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

81–90 of 451 posts

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

#81

Post by retinaros »

kergonath wrote: post #65
retinaros wrote: post #23

in france gov passed a law that will give a bad grade to gas heated houses (if the grade is bad you cant rent your house) and a good one to electricity. oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it. we are really in the middle of a green idiocracy

> oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it This is a gross over-simplification. Most European countries are both importers and exporters at any point in time, but France is a notable net exporter, and actually stabilises the German grid. The French government is inconsistent and unbelievably short-sighted, but not because it wants more electric heating. We need to get ri…

gas is owned by russia and now thanks to biden germany. of course the french government wants gas to go away and electricity to be seen as green as we dont have any... why do you think germany pushes for labelling gas as green . net exporter or no as long as france imports electricity we shouldnt be able to say it is green and push people to move away from gas. especially when we see our nuclear reactors aging and being phased out. it is not overly simplified its just simple.

now that russia push for gas all western media (beside germany that broke a deal with them) see it as evil. i remember not that long ago a nobel prize winning american president praising himself and being praised by journalists for pushing gas. I guess it,just proves energy,is political first

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

#82

Post by tcfhgj »

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.

how green is it creating a unsolved waste problem costing the future tons of money?

Yes, it's better than coal and perhaps even gas, but....

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

#83

Post by labster »

dathinab wrote: post #22
nathan_phoenix wrote: post #12

For anyone wondering why gas, it's gas only in specific cases. > Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh), replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant, receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030 and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.

It's still kinda rediculus IMHO. Nuclear power it's climate but but environment/human friendly. So I can understand that. But natural gas isn't green however I look at it. It's clearly better then cush l coal, but but green. So it shouldn't be allowed to be labeled as such. Instead we should add a label for better but but really good tech, like yellow or so.

Natural gas can be green and reduce global warming… in the specific case where you burn methane that would have otherwise escaped to the atmosphere. Garbage dumps are a very good case to burn natural gas, get energy, and slow help the climate. But these sources are limited.

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

#85

Post by tcfhgj »

kergonath wrote: post #65
retinaros wrote: post #23

in france gov passed a law that will give a bad grade to gas heated houses (if the grade is bad you cant rent your house) and a good one to electricity. oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it. we are really in the middle of a green idiocracy

> oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it This is a gross over-simplification. Most European countries are both importers and exporters at any point in time, but France is a notable net exporter, and actually stabilises the German grid. The French government is inconsistent and unbelievably short-sighted, but not because it wants more electric heating. We need to get ri…

> The French government is inconsistent and unbelievably short-sighted, but not because it wants more electric heating. We need to get rid of gas as soon as possible for any uses that does not absolutely require it. Electricity and heat pumps are safer and better for domestic uses.

you mean fossil gas

gas can be used very well for storage, i.e. compensating renewables by storing its energy for long periods of time

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

#86

Post by tcfhgj »

londons_explore wrote: post #2

The quoted level, 230g CO2/kWh is actually very good, and far better than most other gas turbines, even the latest combined cycle systems. I wonder how they achieve that? Perhaps burning biogas (where the carbon doesn't count?)

perhaps also mixing with green H2 (and if that's not enough you can add green methane from electricity as well)

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

#87

Post by CryptoPunk »

Gwypaas wrote: post #74
jevoten wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet fossil fuels are still funded, and even subsidized, instead of nuclear. By all means try and get 100% of power from wind and solar, but we're not there yet. And until we are, and they can provide the required baseload power, it's not a strawman at all.

Yes, fossil funding and subsidies should have been removed some 30 years ago. At least. Can't argue with that. Baseload as a term does not exist on the producer side. Simply by chance the cheapest sources of energy were the most inflexible ones. This is coal and nuclear, they therefore got coined as "baseload" power generation. Today they aren't cheapest anymore and unsurprisingly suffer. On the other hand, a base de…

Electricity transmission is costly, and that's assuming there's the infrastructure in place to do it, which, more often than not, is not the case. This idea that electricity exists as a fungible resource on a global market is totally false.

In practice, switching too quickly to reliance on renewables has resulted in poor people seeing their electricity bills skyrocket and greater demand on coal plants when renewables fall short and nuclear plants are no longer running to provide base power.

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

#88

Post by freemint »

AQuantized wrote: post #63

Nuclear investments desperately need to be recognized as green so you don't have oxymoronic policies similar to Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide.

Nuclear Energy becomes decidedly less green (but still greener than out of the ground Methane) when building, maintenance and decomissioning as well as fuel transports are included. [1] But once the fix costs are accounted for making it run longer seems smart.

There seems to be quiet bimodal distribution of CO2e estimates for carbon. Some are like 5 other >100 in the same unit.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Nucl...

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

#89

Post by kergonath »

retinaros wrote: post #75
kergonath wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square this: > France retains its position as the leading exporter in Europe with a total exporter of 43.2 TWh with this: > because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it ? If you are such a keen observer on the electricity market, then surely you know that France is always importing from somewhere, and as its biggest neighbours, it is logical to see Germany there? There w…

we do import electricty and 22% more in 2020 ,a trend that continued this year. and we import from germany that is burning coal. so I dont see what you missed here. our electricity is not green because we import german coal based electricity that is a fact. i know that france export some. but you know trade also means importing for different reasons like price for instance? and europe has to do with it because in fra…

> but you know trade also means importing for different reasons like price for instance?

Price has no first-order effect on electricity imports. We just import what we need, otherwise we have a black out. We cannot “not import” when production is below demand and we cannot “over import” when price is low because we don’t have any meaningful storage.

> and europe has to do with it because in france prices for electricity are not related to our infrastructure and us being fully nuclear but dictated by the european comission.

France has never been fully nuclear. Some EU rules are bonkers and obviously there because of the agenda of some vehemently anti-nuclear countries, sure. But a lot of the stupidity also comes from the French government (see ARENH). Still, as I mentioned, price is not directly related to imports. Higher prices actually result in some industry stopping some plants, and a reduction of both use and imports.

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

#90

Post by porkbrain »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #42
alkonaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your point is: once no fossil fuel is used to heat Europe (which has to be very soon), something else will. The replacement could be anything but it seems unlikely to be coming from Siberia. Europe need a to take some quick and uncomfortable decisions here. It can’t be acceptable to have homes heated with fossil fuel anywhere in the rich part of the EU at least, even just a decade from now. This was jus…

Theway government grants work in UK is, the richer you are, the more you get from the government. They freauently are offset against your taxable income, so they are most effective if you are in highest tax bracket. Conversely, poorest people rent the shittiest and least efficient homes, but they don't have the choice to replace the heating system - that's the landlorsa decision. But he doen't pay the utilities, the…

> But he doen't pay the utilities, the tenants do, so why would he care?

When you talk rent in London the first question asked tends to be "bills included?". This suggests to me that a non-trivial number of landlords would be interested in efficiency. Anecdotal, I don't have the data for the whole UK.

Post reply on HN