigation, it was unable to conclude that it does not cause significant damage to other environmental objectives.
The JRC concludes that the “impacts of nuclear energy on human health and the environment are mostly comparable to hydropower and the renewables, if non-radiological effects are considered”.
Waste
On nuclear waste, the report stresses that there is “a broad scientific and technical consensus” that the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel in deep geological formations is “the most effective and safest feasible solution which can ensure that no significant harm is caused to human life and the environment for the required timespan”.
However, although Finland, Sweden and France are at an “advanced stage” of implementing their national deep geological storage facilities, “no long-term operational experience is presently available”, the report notes.
The JRC also believes that the challenges posed by waste disposal are similar to those posed by the disposal of CO2 in geological facilities via CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technologies, which have been included in the taxonomy.
Risk of nuclear accidents
With regard to severe nuclear accidents, the document stresses that these are events are “with extremely low probability but (...) they cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty”.
But the nuclear sector has evolved since the Chernobyl accident, says the JRC. According to the report, the reactors that are now being built and commissioned are virtually only third generation reactors, “designed according to enhanced requirements related to severe accident prevention and mitigation”.
“The fatality rates characterizing state-of-the art Gen III NPPs are the lowest of all the electricity generation technologies”, the report further states.
And to conclude: “Provided that all specific industrial activities in the whole nuclear fuel cycle (...) comply with the nuclear and environmental regulatory frameworks and related Technical Screening Criteria, measures to control and prevent potentially harmful impacts on human health and the environment are in place to ensure a very low impact from the use of nuclear energy”.
Next steps
When asked about its intentions following the findings of this report and about a potential ‘pro-nuclear’ bias of the JRC, the Commission refused to answer at this stage, recalling its usual policy of not commenting on ‘leaked’ documents.
However, it stressed that this is only the beginning of a process, as the report will be reviewed by Member States’ national experts on radiation protection and waste management as well as by experts from the ‘Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks’ (SCHEER).
They will have 3 months to report on their analyses.
See the report: https://bit.ly/3w71FrL (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)