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

261–270 of 451 posts

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

#261

Post by ben_w »

varajelle wrote: post #204
kennywinker wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> until we’ve averted the upcoming climate disaster Realistically, not going to happen. We might be able to mitigate it, but not avert it. The best strategy is to plan it live with it rather than trying to avert it.

I think that depends on what you count as “disaster”. Some stuff is certainly baked in, but we might yet be able to stop short of what I think of as a disaster.

I’m not certain we will — problem and solution are both exponential — but I certainly think it’s plausible.

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

#262

Post by timeon »

xdennis wrote: post #199
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…

However Germani is producing > But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected.

The members of European Commission are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. Do you elect directly minister or most of the posts in government?

Commission and Council are appointed by national governments while only European Parliament is directly elected by citizens. Reason for this is that no national government want to lose the power.

[1]: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

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

#263

Post by lucb1e »

pydry wrote: post #251
lucb1e wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every euro spen[t] on a "transitional" does not go towards the truly sustainable technologies. We won't have many euros left if we need to fight climate change effects while we wait for new technologies. We need to use the technology we already have. In addition to that, in parallel, we also need to find enough land owners that are willing to have a wind turbine in their proverbial back yard. And in parallel instal…

>Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires gargantuan subsidies to even exist. For instance, the nuclear industry in the US has barraged us with propaganda about how really incredibly safe it is and how overregulated they are but insurers will still refuse to insure a nuclear plant unless 99% of the liability…

> Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal

With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.

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

#264

Post by tada131 »

odiroot wrote: post #255
throwawaylinux wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that USSR (and then Russia) was sponsoring these movements.

USSR and Russia exported nuclear energy (in form of builded power plants, too). For green movements, your own coal lobbyists are suffice ;)

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

#265

Post by hansel_der »

gefhfffh wrote: post #244
acd wrote: post #207

Very good news! We need to build fast breeder reactors which burns up the nuclear waste that we have created through older reactors. Ie in normal nuclear reactirs only about 1% of nuclear fuel is converted into energy, the rest is waste. Breeder reactors can take the nuclear waste and convert it into useful energy. BioGas which is methane gas extracted from waste is also very green. Fast Breeder Reactor https://en.wi…

Those reactors are a castle in the air and your comment regarding bio gas misses the point. The idea is to label non renewable gas as green.

> The idea is to label non renewable gas as green.

yes, but the document mandates that the gas has to be from renewable sources by 2035

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

#266

Post by ben_w »

diordiderot wrote: post #201
heartbeats wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have specific environmental problems right now, that are quite serious and worth focusing on? You do this stuff because you want to accomplish something. If animals go extinct, that is obviously unfortunate, but it pales in comparison to the prospect that we do so. The EU isn't trying to accomplish some type of perfect environmental justice, they're trying to keep the world habitable.

That is counter productive to keeping the earth habitable. This "considered middle ground" ideology is more dangerous than denial. Like MLK said about "white moderates".

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The required reduction is 99.9% of greenhouse emissions for the next millennium. No institution has ever had that power, few have lasted that long, and even those few which have lasted that long underwent significant policy changes in that time. If we can’t make saving the planet cheap enough that even the greedy and selfish prefer to do that, then we can’t win at all.

But half-arsing it now gives us more tomorrows in which to create the better solution.

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

#267

Post by fivea »

lrem wrote: post #194
hammock wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

I saw no reference to origin or source or type of gas.

All I saw were references to low emissions.

It seems they decided to redefine "green" as "not coal".

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

#268

Post by drran »

warble wrote: post #156
GekkePrutser wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you include the deaths that nuclear waste will cause during the tens of thousands of years it remains radioactive it wouldn't be so positive. But of course we can't look into the future. But we do know safe storage for such durations is not yet figured out. It's externalising the problem to the future. Just like CO2, but on a much longer timeframe. Still not very ethical though IMO.

Nuclear is on par with solar as far as safety. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Very few people are bitten by sharks in comparison to car incidents, so it's safer to ride a shark than to ride a car. Right?

Risks and long term effects of nuclear is few order of magnitude larger than solar.

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

#269

Post by irthomasthomas »

hammock wrote: post #165
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.

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.

It is called green washing. Wrap yourself in a big green carbon neutral flag, and you may commit all the environmental atrocities you wish.

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

#270

Post by pydry »

lucb1e wrote: post #263
pydry wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires gargantuan subsidies to even exist. For instance, the nuclear industry in the US has barraged us with propaganda about how really incredibly safe it is and how overregulated they are but insurers will still refuse to insure a nuclear plant unless 99% of the liability…

> Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.

I bring it up because while it looms large in the minds of policymakers and is a large factor in their decision-making it almost never gets discussed in the media.

The question of who insures nuclear plants (always taxpayers) is likewise something else that is always curiously whitewashed out of American media.

Most of the advantages other than the nuclear arsenal one, on the other hand, are repeated frequently and are very well known.

Post reply on HN