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

91–100 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#91

Post by ThePhysicist »

konschubert wrote: post #53
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

The grande école aristocracy in France isn't desirable either. It's a form of nepotism.

Yeah there's definitely problems with that as well, not saying it's perfect. I mostly want to contrast it to the anti-intellectual approach here in Germany, where top-level politicians are proud of not having any higher education and see it as their mission to get more ideologically-formed people into top positions.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#92

Post by frafra »

herbst wrote: post #69
frafra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "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." "The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e.…

I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least) I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now. But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.

"Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed]

It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#93

Post by balfirevic »

rasz wrote: post #64
konschubert wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, is it not?

Not if you cut ancient forests to heat your house to 24C in the winter https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/illegal-logging-...

It is if I only use it to heat the house to 20C?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#94

Post by jpgvm »

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 think you (and most people that talk about storage) drastically underestimate the scale of the storage required and just how tight supply is for the resources necessary to build it.

For now EVs are going to consume the world's supply of batteries. Leaves you with thermal or potential energy storage like pumped hydro. All of which aren't even fully developed yet or are restricted to specific geography.

As of right now, even ignoring new designs nuclear is 100% technically viable, it's just expensive. Expensive is generally easy to fix just needs scale like what we have for solar now.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#95

Post by herbst »

frafra wrote: post #92
herbst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least) I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now. But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.

"Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed] It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countrie…

I hope you are right and this is not just a big step in the wrong direction, just because it sounds so stupid (Neuspreching burning Gas to Green energy is nothing but that)

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#96

Post by pvaldes »

jpgvm wrote: post #44
pvaldes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that now there is less money for developing a grid of green energies and we need it for yesterday. Because nuclear will take a chunk of the grants, as is much more expensive to build and much more time consuming. So green energies, delayed in the last decades for political reasons, will need to wait, again. And this delay could turn to be a very bad decision in a few years.

That is just fear mongering. We have no evidence of nuclear being built in-place of cheaper renewables. Until we do it's just FUD.

> Until we do it's just FUD.

And when we will do, it is too late to change our mind

Too late, to little and, with bad luck, a very expensive error.

Money is a limited resource. The only reason to tag nuclear as green is to grant nuclear access to subsides for green energy.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#97

Post by rasz »

Brometheus wrote: post #88
JanSt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany planned to use gas to bridge times with little wind and solar power to be able to turn off nuclear energy. Not smart but true. The new plan is to build even more renewables. and massive storage capacity, a very optimistic undertaking.

The plan is to use the plenty of excess renewable production to generate hydrogen and then burn that in the gas plants. Therefore, all gas plants qualifying as "green" have to be able to burn hydrogen.

How about specifying its about hydrogen and hydrogen _only_ in the EU resolution then? Is it because its really about whats being pumped over Nord Stream? Lets face it, this resolution has Schroder/Scholz fingerprints all over it.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#98

Post by yrgulation »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

"De-nuclearization of other European countries" - Germany should mind its own business.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#99

Post by JanSt »

Brometheus wrote: post #88
JanSt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany planned to use gas to bridge times with little wind and solar power to be able to turn off nuclear energy. Not smart but true. The new plan is to build even more renewables. and massive storage capacity, a very optimistic undertaking.

The plan is to use the plenty of excess renewable production to generate hydrogen and then burn that in the gas plants. Therefore, all gas plants qualifying as "green" have to be able to burn hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a form of storage. Much energy will be lost in between.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#100

Post by agapon »

blub wrote: post #79
Veen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is incredibly short-sighted. Soviets pulling out of Eastern Germany, the collapse of the GDR, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR has very little to do with the energy imports. One might even argue that the USSR would collapse economically even earlier if not for all the currency it got from oil and gas sales.
Post reply on HN