Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

earth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#71

Post by dsq »

osuairt wrote: post #54
Juliate wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only alternative, it's an inevitable part of the mix, where it serves as the raw large power source (similar to hydraulic, only much larger). Until we have found ways to drastically cut down power usage AND to store huge quantities of energy OR found another similar and cleaner and safer energy source, we will need it in the mix to balance with other renewable sources.

That just isn't the case. And I am sorry to say but the many countries have made great strides on running their countries on more and more renewable energy sources. In 2018, Scotland generated 98% their energy from wind alone. Denmark 72%, Germany 45%, Uruguay 97%, Norway 93%. It's a whole patchwork of solutions, depending on geography. Nuclear is not this magic bullet, and just means flipping a switch, it has a majo…

Total energy consumption or just electricity? Because electricity is itself only a third of total energy use in, say, Germany. So a third of 45 percent is 15 percent. Good, but doesn't save the day. Also, is that steady throughout the year, or just in the windy months?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#72

Post by rasz »

LtWorf wrote: post #49
rasz wrote: post #25

"Gas and Nuclear Turn Green as EU Parliament Approves New Taxonomy" Why TF dont they unbundle obvious German written putin gas part from the Nuclear option and vote separately on those two?? Edit: this is such an obvious German EU blackmail - let us fund putin or you dont get clean Nuclear power plants.

Germany was the main push behind "burning wood = renewable energy"

You have to admit its a clever scheme. Start co-firing small % of wood pellets in a coal plant and you magically get a renewable energy plant!

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#73

Post by trompetenaccoun »

nicohvi wrote: post #7
nix23 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that the real title is: >>Gas and Nuclear Turn Green as EU Parliament Approves New Taxonomy >>On the contrary, natural gas does emit greenhouse gas emissions, however, supporters claim it is less polluting than traditional fossil fuels and can thus be part of the energy transition. So less pollution then heavy oil is now "green" in Europe....bravo, thank you Germany.

Natural gas emits radically less CO2 than coal, which is why this is entirely necessary during the transition (Germany is now bruning coal to compensate for the Russian war). Gas emits so little CO2 compared to coal that it actually accounted for ONE THIRD of the drop in U.S. emissions from 2005 - 2016: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-us-carbon-emissions... .

https://www.science.org/content/article/natural-gas-could-wa...

That's a myth based on old data, no one who understands the models makes such simplified black and white claims. Methane (which is natural gas) is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. As in up to 100x the warming potential in the first couple of years until it's naturally converted. When burned, it's turned into CO2 but the problem is there is leakage all over the place because methane is volatile. During production, during transportation, during storage - it gets leaked into the atmosphere all over the place. See this more recent article:

https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-s...

As others have pointed out the title has been blatantly edited to omit the gas part. This is propaganda, declaring fossil fuel to be renewable energy doesn't make it so. Words still have meaning and the laws of physics still exist. It's really sad to see this sort of political science denial finds its way into HN now.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#74

Post by plopilop »

osuairt wrote: post #54
Juliate wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only alternative, it's an inevitable part of the mix, where it serves as the raw large power source (similar to hydraulic, only much larger). Until we have found ways to drastically cut down power usage AND to store huge quantities of energy OR found another similar and cleaner and safer energy source, we will need it in the mix to balance with other renewable sources.

That just isn't the case. And I am sorry to say but the many countries have made great strides on running their countries on more and more renewable energy sources. In 2018, Scotland generated 98% their energy from wind alone. Denmark 72%, Germany 45%, Uruguay 97%, Norway 93%. It's a whole patchwork of solutions, depending on geography. Nuclear is not this magic bullet, and just means flipping a switch, it has a majo…

The massive issue I have with these sources is their reliability. Scotland can produce 98% from wind because they can sell the excess or buy when in deficit from their neighbours who modulate their coal/gas plants. If all its neighbours switch to similar methods, I don't see how we can have reliability on a wide scale.

Usual fluctuations (eg. no photovoltaic by night, more wind in the afternoon) can be planned for, but local events such as big clouds or no wind are frequent but have a great impact on

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#75

Post by QuarterReptile »

JanSt wrote: post #65
littlecranky67 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet Germany, after two decades and close to a trillion dollar in renewable energies, has one of the most expensive Do you have any sources? Last time I checked, Germany and France weren't that far apart, if you remove taxes out of the costs. The thing is that Germany has a lot of Taxes that have nothing todo with how we generate the electricity. I.e. 90% of the electricity tax (Stromsteuer) goes into the govern…

The Stromsteuer ist only 5% of the price. It depends on your definition of taxes. The EEG-Umlage alone reached 6.5ct/kwh and directly paid for renewables. It‘s now taken out of the price, so the real price of energy is higher than what is paid by the consumer. The EEG Umlage is now hidden in and paid for by a special fund („Energie- und Klimafonds“)

You're saying that there is a transfer from nuclear to renewables of 6.5 cents/kWh for every kWh nuclear generates, or a net market distortion of 13c/kWh between the two (using the tenuous assumption of roughly equivalent capacities between the two sectors)?

That's more than I pay in the US in total per kWh for electricity, generated, distributed, and taxed.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#76

Post by wronglyprepaid »

henearkr wrote: post #60

As I heard today again on the radio, the narrative is "to get energy whatever the weather, we cannot rely only on wind and solar". I'm surprised that they haven't heard of the possibility of energy storage . Both already available storage solutions, and the many other solutions in development, are largely enough to enable wind/solar and other renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, without relying on nuclear.

> I'm surprised that they haven't heard of the possibility of energy storage.

Have we not? I think the real issue is that we have capitalist pigscum that are greedy and want to burn the atmosphere if it can give them an extra buck and the EU is beholden to them that is why they made this change.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#77

Post by Brometheus »

JanSt wrote: post #65
littlecranky67 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet Germany, after two decades and close to a trillion dollar in renewable energies, has one of the most expensive Do you have any sources? Last time I checked, Germany and France weren't that far apart, if you remove taxes out of the costs. The thing is that Germany has a lot of Taxes that have nothing todo with how we generate the electricity. I.e. 90% of the electricity tax (Stromsteuer) goes into the govern…

The Stromsteuer ist only 5% of the price. It depends on your definition of taxes. The EEG-Umlage alone reached 6.5ct/kwh and directly paid for renewables. It‘s now taken out of the price, so the real price of energy is higher than what is paid by the consumer. The EEG Umlage is now hidden in and paid for by a special fund („Energie- und Klimafonds“)

The EEG Umlage had also been payed by renewable producers which made storage unprofitable in Germany. ENERTRAG was kneekaped by this afaik.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#78

Post by Brometheus »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #67
mytailorisrich wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that the term "green" means nothing and anything. It is always much better to define objectively what is the issue and what is the aim. It seems to me that the main issue is emissions and that the aim is therefore to reduce them as much as possible. In that context, nuclear is a perfectly valid option and probably unavoidable as things stand. Gas is 'bad' since it obviously does produce emissions…

The term 'green' in the headline means everything and nothing, but... The things that are allowed by this law are fairly tightly specified, as even the article gives various details on: > new nuclear and gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal. So, limited to the next 8 years, and only in place…

Thank you for your voice of reason in this bubbling sea of uninformed nonsense.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#79

Post by blub »

Veen wrote: post #45
osuairt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries d…

I'm puzzled about why nuclear is deemed less satisfactory than dependence on Putin's Russia for the energy requirements of the world's 4th biggest economy.

Dependence on the Soviet Union and later Russia worked for 50 years.

This partnership, which was being undermined by the US from the beginning, is attributed to establishing a basis for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Considering that the Soviets pulled out peacefully of Eastern Germany, that worked pretty great.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#80

Post by blub »

Juliate wrote: post #22
osuairt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries d…

Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.

Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)?

Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.

Post reply on HN