281–290 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?
Look at all fossil fuels - they’re cooking the planet to death.
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.
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
before shouting misinformation you might want to inform yourself first paragraph I never said having gas was exclusive of getting a bad grade. however gas is now considered a bad energy and will reduce your grade. and it is one of the key factors. when your investment is six digits or more and a stupid law destroy it you know it. and no it is not for new constructions. in paris a huge chunk of the old apartments have…
Rule #1: Investing does not guarantee you will get back more than you put in. Your capital is at risk.
Honestly, you’re complaining that you’ll lose a bit of money because you have to modernise “your investment” due to the fact that we’re in a GLOBAL FUCKING CLIMATE CRISIS. Think about how privileged and out of touch that is.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem is that converting energy into hydrogen is extremely inefficient.
I think the idea is to do it only run such plants when there is massive overproduction from solar/wind that makes the price of electricity zero or negative. Basically storing what can't be used at that moment. It does not matter if it is at 10 or 100% efficiency as if such storing methods did not exist the only other option would be to turn off those panels/wind turbines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make methane from carbon capture/sabatier reactors. Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with fuel cells. In any case, I'm onboard with replacing coal with gas, if nuclear isn't an option. Gas is cheap and fast to build today, and can be supplanted by nuclear/renewable later on. A pragmatic middle ground to (hopefully temporarily) accommodate the nucl…
> Although I'm not sure if that's any more efficient than desalination/hydrolysis for an H2 plant with fuel cells. One can make more than methane. Heavier liquid fuels like methanol, which is a great gasoline analogue, can also be synthesized. Theoretically speaking, the most efficient way to split water is thermal decomposition at really, really high temperatures, with a catalyst. I've seen a variety of proposals to…
If you want something actually green, try ammonia via electrochemical methods, from hydrogen.
This is also why these gas investments are a trap. We're already generally low on gas for winter and increasing the intake will not help, plus any operational emissions is too much and has to be optimized. 270 g CO2e is a plenty in a series of small deployments to ruin the targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The best strategy is to stop CO2 emissions as fast as possible. We already did enough damage that we'll need mitigation strategies in the future, every ton of CO2 we add to the atmosphere makes mitigation more expensive. Climate change is not some binary thing which you either prevent completely or don't. It just gets worse and worse proportional to how long we keep burning fossil fuels.
Then there's the ultimate point where hydrological cycle stops, causing runaway drying.
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…
Part of that advantage is that Romanian labor laws are less restrictive (the minimum wage is a third of the french one, for instance). So France had a choice between repelling labor laws to keep worker competitive, tell all french truckers they could kiss their job goodbye, or introducing some protectionism.
I'm usually in favor of free trade, even when it costs jobs, but in that case I think free trade would be a direct race to the bottom. Jobs performed in a country should respect that country's labor laws, otherwise companies will just shop around for the country with the least restrictive labor laws without even having to move their operation. Unrestricted european trucking went against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...except greenhouses are not exactly hermetically sealed, especially during summer.
Should not matter that much though, since the small amount of insects that penetrate should be a far far lower number than the ones outside the greenhouse. Overall, it passes the sniff test for me.