The myth

Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and incompatible with a sustainable future. That, at least, is what organisations such as WISE Netherlands, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature have been claiming for decades. When the European Union considered including nuclear energy in its green taxonomy -- the classification system for sustainable investments -- these organisations mobilised a massive lobbying campaign to prevent it.

They lost. And not on political grounds, but on scientific ones.

The facts

The JRC report: science speaks

In 2021, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's own scientific knowledge centre, published a comprehensive technical assessment of nuclear energy. The JRC is not a lobby group. It is the institution that provides the Commission with independent scientific advice -- the same body that also assessed wind and solar energy.

The conclusion was clear:

"The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy." [1]

In other words: there is no scientific evidence that nuclear energy is more harmful to people or the environment than the technologies already classified as 'green' -- wind, solar, hydropower.

The JRC assessed nuclear energy against the "do no significant harm" principle (DNSH), the backbone of the EU taxonomy. Every technology classified as sustainable must demonstrate that it does no significant harm to six environmental objectives:

No. Environmental objective Nuclear energy compliant?
1 Climate mitigation Yes
2 Climate adaptation Yes
3 Sustainable use of water and marine resources Yes
4 Transition to a circular economy Yes
5 Pollution prevention and control Yes
6 Protection of ecosystems and biodiversity Yes

Nuclear energy meets all six. Exactly like wind and solar.

UNECE life-cycle assessment: the numbers don't lie

In 2022, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) published a comprehensive life-cycle assessment of electricity sources, conducted according to the international ISO 14040/14044 methodology. The results left little of the anti-nuclear narrative intact.

! [8] that nuclear energy is not only sustainable, but under the IPCC definition even qualifies as renewable. Uranium is continuously replenished in the oceans through tectonic activity and erosion -- precisely the criterion of "natural processes that are continuously replenished." And anyone who calls geothermal energy renewable must acknowledge that 40-50% of the Earth's heat comes from radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. The same physics, different label.

Martien Visser, Professor of Energy Transition at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, called the UNECE findings a "painful truth" for opponents of nuclear energy [5]. Painful, because it definitively demolishes the scientific foundation beneath their opposition.

!The European Parliament votes: science wins

Based on the JRC report, the European Parliament voted in 2022 in favour of including nuclear energy in the EU taxonomy [3]. The vote followed one of the most intense lobbying campaigns Brussels had seen in years. WISE, Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature and dozens of other organisations pulled out all the stops to influence the vote.

To no avail. The scientific evidence was too strong. The democratic process followed the science, not the lobbyists.

Jan Haverkamp's 26 criteria: activism disguised as science

WISE/Greenpeace expert Jan Haverkamp published a report with 26 sustainability criteria that nuclear energy allegedly fails to meet [4]. The same Haverkamp wrote for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung in 2023 -- the think tank affiliated with the German Greens -- the report "Diversion from Urgent Climate Action" [7], in which he labels the UNECE life-cycle assessment as "nuclear lobby." The lead author of that UNECE study, Thomas Gibon, has personally refuted this claim.

That the Haverkamp report is not science is evident from the comparison:

Characteristic JRC report Haverkamp report
Peer-reviewed Yes No
Institutional basis EU Joint Research Centre WISE/Greenpeace
Methodology Standardised (DNSH framework) Own criteria, not standardised
Consistent with IPCC Yes No
Consistent with UNECE Yes No
Consistent with IEA Yes No
Status Official EU advice Opinion piece by a single activist

Haverkamp uses self-invented criteria that none of the major international scientific bodies endorse. His report is not peer-reviewed. It is selective in its use of sources. And it stands diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the JRC, the UNECE, the IPCC and the International Energy Agency.

This is not scientific dissent, but an activist who invents his own assessment framework because the existing -- scientifically validated -- framework does not suit him.

The Netherlands already largely complies

The Netherlands already meets most of the conditions the EU taxonomy sets for nuclear energy as a sustainable investment:

  • Waste storage: COVRA (Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval) manages all Dutch radioactive waste safely and professionally
  • Geological disposal: Conceptual studies for deep geological final disposal exist
  • Financing: A savings fund has been established for future final disposal

The infrastructure and the policy framework are in place. The science is there. The EU classification is there. What remains is political will.

Conclusion

Whether nuclear energy is 'green' is no longer a matter of opinion. The facts have been established by the most authoritative scientific institutions in the world.

The JRC -- the EU's own knowledge centre -- concluded that nuclear energy is no more harmful than wind or solar. The UNECE demonstrated that nuclear energy has the lowest life-cycle emissions of all technologies studied. The IPCC classifies nuclear energy as essential for climate mitigation. The European Parliament followed the science and included nuclear energy in the green taxonomy.

Organisations such as WISE Netherlands, Greenpeace, Milieudefensie and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung continue to claim the opposite. They do so not on the basis of scientific evidence -- that evidence contradicts them -- but on the basis of ideology, cherry-picking and self-invented assessment frameworks. The same names circulate: Haverkamp writes for WISE, for Greenpeace and for the Böll Stiftung. This is not broadly supported scientific scepticism. It is a small group of activists citing each other's non-peer-reviewed work.

The EU has answered the question definitively. Nuclear energy is green. Those who deny it, deny the science.

Sources

  1. JRC (2021), Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the 'do no significant harm' criteria (link)
  2. UNECE (2022), Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources (link)
  3. European Commission (2022), EU Taxonomy: Complementary Climate Delegated Act (link)
  4. Haverkamp, J., Criteria voor een duurzaam energiesysteem en kernenergie, WISE/Greenpeace (link)
  5. Visser, M., column Energiepodium, Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen (link)
  6. IPCC (2014), AR5 Working Group III, Chapter 7: Energy Systems (link)
  7. Haverkamp, J. (2023), Diversion from Urgent Climate Action: How the European Nuclear Lobby Undermines the EU's Energy Future, Heinrich Böll Stiftung EU (link) -- not peer-reviewed
  8. Rhebergen, J.B. (2025), "Is Nuclear Energy Sustainable or Renewable? What Does the Science Say?" -- LinkedIn (link)