OPINION | JEREMY GORDON
Jeremy Gordon is an independent communication consultant with 18 years of experience in the international energy industry. His company Fluent in Energy supports partners of all kinds to communicate matters of clean energy and sustainable development.
Not what it seems
Inclusion of nuclear power in the EU Taxonomy has been welcomed,
but it came with conditions, notably the need for ‘accident-tolerant fuel’. Jeremy Gordon examines what this means
THE UNIT: Illustration copyright Alexy Kovynev
A case in point is the successful inclusion of nuclear power in the European Union Taxonomy, which has been finalised with the publication of the final Delegated Act. This win was tempered by new conditions, including the use of accident tolerant fuel across the EU’s 103 reactors from 2025.
This will prove “very challenging” said Yves Desbazeille,
the director general of Foratom. “Accident-tolerant fuels are still in the testing phase and will thus not be commercially available (nor certified and approved) by 2025 making it impossible for projects to meet this criteria.” This late addition has a range of negative impacts. It
Recognising that you weren’t safe enough before is a condition for moving forward. We must always remember this. But never talk about it out loud
UCLEAR IS MAKING PROGRESS rapidly, both in new technology and broadening support, but it still feels like the industry takes one step back before it takes two steps forward. Sometimes the setbacks are self- inflicted wounds that expose the industry’s need for internal change.
12 | March 2022 |
www.neimagazine.com
means work on long-term operation started in the next few years might miss out on access to better financial terms. It will cost a lot of money in testing and regulation, which both have to begin immediately. And it will cost money in the future, given that every fuel reload of every reactor will cost more. Lastly, there is the risk that future taxonomies of other countries will follow suit, with impacts on other markets.
All this was completely unnecessary. Nuclear was
assessed based on regular fuel and found to be no more harmful than other things already accepted. So how did this happen? To be blunt the industry asked for it by creating a product with the name ‘accident tolerant fuel’. Despite the technology’s welcome innovation, the phrase
‘accident tolerant fuel’ has severe negative impacts. It conveys the idea that accidents are a daily risk; that the nuclear industry is ‘tolerant’ of accidents; and that normal fuels must be ‘accident intolerant’, which sounds even worse. By using that phrase the industry raised frightening
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
