The European Commission updated (January 2022) its sustainable energy taxonomy to include nuclear power and natural gas. The purpose of this document is to guide private financing and investment toward clearly identified “sustainable” energy sources over the coming decades. The inclusion of these two energy sources has sparked debate. This article will examine the scientific and regulatory foundations that informed the Commission’s decision.
This article is based on an interview with Professor Marc Fontecave, holder of the Chair in the Chemistry of Biological Processes at the Collège de France. His latest book, Halte au catastrophisme! (Stop the Catastrophism!), published by Flammarion, presents a state-of-the-art overview of our knowledge across all areas of the energy transition and the challenges that accompany it.
To say that nuclear power and natural gas are controversial energy sources is an understatement. The European community’s reactions to their inclusion in the European Union’s new “green” taxonomy (January 2022) demonstrate this once again. Austria, Luxembourg, Spain, and Denmark have already voiced their opposition to this decision and are calling for natural gas and nuclear power to be removed from the taxonomy. Germany, for its part, wants to retain natural gas, which would enable “a rapid phase-out of coal” in the short term, but wishes to exclude nuclear power. France, finally, is advocating for the retention of nuclear power. The situation is a complete mess.
The taxonomy, it should be recalled, is a means for the European Commission “to guide and mobilize private investment toward the activities necessary to achieve climate neutrality within the next 30 years,” and within this framework, “natural gas and nuclear power have a role to play in facilitating the transition to a future relying primarily on renewable energy.” More practically, this taxonomy will allow private companies investing in the listed energy sources to demonstrate their commitment to meeting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.
Beyond the political and geopolitical considerations that may explain the positions taken by various governments, it is legitimate to question the scientific basis for the European Commission’s decision and what this implies in practice in terms of regulation. To begin with, it is important to emphasize that the Commission does not consider nuclear power and natural gas to be “green” energy sources. Rather, it views them as “transition” energy sources that would be useful for replacing more polluting fossil fuels, such as coal. From this perspective, the argument makes sense. Today, generating 1 kWh of electricity from coal produces approximately 820 gCO2eq. By comparison, a gas-fired power plant emits 490 gCO2eq per 1 kWh, and a nuclear power plant emits just 12 gCO2eq—68 times less than coal (figures from the 2014 IPCC report). Among renewable energy sources, only wind power performs better than nuclear power (11 gCO2eq/kWh compared to 45 gCO2eq/kWh for solar and 24 gCO2eq/kWh for hydropower).
The figures speak for themselves. Natural gas is not a panacea, as this energy source remains a major source of CO2 emissions. Indeed, the European Commission is clear on this point: investments in natural gas will only qualify for the taxonomy if they meet strict conditions. The Commission requires that gas-fired power plants, which will obtain their construction permits before 2030, emit less than 270 gCO₂eq/kWh. After 2030, this threshold will be lowered to 100 gCO₂eq/kWh. In short, this amounts to reducing the carbon intensity of gas-fired power plants by a factor of 2, and then by a factor of 5. These emission thresholds set by Europe may raise questions. As Professor Marc Fontecave, holder of the Chair in Chemistry of Biological Processes at the Collège de France, points out, compliance with these new standards seems difficult to achieve, since gas-fired power plants have long been optimized. The scope for reducing their CO₂ emissions is limited. The introduction of these ambitious thresholds could therefore be explained by the Commission’s desire to encourage research and development into CCS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage) technologies, as well as increased use of biogas.
