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

191–200 of 451 posts

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

#191

Post by consp »

matsemann wrote: post #184
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…

All very high numbers. The key to solving climate change isn't to do as before, just slightly more efficient. Electric cars won't solve anything, especially not if they are indirectly powered by fossil fuels. Make cities walkable, bikeable and public transportable. That will have far bigger impact than people buying new electric cars.

This is far more a us/Canada problem than a European one, and this is a European proposal.

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

#192

Post by kennywinker »

nine_k wrote: post #174
hammock wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did "green" get co-opted to mean low CO2 emissions? It wasn't that long ago we used to worry about whether fuel was renewable or not, and about particulate pollution, acid rain, habitat destruction and other environmental externalities in general, not just CO2. This global warming-driven definition of "green" ignores all of that.

Methane can be very much renewable. Its energy is "greener" than that of coal, or heavy oil: more energy is released per a CO₂ molecule produced. Also, unlike coal, it does not produce radioactive ashes. But it's not carbon-neutral, of course. I'd call this "olive" or "lime" energy: greenish but not wholly green.

This is as close to arguing about what colour to paint the deck chairs on the titanic as I can imagine.

A non-carbon neutral source of energy is not any shade of green, until we’ve averted the upcoming climate disaster. And then maybe we can debate about how to spend our limited carbon budget.

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

#193

Post by rsj_hn »

onethought wrote: post #190
arcticbull wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't that long ago we used to worry about whether fuel was renewable or not, and about pollution and other environmental externalities in general, not just CO2. These are the same thing in common parlance. High CO2 emission plants are fossil fuel driven, and those are of course non-renewable. Wind, solar and nuclear are renewable, sustainable and low CO2. Nuclear in particular also produces very little waste a…

Nuclear is not renewable… right? Ie there is a finite amount of nuclear material on earth and it’s not overly abundant either. Am I missing something?

Breeder reactors can create more fuel, but even without these, there is a substantial amount of uranium that this is a non-issue. By the same token, solar is also non-renewable since it requires real resources mined from the earth which are in finite supply and solar panels are not 100% recyclable (and especially not the batteries required to make solar reliable). In this sense, nothing is renewable -- even hydro will run out eventually when the earth cools and plate tectonics comes to an end.

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

#194

Post by lrem »

hammock wrote: post #170
arcticbull wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't that long ago we used to worry about whether fuel was renewable or not, and about pollution and other environmental externalities in general, not just CO2. These are the same thing in common parlance. High CO2 emission plants are fossil fuel driven, and those are of course non-renewable. Wind, solar and nuclear are renewable, sustainable and low CO2. Nuclear in particular also produces very little waste a…

I guess you missed the entire headline and article where it says they will call natural gas green.

Aren't they aiming to do that for plants that will be using synthetic methane as alternative to battery storage?

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

#195

Post by squarefoot »

It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians.

I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear plant, or where nuclear waste is stored.

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

#196

Post by fennecfoxen »

onethought wrote: post #190
arcticbull wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't that long ago we used to worry about whether fuel was renewable or not, and about pollution and other environmental externalities in general, not just CO2. These are the same thing in common parlance. High CO2 emission plants are fossil fuel driven, and those are of course non-renewable. Wind, solar and nuclear are renewable, sustainable and low CO2. Nuclear in particular also produces very little waste a…

Nuclear is not renewable… right? Ie there is a finite amount of nuclear material on earth and it’s not overly abundant either. Am I missing something?

There's 5.5 million tons of known uranium reserves. If you took our current reactor fleet and replaced it with fast breeders, this would supply it for 30,000 years. There's also 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Then there's thorium.

You're missing that.

Technically not renewable, but in the long run, neither is the Sun.

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

#197

Post by fennecfoxen »

squarefoot wrote: post #195

It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians. I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear…

I'd do it in principle, but the Nevada climate near Yucca Mountain's a bit dry for my liking.

Also, that whole state has a gambling problem and that kind of culture is much more of a turn-off than a little nuclear waste.

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

#198

Post by xigoi »

squarefoot wrote: post #195

It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians. I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear…

Living near a nuclear plant is safer than near a coal plant.

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

#199

Post by xdennis »

hadrien01 wrote: post #4

Nuclear I can understand. But gas?

It's because the EU is almost entirely controlled by France and Germany.

If this were up to the people of the EU (or their representatives in the EU parliament), it wouldn't stand a chance. They'd never declare gas green. But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. And who leads the commission: von der Leyen, a German.

It's like when they forced truckers to continuously return to their home countries. [1] Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. When eastern European truckers started dominating transport in western Europe, Macron forced the EU to change regulations and mandate that drivers must go home every 4 weeks, wasting fuel, and thus being less competitive.

[1]: https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international...

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

#200

Post by mulmen »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #189
mulmen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not ok to call gas “green”. Period. If gas is necessary then build it, but don’t claim it is green.

The point is that gas is not green, but it’s a whole lot green er than many alternatives. Replacing a large coal plant with gas is much better for our future than opening a same size solar plant (and not closing the coal plant). Of course greener still would have been to build a solar plant instead of the gas plant. But solar is intermittent and coal isn’t so that wouldn’t be sufficient. All of this is true so long a…

> I guess technically it could have been labelled ‘purple’ and a new rule made that all allowances made for ‘green’ also apply to ‘purple’ but honestly that sounds to me more likely to be abused in the future.

How would this be abused?

The problem is that the EU talks a big game but can’t actually deliver. Calling gas green is moving the goalposts.

If gas is necessary that’s fine, just don’t pretend we are on track to be carbon neutral (or negative) in time for it to matter.

These gas plants are taking funds that could be used on actual green energy. If people don’t peek behind the curtain the numbers will say “all our energy is green”. That makes the problem look smaller than it is.

Post reply on HN