Bruno Alomar is an economist and former member of the cabinet of the European Commissioner for Energy.
Money, the sinews of war.
This aphorism can also be applied in the environmental field.
The European Union (EU), which has placed the
Green Deal
at the heart of the mandate of the current Commission
, is well aware of this.
In order to achieve its environmental objectives, the most ambitious in the world, the EU, since 2018 and its action plan “
Financing Sustainable Growth
”, has quantified 180 billion euros by 2030 for public investments and required in carbon neutral energies.
This plan provides for a series of measures, the main one of which is the creation of a European taxonomy, with the aim of regulating the market for so-called “
sustainable
” or “
green
”
financial products
.
Read also:
Exit nuclear: German justice asks to review the compensation of energy companies
However, electricity of nuclear origin, according to the EU, cannot benefit from such a “
green
”
label
.
The expert group in charge of the analysis of this energy notably highlighted the thorny issue of nuclear waste.
The atom would thus remain on the side of the road, unlike renewable energies such as energies drawn from biomass, wind power, or solar energy, which are however anything but neutral in raw materials.
A second opinion is at work, the results of which are expected in 2021, a sign that the debate is raging.
Let's be clear: when it comes to energy, nothing is more disastrous than ideology and false promises.
They lead to absurdities, such as the opening in Germany of the highly polluting Datteln-4 coal-fired power station to compensate for the closure of the Fessenheim nuclear power station.
The United Kingdom, which left the EU, has demonstrated a strong desire to develop the nuclear portion of its energy mix since 2009
The issue of nuclear waste is a real issue, which should not be dismissed out of hand.
No more than a reality that the atom's slayers persist in denying, despite any analysis, even from the IPCC: electricity of nuclear origin, because of its carbon footprint, is part of the The already very difficult environmental equation we are faced with.
In this context, let it be permitted to underline here two negative effects that would result from maintaining a definition of European taxonomy which would confirm the elimination of nuclear power.
First, it would not prevent the development of nuclear energy in the EU, and more generally, the atmosphere knowing no borders, in Europe.
Thus, whether we regret it or not, the United Kingdom, which left the EU, has shown a strong desire to develop the nuclear part of its energy mix since 2009. Also within the EU, the movement is clearly underway.
Read also:
"Wind turbines are a staggering environmental scandal"
While France is hesitant in this area, this is not the case for several former Central and Eastern European countries which have decided to take over abandoned power plant construction projects (Bulgaria with the Belene project; Hungary with the Pacs-2 project, Czech Republic with the launch of a call for tenders for a 5th nuclear unit).
Northern Europe is not left out with the Finnish Olkiluoto project.
Second, and this is more serious, the EU must be aware that if it does not invest in nuclear energy, other powers will provide its needs.
The United States, for example, which signed an agreement with Poland a month ago on the development of nuclear power technology, for a period of thirty years.
This is to say, ultimately, how much the EU, like the fox in the fable, must not, by dint of not finding it sufficiently green, abandon nuclear energy
Russia also, with its champion Rosatom, who has never ceased to believe in the atom and whose export successes (India, Turkey) are so many arguments for the countries of Eastern Europe.
Without counting China, whose technology (Hualong One reactor) has continued to improve, and which can claim, with Russia, to constitute a world duopoly on which Europeans will inevitably find themselves dependent on themselves. they persist in ostracizing the atom.
This is to say, ultimately, how much the EU, like the fox in the fable, must not, by dint of not finding it sufficiently green, abandon nuclear energy.
It is not, during the debate on taxonomy, to grant any privilege to the atom;
it is a question of treating it as what it is, that is to say a carbon-free energy.
Read also:
Does France still produce enough electricity?
Otherwise the EU, so quick to proclaim itself a champion in the environmental field, which now claims to be concerned about sovereignty and strategic independence, will have managed to shoot itself twice in the foot.
