BASE expert response: Nuclear energy is not “green”

The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) sees numerous reasons why nuclear energy should not be classified as sustainable. This is the result of a current expert response, which was presented to the public on 9 November 2021 at a hybrid event with around 80 participants in Brussels. BASE prepared its expert response in cooperation with the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Debate on Taxonomy:

Welcome by Gregor Schusterschitz, Ambassador to the Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU Source: BASE

A report by the EU's Joint Research Centre (JRC) published in March 2021 qualified nuclear energy as sustainable. The reason for this being that the EU Commission is currently working on the so-called taxonomy, which will classify a number of economic activities as sustainable, thus making them particularly interesting for financial investments. At present, the EU Commission’s decision regarding nuclear energy is based on the JRC report. This is currently being discussed intensively at European and international level. With the support of the BfS, BASE already conducted an in-depth examination of the JRC report in June 2021, evaluated it from a technical perspective and presented a 200-page report on it. In its expert response, BASE comes to the conclusion that the JRC report is incomplete, underestimates the risks of nuclear energy and radioactive waste and does not take into account the principles of scientific work at crucial points.

Presentation in Brussels

Jochen Ahlswede, Head of BASE Research/International Department next to Christoph Hamann, BASE Press Officer. Source: BASE

Jochen Ahlswede, Head of Research and International Affairs at BASE, now presented the results of the BASE expert response in Brussels. Together with Jochen Ahlswede, Dr Simone Lünenbürger and Dr Korbinian Reiter from Redeker Sellner Dahs Solicitors presented their legal opinion on the JRC assessment, which they had prepared on behalf of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology. After the presentation of the expert response and the legal opinion, the participants engaged in a discussion on the topic.

Viewpoints of the BASE expert response

In its expert response, BASE primarily highlights the following points regarding nuclear power and its assessment by the JRC report:

• When operating nuclear power plants, there is always a residual risk, which we have seen to cause catastrophic events several times in the past. To this day, we can see how the consequences of Fukushima or Chernobyl affected not only the population at the time but also the following generations. The JRC, on the other hand, merely argues that nuclear power plants are safe when in regular operation. The JRC's analysis thus falls short in this respect.
• Uranium mining is associated with considerable environmental risks. Since most uranium mines are located outside the EU, the risks cannot be countered by EU regulation. The JRC largely ignores this.

  Dr. Korbinian Reiter next to Dr. Simone Lünenbürger from Redeker Sellner Dahs Solicitors Source: BASE

• Nuclear energy produces waste that burdens present and virtually all future generations. There is no operating repository anywhere in the world. And even if there were, the question of the risks to future generations will always be one that, from today's perspective, can only be answered in a projection-based manner. Positing that the issues of final disposal and long-term safety for the next one million years have been technically solved is thus insufficient.
• Nuclear energy is a so-called dual-use technology, i.e. it can always be used for civil and military purposes. Example: Plutonium from nuclear power plants can, in principle, also be used for military purposes. These facts are largely ignored by the JRC.

BASE thus concludes: The JRC report only incompletely addresses the consequences and risks of nuclear energy use for humans and the environment as well as for future generations or omits them from its assessment. To the extent that it does address them, the principles of scientific work are, in part, not correctly taken into account. The JRC report thus provides an incomplete contribution that cannot be used to comprehensively assess the sustainability of nuclear energy use.