←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Luker88 ◴[] No.45230034[source]
I am not sure people understand the implications of this.

First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.

Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.

It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.

Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...

replies(5): >>45230176 #>>45231995 #>>45232405 #>>45232913 #>>45233455 #
1. tomatocracy ◴[] No.45231995[source]
The article doesn't really explain what the lawsuit was over. It's about rules for private sector investment fund reporting. What the court ruled on is whether nuclear (and gas) can be classified as "sustainable investments" under the "EU taxonomy" rules[0].

This may mean that more private investment capital will end up in nuclear power, although my guess is that the impact of the EU taxonomy in driving investment decisions on this type of thing is likely quite small (I suspect the few funds which are out there which have hard requirements around EU taxonomy likely wouldn't invest in nuclear anyway).

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_taxonomy_for_sustainable_ac...