Three reasons why including nuclear energy in the EU Taxonomy is against the circular economy transition

By Mariana López Dávila

As ECOS has long argued, nuclear energy significantly harms the transition to a circular economy. At the same time, we cannot decarbonise the economy using CO2, which means that fossil gas cannot be labelled as sustainable, either. We are not alone in this view. Former top EU officials, MEPs, environmental groups, expert groups, youth groups, investors and financial actors have all voiced their disapproval and urged the Commission to withdraw its proposal to include nuclear and fossil  gas in the EU Taxonomy. In fact, labelling these activities as sustainable investments is in breach of the Regulation’s own criteria.

Nuclear energy: why we say no

Like fossil gas, nuclear energy is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions throughout its lifecycle, making it also a polluting power source. In addition, nuclear energy fuels other fundamental environmental problems, which calls us to consider the bigger environmental picture.

The global environmental crisis is more than climate change. In addition to warming the planet too much and too fast, we are using the Earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished, dangerously polluting land, air, and water, and driving a 6th mass extinction. To get out of this unscathed, we need an interconnected response that considers the whole picture.

An approach that addresses one problem while exacerbating another is not a viable solution, especially now, when time is of the essence and resources are scarce. Tackling the global environmental crisis is an urgent challenge for the EU, and nuclear energy is no solution.

Do No Significant Harm – A fundamental principle nuclear does not meet 

The EU Taxonomy is a set of rules defining what classifies as sustainable, so that investors can decide where to put funds. The aim is to prevent greenwashing and help investors assess whether their activities are consistent with policy commitments such as the EU Green Deal.

According to the Taxonomy, for an activity to be considered a sustainable investment, it has to contribute to at least one of the EU’s environmental objectives without significantly harming any of the others. These objectives include climate change adaptation and mitigation, sustainable use and protection of water, the transition to a circular economy, and pollution prevention and restoration of biodiversity.

Do No Significant Harm is a widely recognised principle, which says it is our duty to prevent, control, or reduce the risk of environmental harm. To comply, the Taxonomy outlines criteria that must be met for each objective. Does nuclear energy meet the ‘do no significant harm’ requirements under the circular economy objective? Looking into the criteria, we found that nuclear energy, in fact, seriously undermines the circular economy objectives.

This is why:

1. Nuclear energy creates significant inefficiencies in the use of materials

The use of fuel in nuclear energy generation is wasteful and against the circular economy.

First of all, nuclear fuel is used for about four years before it is removed from the reactor and categorized as spent nuclear fuel (or waste). Once removed, spent nuclear fuel usually retains 90-96% of its potential to produce electricity. This means that only about 4-10% of the energy contained in Uranium fuel is used before it is considered waste. The advanced technology that the Taxonomy would consider eligible promises to increase fuel utilisation anywhere between 10% to 20%, which is still very low. Would you consider buying a bottle of milk, drinking one small glass, and throwing out the rest? This is what we do in the case of nuclear energy.

Another issue is the reusability of spent fuel. With current technologies, we reuse it only once. It is a safety precaution – every time uranium fuel passes through the reactors it creates by-products that are challenging to manage. The risk of proliferation is another reason spent fuel is not reused in many countries. In sum, the complexity and toxicity of the nuclear fuel cycle result in significant inefficiencies in the use of uranium fuel and severely limit its reuse. As a result, by causing significant inefficiencies in the use of materials, nuclear activities fail to meet the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ criterion of the EU Taxonomy.

     2. Nuclear energy increases the generation and disposal of radioactive waste.

This waste needs to be sealed and stored for thousands of years. Although next-generation reactors are designed to improve fuel efficiency and reduce waste production, as well as the storage time, they do not eliminate radioactive waste. In a circular economy, there is no place for toxic substances for a simple reason: non-contaminated materials are easier to reuse and remanufacture – the essence of circularity. Generating radioactive waste is thus unequivocally incompatible with the circular economy. By increasing the generation of hazardous waste, nuclear activities fail to fulfil the second criterion of the EU Taxonomy.

      3. The Taxonomy considers that an activity fails to comply with the objective of the circular economy if the long-term disposal of its waste may cause significant and long-term harm to the environment.

The existence of international bodies dedicated to regulating the production, handling, and disposing of radioactive nuclear waste is sufficient proof that there is a wide consensus that radioactive waste can cause significant harm. There is no need to debate. Nuclear activities fail to meet the third criterion of the EU Taxonomy as the long-term disposal of nuclear waste may cause significant harm to the environment.

We cannot be clearer: labelling nuclear energy as a sustainable investment is in breach of the Taxonomy Regulation.

It is time to acknowledge the environmental crisis goes beyond global warming. Nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change because it undermines the urgent transition to the circular economy, is impossibly expensive, and cannot be deployed in a timeframe relevant to fighting climate change, as opposed to renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power.

Now the ball is with the European Parliament and the EU member states. They must listen to the science-based criteria and object to the European Commission’s proposal. To achieve change, we must move beyond the carbon tunnel vision and say no to including nuclear energy in the EU Taxonomy.