near-zero carbon energy without nuclear at the current level of energy needs?
...
Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
121–130 of 676 posts
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#122I think it's good to recognise gas and nuclear as being preferable to coal and oil, but green they are not. I consider them transitional energy sources; we will be stuck with them for a long time while we transition to greener energy, but coal and oil need to be stopped as soon as possible.
After the Fukushima disaster, Germany closed its nuclear power plants and replaced them with coal plans; absolutely the worst possible reaction to that disaster. We do need a middle category to recognise that nuclear and gas are better than coal and oil, but I really don't want energy companies selling me nuclear and gas power as part of my green energy subscription.
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
I think the propagandistic title is just an expression of the Parliament's meaning; they've declared that nuclear and gas are to be treated as "green" for the purposes of various exemptions. You can legislate that Pi is equal to three, but that doesn't make it so.
As parent notes, every molecule of methane burned turns into a molecule of CO2.
Incidentally: I don't see how burning coal produces more CO2 than burning methane. Burning coal is worse than burning methane because burning coal produces lots of particulates, as well as nitric and sulphuric acids. Same for burning oil.
Has anyone ever done testing on automobile exhaust similar to the testing that has been done on cigarette smoke? Of course not - nobody pretends that autombile exhaust is safe to inhale. Everyone knows it's much more carconogenic than ciggie smoke.
So I'm not defending coal and oil; they're worse than methane. Just not because they produce more CO2.
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#124De-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 German Green party showed in multiple occasions that it's completely anti-science. They pick scientists that support their agenda, and then represent it as the one and only truth. They are basically a spiritual successor of the middle-age Catholic Church. All they talk is about sacrifice, suffering in our earthly life for better afterlife, bans, and restrictions. The only difference is that instead of God, they s…
That might explain why Mojib Latif’s books are published by a publisher otherwise specializing in religious books
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#125Earlier 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 Putin's Russia First, it's Russia, not Putin's Russia. It's derogatory to frame discussion like that. Should we also start putting "Biden's USA" and "Macron's France"? Just writing this way, and suddenly both USA and France appear like some fourth world banana republics. Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time.…
Putin's power in Russia is a lot more absolute than Biden's in the US or Macron's in France. And especially with his war against Ukraine and general hatred of democracy, Putin is relevant. The EU would have had less problems buying gas from Yeltsin's Russia. In fact, that's how we got into this situation; Russia was supposed to be on the road to becoming a normal, open democracy. And then Putin changed course.
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In France, top positions in the administration are usually filled by people that are technically excellent and have gone through the system of grandes écoles (ENS, ENA, X, ...) That's a misconception. ENS has two branches, science and literature. ENS Sciences is technical, the other isn't. X (Polytechnique) is an engineering school in theory, but in practice very few of its students become actual engineers. ENA is…
I had colleagues that went through École Polytechnique and the Corps de Mines (usually reserved to the top 2 graduates of a given graduating class of several grandes ecoles) that then went on to work for the government. And I think it's still mandatory to work a certain number of years in the administration after going through some of the grandes écoles, not sure if that was changed (I graduated in 2012 so it was a w…
70% of the people in current Bundestag have finished University and another 15% some other colleges. 5% studied without finishing. With a clear upward trend in those numbers each legislature period. I'd consider that a high enough number for people representing society. Thought technical degrees are sadly rather low (don't have exact numbers, but seem to be around 10% of those with degrees). Source (in german): https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/272942/924eeff93db104...
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#127As 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 n…
I hear you, but the real argument against nuclear fission is not the economic one, it's the safety one.
The safety during the (peace time) use of nuclear plants has been hugely improved, so I agree that's not anymore the main concern.
But nuclear fission facilities are very cumbersome to dismantle, and they are liabilities during and after their commissioning.
You can see that in Ukraine for example, Zaporizhia plant has been taken into hostage.
Chernobyl was too, briefly.
This kind of liability is especially concerning in our era of crisis (triggered by the global warming), that we could even suspect to be the beginning of a civilization collapse, which is a big word to say simply that situations of conflict, including internal conflict (civil wars and guerrillas) will multiply everywhere. Imagine the 6th January folks marching to a nuclear plant...
There is still also the problem of the nuclear fuel: now West Africa and Sahel are providing a sizable part of it. But what will happen when they do not want to cooperate anymore with the Western world? (Russia is working very hard to push to this situation)
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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... .
Yep, but that does not turn grey into green. This is just politics redacting facts... because they want the votes. These "neo-green policits" could perfectly say "we are green but we acknowledge but we need grey energy for a while". They chose redefining language, as always. (Cf. Victor Klemperer, "The language of the third reich" and also, as always, Orwell... "good is bad, bad is good" and "the past can be changed"…
Instead of dividing them into grey and green, we should rank them in red, yellow and green.
Red energy sources are the ones we immediately need to stop using: coal and oil.
Yellow energy sources are the ones we should stop using only if we can safely do so, but if we can't (and we can't, right now) we should continue using them: gas and nuclear.
Green energy sources are where we really need to go.
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#129Earlier 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…
> It is green energy as long as the criteria are met.
That's what the EU Parliament are saying; but the truth is that the criteria are met if the criteria are met. Energy doesn't become "green" just because some bunch of lobbied and whipped politicians say it's green.
Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74