Thread by @maxcordiez

Dear @TimmermansEU.

What is the point of the JRC, the Commission's official scientific advice, if you say the opposite of the conclusions of their study?

Here is the link to the JRC study: ec.europa.eu/info/sites/def…

[1/10]

la-croix.com/Monde/Frans-Ti…

Furthermore, the price of #nuclear power is unrelated to its environmental footprint, which is the point of the taxonomy.

The question of the price should be in no way an argument for the inclusion or exclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy.

[2/10]

That being said, if you want to talk about energy costs, you can't just talk about LCOE. You also have to take into account system costs (networks and flexibility).

[3/10]

Taking into account system costs, nuclear power remains competitive with renewables (although the LCOE of some renewables is lower).

See for example this study commissioned by the Dutch government from ENCO.

[4/10]

rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijks…

See also this OECD/NEA study.

[5/10]

oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000/…

See also this recent study performed by @rte_france, the French power grid operator, in which RTE demonstrates that scenarios with nuclear power are cheaper than those without nuclear power, because of flexibility and grid costs.

[6/10]

rte-france.com/analyses-tenda…

To be credible, taxonomy should not be opinion-based but science-based. Of course every country has the right to develop nuclear power or not according to their wishes.

[7/10]

But the inclusion in/exclusion from the taxonomy should be driven only by facts and not by emotions.

Is radioactive waste managed to prevent any harm to people's health and environment or not?

[8/X]

Does nuclear power consume a large amount of materials and land per kWh or not? Does it contribute to soil and water acidification and eutrophication or not?

[9/10]

This and only this should drive inclusion or exclusion in the taxonomy, if it is to do what it was created to do: direct investment towards the least environmentally damaging energies and technologies.

[10/10]