Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 451 posts

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#51

Post by jevoten »

neximo64 wrote: post #33

There was an insecticide ban (Neonicotinoids) not so long ago, i.e a "complete ban", but then I saw that it didn't apply to greenhouses - where it had more than 80% of its use prior to the ban. After that alot of the directives that come from the commission, especially involving climate change, if you look at it properly is just greenwashing. France is maybe about the only country that is genuine about it. [1] https:…

> didn't apply to greenhouses

I guess the logic was that plants in greenhouses are pollinated manually, without any help from bees. /s

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#52

Post by kergonath »

freeflight wrote: post #27
alkonaut wrote: post #18

There needs to be clearer terminology and labels for “green”, “sustainable”, “renewable”, “climate neutral” energy. I’d also like to throw in “democratic” in the mix. Because energy and foreign policy can’t be separated. The EU energy mix is going to be geopolitically very important in coming years. We also need to make it very clear what the goals are for each kind and where the tradeoffs are. I think right now the…

> independent of eastern natural gas. It's interesting how trade relationships that are centuries old, are now seen in a negative context solely on a foreign policy basis that's often dictated from across the Atlantic. Particularly when they go completely contrary to the other stated goal; Climate change. Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time, as Siberia is the largest c…

> on a foreign policy basis that's often dictated from across the Atlantic.

So Russian sabre rattling is actually the US? There is a long and complicated history between Western Europe and Russia, but the time when one is selling gas to the other is just the final 20 years. It is not in the EU’s interest to depend on an unreliable partner that is trying to destabilise it. Even more so for something as vital as energy production.

> Particularly when they go completely contrary to the other stated goal; Climate change.

How is getting rid of gas contrary to the climate change related goals? These call for the end of all fossil fuel generated electricity.

> Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time

Some references would be useful here. I don’t really doubt it but as you wrote it, it sounds too much like hand waving.

> Another huge chunk is household use for heating and kitchen appliances

Electricity is perfectly fine for these uses. Transitioning is expensive but mitigation if we don’t will be even more.

> While trying to supply that demand with imported American NGL would be the complete opposite of "Think of the climate!".

It would also be contrary to the EU’s long term interest. We love the Americans, but we’ll be wary that another Trump could tear down treaties and agreements way too easily. Some companies are already importing shale gas from North America and nobody is pleased.

> That's why declaring Eastern Europe's resources just as "taboo" is not a solution that will get us anywhere useful.

It’s a good thing nobody is doing that, then.

> At some point we have to decide what's more important; Fighting climate change as a species or instrumentalizing it for these kinds of foreign policy games that usually leave everybody worse off, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

Cute. Now, in the real world, we’re not going to fight climate change with gas either. Also in the real world, the EU is not the US.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#53

Post by Gwypaas »

jevoten wrote: post #20
drran wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is clearly green. We should repaint radiation warnings in green, to indicate that. > Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this. Nord Stream 2.

How about instead of "radiation bad", we look at more objective metrics, like deaths/CO2 per kWh: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And instead of comparing nuclear to a magical zero-pollution/emission, flawlessly safe, always-available power source, we should compare it to what it actually gets replaced with.

Renewables are what you should compare nuclear with. And by your own stats they win even there.

Framing it as a contest versus fossil fuels is building a strawman nowadays.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#54

Post by kergonath »

tremon wrote: post #32
freeflight wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> independent of eastern natural gas. It's interesting how trade relationships that are centuries old, are now seen in a negative context solely on a foreign policy basis that's often dictated from across the Atlantic. Particularly when they go completely contrary to the other stated goal; Climate change. Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time, as Siberia is the largest c…

Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time, as Siberia is [..] But Siberia is not Eastern Europe, is it? It lies fully in the Asian part of Russia. Why are you labelling this an East/West thing?

> Why are you labelling this an East/West thing?

Propaganda.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#55

Post by kergonath »

black3r wrote: post #15
onphonenow wrote: post #11

Nuclear is clearly green. Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this.

The article states that a Gas power plant would only be labeled green if it emits less than 270g/kWh, replaces a previous fossil fuel plant, construction starts before 2030 AND plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035. I guess the goal is to phase out coal in Germany and Poland by any means necessary..

> plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035.

Which will of course not be enforced, besides the fact that biogas as a “green energy” has huge caveats.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#56

Post by kmac_ »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #14

Gas is included because the German """green""" party has heavily lobbied for it. The Belgians """greens""" announced that its okay for them to use gas, because overall, in Europe, other countries will offset it. Greenpeace lobbies for it because they, themselves, sell gas. Nuclear had to be defended tooth and nail for over a year, with active rejection from the Germans for its inclusion in that list. Green parties ac…

Exactly this. Including gas as green energy looks like a joke. Even 270g of CO2 per kWh is an awful number. No idea if that's lobbyists work but "if you have no idea what something is about, then it is about the money".

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#58

Post by shawnz »

dathinab wrote: post #46
horsawlarway wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labeling matters because it influences funds allocation. "green" in this sense just means it's eligible to receive funding/tax status that is otherwise not available. It's not a judgement on whether the technology is carbon neutral.

But that is what people will treat it as. If it's just about such aspect you could give it some arbitrary EU regulation number and say it's compatible with that. By basing it around the term "green" it's very much focused around marketing and what people will perceive as "carbon neutral".

Why would this impact the colloquial meaning of "green" in any way? Do people usually adapt their informal language to be consistent with EU regulations?

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#59

Post by kergonath »

Gwypaas wrote: post #53
jevoten wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about instead of "radiation bad", we look at more objective metrics, like deaths/CO2 per kWh: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And instead of comparing nuclear to a magical zero-pollution/emission, flawlessly safe, always-available power source, we should compare it to what it actually gets replaced with.

Renewables are what you should compare nuclear with. And by your own stats they win even there. Framing it as a contest versus fossil fuels is building a strawman nowadays.

Go on, then, compare away. Both in terms of deaths/kWh and CO2/kWh, nuclear is equivalent or better than most renewable you could name. There are arguments against nuclear, but these aren’t them.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#60

Post by HPsquared »

kmac_ wrote: post #56
ohgodplsno wrote: post #14

Gas is included because the German """green""" party has heavily lobbied for it. The Belgians """greens""" announced that its okay for them to use gas, because overall, in Europe, other countries will offset it. Greenpeace lobbies for it because they, themselves, sell gas. Nuclear had to be defended tooth and nail for over a year, with active rejection from the Germans for its inclusion in that list. Green parties ac…

Exactly this. Including gas as green energy looks like a joke. Even 270g of CO2 per kWh is an awful number. No idea if that's lobbyists work but "if you have no idea what something is about, then it is about the money".

Maybe they need a more graduated colour scale. Combined cycle natural gas could be "amber" or something like that
Post reply on HN