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

111–120 of 451 posts

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

#111

Post by bpodgursky »

freemint wrote: post #88
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…

> when building, maintenance and decomissioning

OK, but the same applies to wind turbines. I don't see a lot of Teslas hauling wind turbines down I-80. Let's not set up double standards just for nuclear.

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

#112

Post by fy20 »

alkonaut wrote: post #47
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The grants I have see now e.g Finland seem to be a straight grant of €4000 which gets you almost all the way to a decent heat pump. These are cash grants not deductions (as they should be! They are covering a one-time cost!) This is for single family detached homes (which are almost invariably owned)

Retrofitting is going to be much more than the cost of the unit itself though. You can't just replace an on-demand gas boiler with a heat pump. The rest of the heating system is completely different between the two, it just wouldn't work. It's especially problematic in apartments where there is limited space.

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

#113

Post by AQuantized »

bpodgursky wrote: post #111
freemint wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> when building, maintenance and decomissioning OK, but the same applies to wind turbines. I don't see a lot of Teslas hauling wind turbines down I-80. Let's not set up double standards just for nuclear.

There's already large contemporary investment in wind and solar relative to the past, not quite the same for nuclear. A lot of processes are inherited from very old projects back in its heyday.

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

#114

Post by fy20 »

scrollaway wrote: post #39
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

This is misinformation in both paragraphs. The “bad grade” takes a lot into account and between all the exceptions it is primarily aimed at new constructions. As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re smoking. We’re Europe’s largest exporter of electricity, thanks to our nuclear power.

If they want to go green, why are they even allowing new homes to be heated by burning fossil fuels? Especially France where you have electricity with such a low CO2/kWh.

In Lithuania you can no longer build new homes heated by gas. All new homes have to be classed as a zero energy building, heated by renewal sources, which natural gas from Russia is not. If it works there, it can work everywhere else in Europe too.

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

#115

Post by throwawaylinux »

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.

The "green" movement to squash nuclear going back to the 60s was the best investment the fossil fuel industry has ever made.

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

#116

Post by tshaddox »

mulmen wrote: post #62
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.

> it's eligible to receive funding/tax status [...] That's literally the entire problem.

Why is it a problem to give funding or tax advantages to projects that actively reduce emissions?

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

#117

Post by jeeeb »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #100
jeeeb wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intuitively 270g per kWh seemed high to me, but to put it in perspective a Tesla model 3 does about 100km per 11.9~14.9kWh (according to Google). So taking the larger estimate (and ignoring transmission etc losses) at 270g/KWh that gives emissions of around 41g/km. Comparatively though my 2021 Camry hybrid has emissions of 96g/km. So, assuming the plants are primarily being used to level out variable renewable produc…

I do wonder, how significant are inefficiencies in transmission, charging, and storage? With cheap lithium batteries I've bought (like phone power banks), I usually need to subtract about 25% from the rated capacity to figure out how many times it'll fill my phone's battery. Although hopefully cars are more efficient

Your right! I was just looking at it from the point of view of how efficient does this standard require power plants to be, since 270g of CO2 to run a 1kw heater for an hour seemed high.

If you look at the whole energy supply chain though the picture is probably a lot worse for both, in particular when you account for things like methane leaks or the emissions from transporting + refining oil.

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

#118

Post by zarzavat »

tcfhgj wrote: post #82
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....

Do you think that future generations will be more concerned about some nuclear waste buried deep underground, or extreme weather conditions?

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

#119

Post by AndriyKunitsyn »

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?)

By bribing emission watchers, the same way they bribed politicians that make these ridiculous regulations.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN