Energiewende and European green taxonomy : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls (5)

Nuclear and climate emergency, alert! Nuclear energy excluded from green taxonomy

European green taxonomy, what is it ?  

The European Commission is working on a green taxonomy, a kind of labeling designed to guide financial investments to the most appropriate sectors and activities to achieve Europe's climate targets, transition to a low-carbon economy and a sustainable development model. The objectives are: combating climate change, adapting to climate change, sustainable use and protecting water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, waste prevention and recycling, combating pollution (prevention and control), protecting healthy ecosystems.

It must also not create a significant negative impact on other objectives (in English, DNSH criterion, Do No Significant Harm), comply with minimum social standards (??? given the achievements of Social Europe, it is quite worrisome !)  and comply with technical selection criteria (Yes, please!)

What's the point ? According to its proponents, this taxonomy is indicative and non-binding, "it is not a standard, nor is it a mandatory list of activities in which to invest." Well, then what's the point? In fact, it can be expected to have an impact on the definition of sustainable finance and European subsidies.

Comment 1: the fight against climate change is only one of the criteria. However, as Brice Lalonde pointed out about the EPP (French multi-year energy programme), too many priorities mean no priorities!

Comment 2: I quote : "taxonomy will include activities in sectors that have a negative impact on the environment provided that they substantially reduce their negative impacts. The purpose of taxonomy is to encourage the transition to greener ways of operating, and not just activities already recognized as green, it makes sense to include sectors that need to improve their practices. »

Translation (and this will be the fourth time this week on the theme our dear German friends are starting to break our balls): green taxonomy can be used to subsidize German coal miners who will close their plants, but not for investments in French nuclear power (upgrading historical nuclear and new nuclear)!

Warning: nuclear energy excluded from green taxonomy !

Mea maxima culpa, I'm a little late on this blog! After the vote of MEPs last March 2019 excluding nuclear energy from green taxonomy. There is an open European consultation on green taxonomy where everyone can give their opinion; finally could until Monday 16 September, but perhaps the deadline was still extended: site

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy_en

N.b.  The association “ les Voix du Nucléaire”, which does a wonderful job, has provided an argument in English to answer this consultation: contact them on:

https://www.voix-du-nucleaire.org/contact-2/

You can find useful references on Tristan Kamin's threads (perfect, as usual):

https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1173521368937312256

Following consists of excerpts translated into French from the argument  des Voix du Nucléaire !

The context: "We started our public action a few weeks ago with an open letter to MEPs after their vote last March excluding nuclear energy from green taxonomy. We must now convince them to reconsider this decision. It is very strongly counterproductive when the fight against climate change should be the priority. If the European decision came into force, France would also be penalised in view of what nuclear power represents for its economy, its trade balance, its territorial development, its jobs and its energy independence. »

"The European Commission's (TEG) Group of Technical Experts has considered the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy of sustainable EU financing as a sustainable activity and investment. The TEG technical report published in June 2019 proposed not to use nuclear energy in the first version of taxonomy, pending further evaluation. The TEG recommends that further technical work be undertaken on the aspects of nuclear energy (Nb in particular DNSH - Do No Significant Harm - Do not cause significant damage]

Arguments :

Why nuclear power should not be excluded on the basis of the DNSM: All commercial nuclear activities in the EU (including spent fuel management) are already governed by EU and state legislation, regulations and procedures "Do No Harm" (DNSH).  On the other hand, the global scientific consensus concludes that the maintenance and expansion of nuclear energy is necessary to achieve sustainability goals, such as mitigating the effects of climate change.

General arguments in favour of nuclear power:

Nuclear power provides low-carbon, solid and affordable basic electricity that can withstand a decarbonised electricity mix in parallel with an expansion of renewable energies such as solar and wind in the European Union  Nuclear energy also has one of the lowest contributions to carbon generation throughout its life cycle - even less than solar and wind power per kWh (see IPCC report, "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change"). Excluding nuclear from access to sustainable financing risks undermining climate change mitigation scenarios and roadmaps identified as achievable and necessary by some of most credible institutions and organizations and authorised countries, including the IPCC (2018), the IEA (2019) and the European Commission (2018). All conclude that nuclear energy should continue to play a role ...

The exclusion of nuclear energy from taxonomy risks making it even more difficult to mitigate climate change by reducing funding opportunities for nuclear projects and unnecessarily increasing the cost of capital nuclear energy projects.

In May 2019, the International Energy Agency highlighted the important role that both existing and new nuclear power play in the future transition to clean energy. In the UK, National Grid published its future energy scenarios in July 2019, including a "zero path" with a nuclear capacity of 18.6 GW by 2050. The opinion of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to the UK Government - which led to the adoption of the "UK zero target" for 2050 - played a crucial role in identifying the need for additional energy production of 30GW-60GW by the end of the year. 2050 in the CCC's  zero path scenario.

Although the taxonomy report takes into account the contribution of nuclear energy to the fight against climate change, nuclear is not included in the current list of sustainable activities and no framework for assessing inclusion nuclear power was not provided. The inclusion of nuclear energy as a source of sustainable low-carbon and sustainable production in August 2019 should be reviewed at the next phase of the EU taxonomy review with the participation of life cycle experts nuclear power.

The consideration of all forms of low-carbon electricity generation should be the same (technological neutrality). The TEG technical report does not take into account the relative qualities of the different low-carbon electricity generation options.

In particular, the treatment of nuclear production in the TEG technical report differs from that of other technologies in terms of waste disposal and management. All forms of low-carbon electricity generation generate waste and involve an element that cannot be considered 'ecologically sustainable'. The full life cycle of electricity generation must be taken into account and compared fairly for all technologies. According to OECD statistics, nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity. By comparison, polluting activities - such as steel and concrete manufacturing - are included in the taxonomy project, provided they operate at "unprecedented" levels. These activities were included in recognition of their crucial importance in achieving net zero and the desire to improve their environmental performance while at the same time respecting the most rigorous regulations.

The regulatory and governance requirements for the nuclear sector are subject to extremely stringent global standards for all aspects of the nuclear lifecycle, including waste management, safety. All commercial nuclear activities in the EU (including spent fuel management and final disposal) are already governed by DNSH (Do Not Significant Harm) standards in accordance with EU and Member State laws, regulations and procedures.

Need of a credible process/classification system:

"All forms of low-carbon production will be necessary for the clean energy transition and should therefore be subject to equal treatment under the 'no significant damage' (DNSH) procedure, and should therefore be treated included in taxonomy. It should be noted, for example, that photovoltaic solar panels and wind energy are not required to carry out an assessment of emissions over their life cycle, despite the lower emission threshold proposed by the European Union. It should also be noted that there is no waste metric in the "circular economy" criterion to which solar photovoltaic must comply, whereas there is a metric for wind energy. 

On the other hand, nuclear power is supposed to be excluded on the basis of waste, despite the fact that nuclear and radiological safety, through all elements of the uranium fuel cycle (including waste and decommissioning), is one of the most more regulated in the EU. EU waste management regulations set out clear requirements, which could be described as benchmarks or as the best appropriate standard (as has been done for other activities, such as aluminium and cement).

In the context of the search for "net zero", the exclusion of nuclear activities from taxonomy as a recognized and commercially viable form of low carbon production, undermines the credibility of taxonomy.

Other parts of the EU's financial mechanism recognise the need for nuclear power to achieve net zero: at the end of July, the EIB published a draft energy loan policy outlining how the EIB can help the EU cope with change climate change and the rapid abolition of fossil fuel loans. In this context, the EIB stated that: "Zero net emissions will involve a diversified portfolio of technologies, including renewable energy, but also nuclear, carbon capture and storage, the conversion of excess energy into a other energy vector, as well as bioenergy, storage and digital technologies. In this document, the EIB further states that in addition to nuclear power generation, the full nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning and waste management are eligible as projects that meet the bank's criteria.

In addition, the European Commission is obliged to facilitate investments in the development of nuclear energy in accordance with Article 2 of the Euratom Treaty. It is essential that all regions of the EU are aligned on the safest path to net zero. This will further damage the credibility of taxonomy in the financial community if some organizations recognize the ecological nature of nuclear power, and others do not!

By creating a different set of requirements for one activity (nuclear) compared to the others, the TEG compromises its own integrity and credibility as a group of technical experts. By requiring long-term empirical evidence for nuclear waste depots, although no other evidence is required from any other sector or industry, TEG risks undermining the so-called technological neutrality of taxonomy. Significant inconsistencies in the application of the EU's principle of equal treatment in relation to the significant non-injury criterion (DNSH) in August 2019 may undermine the confidence of financiers that the definition of sustainable activity has been made rigorously, robustly and objectively.

This unequal treatment and the current exclusion of nuclear power (despite its critical role in achieving net zero emissions) could damage the reputation and credibility of taxonomy and TEG, which could limit the adoption of taxonomy and the EU's green obligation by the wider financial community.

The EU's Sustainable Financing Initiative is an important development that could significantly increase the amount of financial capital spent on sustainable activities. However, for this benefit to materialize, it is important that the financial community largely adopts the EU taxonomy and the European standard on green bonds, which requires financiers to be assured that the definition of an activity sustainable development is developed rigorously and objectively.

In the context of low-carbon electricity generation, this requires a technologically neutral approach and consistent application of DNSH criteria across low-carbon technologies. However, there are clear inconsistencies in the application of the EU's principle of equal treatment in relation to the DNSH criteria. This unequal treatment of all economic activities and the current exclusion of nuclear power (despite its critical role in achieving zero net emissions) damage the reputation and credibility of taxonomy and TEG, which may limit the adoption of Taxonomy as the European standard on the green bonds of the financial community.

Taxonomy defines sustainable criteria for multiple activities in different sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, transport) based on the carbon intensity of electricity consumed in the course of their activities. This approach is inconsistent with the approach applied to the definition of sustainable activities in the electricity generation sector, where nuclear power is excluded although it is definitively (and recognized by the taxonomy project) at low Carbon.

Potential impact on hydrogen-based and electrointensive technologies.

The TEG report states (pages 50, 186 and 205 to 208) that future decarbonization projects involving (i) the use of hydrogen or (ii) the manufacture of hydrogen, will only be considered "sustainable" in relation to taxonomy if hydrogen is produced at from electricity from renewable sources.  As a result, some industries (such as aluminum, iron and steel manufacturing in countries such as France) may not be able to finance some of their decarbonisation efforts by referring to taxonomy given their heavy dependence on nuclear energy! !

In addition, the exclusion of nuclear from taxonomy risks undermining confidence that electrification in all sectors will be considered sustainable in the future …

The crucial role that electrification plays in achieving net zero means that it is vitally important that all low-carbon production is considered sustainable, and that nuclear power contributes significantly to production. low-carbon electricity today and in the future.

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls (4)

Ursula von der Leyen's mission letter to European Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson

« Your mission: I would like to entrust you with the role of Energy Commissioner. It is of paramount importance that Europeans have access to affordable, safe, reliable and clean energy.   Regional interconnectivity, a more efficient market for energy, research and innovation are essential to achieving these goals. To become the world's first climate-neutral continent, Europe needs to reduce its emissions faster and faster and by at least 50% by 2030. Given that energy production and use account for 75% of EU emissions, energy will have a central role to play in the Eu Green Agreement.

Safe, secure and sustainable energy: Building on the success of the Energy Union (???), you will focus on developing a properly functioning, integrated, interconnected and functioning European energy market. This will help keep prices low for consumers (???), increase the use of clean energy and make energy supply more reliable and secure. I want you to focus on the rapid implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. With this in mind, you should work closely with Member States to define their national energy and climate plans. Given the increased ambition of the European Green Agreement, you should assess the need to review the legislation.

You will make sure that Europe follows the principle of energy efficiency first. In this context, you should consider how Europe can further improve the energy performance of buildings and speed up renovation rates.

To accelerate the deployment of clean energy throughout the economy, you should promote an energy system largely based on renewable energy, with increased interconnectivity and improved energy storage. You should consider how to facilitate the intelligent integration of the electricity, heating, transport and industry sectors.

You will need to help establish the right signals and financial incentives to increase investment in clean energy, including through the new Investment Plan for Sustainable Europe. We also need to invest in the missing infrastructure of our energy system. This should help Europe achieve its goal of electrical interconnection and develop cross-border cooperation on renewable energy facilities and networks. You must support all regional cooperation efforts to improve integrated markets. »

Comment: Here’s again the dream of the European copper plate. Except that on several occasions, including in January 2018, a minor problem in Kosovo almost led to a general European blackout, the frequency of the French and European electricity system having dropped well below 50 Hz. Except that to protect themselves from the gigantic and uncontrollable variations of German wind power, Czechs and Polish are forced to set up transformers isolating their network. Our dear German friends should stop saying and doing anything with their Energiewende.

« Gas will have a role to play in the transition to a carbon-neutral economy, including carbon capture and storage. You will assess how sources of supply can be diversified at competitive prices, particularly by taking full advantage of the potential of affordable liquefied natural gas.»

Comment: 1) it is German policy (and more over politics) that aims to significantly increase the share of gas, not European policy, not French policy! By replacing their nuclear power with gas, the German are increasing carbon emissions, are replacing (slower!) their coal with gas, they will always have about ten times higher carbon emissions than France by electric KWh and give up ahead of hand to all their climate commitments. It's a crime!

2) Gas leads to an increased and dangerous dependence of the European Community on Russia and Ukraine in particular

3) This is in complete contradiction with the previous Commission and Commissioner Miguel Arias Caete who said : "In 2050 we will have completely decarbonised the European Union. The role of gas will not be the same."  and had even delivered a clear message to the gas industry: "We will soon not know what to do with your infrastructures"

« You will need to contribute to the design of the new carbon tax at the border, as well as to the revision of the Energy Tax Directive to ensure that it is in line with our neutral climate commitments. The EU is the world's largest energy importer, but about 85% of our imports are currently paid in dollars. As part of the wider efforts to increase the international role of the euro, I want you to look at ways to significantly increase the use of the euro in energy markets. »

Comment: complete failure so far and no hope of improving the situation. Even in the case of the purely American and illegal embargo against Iran, Europe was unable (and moreover did not want, in order not to penalize German car exports to the USA) to set up a system of exchange not going through the dollar.

"You will focus on improving nuclear safety and safeguards across Europe and continue the ongoing nuclear decommissioning.  We should make full use of treaty clauses that allow energy proposals to be adopted by codecision and qualified majority voting»

Comment: About nuclear energy, German position is absurd technically, economically, ecologically.

And reminder: the choice of the energy mix depends on the States, not the Commission! Paws down, Ursula! Verstand!)

"Empowering people and regions : People and regions will contribute to the transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy system. At the same time, we must support those most affected and exposed by the transformations, making sure that we leave no one behind.   I want you to focus on putting consumers at the heart of our energy system, including the full implementation of the revised design of the electricity market. »

Comment: so we continue full speed on the liberalisation of the electricity market, though experiences in California and England have shown it is catastrophic, and that is responsible in Europe for the soaring prices of electricity. Because these pseudo liberalisation do not make appear new electricity producers appear (too expensive, too risky), but fatten middlemen and profiteers, those in France who gobble on the ARENH (nuclear electricity that EDF is forced by European guidelines to sell them below the market price)

« You will need to seek to empower citizens and cooperatives to play an increased role in the use of renewable energy through self-consumption. »

Comment: This is the most effective way to de-optimize a system, and destroy equalization and equal tariffs, and throw away public service obligations

« You must contribute to the design and implementation of the new Fair Transition Fund, including ensuring that it provides targeted support to industrial regions, energy-intensive coal and energy isolates.  More than 50 million European households cannot afford to heat their homes properly. You should use the Energy Poverty Observatory to help Member States identify the areas that need support the most. As a general rule, you will work under the direction of the Executive Vice-President for the European Green Agreement. The Energy Directorate will support you in your work. »

Comment: How weird, how strange, the more ENR you inject into the power production, the higher the price. (actually no, it’s not strange, it is perfectly logic

4 cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/07/le-grand-malefice-pourquoi-plus-il-y-de.html)

The only abundant energy, economical, controllable, decarbonized, non-polluting, apart from hydraulics whose resources are limited, is the nuclear energy that you, German, want to decrease, or even banish!

« The way forward. The mission described above is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. There will undoubtedly be other opportunities and challenges over the next five years. On all of these issues, I would ask you to work closely with me and other members of the College. Once there is more clarity, we should be prepared to pave the way for an ambitious and strategic partnership with the United Kingdom. I look forward to working closely together on what is an exciting and testing period for our Commission. You can of course count on my full personal and political support before your hearing in the European Parliament and throughout our mandate.  Ursula von der Leyen"

Kadri Simson :

Kadri Simson, born on 22 January 1977 in Tartu, is an Estonian politician and member of the Centre Party (EK). She is Minister of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure from November 23, 2016 to April 29, 2019. It should be noted that during the Estonian Presidency of the Union (December 2017), it supported very favourable positrons for Germany, proposing to keep until 2035 the possibility of using coal-fired power plants for capacity mechanisms (production of last resort)

General comment: 

Germany is experiencing a complete failure with its Energiewende,- despite its 29,000 wind turbines, despite total support for renewable energy in Germany which reached 680 billion euros, Germany has not decreased by one iota its carbon emissions. It is a triple climatic, ecological (coal until 2035) and bloody economic failure. By leaving nuclear power (in 2020, what's more, before the coal shutdown!), the Germans are giving up on fulfilling their climate commitments!

Aware of this failure of the Energiewende, our dear German ex-friends are determined to protect their interests by tackling in every way possible the competitive advantages of those who do not want to make their mistakes, and in particular France with its nuclear power.  

To be clear, ganz klar, the Mission Letter from the Energy Commissioner literally means this: Germany declares an economic war on France. We're going to have to take note of that. For my part, I believe that I will refrain as much as possible from all contacts with German organizations, any purchase of goods or services of German companies..

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls(3)

Wind power in serious crisis in Germany- failure and dull for Energiewende

A pillar of Germany's energy transition, wind power is plunging investment and facing growing hostility from local residents, prompting Angela Merkel's government to hold a crisis meeting on Thursday.  After years of increasing capacity, the sector now accounts for one-fifth of Germany's electricity production, but suffers a crisis open to social and political ramifications.

The number of new turbines installed in Germany since the beginning of the year is down 82% year-on-year, according to the German Industry Federation (EBW). In 2018, Germany implemented an additional production capacity of less than half that of 2017. Tenders for new production capacity are not finding a buyer, a trend deemed "worrying" by the federal network agency.

The reversal occurred in 2016, when the government, deeming the sector mature and subsidies too heavy for the taxpayer, changed its aid. The amendment to the German Energy Law (EEG) abolished guaranteed income, and encouraged competition through tenders. It must be said that, before the adoption of the Renewable Energy Act in 2000, wind turbine operators have benefited from support ensuring them twenty years of guaranteed income...

Comment: very curious these so-called super competitive energies that collapse as soon as they are no longer massively subsidized!

Among the big missing in the sector is Senvion, a 4,400-employee company based near Hamburg, which announced at the end of August that it was shutting down, hit hard by the collapse of the German market in 2016, which accounted for 60% of its income. There had already been the bankruptcy in 2014 of the wind turbine manufacturer Prokon, which was financed by "citizen participation". This company had the distinction of having been financed by 75,000 small private investors. It had enticed them with an investment presented as "ethical" and accompanied by high interest rates (from 6% to 8%). This bankruptcy filing resulted in very large losses for many small savers and prompted the German government to ask the financial market authorities (Bafin) for stricter control of this type of investment.

In the months that followed, 26,000 jobs were cut in this sector in Germany, more than in coal, according to figures recently published by the Bundestag at the request of the left-wing Die Linke party

Comment: 1) It is not only in France that the crooks of wind power are rampant. 2) These massive job creations that the proponents of wind power promise us, they fail to say how fragile they are and... essentially unsustainable because they are related to massive subventions . Nothing compared with jobs in nuclear power plant !

The wind crisis "calls into question the success of the energy transition in Germany (???)," Hermann Albers, president of the German Wind Energy Federation (BWE), said in an interview with AFP. Germany plans to close its last nuclear power plant in 2022… and get rid of the highly polluting coal only  by 2038 ! Renewable energy, led by wind and solar, must continue to increase their power to account for 65% of electricity production in 2030, up from 40% today..

Comment: 1) Oh, damned crook !! There is no success of the energy transition in Germany, there is a massive and catastrophic failure, a total ecological and economic failure. Despite its 29,000 wind turbines, despite total support for renewable energy in Germany which reached 680 billion euros, Germany has not reduced its carbon emissions by one iota (yes, intermittent wind ("fatal"), must be compensated to the MW by pilotable production (gas or worse coal). In the first case, we have dependence on Russia in addition, in the second, pollution. Germany does not reduce its CO2 emissions per capita, which are still one third higher than those of France, yet German pay 70% more for their electricity than in France..

2) Replacing nuclear power with wind power is increasing greenhouse gas emissions, not reducing them!! The decision to exit coal very, very late is in these conditions perhaps an economic necessity for Germany, but a double ecological crime, for the fight against climate change, and for pollution, of which incidentally a part is shortening the lives of the French. Thank you for the climate, thank you for the pollution.

So it is not wind power that should continue to be subsidized, but the whole Energiewende that is to be thrown away!

Other problems for wind power: obsolescence, unmanageable peaks of production, nuisances

Especially since wind power has other problems. First of all, Germany will have to (yes already!) dismantle more than 5,000 old wind turbines that are difficult to recycle - the life of a wind turbine is not that of a nuclear power plant! And it is likely that the peasants who welcomed them to their fields will remain with their 20-meter block of concrete buried in their land. Then, for a decentralized production like wind turbines, the costs in terms of connection are very important and several thousand wind turbines are not even connected!

And then, the fact that.., little or no , all wind turbines in Europe, in any case in Northern Europe, turn at the same time, with the arrival of transatlantic disturbances, producing then in abundance an electricity ... that no one needs and is worthless.

However, due to the inadequacy of the German very high voltage network (THT) to transport wind power from the north to the consumption centres of the south, this wind power from the north of the country must use the Polish networks and Czech Republic, thus exporting the intermittent energy overflow; in 2011, this situation almost led to the saturation of the Czech electricity grid, triggering a real tension between the two countries.  To avoid the risk of a "blackout", the Czech Republic has warned that it is considering being able to block any new influx of renewable electricity that could run the risk to cause a breakdown in its network; to do this, the Czech network operator has decided to build a giant transformer near the border, designed to let in only the amount of power that the national network can handle; This transformer is due to enter service by 2017; Poland intends to do the same and install transformers on the border with Germany; the German government has appointed an ambassador in charge of this one file.

And again, the nuisances; and therefore the proliferation of complaints that greatly lengthen the deadlines and increase the price of projects, complain the crooks of wind power. These complaints most often come from conservationists and birds, or from local residents who wish to establish a minimum distance from homes in order to avoid nuisance. "Protecting our landscapes, people and animals": the AfD has made the fight against wind power one of its main campaign themes in regional elections. (Remember that in the Netherlands, the tension is such that the authorities have classified environmental movements hostile to wind turbines as terrorists). More than 600 citizen initiatives have flourished against new wind turbine installations and in the East

What solutions ?

Well, for the German authorities, it seems that it is to give in to the demands of the wind crooks: “to reduce regulatory constraints, and in particular the distances imposed on wind turbines compared to homes; Restore the income guarantee for wind farms and facilitate the installations by relieving legal constraints. The authorities will have to work to strengthen the acceptance of wind turbines by citizens..”

..

Well, let's see! By sending them green brigades?

Germany is sinking into the irrational and this is very worrying!  Its absurd Energiewende is a climate crime, a crime against humanity, a specialty in which Germany once had some special skills. 

Here, by the way, to fix the ideas, with 680 billion euros thrown in the wind production, Germany could have built 68 nuclear power plants of Olkiluoto-3 type (EPR). Well, for fun, because in fact a dozen would have been enough to provide them with abundant, economical, non-polluting and decarbonized electricity. Ecological and economic. For 70 years!

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls(1)

DIW: almost all wrong!

The German economics institute DIW has released a study on nuclear power, the conclusion of which is that nuclear power is expensive and dangerous

This study  is full of various errors and manipulations.

 Historic nuclear competitiveness: "In recent years, new studies have confirmed that nuclear energy is not competitive."

Comment: false, false, and ultra false for historical nuclear. To stay in a Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute showed in 2018 that the energy generated by nuclear power plants was cheaper in Germany than that obtained from coal, lignite and gas and barely more expensive than from biomass..

A key parameter for calculating the cost of energy production is the lifespan of a given source. And of course, DIW has shortened the life of the nuclear reactors, saying that "nuclear power plants are designed to last 30 to 40 years.”

The initial uncertainty about the lifespan of nuclear power plants was due to a precaution resulting from a lack of knowledge about the effects of long-term irradiation. Today, it is clear that these initial fears were premature and the consensus is rather over 60 or even 80 years; especially since nuclear power plants are constantly maintained and large refit-type renovations like French grand carénage allow for a safe extension of life.

By comparison, the lifespan of wind farms is only 20 to 30 years, and much less for marine wind farms. According to an OECD report, the median cost of electricity generated during the life of an electricity producer is $53/MWh for a nuclear power plant and $175/MWh for an offshore wind farm. !

And if nuclear was not so interesting, why then do the so-called alternative suppliers of french EDF rush to ARENH (regulated access to historic nuclear) and demand more and more?

 (cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/06/pourquoi-les-tarifs-edf-augmentent_26.html)

Competitiveness of the new nuclear :  "Additional investments in nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident will be made in a new economic environment that could affect their level of profitability."

Comment: Oh yes, really? In Germany, the government takes more than 20 billion euros from the pockets of citizens each year to allocate to the renewable energy sector. According to Peter Altmeier, German Economy Minister, total support for energy Germany reaches 680 billion euros. This amount enough to build 61 nuclear power plants of Olkiluoto-3  type(EPR), despite all the slippages and difficulties of this second prototype of the EPR

Dear German friends, you better think! (sur l’intérêt de l’EPR, cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/01/un-nucleaire-nouveau-est-necessaire.html)

In addition, the experts in the DIW report made a series of biased errors, notably neglecting the quality of the energy (fatal or controllable, it's not the same!), failed to translate the installed capacity into the amount of energy actually generated and ignored external costs, such as not at all negligible costs of network extension and management, which are high when operating dispersed and intermittent sources !!

Decarbonised energy or not? "There is still no reason for the private economy to invest in commercial nuclear energy today"

Comment: yes, especially if you  do not want to fight global warming and do not put in place a carbon tax essential and adapted for this purpose!

The imposition of meaningful taxes on CO2 emissions makes nuclear competitive with coal-fired production in all fuel price scenarios and with CCGT technology (combined cycle power plant, the top of the gas) when gas prices are at moderate or high levels. At a price of $25 per tonne of CO2, in a moderate coal price scenario, nuclear would be competitive with coal. With a higher royalty of $50 per tonne of CO2, nuclear costs less than gas in moderate and high gas price scenarios.

However, the carbon credits generated by the Kyoto Protocol are no longer available and manufacturers have now exhausted their total quota. According to a carbon tracker study, the price of carbon could reach between 35 and 40 euros per ton over the next five years and this is far from enough if we are to meet our climate targets.

The Quinet report of France Strategy (Feb 2019) estimated the necessary value of CO2 at 250 euros/tonne of CO2 in 2030. Realistic, the authors do not ask for a carbon tax of 250 euros by this time, but their study means this: "Any action to reduce emissions that cost less than 250 euros/tonne of CO2 makes sense for the community and must therefore be undertaken »

So priviledge nuclear power over gas, and of course, coal. Which is the exact opposite of what Germany is doing with its Energiewende !

And the DIW study has a meaning that we would do well to understand: Germany will fight like a bulldog to avoid the increase in the CO2 tax and to deter nuclear financing, which it has beautifully succeeded in bringing out the taxonomy of green funding proposed by the EU.

We are warned: Germany is determined to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

Acceptance of nuclear power: "The main determinants of the future operation of existing nuclear power plants and investments in new nuclear power plants remain economic considerations, safety considerations energy, environmental considerations and public acceptance"

Comment: Having grossly falsified the figures on economic considerations, not being able to say anything about energy security (if it is security of supply, the US and Russia are fighting fiercely about who Europe will be vassal for gas, about  safety at all, . WHO estimates, globally, that nuclear has spared 3.8 million premature deaths from carbon pollution

And there, surprise: "researchers are surprised that the public's acceptance of atomic energy has not been more shaken by the Fukushima accident." It was expected that countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Japan would be significantly affected in their support for nuclear energy. In practice, these forecasts have been proven for Germany alone, with the German Parliament declaring its intention to close nuclear power plants by 2022. Meanwhile, Japan is gradually restarting nuclear power plants that closed after 2011, while Switzerland allows its existing reactors to remain in operation. Not to mention nuclear investments in China, Russia, India or Saudi Arabia ...

Climate: and now the big big lie! : "Nuclear energy is not an option for a climate-friendly energy mix."

Comment: Well, precisey !, nuclear energy is much better than wind or solar that’s has to be necessarily backed by an equivalent power either gas or, much worse, coal, or, much worse than worse, lignite, as our dear friends have done in Germany ; this is what emerges from the IPCC's latest climate report of October 2018, for which keeping global warming below 1.5°C requires a sharp increase in nuclear energy production.

 (cf.; https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2018/10/le-nucleaire-seul-espoir-pour-sauver-le.html)

In summary: dishonest selectivity of sources, omission of any study contrary to the position of the German government (and even the IPCC documents), erroneous conclusions of the analyses cited, cost-effectiveness analysis of nuclear completely and deliberately falsified,  the DIW report is clearly biased, written to support the German government's thesis that it is necessary to move away quickly from nuclear energy. 

The fact that such an unreliable study, a shameless propaganda tool, is taken up without criticism by some media is just another example of Fake Science and manipulation in the energy sector.

Germany is determined to do everything it can to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

And after all, crime against humanity is a local specialty !

 On this subject, see also

https://www.energetyka24.com/germany-misinforms-about-the-nuclear-energy-diws-report-under-criticism-analysis