Unhappy like the atom in Brussels (tribune) Comments

Tribune signed Gérard Petit, retired engineer from the energy sector

Nuclear is not necessarily in the smell of holiness in Brussels.As proof, the debates around taxonomy are struggling to bring out a common position on nuclear, energy yet low carbon ...

Trap

In European treaties, energy policy is left by the states, which did not prevent some of them from contesting the choice of others in the matter, thus Austria and Luxembourg opposing,But without any real means of action, the United Kingdom's decision (Ante Brexit) to build new reactors in Hinkley Point.

However, in Brussels reigns a very real anti-nuclear climate, strongly hatched and maintained by Germany, which has made the exit of the atom, a religion and its proselytism is operating.

Une Commission présidée par une Allemande (1), un vice-président néerlandais, ouvertement anti-nucléaire, chargé de la mise en œuvre du « Green Deal » (2) et un Parlement où les verts donnent le ton, les représentants français n’étant pas en reste (3), campent un contexte éminemment défavorable à l’atome.

But so far, as said, few levers existed to interfere with the energy choices of states until the brilliant advent of "green taxonomy", reinizing the criteria of ecological well-thought, by reading the investments that can beeligible for Europe's financial support, because it is recognized as well in the service of major ecological issues that it displays.

Après des atermoiements de façade, le nucléaire, pourtant levier majeur pour produire de l’électricité sans émissions de CO₂, n’a pas été retenu dans cette liste, malgré un avis très positif rendu par le CRC européen, officiellement consulté. A contrario, le gaz naturel, pourtant un émetteur majeur de GES (CO2 ₂+ fuites ) va y entrer par parrainage, au motif qu’il peut se substituer au charbon, deux fois plus émetteur… une conversion que le nucléaire pourrait réaliser sans émissions du tout… mais le nucléaire est pesteux, ses électrons galeux, et tant pis pour le climat !

Strategic surrealism

Alors que les Institutions européennes viennent de rehausser encore les objectifs de réduction d’émissions de GES (4), affirmant ainsi un leadership mondial pour la cause du climat, c’est le moment qu’elles choisissent pour exclure l’énergie nucléaire de la taxonomie verte.

These decisions, which seem contradictory, are logical, because it is for Europe to assert that it can be even more ambitious in terms of reducing GHG emissions, while renouncing to rely on thenuclear, the energy of the past, thus leaving the test from above, without compromise with the honored atom.

It is a question of winning definitively, the ideological battle waged against nuclear for many years, by affirming its uselessness in a decisive game, hoping that opinions will see courage and resolution, more than temerity.

But, to display such unrealistic programs reduction objectives, European decision -makers hardly seem to fear the common sense of said opinion, confident in the effectiveness of an ideological conditioning, very effective.

So, since the objective of environmentalists is, in absolute priority, to make a merciless war in nuclear, why not push their advantage in this context made to the end, and to carry it the estocade, by removing any future on the continent, by depriving him of the financial resources he needs.

The opportunity made is beautiful, the result is unfortunately without surprise.

Practical surrealism

The decision to exclude nuclear is completely political, the technical criteria, in the case of the cause of the climate, identifier as one of the most effective levers, it was therefore necessary to use the artifice (the non -controlwaste, its unsustainable character,..) to dress a little the decision, even if, as supra says, the risk that public opinion is very low.

The Commission adopted at the end of April a set of measures qualified as complete and ambitious aimed at better directing the flows of capital towards sustainable activities throughout the European Union.

In particular, the "delegated act" relating to the climate component of the taxi taxeomics, aims to promote sustainable investments that contribute most to the achievement of its environmental objectives.

It lists eligible processes which may therefore, recognized having a significant positive impact on the climate and the environment, benefit from the community windfall, nuclear is not there.

After My Bootcamp My Next Goal is learning How to Cook, Tofu-Mushroom-Spinach Everyday is no long it 🙊
— Vince Baylon Tue Jul 20 03:14:36 +0000 2021

Fallacious diversion

At the same time, two other "contenders" have been compared in a parallel investigation which remains to be carried out: nuclear which we must, rightly, be surprised by its ouster from the first list (object of the delegated act), and gasnatural, which one wonders how, in his situation as a massive emitter of GES, he can claim an eligibility.

It is obviously a question of making a pretext to eliminate nuclear, by placing it, in the company of natural gas, in the camp of the refused, two energetic heavyweights that Europe, in its determination and in its incorruptibility, would not hesitateNot to be dismissed from his green taxonomy.

In reality, it is a very curious way of not deciding the Gordian node by assimilating the supposed disadvantages of the first, with the crippling defects of the other.In other words, nuclear should console itself to have failed in very good company.

But the reality is more wrong, because the expectations of the community judgment show that it is just asking for natural gas to wait for its hour, placed that it is in "pole-position" on the waiting list, and that aad hoc diet will soon be guaranteed to him, while for nuclear, it is the staircase of the gemonies that awaits him.A green and durable nuclear, in fact, what incongruity!

As said already, we reach the height of hypocrisy, gas being dubbed as an effective substitute for coal, while nuclear offers, on this level, a radical solution.

French atony, even betrayal

France is concerned in the first place by these maneuvers of torpedoing nuclear, it being the base of its electricity production. Assurer un avenir à la filière est donc vital, même si la PPE hexagonale(5) prévoit qu’on réduise à moyen terme, la contribution nucléaire dans la production électrique, des trois quart (actuellement), à la moitié (en 2035), en faisant monter les renouvelables en puissance, le nucléaire assurant le back-up de leur intermittence.

But the gas time will come, the only possible recourse when you gradually stop the reactors, a prospect well in line with the logic of Brussels taxonomy!

Is this a loss of credit from France at the level of European orientations, a lack of political will at the time of "at the same time", even a deleterious opportunism with regard to ruining the future of national nuclear?Still, the result is there.

Seul signe tangible de résistance, la France a signé, avec six autres pays européens(6) un courrier adressé à la Commission, appelant à comprendre le nucléaire dans les moyens de lutte contre le réchauffement de la planète et donc à l’inclure dans la taxonomie verte.

It is notable that the Netherlands, which nevertheless did not exclude nuclear from their future energy (the gas deposit of Groningue exhausting), have not been associated with the process, certainly in an electoral context, but withoutdoubt under German influence.

Un ensemble de pays, représentant une certaine proportion et une certaine diversité de la population européenne peut bloquer des décisions communautaires (7), mais la sortie du RU et l’abstention des Pays-Bas, ne permettent plus, en l’occurrence, de réunir les conditions d’un blocage effectif autour de la proposition des sept pays précités.

This letter has therefore remained a dead letter and did not hamper the official publication of a list of eligible for green taxonomy which does not include nuclear power.

So this is a patent failure, but has we really fought, did the president involved sufficiently (to make our planet great again)?

It is of public notoriety, that many of our national representatives in parliament and in the various bodies do not see with a bad eye the blow to European nuclear, this technology being readily agony and despised, by comparison with renewable modernity (solarand wind turbine) and its extension, both magic and artificial, hydrogen.

—————

(1) Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, former German Defense Minister (CDU).

(2) Frans Timmermans, Dutch, Labor Party, Executive VP of the European Commission, in charge of the application of the "Green Pact" (€ 1000MDS over 10 years)

(3) Pascal Canfin: Former Minister Delegate for Development in the Ayrault government, PDT of the Environment, Public Health and Food Security Commission of the European Parliament.

(4) (-55%) CO2 discharges in 2035 compared to 1990 (reference date chosen at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall)

(5) PPE: "Pluriannual Energy Programming", Calendar declination by LTECV objectives of 2015.

(6) Seven Heads of State and Government (France, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) signed a letter addressed to the European Commission, made public Thursday, March 25.They call on Brussels to include nuclear in its climatic and energy policies.

(7) To oppose a text under discussion at the EU council, the Member States have the possibility of constituting a “blocking minority” if there are at least 4 states and that they represent at least 35%of the European population or 45% of states (13 countries).