Les ENR (Renouvelables électriques) , le COVID et une certaine indécence

1) L’indécence des margoulins des ENR par temps de Covid-  1) l’AREHN

On commence par la demande de syndicats professionnels des ENR, tels l’A.N.O.D.E de rompre les contrats ARENH, demande d’abord à la CRE (Commission de Regulation de l’Electricité), qui les a envoyé bouler, puis en référé au Conseil d’Etat (requête en référé déposée par des concurrents d'EDF « visant à obtenir la suspension de contrats d'approvisionnement en électricité nucléaire à un prix préalablement fixé pour tenir compte de chute de la demande à la suite des mesures de confinement liées à la crise sanitaires. »faisant suite à l’avis de la CRE qui avait déjà indiqué » qu'elle n'était pas favorable au déclenchement de la clause de force majeure. »

Sur l’ARENH, il y a déjà pas mal de choses sur ce blog cf. par exemple

https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/12/lavenirde-larenh-et-par-consequent-du.html

Donc je rappelle brièvement : l’ARENH permet aux fournisseurs alternatifs d’acheter à bas prix de l’électricité nucléaire d‘EDF lorsque le prix marché de l’électricité est élevée et de se tourner vers d’autres sources lorsque ce n’est pas le cas. Comme les temps changent, et rapidement ! En janvier encore, les prix de marché étaient élevés, les concurrents d'EDF se ruaient  sur l'ARENH, il n’y en avait pas assez pour tous et ils trouvaient le système tellement profitable qu’ils engageaient une intense action de lobbying pour augmenter le plafond de l’ARENH, voire le déplafonner totalement. Et maintenant, retournement COVID, la consommation baisse l’électricité est surabondante et les concurrents (concurrents qui rappelons-le, produisent très peu) d’EDF veulent se dégager des contratARENH.

C’est tellement fort de café que même un syndicat habituellement assez calme, comme la CFE-CGC s’est un peu excité dans un communiqué de presse - et ce sont eux qui ont parlé d’indécence :

« En pleine crise, la concurrence frise l’indécence totale ! (09/04/2020) ».

https://cfe-energies.com/2020/04/09/decision-cre-clause-force-majeurearenh/

Extraits :

« Alors que  la CRE  a rejeté fin mars la demande d’activation de  la clause de  force majeure des achats d’électricité à l’AReNH, les fournisseurs alternatifs sur le marché français de  l’électricité dont,  entre  autres, ENI, Vattenfall, ekWateur et  Endesa, viennent, via leurs deux associations ANODE et AFIEG, d’attaquer cette  décision devant le Conseil d’État.

En confirmant une  politique de dividendes plus que  généreuse au moment où Bruno LE MAIRE appelle les entreprises françaises à faire preuve de responsabilité, le groupe Total ne semble pas faire face au  moindre souci de  trésorerie. Pourtant, il n’a pas hésité à s’associer à cette  action des fournisseurs alternatifs.

Il faut rappeler  que  ces fournisseurs  alternatifs se comportent comme de  véritables passagers clandestins du  système électrique : ils vivent de  la subvention que  constitue l’ARENH,  sans prendre le moindre risque et sans investir le moindre centime dans le système électrique français et donc pour la sécurité énergétique des Français.

La collectivité nationale n’a pas à protéger la concurrence de la « main invisible du marché ».

Cet épisode est une nouvelle preuve que l’AReNH est un dispositif régulatoire mortifère qui revient à imposer au service public de subventionner la concurrence. Aussi la CFE Énergies soutient la position responsable défendue par la CRE qui refuse les effets d’aubaine.

En effet, EDF n’a pas vocation à être l’assureur de ses concurrents contre la volatilité des marchés (baisse des prix avec  épisodes de prix négatifs, du fait de la baisse de la demande d’électricité et de l’effondrement des prix du pétrole) alors que ni EDF ni le Gouvernement ne songent à remettre en cause les contrats d’obligation d’achat dont bénéficient les énergies renouvelables malgré la faiblesse des prix de marché.

Par  conséquent, cette  demande de la concurrence à vivre sans fin aux crochets de la collectivité et à être protégée du marché est indécente. Pire, au moment où les énergéticiens français et leurs salariés sont pleinement mobilisés pour  assurer la sécurité d’approvisionnement en  énergie du pays, la CFE  Énergies ne  peut  que dénoncer cette volonté des fournisseurs alternatifs de  se soustraire à leurs responsabilités et de profiter de la crise actuelle pour préserver leurs marges. »

Ajoutons que les pauvres concurrents d’EDF qui ont demandé la suspension des contrats ARENH sont notamment Total, Eni, Vattenfall, Butagaz…Et aussi Enercoop lié à Greenpeace (pour être juste, Enercoop ne demande pas à bénéficier de l’ARENH, mais c’est quand même assez farce de les retrouver via l’A.N.O.D.E aux côtés de Total

2) L’indécence des margoulins des ENR par temps de Covid- 2) les prix garantis et la priorité d’accès au réseau

Une autre réaction salutaire et roborative, c’est la lettre d’un polytechnicien au PDG de NEOEN, qui a beaucoup circulé sur le net :

https://www.energieverite.com/post/r%C3%A9ponse-d-un-polytechnicien-%C3%A0-la-tribune-hors-sol-de-son-camarade-florissant-promoteur-%C3%A9olien

Elle constitue une réponse à une tribune dans les Echos, dans laquelle NEOEN affirmait que « grâce à nos contrats de long terme on a du chiffre d’affaires qui rentre malgré la crise » ou ailleurs : « Notre activité est désormais très compétitive sur la plan économique »  (Syndicat des Energies Renouvelables)

Extraits : « Aujourd’hui, tu nous vends ta production électrique 80 €/ MWh »

« Patron de la société cotée NEOEN, opérateur d’énergie qui parsème nos campagnes d’éoliennes, le 26 mars, 10ième jour du confinement national, tu t’es fendu d’un entretien dans le journal « Les Echos ».

Échange de bons procédés sans doute, il s’agit de quelques lignes de publicité rédactionnelle pour ce journal qui doit absolument remplir ces colonnes, en ces temps de sinistrose avec des articles porteurs d’espoir … Si c’est effectivement ce que recherchait le journal, penses-tu sincèrement avoir atteint l’objectif ? 

Je te cite : « grâce à nos contrats de long terme qui fixent le prix de vente de l’électricité produite dans nos centrales pour 10 ou 15,20 ou 25 ans, on a du chiffre d’affaires qui rentre malgré la crise… ». 

L’économie mondiale est littéralement à l’arrêt ; chaque mois de confinement provoque une contraction de 3 à 4% des PIB ; tu nous expliques que, quoiqu’il arrive, le chiffre d’affaires de ta société est préservé. Cela laisse rêveur, sur quelle planète es-tu ?

Penses–tu vraiment redonner de l’espoir aux lecteurs de ce quotidien ou ton message s’adresse t'il à d’autres cibles ?...

 

Aujourd’hui, tu nous vends ta production électrique 80 €/ MWh. Dans le même temps, le prix de marché du MWh – indicateur avancé de l’activité économique- s’est effondré passant de 40 €/MWh (octobre 2019) à 20 €/MWh ; il va rester probablement scotché à ces niveaux.

De sorte que la subvention dont bénéficie ton produit - ce produit que le client est obligé d’acheter même s’il n’en a pas besoin - est passée de 40 €/MWh (80 € -40 €) à 60 €/MWh (80 €-20 €) : + 50% en quelques mois ! Penses-tu que la situation puisse perdurer ? Crois-tu sincèrement que cette subvention pour un produit inutile, parce que non- pilotable, sera assurée pour 10, 15, 20, 25 ans, comme tu nous l’expliques dans ton interview ?      

Les 2 mois de confinement de la population mondiale se traduiront par une contraction de 7 à 8 % du PIB mondial annuel.  La sortie de crise se traduira par une révision drastique de la politique des États ; ils devront se réveiller de la léthargie mortifère dans laquelle les avaient plongés les écologistes anti-nucléaires, les technocrates inconséquents et les financiers peu scrupuleux. »

Pour de nombreux ménages, la sortie de crise devra se traduire par un retour aux fondamentaux : se nourrir, se déplacer, se vêtir, pourvoir aux besoins élémentaires des siens ; l’énergie fait effectivement partie des besoins vitaux. 

Les milliards de subvention accordés à ton secteur d‘activité en pure perte par la communauté nationale exsangue devront être réaffectés et c’est tant mieux. 

Tu te rappelles la devise de notre École : Pour la Patrie, les Sciences et la Gloire… »

« PS : Par arrêté en février 2020, la préfète de Charente vient, hélas, de t’autoriser à ériger un site éolien de 15MW à Courcôme. C’est un projet de 20 millions d’euros de matériels importés ; pour le mener à bien, tu as constitué une société (Eoliennes Courcôme) au capital de 5.000 euros ; 5.000 euros risqués face à 20 m€ investis en matériels importés, cela en dit long sur l’effet de levier financier que tu vas rechercher.

Et comme d’habitude, tu dois tabler sur un chiffre d’affaires cumulé sur les 20 ans d’une cinquantaine de millions d’euros subventionné à plus de 70%.

On ne sait pas si les associations de défense de l’environnement arriveront à bloquer ce projet en Cour d’Appel mais le meilleur espoir réside maintenant dans une révision enfin de la politique énergétique qui se fera jour en sortie de crise. »

3) Quelques données complémentaires ; très cher soutien aux trop chères ENR

Sources : Rapport de la CRE sur le soutient aux énergies renouvelables, Sauvons Le Climat

https://www.cre.fr/Transition-energetique-et-innovation-technologique/soutien-a-la-production/Financement-du-soutien-aux-EnR;

https://twtext.com/article/1252721790952116224

Le coût total du soutien à la production d’électricité renouvelable représente 5 315 M€, 68 % de l’ensemble des charges de service public de l’énergie  au titre de 2019. Ce montant augmente Le coût total du soutien à la production d’électricité renouvelable représente 5 315 M€, 68 % de l’ensemble des charges de service public de l’énergie au titre de 2019. Ce montant augmente...Le coût total du soutien à la production d’électricité renouvelable représente 5 315 M€, 68 % de l’ensemble des charges de service public de l’énergie au titre de 2019. Ce montant augmente...Le coût total du soutien à la production d’électricité renouvelable représente 5 315 M€, 68 % de l’ensemble des charges de service public de l’énergie au titre de 2019. Ce montant augmente...de 5 % par rapport à la prévision actualisée pour l’année 2018 (5 047 M€) et de 16 % par rapport aux charges constatées au titre de l’année 2017 (4 596 M€).

Autrement dit, à la louche,  un demi EPR par an pour une énergie intermittente non pilotable!

Selon Sauvons le climat : On peut calculer des €/MWh en divisant le soutien public aux ENR par l’électricité  qu’elles produisent.

Coût du soutien ENR en 2019 / prod ENR en 2019 : 5312/55.6 = 95 €/MWh !!

On inclut PV, éolien, bioénergies.

Si on sépare techno par techno, le PV culmine à 2544/11.6 = 219 €/MWh !

Et pour compléter, on peut aller voir l’excellent site Paye ton vent qui, semaine après semaine fait le point sur ce que nous coûtent les rentables ENR

4) Covid et ENR : le danger de l’effondrement du réseau

En dehors même des considérations économiques, la crise actuelle doit aussi être l’occasion de revenir sur les très réels risques de black out, d’effondrement du réseau que fait courir le développement des ENR à un point dangereux (Sup 30%). Que se passerait-il si en plus du Covid, les hôpitaux devaient subir des coupures de courant (comme en Australie du Sud), les réseaux informatiques s’évanouir, nos appartement être privés d’électricité ?

Ce serait l’effondrement total et des millions de morts. Donc lutter contre les profiteurs des ENR, leurs méga profits, leur cynisme et leurs mensonges, préserver pour la France, développer pour l’Europe la part du nucléaire énergie bas carbone, pilotable et économique, devient clairement aussi une priorité sanitaire !

C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’a rappelé récemment Fatih Birol, Directeur exécutif de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE), qui attirait notamment l’attention sur le risque accru de blackout en période de faible consommation, telle que celle entraînée par les mesures de confinement. Pour la raison que la part d’énergies intermittentes est augmentée du fait de leur priorité sur le réseau et qu’on peut d’autant moins compter sur la flexibilité de la consommation industrielle pour rétablir l’équilibre que cette consommation est réduite. 

Fatih Birol a rappelé la dépendance croissante de nos sociétés à l’électricité et les conséquences d’une rupture d’approvisionnement au cours d’une crise telle qu’aujourd’hui : les moyens pilotables restent indispensables  pour satisfaire la consommation en l’absence de vent et de soleil alors que les productions intermittentes liées aux conditions météorologiques ruinent leur modèle économique. Il considère également qu’une situation telle que celle d’aujourd’hui est l’occasion d’observer les conséquences de l’augmentation prévue de la part des énergies renouvelables (EnR) puisque cette part est désormais induite par la baisse de consommation et la priorité des EnR sur le réseau.  Enfin, Fatih Birol dénonce le risque de multiplication de tout petits producteurs d’EnR, notamment des particuliers qui ne disposent pas d’un niveau suffisant de cybersécurité.

 Et ce n’est pas paroles en l’air ! Le 23 avril 2020, en plein crise COVID, la France a échappé  de justesse à un black out avec une fréquence descendue à 49, 8801 Hz à 10 heures et 10 secondes ! En cause, exactement ce qui était annoncé, la priorité sur le réseau des ENR et leur brusque variation

Commentaire désinvolte du très politique pésident du réesau, François Brottes : c’est « une sorte de nouveau sport » consistant à « éviter les surtensions » en raison du risque d'écroulement"…."Cette situation a amené quelques surprises car on n'avait jamais connu une telle profondeur".

Voilà le résultat de votre politique pro ENR, Mme Borne : une menace de coupure générale du réseau en plein Covid. Cette politique était absurde climatiquement, économiquement, socialement, écologiquement, elle est maintenant tout simplement criminelle.

Pour vous, ça va finir en Haute Cour de Justice ou équivalent, comme Mme Georgina Dufois !

Sur cette question :

Cf. Covid 19 et le risque de black-out électrique, Jean Pierre Riou

https://www.europeanscientist.com/fr/redactions-choice-fr/covid-19-et-le-risque-de-black-out-energetique/

Sur le danger de black out induit par les ENR, nombreuxbillets sur ce blog, notamment :

https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/08/trop-denr-black-out-assure.html

https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/12/rte-vers-le-black-out-survivre-la.html

Alors Mme Borne, ceci que vous proclamez triomphalement est indécent :

« Face à la crise #COVID19, nous soutenons la filière des énergies renouvelables électriques

 Délais supplémentaires pour les chantiers en cours.

Tarifs d’achat maintenus pour les petits projets photovoltaïques.

288 lauréats à des appels d’offre.

https://twitter.com/Elisabeth_Borne/status/1245403370908790790

Green taxonomy : European Consultation on Technical Expert Group (3)

In the previous blog, I explained the issue of green taxonomy (which, for now, but with a possibility of change), excluded nuclear power from access to privileged environmental financing, and I was pleased with the number of French and foreign  contributions showing the end of a certain nuclear bashing. 

(https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/09/urgence-nucleaire-et-climatique-alerte.html)

https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/04/taxonomie-verte-consultation-europeenne_22.html

In Part 3, I want to communicate extracts of a major French Trade Union (CFE-CGC Energie) contribution, one of the few trade unions that acknowledges and answered to the concerns provoked by the Green Taxonomy.

Sustainable Finance and "Green Taxonomy" - POSITION of CFE-CGC Energy on the report of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) April 2020)

The European Union, through the Green Deal, has confirmed its desire to achieve a carbon-neutral economy by 2050, and, to go beyond wishful thinking, to draw up a concrete and responsible roadmap to carry out this agenda. The Green Taxonomy Regulation is a way to put in place a framework that directs investors and facilitates significant investment flows to the most relevant innovations, technologies and projects to achieve this goal. As a representative organisation of employees of the energy sector, the second trade union of the branch in France, a member of the European trade unions EPSU and Industriall, the CFE_CGC Energy federation legitimately wishes to contribute to the Technical Expert Group's evaluation on taxonomy and to relay a number of criticisms or concerns expressed by its constituents.

The CFE-CGC Energy Federation supports the Commission's objectives and the sustainable financing initiative, which is an essential tool with important consequences that needs to be carefully evaluated and weighed. Our organization shares the international consensus on the technologies to be embarked on to succeed the Green Deal, and fully agrees with  the IEA calling on industrialized countries to focus on renewable energy, nuclear and gas, the latter as a substitute for more carbon-intensive fossil fuels such as oil and coal. As a result, we wish to clarify the following points.

1) Low-carbon technological neutrality has not been respected.

 Only an agnostic technological approach can properly identify the most effective and relevant outcomes. However, the TEG report does not follow this method ; in particular, it does not require all energy sources without exception to  be evaluated over their entire life cycle, and according to a methodology whose rigour is validated and internationally recognized (for example, ISO 14040 and 14044). Any choice that would not be supported by this type of analysis seriously undermines the credibility of this text.  The facts that Renewables Energies are exempted of this whole  life cycle analysis and that, for nuclear, it is not recognized that the low greenhouse gas emissions not only results from the exploitation phase, but also from the entire life cycle (12gCO2/kWh according to the 5th GIEC report) constitute flagrant violations of the principle of technological neutrality that need to be corrected.

Finally, the DSNH (Do Not Significantly Harm) criterion, if necessary, is rather vague and must also be considered according to the criterion of technological neutrality and the state of scientific knowledge, and not according to criteria depending on the desired result.

This obviously has not always been the case, especially for nuclear waste (see below).  This reflects the consideration of the non-technical and highly political agendas of certain countries or organisations that have no monopoly on scientific ecology and seriously undermines the very relevance of the TEG report.

2) Exclusion “at this stage” of nuclear energy from the “green” taxonomy.

While nuclear power is well identified as a highly decarbonised energy source (6g CO2/kWh in French industry, according to Ademe assessment), it is not sufficiently stressed that it is non-intermittent and flexible and does not need to be combined with other means of power generation or large-scale storage; its low impact on, among others, air pollution, consumption of raw materials, use of lands are not highlighted, and, in general, the lack of consideration of these criteria constitutes a general and important methodological weakness of the TEG work on taxonomy.

The exclusion of nuclear power at this stage is claimed to come from the fact that the management of its waste would not meet the DNSH criterion. CFE-CGC Energy disagrees  with this claim, which clearly ignores the technological realities and the state of science. Radioactive waste is managed according to strict protocols and its management is supervised by national security authorities and is subject to numerous Euratom Treaty specifications; it would be appropriate that taxonomy  do not ignore the existing European treaties!

With regard to low-level radioactive waste, there is a European consensus to define a threshold for release from which these materials can be considered as ordinary materials: IAEA (RS-G-1.7 guide), directive 2013/59/ Euratom. Recycling of nuclear fuel can be expanded to make better use of uranium resources and reduce waste. The volume of high-activity waste, after reprocessing, represents 3% of all  radioactive waste in France, i.e. the equivalent of an Olympic swimming pool for the entire French nuclear  park since its creation. For those ultimate waste, deep burial in geological deposits (stability greater than 150 million years against a detectable radioactivity of 15,000 years for waste) is a solution validated by the security authorities of many countries (France, Finland, Switzerland for Europe, but also USA, Japan, Canada, Russia, China). In France,  CFE-CGC  Energy supports the Cigéo project.

It should be noted that the TEG, after its principled position on the exclusion of nuclear power, nevertheless acknowledges its lack of competence on the subject and opens the door to a specific international expertise. CFE-CGG Energy calls for this recommendation to be followed and to appoint an expert group to assess the sustainability and the DNSH aspect of known solutions for the treatment of nuclear waste, respecting technological neutrality.  This group should be made up of experts from national security authorities, public agencies in charge of radioactive waste management, representatives of research organizations active in nuclear science and technology, and radiation protection.

CFE-CGC Energy  stresses the importance of dealing with this problem rationally and quickly. The TEG report does not treat with due importance an abundant, competitive, highly contributor to GDP energy, which is currently the main source of decarbonised energy in Europe ! It is necessary to eliminate the current uncertainty about nuclear power: firstly, for its own importance in the climate challenge (remember that electricity is also bound to replace massively some uses of fossil fuels); and secondly, because the exclusion of nuclear power from green taxonomy would also have a strong impact on all user industries that would be denied access to preferred financing to optimize their energy transition processes….

4) Responsibility of Member-States in their energy mix

 CFE-CGC Energy recalls that energy policy mix are the responsibility of Member-States that have very different geographical, economic and historical contexts and constraints, and which must be able to choose their range of low-carbon tools and make their own technological choices to succeed in their energy transition. Again, respect for technological neutrality is essential, for if States were to be denied access to green financing for important and structuring projects according to technologically unjustified criteria (for example in the case of nuclear projects in Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary), this could simply cause the explosion of institutional Europe at a time when it is facing multifaceted and unprecedented crises and tensions.

5) The DSNH criteria must take into account social and strategic aspects

 A green investment cannot be an investment that would violate the minimum social guarantees recognised by the Member-States, or that would cause serious employment difficulties, even temporary ones, without offering satisfactory solutions for retraining.

Moreover, the current sanitary Covid crisis obliges us to review our dependence on foreign countries and industries and to embark on a policy of re-industrialisation. Green investments must take into account the negative aspects of an excessive and uncontrolled globalization, as well as strategic aspects. European green funding should not lead to an increase in dependence on states outside the EU, which everyone can now see as dangerous, nor should they be used to finance value chains almost exclusively established outside the EU.

Finally, it would be absurd to label green funding which would simply outsource the negative impacts (CO2 emissions, pollution, health consequences, costs and negative externalities of transport) outside Europe. The lessons of the financing of wind and especially solar industries  by Europe and Member-States resulting in the massive creation of value and jobs in China must not be forgotten.

Green taxonomy is an important tool for the success of a climate-efficient, economically favourable and socially just energy transition. Its potential is immense, its consequences must be carefully evaluated. CFE-CGC Energy considers it essential to respect technological neutrality in all its aspects, otherwise this tool will lose all legitimacy and will face the refusal of Member States and their citizens and employees.  It hopes that future discussions on taxonomy will include social and strategic aspects, be transparent and open to stakeholders, and will enable the development of a European model of more environmentally and socially responsible companies.

These are essential conditions for taxonomy to achieve its objectives and be indeed useful in directing investments towards a successful and Green Deal-compliant energy transition.

Taxonomie verte : Consultation Européenne sur le rapport du groupe d’experts (2)

Suite du blog précédent https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/04/taxonomie-verte-consultation-europeenne.html

Energie atomique : La France n’est pas seule ! Nuclear Energy : France is not alone

Dans le précedent blog, j’expliquais l’enjeu de la taxonomie verte (qui, pour l’instant, mais avec une possibilité de repêchage), excluait le nucléaire de l’accès à des financements privilégiés environnementaux, et je me réjouissais du nombre de contributions françaises montrant la fin d’un certain nuclear bashing.

Dans cette partie 2, je veux insister sur le nombre et la qualité de contributions étrangères allant dans le même sens, montrant que la rationnalité scientifique et technique, le bon sens, le refus de la démagogie et de l’ignorance peuvent encore s’imposer. Et que si l’Allemagne et l’Autriche persistaient dans leur volonté d’exclusion du nucléaire, l’Europe piurrait entrer dans une grande période de tension ;;et même éclater !

In the previous blog, I explained the issue of green taxonomy (which, for now, but with a possibility of change), excluded nuclear power from access to privileged environmental financing, and I was pleased with the number of French contributions showing the end of a certain nuclear bashing. 

In Part 2, I want to emphasize the number and quality of foreign contributions along the same lines, showing that scientific and technical rationality, common sense, the rejection of demagoguery and ignorance can still prevail. And that if Germany and Austria persisted in their desire to exclude nuclear power, Europe would enter a great period of tension;; and even burst!

So some contributions, starting with a very documented paper of the Czech government :

Government of the Czech Republic (Czech)

The role and necessity of nuclear power have been acknowledged and well documented by various credible sources. For example, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls in its findings for the sharp increase of nuclear energy production to keep the global temperature below 1.5°C. Likewise, the study Nuclear Power in Clean Energy System published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) focuses on achieving the pace of CO2 emission reductions in line with the Paris Agreement and states, that accomplishing this goal is a massive challenge for the developed economies. To make it possible substantial increases in energy efficiency and a renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power generation is required. The Czech Republic further supports the interpretation of the European Commission, which declares the undisputable role of nuclear power as an energy source necessary for the transformation towards climate-neutral EU and its role as a backbone of the carbon-free European power system along with renewables. Not including the nuclear among sustainable activities in the taxonomy would lead to an unfavourable signal to the financial institutions and markets and consequently to its dismissal from the discourse and financing. Lowering supply of financing of the nuclear would lead to higher interest rates jeopardising the investments to new low-carbon sources with negatively affected energy production and stability of the energy supply. Such an approach would consequently hinder the efforts of some EU member states to decarbonize their energy sectors and would lead to a negative economic outcome.

Almost half of the EU member states do count with the use of nuclear power in the foreseeable future, and it is imperative to ensure favourable framework including investment conditions which are critical for the future development of new nuclear sources. Given the strict general conditions under international and national law for the operation of the nuclear power plants already guarantee their safe operation as well as current requirements for the storage of the used fuel respect the necessity to eliminate any potential safety, environmental or health risks. Furthermore, continuous extensive research tackling the issue of nuclear waste is underway and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel while meeting the highest standard is paramount to all states that use nuclear energy in the EU. Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste are being tackled through various precaution measures, such as meeting strict radiation safety standards and being subject to numerous controls from IAEA and European Commission. Given the strict general conditions under aforementioned international and national law for safe storage of radioactive waste as well as current requirements for the storage of the spent fuel respect the necessity to eliminate any potential safety, environmental or health risks. Furthermore, continuous extensive research tackling the issue of nuclear waste (spent fuel is considered as a resource) is underway and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel while meeting the highest standard is paramount to all states that use nuclear energy in the EU.

The Czech Republic believes in technological neutrality and that enough empirical data are sufficiently indicative regarding the radioactive waste repositories in Finland, France and Sweden. Furthermore, even countries that decided over nuclear energy phase-out, such as Germany, follow this concept and proceed to build and operate a deep repository. As such, this should have been reflected in the TEG report. The Czech Republic requests that panel formed by experts from radiation safety, geology, and relevant scientific areas with sufficient in-depth knowledge and in-situ experience should be gathered and supplement the current TEG report with its findings. The Czech Republic would like to further contribute with the following remarks:

· Regarding the long-term management of High-Level Waste (HLW) or Spent nuclear Fuel (SNF), there is an international consensus that a safe, long-term technical solution is needed. A combination of temporary storage plus permanent disposal in geological formation is the most promising. An underground permanent repository is being built in Finland, the other EU member states are in various stages of preparations (e.g. Sweden is finalising the steps before construction). Such a process will take place in subsequent countries, in the Czech Republic, for example, which are preparing necessary steps to ensure such process as well.

 · Materials that are used throughout the nuclear power generation life cycle are mostly recyclable, except for a small number of materials that become radioactive waste. Unlike toxic waste that remains toxic, radioactive materials cease to be radioactive over time. The impact of the end of the fuel cycle on the environment is negligible. It is a material that is possible to safely secure, its effects on the environment are entirely marginal and at the moment none at all. The used fuel is in a clean environment, in formidable, proven containers in the warehouse. There has been practically no effect on the surroundings. It does not burden it - noise, dust, land use, not at all radiation (collective dose). The real results of the (loosely) used fissile material on the surroundings can be perfectly observed. For example, in the Oklo natural habitat in Gabon (where there were natural nuclear reactors), when there was no spread of substances into the environment, and its burden was marginal.

· Nuclear energy has many positives. For instance,

 1) Transition to the circular economy - Spent fuel should not be taken as a waste but as a raw material. There is app. 95% of usable uranium remaining. Through recycling, waste from spent fuel is significantly reduced;

2) Prevention and reduction of pollution - Nuclear power plants consume a minimum amount of material and have minimal impact on land use and natural habitats per installed capacity, and consequently do not pollute the environment;

 3) Protection of healthy ecosystems - The discharge of hot water into water sources has a local effect, both positive and negative. It is always carried out in accordance with national regulations and EU directives;

 4) Nuclear energy (even considering the impacts of previous accidents) causes the least deaths from TWh produced when compared esp. with the impacts of coal energy production (and its air pollution implications);

 5) Nuclear energy has the highest ratio of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) among available energy sources. The Czech Republic calls on the Commission to assess the DNSH criteria in a timely manner and include the nuclear energy in the delegated act in 2020. The Czech Republic reiterates that the Taxonomy regulation stipulates that all relevant existing technologies need to be assessed based on the scientific and technology neutral basis and that the climate change mitigation criteria should be adopted in one delegated act.

Romanian Atomic Forum (Romania)

As the Taxonomy regulation incorporates the principle of technology neutrality, and given that the TEG has not treated all technologies in the same way, we do not believe this principle has been met. For example, the TEG Report recommends that certain renewable technologies be exempted from an LCE assessment. We do not believe that such an exemption is justified only for certain technologies. Therefore, the delegated act should identify the criteria first and then apply it equally to all technologies. - The Taxonomy regulation does not currently exclude specific low-carbon technologies, indicating that they should be assessed against the criteria developed. Given that the criteria have not yet been developed under the Delegated Act, it would be premature to take forward the TEGs opinion that nuclear should not be included at this stage. - In order to ensure a robust scientific approach to the taxonomy, it is urgent as the independent group of experts with an in-depth knowledge on the nuclear lifecycle

Teollisuuden Voima Oyh (TVO Finland)

When the nuclear power plant unit Olkiluoto 3 is completed, TVO will contribute approx. 30% of Finland’s electricity. If nuclear power’s crucial role is not recognized and it is excluded from the taxonomy, the EU cannot achieve its climate targets.

This was also acknowledged by the Technical Expert Group (TEG) in its final report stating, that ‘Evidence on the potential substantial contribu-tion of nuclear energy to climate change mitigation objective was extensive and clear’. TVO supports TEG’s recommendation, that a group with in-depth knowledge on nu-clear life cycle technologies is launched. The group must also evaluate the existing and potential environmental impacts in such an assessment. In order to evaluate nuclear energy within the EU context objectively and robustly, the Commission needs to ensure the transparency and expertise of this group, including the call for members and how the group is going to be organized and execute its work.

In addition, the Platform on Sustainable Finance must also have members with indepth exper-ise on nuclear. The principle of technology neutrality must be included into the future Taxonomy regulation. TVO requests that all power producing technologies are evaluated according to the same criteria. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2019) has shown that all scientifically proven and commercially available low-carbon energy solutions must be used in flexible and clean energy transition that is a must to reduce the growth of emissions and to stop further climate change. The life cycle emissions produced by nuclear energy compare reasonably with those from renewable energy sources. According to the IPCC (2014), the nuclear life-cycle emissions (12g of CO2/KWh) are equal to those of wind power and are four times lower than from so-lar power. The IPCC analysis for nuclear includes the whole nuclear life cycle, including uranium mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication, plant construction, use, decommissioning and long-term waste management. In Finland TVO already has a sustainable solution for high level waste (HLW)

 – The Finnish Government granted a licence a construction of a final disposal facility for HLW in 2015, the first licence in the world. Currently HLW is placed safely in interim storages for cooling and dealt with in a highly responsible manner under the Eur-atom legal framework. The nuclear sector produces a very small amount of all haz-ardous waste that is produced in the EU each year. In the EU, responsible actions for radioactive waste and especially for HLW are taken care of by the nuclear industry and national authorities according to the EU’s Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management Directive (2011/70/Euratom). Each Member State has a national policy for spent fuel and radioactive waste management. According to the Commission's 2nd report COM (2019) 632 final on the progress over 95 % of the radioactive waste in the EU territory had already been disposed of in 2016. HLW made up 0.2% of the radioactive waste inventory in 2016 and in the stepwise process of implementing ge-ological disposal solution for HLW Finland, France, and Sweden are the most ad-vanced.

Finnish Energy (Finland)

Include nuclear power and Waste-to-Energy in the sustainable finance scheme by considering all energy sources according to equal, technology neutral, principles. Including nuclear power in the sustainable finance scheme is indispensable in order to achieve climate neutrality. Demand for clean electricity is growing fast and nuclear power is enabling the decarbonisation of other sectors. Financing must be secured for maintenance, lifetime extensions of the existing nuclear fleet and new construction. Nordic nuclear power most certainly meets the sustainability criteria. The first final waste repositories are under construction in Finland and Sweden.

Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) (Poland)

The taxonomy and the relevant technical screening criteria established in delegated acts under the draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (Taxonomy Regulation) should be technology neutral so as not to exclude enabling and transitional activities which reduce the negative impact on the environment in comparison to activities which are not regarded as sustainable. Transitional energy sources and bridging technologies, such as generation sources based on natural gas should be the important elements of energy transformation, significantly reducing emissions. Nuclear energy should also play an important role in this transformation.

Energiforetagen/Swedenergy (Sweden)

Although the TEG clearly state their ambition to use technology agnostic screening criteria, a large part of their criteria is in fact technology specific. Swedenergy urges the Commission to express its technical screening criteria as technology neutral as possible. One example is that waste management is expressed to be an issue for some technologies but not for other….

Nuclear power competence is included in the Sustainable Finance Platform to be established in the fall of 2020. Swedenergy proposes that competence from the nuclear waste management programs of the Nordic countries is included in the expert group. • Sustainability criteria for nuclear power should be developed through a graded approach. The sustainability of a once-through fuel strategy of a light-water reactor fleet can be described in a first stage, whereas the sustainability of closed fuel cycles and Generation IV systems etc. could be evaluated further on.

Confederation of Finnish Industries EK (Finland)

There are many economic activities central to the transition into carbon neutral economy where the current form of the Taxonomy’s technical screening criteria does not meet the above-mentioned principles according to which the EK is ready to support the preparation of the Taxonomy. These fields vary from gas infrastructure, biofuels and bio energy to nuclear energy.

Fortum (Finland)

Nuclear: To date, 54,1 % of electricity generated in the EU is CO2-free and more than half of it, is produced from nuclear sources. A CO2-free power supply is a key enabler to electrify and thereby decarbonise the essential parts of our European economy. Fortum thus calls on the European Commission to swiftly appoint a process with the aim to provide a timely and in-depth assessment on nuclear’s environmental impact for the preparation of the related delegated act by the European Commission. We favour involvement of JRC experts and the Art 31 Committee (Euratom Treaty).

GEN Group (Slovenia)

Therefore we propose to: - evaluate all technology options described in taxonomy at the same level of details, contrary to the report published on March 9, 2020, where only nuclear option is burdened with questions regarding the waste;

- perform strategic environmental impact assessment for the taxonomy, in accordance with Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) directive , since taxonomy is more than just the strategy;

 - provide that all technology options described in taxonomy are evaluated on same level with comparable requirements for impacts and risk perception, based on life cycle impacts in accordance with environmental impact assessment concept, since we live on the same planet;

-take into consideration aspects of electricity grid stability parameters with encouraging the deployment of flexible and dispatchable low-carbon technologies, as nuclear is, to help back up variable renewables – thereby maintaining reliability and resilience of the future energy system;

Eurelectric (Belgium)

Additional expertise is needed regarding nuclear to guide the adoption of DAs by the end of 2020. We call on the EC to swiftly appoint an expert group of scientifically qualified radiation protection specialists to finalise the assessment of nuclear energy under the Taxonomy. Any delay in the nuclear assessment risks undermining the ability of the Member States to develop a pathway towards climate neutrality.

CEZ Group (Czech)

In energy sector, the ultimate goal of the taxonomy should be to support cost–efficient decarbonisation through low-carbon electricity production. The nuclear electricity generation represents an important low-emission source of energy, which has an irreplaceable role in climate mitigation, electrification and reaching the climate goals, as recently stipulated in the IEA study IPCC Report and EC long term strategy. It is also a backbone of energy mix of the Czech Republic. Since TEG didn´t assess nuclear in its final report, there is a strong need for additional expertise regarding nuclear to guide the adoption of delegated acts by the end of 2020. An expert group of scientifically qualified radiation protection specialists representing all Member states should be established to finalise the assessment of nuclear energy under the taxonomy. Any delay in the nuclear assessment could lead to undermining the ability of the Member States to develop a pathway towards climate neutrality, taking advantage of nuclear as a major low-carbon source.

CEZ Group strongly believes, nuclear should be included as sustainable in the taxonomy, as there is sufficient evidence that nuclear waste is well accounted for and managed. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management are controlled and managed under the Euratom legislation and repositories are subject to environmental impact assessments and Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in contrast to other technologies which generate toxic waste. The nuclear industry stores and keeps records of its waste while isolating it from the biosphere and from society. Since there is no actual harm proven, nuclear with such a large mitigation potential should be included in the taxonomy as sustainable.

FORATOM (Belgium)

Regarding the Climate Mitigation aspect, we welcome the TEG’s recognition that nuclear has near to zero greenhouse gas emissions. However, we do feel it necessary to clarify that this applies to the entire nuclear life-cycle, and not just the energy generation phase as the TEG indicates. The greenhouse gas emissions from the lifecycle of nuclear power are very low (12 grammes CO2 eq/kWh), as recognised in the IPCC 2014 report. Indeed, nuclear power plants have a long lifespan (60+ years) compared to some other technologies. Furthermore, nuclear can be used to generate low-carbon hydrogen. Together with low-carbon electricity, this will help decarbonise other sectors such as industry and transport.

In the case of nuclear, for example, the DNSH group have focused on the issue of waste and used it as an excuse not to include this low-carbon technology in the taxonomy. For other technologies, however, the waste criteria do not appear to have been applied in the same way (eg power producing technologies which generate toxic waste at the end of their useful life). Whilst we recognise that the Commission has organised various stakeholder consultations on the Taxonomy, we would like to draw attention to the fact that, as recognised by the TEG, a group of experts with an in-depth knowledge of the nuclear life-cycle needs to be established to tackle this matter. In our view it is essential that the Commission continues to maintain an open and transparent dialogue with FORATOM – as the voice of the nuclear industry – on this matter and so we call for the opportunity to continue contributing to the debate.