EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

Germany, France, and EU Politics

• Many comments argue Germany is unlikely to “come back” to nuclear: public opinion is strongly anti‑nuclear, expertise has dissipated, and reopening closed plants is seen as technically and economically unrealistic.
• Dispute over Energiewende outcomes: one side says coal is being displaced mostly by wind/solar; the other points to rising gas build‑out, high retail prices, stalled electrification of heating/transport, and new fossil subsidies as evidence of policy failure.
• France is portrayed as both a nuclear success (low‑carbon electricity) and a cautionary tale (Flamanville EPR delays/costs, aging fleet, high state exposure). EU market rules and past exclusion of nuclear from “clean” categories are said to have hurt EDF.
• Austria’s failed lawsuit over the EU taxonomy is seen as pivotal: nuclear (and gas) can now qualify as “sustainable” for investment purposes, redirecting EU‑wide capital, though some see this primarily as a French rescue and a “money grab”.

Nuclear vs Renewables and Grid Design

• One camp advocates “all of the above”: nuclear for firm capacity, renewables for cheap energy, plus storage and better interconnectors.
• Others argue base load is an outdated concept: modern grids should be flexible, with high shares of wind/solar plus batteries, hydrogen or other long‑duration storage, and responsive demand (e.g. EVs, data centers).
• Supporters of nuclear stress land and material intensity of intermittent renewables, seasonal “Dunkelflaute” problems at high latitudes, and the need for abundant low‑carbon power for AI and industry.
• Critics counter that new nuclear is too slow and expensive compared to solar+storage and wind, that SMRs remain unproven commercially, and that real‑world build experience (Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville, Hinkley) shows systemic cost blowouts.

Safety, Waste, and Risk

• Pro‑nuclear commenters emphasize that even including Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths per TWh are far lower than coal, oil, gas, and often comparable to wind/solar.
• Skeptics focus on tail risk, long‑lived waste, and political‑institutional failure: once waste and decommissioning are properly priced, they argue, nuclear is not competitive and imposes multi‑century stewardship obligations.
• There is disagreement over how “solved” deep geological disposal is: technically feasible vs. politically blocked and ethically unresolved.

Regulation, Economics, and Proliferation

• Some blame high nuclear costs on over‑cautious, ever‑shifting regulation (e.g. ALARA, mid‑construction design changes); others attribute overruns mainly to poor project management and loss of industrial capability, noting China/Korea build similar designs more cheaply.
• Debate over subsidies is symmetric: every technology is accused of being heavily subsidized; coal’s health and climate externalities are highlighted as underpriced.
• Several threads discuss enrichment levels, NPT, and IAEA monitoring; civil nuclear is acknowledged to lower the barrier for weapons programs, even if power fuel itself is low‑enriched.