Some thoughts on these comments by Timmermans. Bluntly, I'm unimpressed. It's simply not enough for EU policy makers to acknowledge that nuclear is emissions free and that they won't stand in the way of countries wanting to develop it. We're way past this https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/brussels-wont-stand-in-the-way-of-new-nuclear-plants-says-eu-climate-chief/

What is needed is facilitation so that those countries which have chosen nuclear energy can get the most from it. This means including it in key EU climate/sustainability policy such as the finance taxonomy, just transition and hydrogen initiatives as well as removing barriers

Considering Timmermans's second disadvantage - that nuclear is expensive. This facilitation helps to tackle precisely that! Key to driving nuclear costs down is taking a programme approach, reducing financing costs and reducing policy/political risk.

This is pretty much true for all low C tech and this is what these policies are designed to do for renewables and other low C tech. Not including nuclear makes it more expensive and risky - ultimately this makes decarbonisation more risky and expensive

Moving onto his first objection. I'm going to ignore nuclear waste bc has been argued to death and it's ridiculous to think people are somehow unaware of it. But uranium imports? I mean come on dude! Uranium (and nuclear) comes with some well known energy security benefits

Do we care where materials and components come from for renewables? Do we care where masks come from during a pandemic? This is not a unique or significant disadvantage for nuclear. And any country really worried about it could pursue exploration and domestic U extraction

Final note - we need better European leadership on nuclear energy. That means including it in key policies and supporting it as part of the low carbon transition. This is what 'neutral' should mean! Individual member States can then choose for themselves whether they permit it