32 ms·

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

349 points by vinni2 5y ago

kmlx 5y ago
how can gas be green since it produces co2 throughout it’s lifetime? how can nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars be “green” when we’re polluting the planet while producing them? shouldn’t the focus be on zero pollution during manufacture or are we not there yet?
johnisgood 5y ago
Gas is not green. Period.
londons_explore 5y ago
The quoted level, 230g CO2/kWh is actually very good, and far better than most other gas turbines, even the latest combined cycle systems. I wonder how they achieve that? Perhaps burning biogas (where the carbon doesn't count?)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tcfhgj 5y ago
  perhaps also mixing with green H2 (and if that's not enough you can add green methane from electricity as well)
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Pity the guy painting all these molecules.
- AndriyKunitsyn 5y ago
  By bribing emission watchers, the same way they bribed politicians that make these ridiculous regulations.
- fulafel 5y ago
  Cogeneration (combined heat and power), probably. Lots of city heating runs on coal CHP currently, with district heating systems.
ihsw 5y ago
hadrien01 5y ago
Nuclear I can understand. But gas?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- drran 5y ago
  Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?
  - akmarinov 5y ago
    Look at all fossil fuels - they’re cooking the planet to death.
    - drran 5y ago
      So, replace fossil fuels with renewables + batteries, such as salt water battery. Moreover, batteries will improve usable performance of nuclear power stations a lot: from 1/3 of peak demand (known as base-load) up to 3/4 of peak demand, or by 2x.
  - csee 5y ago
    Gas kills 40x more people than nuclear, notwithstanding climate change impact. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
onphonenow 5y ago
Nuclear is clearly green. Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this.
- black3r 5y ago
  The article states that a Gas power plant would only be labeled green if it emits less than 270g/kWh, replaces a previous fossil fuel plant, construction starts before 2030 AND plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035. I guess the goal is to phase out coal in Germany and Poland by any means necessary..
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035. Which will of course not be enforced, besides the fact that biogas as a “green energy” has huge caveats.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    You can get great g/kwh for gas plants if you don't account for all of its stray methane emissions, and the accounting for that is rather pitiful nowadays. The 2035 "low carbon gases" thing is just ridiculously unworkable and will be repealed later as unrealistic. So at best, they'll just trading ~10 years of coal power for ~5 years of coal power followed by 40+ years of fossil methane power. That's a terrible trade.
- drran 5y ago
  > Nuclear is clearly green. We should repaint radiation warnings in green, to indicate that. > Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this. Nord Stream 2.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    How about instead of "radiation bad", we look at more objective metrics, like deaths/CO2 per kWh: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And instead of comparing nuclear to a magical zero-pollution/emission, flawlessly safe, always-available power source, we should compare it to what it actually gets replaced with.
nathan_phoenix 5y ago
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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dathinab 5y ago
  It's still kinda rediculus IMHO. Nuclear power it's climate but but environment/human friendly. So I can understand that. But natural gas isn't green however I look at it. It's clearly better then cush l coal, but but green. So it shouldn't be allowed to be labeled as such. Instead we should add a label for better but but really good tech, like yellow or so.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    The labeling matters because it influences funds allocation. "green" in this sense just means it's eligible to receive funding/tax status that is otherwise not available. It's not a judgement on whether the technology is carbon neutral.
    - dathinab 5y ago
      But that is what people will treat it as. If it's just about such aspect you could give it some arbitrary EU regulation number and say it's compatible with that. By basing it around the term "green" it's very much focused around marketing and what people will perceive as "carbon neutral".
      - shawnz 5y ago
        Why would this impact the colloquial meaning of "green" in any way? Do people usually adapt their informal language to be consistent with EU regulations?
ohgodplsno 5y ago
Gas is included because the German """green""" party has heavily lobbied for it. The Belgians """greens""" announced that its okay for them to use gas, because overall, in Europe, other countries will offset it. Greenpeace lobbies for it because they, themselves, sell gas. Nuclear had to be defended tooth and nail for over a year, with active rejection from the Germans for its inclusion in that list. Green parties across Europe are a pathetic joke.
- dathinab 5y ago
  It's really not that simple. If you want to change thing you need to stay realistic. For example only very clean gas power plants are included. Through I can't deny that the German Green party is kind a joke. They have been founded a movement heavily manipulated by the DDR to destabilize the BRD. Which is where their absolute-no to nuclear comes from (through most, probably ask nuclear plants in Germany are older less safe designs which IMHO should be shut down, there are other things too). They have for years tolerated, sometimes supported certain groups of people for votes. Exactly this groups which are now one of the driving forces behind "unreasonable" anti-vax movements. They have multiple times shown they are quite a bit affected by corrup (but potential legal) lobbyism. They are known to sometime push idiologic things which aren't fully thought out. Which in the first view might look good, but if you look into it they have the opposite effect on the larger picture or other major negative effects outwighting any benefits.
- kmac_ 5y ago
  Exactly this. Including gas as green energy looks like a joke. Even 270g of CO2 per kWh is an awful number. No idea if that's lobbyists work but "if you have no idea what something is about, then it is about the money".
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Maybe they need a more graduated colour scale. Combined cycle natural gas could be "amber" or something like that
- protontypes 5y ago
alkonaut 5y ago
There needs to be clearer terminology and labels for “green”, “sustainable”, “renewable”, “climate neutral” energy. I’d also like to throw in “democratic” in the mix. Because energy and foreign policy can’t be separated. The EU energy mix is going to be geopolitically very important in coming years. We also need to make it very clear what the goals are for each kind and where the tradeoffs are. I think right now the important focus must be to be climate neutral and I dependent of eastern natural gas. And if that means not being sustainable for a couple of decades that seems well worth it. This seems to be about biogas plants which are allowed to run on natural gas for the first years. Not great, not terrible. But the EU should stop basing policy on fuzzy goalposts that are easily moved like this.
- freeflight 5y ago
  > independent of eastern natural gas. It's interesting how trade relationships that are centuries old, are now seen in a negative context solely on a foreign policy basis that's often dictated from across the Atlantic. Particularly when they go completely contrary to the other stated goal; Climate change. Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time, as Siberia is the largest concentration of natural resources on the continent and one of the largest on the whole planet. It's not something anybody has much choice over; These resources are where they are, that geographic proximity also lead to their use being integrated all over the continent. We can't replace that with wishful thinking, we can't just wish metal ores and minerals into existence or gas for industrial manufacturing. Case in point; Germany's gas dependence, which is commonly framed as "Germany now uses more gas because it shut down nuclear reactors", when in reality only 14% of Germany's gas consumption is for electricity production [0]. The biggest chunk of German gas consumption is for industrial applications, like heavy smelting for the car industry or the chemical industry to create high demand chemicals like ammonia. Another huge chunk is household use for heating and kitchen appliances, together these two sectors account for 67% of Germany's gas consumption. Nuclear reactors do nothing for that demand, at least not without taking a detour trough hydrogen, a detour that traditional renewables can also do [1]. While trying to supply that demand with imported American NGL would be the complete opposite of "Think of the climate!". That's why declaring Eastern Europe's resources just as "taboo" is not a solution that will get us anywhere useful. Fighting climate change also means making the supply chains more local, you can't do that in Western Europe by declaring the largest collection of resources, in proxmity, as "off-limits for political reasons". At some point we have to decide what's more important; Fighting climate change as a species or instrumentalizing it for these kinds of foreign policy games that usually leave everybody worse off, at least on this side of the Atlantic. [0] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage/verbrauch-von-erdgas-in-deutschland-nach-abnehmergruppen-2009/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage... [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer/wissenschaftspolitik/Positionen/2019-10-a-hydrogen-roadmap-for-germany.pdf https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer...
retinaros 5y ago
in france gov passed a law that will give a bad grade to gas heated houses (if the grade is bad you cant rent your house) and a good one to electricity. oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it. we are really in the middle of a green idiocracy
- akmarinov 5y ago
  There was a EU program 3 years ago where it covered 30% of the cost to install a gas heater at your house, so that you’d be more environmentally friendly ffs
- scrollaway 5y ago
  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.
  - retinaros 5y ago
    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 a bad grade. people won t be allowed to put their apt for rent on the market, they will sell, which will reduce the nbr of apartment available and increase rent prices. second paragraph: you should look at how electricity works. it is a european market not a french one. per wikipedia « In 2020, France retains its position as the leading exporter in Europe with a total exporter of 43.2 TWh, down by around 13 TWh compared to 2019; commercial export volumes decreased by 7% to 77.8 TWh, while import volumes increased by 22% to 34.6 TWh. The balance of trade remained an exporter every month except September, which is usually a very exporting month; this anomaly is explained in particular by the sharp drop in the availability of nuclear power plants« and it was same for 2021
Proven 5y ago
neximo64 5y ago
There was an insecticide ban (Neonicotinoids) not so long ago, i.e a "complete ban", but then I saw that it didn't apply to greenhouses - where it had more than 80% of its use prior to the ban. After that alot of the directives that come from the commission, especially involving climate change, if you look at it properly is just greenwashing. France is maybe about the only country that is genuine about it. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Given that bees are the biggest likely victims of neonicotinoids, isn't restricting their use to greenhouses exactly what we want? Let bugs outside be, keep bugs inside under control?
  - nousermane 5y ago
    ...except greenhouses are not exactly hermetically sealed, especially during summer.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      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.
      - PoignardAzur 5y ago
        Don't greenhouse plants also rely on insects for pollination? Unless they're all relying on imported seeds, I guess.
- jevoten 5y ago
  > didn't apply to greenhouses I guess the logic was that plants in greenhouses are pollinated manually, without any help from bees. /s
HPsquared 5y ago
Some serious lobbying going on, by the sounds of it!
AQuantized 5y ago
Nuclear investments desperately need to be recognized as green so you don't have oxymoronic policies similar to Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide.
- freemint 5y ago
  Nuclear Energy becomes decidedly less green (but still greener than out of the ground Methane) when building, maintenance and decomissioning as well as fuel transports are included. [1] But once the fix costs are accounted for making it run longer seems smart. There seems to be quiet bimodal distribution of CO2e estimates for carbon. Some are like 5 other >100 in the same unit. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Nucl...
  - AQuantized 5y ago
    Also owing consideration is the many advances to those processes that could occur with more substantial investment in nuclear power. However the primary benefit to nuclear, beyond its acceptable carbon emissions, is that functioning as a base load removes a lot of the difficultly with building enough battery infrastructure to enable solar power to power peak load and through the night. This is particularly the case for service based economies whose peak load is often after dark.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      One nice thing about solar is the economics of making the night shift more expensive and less common.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    > when building, maintenance and decomissioning OK, but the same applies to wind turbines. I don't see a lot of Teslas hauling wind turbines down I-80. Let's not set up double standards just for nuclear.
errcorrectcode 5y ago
The interpretation of the policy reads like "It's not greenwashing, I promise." It comes across as more delay to assist profiteering on dirty, extractive FFs and distract from the climate change emergency by not addressing net carbon negative energy production. Solar and pumped energy storage are great, but we need fusion power ASAP too.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
The answer is that every time they green-wash, the problem simply isn't solved, and the fight to solve it properly must continue.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Excluding reliable and zero-emission nuclear from the green mix means coal plants having to be restarted when unreliable renewables under-produce: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-had-to-turn-on-coal-power-plant-to-help-national-grid-cope-with-low-winds-12400835 https://news.sky.com/story/uk-had-to-turn-on-coal-power-plan... It means that in countries that over-invested in unreliable renewables, and under pressure from dogmatic renewable advocates, under-invested in reliable sources of energy, like Brazil: "The poor .. are choosing between paying for food or electricity." https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-business-russia-health-70b97e36da53f62eba588b44f2b394bc https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-bu...
kebman 5y ago
Oh, this has probably nothing to do with the major energy deficit Europe is now experiencing. Sorry for the sarcasm, but people living here without a secondary source of heat are suffering ice cold houses because they have to choose between heat or food. The deficit has lead to record prices here in Norway, in the middle of winter, because power for 5 mill people is almost completely drained in order to meet the demand of 450 million EU citizens. It's... I have no words. Guess it's great all these power companies are getting rich.
- loeg 5y ago
  Norwegian electricity appears to be maybe 1.50 krone per kWh including taxes this winter? Or about 0.17 USD per kWh? That’s not especially high, although it looks to be about double last year.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > That’s not especially high, although it looks to be about double last year. It's almost as if most people have budgets that can't so easily handle a doubling of their bills.
    - kebman 5y ago
      Yeah, imagine that! Thing is, Norway used to have some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, due to population centres being situated right next to a lot of waterfalls. It's still some of the cheapest and most "green" to produce. Add to this that due to power and building policies, i.e. politics, most people use electricity for heating over here (yes, in Arctic Norway...). On top of that heating with wood stoves, or even oil, is highly disincentivized these days. (Also coal isn't a thing in Norway.) For most Norwegians, the electricity has been considered "ours" and indeed it was mostly state run until the general privatization that started around and after the 90's. So for that reason most people didn't consider it risky to have electricity-only heating in their houses. I bet a lot of people regret that decision today, though. For the same reason, the newly built cables made to ensure power export to the EU are extremely unpopular over here, as it's hurting people's income directly through electricity bills being doubled overnight. Most people consider it yet another appeasement to the EU, despite Norwegians having voted against joining it twice.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
The legitimization of nuclear power is critically important for moving human civilization forward.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nigrioid 5y ago
Bayart 5y ago
Just replace "gas" and "nuclear" with "German" and "French".
- Daniel_sk 5y ago
  Not really true - France was the loudest voice but they were representing a lot of other EU countries. E.g. Slovakia (50% nuclear today, 70% nuclear production next year) was also a big proponent, or Czech republic...
  - doikor 5y ago
    Also Finland with OL3 that just finished building (currently going through testing) and plans to build a new nuclear power plant site in Hanhikivi.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      At least Finland has a responsible attitude to the nuclear waste problem.
eptcyka 5y ago
Labelling gas green is an example of just how tight Putin's grip on Europe is.
jhoechtl 5y ago
I am an EU citizen. While this decision seems controversial to ones and downright stupid to others, I do think its the only possibility to provide cheap energy to industry and the citizens without further increasing inflation due to rising energy costs. We need to go green and further utilize solar and wind energy and what not, its kind of hard in times of increased demand (e-cars) and rising overall energy costs. We would have done so much better to invest in times when inflation was low for a decade.
bluecalm 5y ago
I guess gas is green if it comes from Putin. I mean those retiring German officials need some new jobs in gas trading companies. Meanwhile we still have a huge "green diesel" problem with Germans dumping their polluting, smelly, carcinogenic used up engines into newer EU countries. I am so fed up with the whole green politics thing in EU. It's just for show so it benefits the biggest players.
squarefoot 5y ago
It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians. I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear plant, or where nuclear waste is stored.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  I'd do it in principle, but the Nevada climate near Yucca Mountain's a bit dry for my liking. Also, that whole state has a gambling problem and that kind of culture is much more of a turn-off than a little nuclear waste.
- xigoi 5y ago
  Living near a nuclear plant is safer than near a coal plant.
- Joeri 5y ago
  I’m in favor of the eventual phase out of nuclear fission power but we have to be pragmatic about the situation we are in. Reaching 1.5 degrees of warming is all but impossible by now because we’ve waited too long. We no longer have the luxury of making choices between approaches. By now we have to do everything we can, and doing so we will still fall short. There’s a nuclear industry ready and willing to be a part of the (temporary) solution, and that’s why the IPCC’s evaluation a few years ago of 85 plans to reach 1.5 degrees of warming noted that nearly all involve nuclear energy and on average a doubling of the nuclear energy share to around 5%. Since that report we are even further from where we need to be. So we need to put the nuclear industry to work and I think everyone looking at the climate crisis pragmatically can see that this is necessary. Other pragmatic choices are replacing coal with gas in the short term (because it can be built rapidly and produces far less emissions) and globally outlawing proof of work crypto.
- sideshowb 5y ago
  checks map. I live within 10k of a nuke. Never really think about it tbh. Happy to take more nukes over global warming, though more wind/solar plus storage would beat either, so whatever works really. Calling gas green though? Screw that, unless it's got 100 percent carbon capture or something.
acd 5y ago
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Nuclear reaction is naturally occurring in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > BioGas which is methane gas extracted from waste is also very green. Until people start valuing the waste more than the original products, and waste production become the goal: https://farmersjournal.ie/will-milk-be-the-byproduct-of-manure-635731 https://farmersjournal.ie/will-milk-be-the-byproduct-of-manu...
- gefhfffh 5y ago
  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.
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    > 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
    - gefhfffh 5y ago
      It does? The article says "low carbon"
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Fast reactors have been providing power to electrical grids for years.
londons_explore 5y ago
More carbon will be released in 2022 than any past year in human history, according to the IEA. So all the talk of green tech is still just that - talk. Any reductions in emissions have been eclipsed by other people's emissions expansions.
situationista 5y ago
Part of the rationale for labeling certain gas power plants as "green" is that they solve the problem of uneven supply from wind and solar. As far as I understand it, these plants are intended to supplement renewables and make them a more viable primary source.
locallost 5y ago
Whoever builds nuclear plants because of this, I hope they get more bang for their buck than South Carolina. Years and years of planning and building, $9B spent, only to cancel the project with nothing to show for it. Also as a German resident and tax payer, I'm pretty pissed off that I'm on the hook for about $150B for the disposal of old nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. If this is now a green solution, I hope at least the disposal has to be a part of the business plan, instead of pretending it doesn't exist and dumping it on the public first chance they get.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  > I'm pretty pissed off that I'm on the hook for about $150B for the disposal of old nuclear waste Jeez that's a lot! what's your salary?
  - disiplus 5y ago
    ~$150B less
- rob_c 5y ago
  Yes that should have been part of the commissioning plan. But then Germany also killed the plants early meaning any lifetime plans for the material to be slowly removed had to be massively accelerated due to political posturing... But then I forgot Germany built all it's reactors on fault lines and in the path of tornadoes or other natural disaster paths rather than places closer the the rheinland...
- abc789654567 5y ago
  Bangladesh is building a power plant now and seems to be getting more bang for their buck than South Carolina. Construction began: 30 November 2017 Commission date: 2023 Construction cost: $12.65 billion What today is considered nuclear waste will be fuel for generation IV reactors. The main aspect of Gen IV is using closed fuel cycle for the reactor. This year Russia started building first test Gen IV reactor BREST-300. It is planned to be operational by 2029. I believe that most effective business plan of dumping today's nuclear waste is using it as fuel for Gen IV reactors. Bangladesh Nuclear Power Plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant Generation IV reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor BREST reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)
iso1210 5y ago
Nuclear sure, although I don't think they are practical any more given the cost and time to build vs renewables But Gas? Europe should be setting a plan to have no gas imports by the end of the decade, not shutting down nuclear power plants and increasing reliance on Russia
rob_c 5y ago
And now we likely hear from the "nuclear bad, buy into silicon and rate earth hell with solar and short lifetime battery" crowd... Gas obviously isn't green but this looks like political maneauvering from the bloc to get backing. Not that I'd ever accuse the EU of being slow or overly bureaucratic...
jokoon 5y ago
I wish there were more jobs available in nuclear energy.
berlbear 5y ago

349 points by vinni2 5y ago

kmlx 5y ago

how can gas be green since it produces co2 throughout it’s lifetime? how can nuclear, solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars be “green” when we’re polluting the planet while producing them? shouldn’t the focus be on zero pollution during manufacture or are we not there yet?

johnisgood 5y ago

Gas is not green. Period.

londons_explore 5y ago

The quoted level, 230g CO2/kWh is actually very good, and far better than most other gas turbines, even the latest combined cycle systems. I wonder how they achieve that? Perhaps burning biogas (where the carbon doesn't count?)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tcfhgj 5y ago
perhaps also mixing with green H2 (and if that's not enough you can add green methane from electricity as well)
- kergonath 5y ago
  Pity the guy painting all these molecules.
AndriyKunitsyn 5y ago
By bribing emission watchers, the same way they bribed politicians that make these ridiculous regulations.
fulafel 5y ago
Cogeneration (combined heat and power), probably. Lots of city heating runs on coal CHP currently, with district heating systems.

ihsw 5y ago

hadrien01 5y ago

Nuclear I can understand. But gas?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
drran 5y ago
Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?
- akmarinov 5y ago
  Look at all fossil fuels - they’re cooking the planet to death.
  - drran 5y ago
    So, replace fossil fuels with renewables + batteries, such as salt water battery. Moreover, batteries will improve usable performance of nuclear power stations a lot: from 1/3 of peak demand (known as base-load) up to 3/4 of peak demand, or by 2x.
- csee 5y ago
  Gas kills 40x more people than nuclear, notwithstanding climate change impact. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

onphonenow 5y ago

Nuclear is clearly green. Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this.

black3r 5y ago
The article states that a Gas power plant would only be labeled green if it emits less than 270g/kWh, replaces a previous fossil fuel plant, construction starts before 2030 AND plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035. I guess the goal is to phase out coal in Germany and Poland by any means necessary..
- kergonath 5y ago
  > plant plans to switch to low carbon gases (biogas?) by the end of 2035. Which will of course not be enforced, besides the fact that biogas as a “green energy” has huge caveats.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  You can get great g/kwh for gas plants if you don't account for all of its stray methane emissions, and the accounting for that is rather pitiful nowadays. The 2035 "low carbon gases" thing is just ridiculously unworkable and will be repealed later as unrealistic. So at best, they'll just trading ~10 years of coal power for ~5 years of coal power followed by 40+ years of fossil methane power. That's a terrible trade.
drran 5y ago
> Nuclear is clearly green. We should repaint radiation warnings in green, to indicate that. > Gas is more interesting. At 500g/kwh it's on higher side normally. So there must be more to this. Nord Stream 2.
- jevoten 5y ago
  How about instead of "radiation bad", we look at more objective metrics, like deaths/CO2 per kWh: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And instead of comparing nuclear to a magical zero-pollution/emission, flawlessly safe, always-available power source, we should compare it to what it actually gets replaced with.

nathan_phoenix 5y ago

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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dathinab 5y ago
It's still kinda rediculus IMHO. Nuclear power it's climate but but environment/human friendly. So I can understand that. But natural gas isn't green however I look at it. It's clearly better then cush l coal, but but green. So it shouldn't be allowed to be labeled as such. Instead we should add a label for better but but really good tech, like yellow or so.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  The labeling matters because it influences funds allocation. "green" in this sense just means it's eligible to receive funding/tax status that is otherwise not available. It's not a judgement on whether the technology is carbon neutral.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    But that is what people will treat it as. If it's just about such aspect you could give it some arbitrary EU regulation number and say it's compatible with that. By basing it around the term "green" it's very much focused around marketing and what people will perceive as "carbon neutral".
    - shawnz 5y ago
      Why would this impact the colloquial meaning of "green" in any way? Do people usually adapt their informal language to be consistent with EU regulations?

ohgodplsno 5y ago

Gas is included because the German """green""" party has heavily lobbied for it. The Belgians """greens""" announced that its okay for them to use gas, because overall, in Europe, other countries will offset it. Greenpeace lobbies for it because they, themselves, sell gas. Nuclear had to be defended tooth and nail for over a year, with active rejection from the Germans for its inclusion in that list. Green parties across Europe are a pathetic joke.

dathinab 5y ago
It's really not that simple. If you want to change thing you need to stay realistic. For example only very clean gas power plants are included. Through I can't deny that the German Green party is kind a joke. They have been founded a movement heavily manipulated by the DDR to destabilize the BRD. Which is where their absolute-no to nuclear comes from (through most, probably ask nuclear plants in Germany are older less safe designs which IMHO should be shut down, there are other things too). They have for years tolerated, sometimes supported certain groups of people for votes. Exactly this groups which are now one of the driving forces behind "unreasonable" anti-vax movements. They have multiple times shown they are quite a bit affected by corrup (but potential legal) lobbyism. They are known to sometime push idiologic things which aren't fully thought out. Which in the first view might look good, but if you look into it they have the opposite effect on the larger picture or other major negative effects outwighting any benefits.
kmac_ 5y ago
Exactly this. Including gas as green energy looks like a joke. Even 270g of CO2 per kWh is an awful number. No idea if that's lobbyists work but "if you have no idea what something is about, then it is about the money".
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Maybe they need a more graduated colour scale. Combined cycle natural gas could be "amber" or something like that
protontypes 5y ago

alkonaut 5y ago

There needs to be clearer terminology and labels for “green”, “sustainable”, “renewable”, “climate neutral” energy. I’d also like to throw in “democratic” in the mix. Because energy and foreign policy can’t be separated. The EU energy mix is going to be geopolitically very important in coming years. We also need to make it very clear what the goals are for each kind and where the tradeoffs are. I think right now the important focus must be to be climate neutral and I dependent of eastern natural gas. And if that means not being sustainable for a couple of decades that seems well worth it. This seems to be about biogas plants which are allowed to run on natural gas for the first years. Not great, not terrible. But the EU should stop basing policy on fuzzy goalposts that are easily moved like this.

freeflight 5y ago
> independent of eastern natural gas. It's interesting how trade relationships that are centuries old, are now seen in a negative context solely on a foreign policy basis that's often dictated from across the Atlantic. Particularly when they go completely contrary to the other stated goal; Climate change. Western Europe has been dependent on Eastern Europe's resources for a very long time, as Siberia is the largest concentration of natural resources on the continent and one of the largest on the whole planet. It's not something anybody has much choice over; These resources are where they are, that geographic proximity also lead to their use being integrated all over the continent. We can't replace that with wishful thinking, we can't just wish metal ores and minerals into existence or gas for industrial manufacturing. Case in point; Germany's gas dependence, which is commonly framed as "Germany now uses more gas because it shut down nuclear reactors", when in reality only 14% of Germany's gas consumption is for electricity production [0]. The biggest chunk of German gas consumption is for industrial applications, like heavy smelting for the car industry or the chemical industry to create high demand chemicals like ammonia. Another huge chunk is household use for heating and kitchen appliances, together these two sectors account for 67% of Germany's gas consumption. Nuclear reactors do nothing for that demand, at least not without taking a detour trough hydrogen, a detour that traditional renewables can also do [1]. While trying to supply that demand with imported American NGL would be the complete opposite of "Think of the climate!". That's why declaring Eastern Europe's resources just as "taboo" is not a solution that will get us anywhere useful. Fighting climate change also means making the supply chains more local, you can't do that in Western Europe by declaring the largest collection of resources, in proxmity, as "off-limits for political reasons". At some point we have to decide what's more important; Fighting climate change as a species or instrumentalizing it for these kinds of foreign policy games that usually leave everybody worse off, at least on this side of the Atlantic. [0] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage/verbrauch-von-erdgas-in-deutschland-nach-abnehmergruppen-2009/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage... [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer/wissenschaftspolitik/Positionen/2019-10-a-hydrogen-roadmap-for-germany.pdf https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer...

retinaros 5y ago

in france gov passed a law that will give a bad grade to gas heated houses (if the grade is bad you cant rent your house) and a good one to electricity. oh and because of europe we import electricity from germany that is burning coal for it. we are really in the middle of a green idiocracy

akmarinov 5y ago
There was a EU program 3 years ago where it covered 30% of the cost to install a gas heater at your house, so that you’d be more environmentally friendly ffs
scrollaway 5y ago
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.
- retinaros 5y ago
  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 a bad grade. people won t be allowed to put their apt for rent on the market, they will sell, which will reduce the nbr of apartment available and increase rent prices. second paragraph: you should look at how electricity works. it is a european market not a french one. per wikipedia « In 2020, France retains its position as the leading exporter in Europe with a total exporter of 43.2 TWh, down by around 13 TWh compared to 2019; commercial export volumes decreased by 7% to 77.8 TWh, while import volumes increased by 22% to 34.6 TWh. The balance of trade remained an exporter every month except September, which is usually a very exporting month; this anomaly is explained in particular by the sharp drop in the availability of nuclear power plants« and it was same for 2021

Proven 5y ago

neximo64 5y ago

There was an insecticide ban (Neonicotinoids) not so long ago, i.e a "complete ban", but then I saw that it didn't apply to greenhouses - where it had more than 80% of its use prior to the ban. After that alot of the directives that come from the commission, especially involving climate change, if you look at it properly is just greenwashing. France is maybe about the only country that is genuine about it. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...

nitrogen 5y ago
Given that bees are the biggest likely victims of neonicotinoids, isn't restricting their use to greenhouses exactly what we want? Let bugs outside be, keep bugs inside under control?
- nousermane 5y ago
  ...except greenhouses are not exactly hermetically sealed, especially during summer.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    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.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
      Don't greenhouse plants also rely on insects for pollination? Unless they're all relying on imported seeds, I guess.
jevoten 5y ago
> didn't apply to greenhouses I guess the logic was that plants in greenhouses are pollinated manually, without any help from bees. /s

HPsquared 5y ago

Some serious lobbying going on, by the sounds of it!

AQuantized 5y ago

Nuclear investments desperately need to be recognized as green so you don't have oxymoronic policies similar to Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide.

freemint 5y ago
Nuclear Energy becomes decidedly less green (but still greener than out of the ground Methane) when building, maintenance and decomissioning as well as fuel transports are included. [1] But once the fix costs are accounted for making it run longer seems smart. There seems to be quiet bimodal distribution of CO2e estimates for carbon. Some are like 5 other >100 in the same unit. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Nucl...
- AQuantized 5y ago
  Also owing consideration is the many advances to those processes that could occur with more substantial investment in nuclear power. However the primary benefit to nuclear, beyond its acceptable carbon emissions, is that functioning as a base load removes a lot of the difficultly with building enough battery infrastructure to enable solar power to power peak load and through the night. This is particularly the case for service based economies whose peak load is often after dark.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    One nice thing about solar is the economics of making the night shift more expensive and less common.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  > when building, maintenance and decomissioning OK, but the same applies to wind turbines. I don't see a lot of Teslas hauling wind turbines down I-80. Let's not set up double standards just for nuclear.

errcorrectcode 5y ago

The interpretation of the policy reads like "It's not greenwashing, I promise." It comes across as more delay to assist profiteering on dirty, extractive FFs and distract from the climate change emergency by not addressing net carbon negative energy production. Solar and pumped energy storage are great, but we need fusion power ASAP too.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

The answer is that every time they green-wash, the problem simply isn't solved, and the fight to solve it properly must continue.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Excluding reliable and zero-emission nuclear from the green mix means coal plants having to be restarted when unreliable renewables under-produce: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-had-to-turn-on-coal-power-plant-to-help-national-grid-cope-with-low-winds-12400835 https://news.sky.com/story/uk-had-to-turn-on-coal-power-plan... It means that in countries that over-invested in unreliable renewables, and under pressure from dogmatic renewable advocates, under-invested in reliable sources of energy, like Brazil: "The poor .. are choosing between paying for food or electricity." https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-business-russia-health-70b97e36da53f62eba588b44f2b394bc https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-bu...

kebman 5y ago

Oh, this has probably nothing to do with the major energy deficit Europe is now experiencing. Sorry for the sarcasm, but people living here without a secondary source of heat are suffering ice cold houses because they have to choose between heat or food. The deficit has lead to record prices here in Norway, in the middle of winter, because power for 5 mill people is almost completely drained in order to meet the demand of 450 million EU citizens. It's... I have no words. Guess it's great all these power companies are getting rich.

loeg 5y ago
Norwegian electricity appears to be maybe 1.50 krone per kWh including taxes this winter? Or about 0.17 USD per kWh? That’s not especially high, although it looks to be about double last year.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > That’s not especially high, although it looks to be about double last year. It's almost as if most people have budgets that can't so easily handle a doubling of their bills.
  - kebman 5y ago
    Yeah, imagine that! Thing is, Norway used to have some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, due to population centres being situated right next to a lot of waterfalls. It's still some of the cheapest and most "green" to produce. Add to this that due to power and building policies, i.e. politics, most people use electricity for heating over here (yes, in Arctic Norway...). On top of that heating with wood stoves, or even oil, is highly disincentivized these days. (Also coal isn't a thing in Norway.) For most Norwegians, the electricity has been considered "ours" and indeed it was mostly state run until the general privatization that started around and after the 90's. So for that reason most people didn't consider it risky to have electricity-only heating in their houses. I bet a lot of people regret that decision today, though. For the same reason, the newly built cables made to ensure power export to the EU are extremely unpopular over here, as it's hurting people's income directly through electricity bills being doubled overnight. Most people consider it yet another appeasement to the EU, despite Norwegians having voted against joining it twice.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

The legitimization of nuclear power is critically important for moving human civilization forward.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nigrioid 5y ago

Bayart 5y ago

Just replace "gas" and "nuclear" with "German" and "French".

Daniel_sk 5y ago
Not really true - France was the loudest voice but they were representing a lot of other EU countries. E.g. Slovakia (50% nuclear today, 70% nuclear production next year) was also a big proponent, or Czech republic...
- doikor 5y ago
  Also Finland with OL3 that just finished building (currently going through testing) and plans to build a new nuclear power plant site in Hanhikivi.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    At least Finland has a responsible attitude to the nuclear waste problem.

eptcyka 5y ago

Labelling gas green is an example of just how tight Putin's grip on Europe is.

jhoechtl 5y ago

I am an EU citizen. While this decision seems controversial to ones and downright stupid to others, I do think its the only possibility to provide cheap energy to industry and the citizens without further increasing inflation due to rising energy costs. We need to go green and further utilize solar and wind energy and what not, its kind of hard in times of increased demand (e-cars) and rising overall energy costs. We would have done so much better to invest in times when inflation was low for a decade.

bluecalm 5y ago

I guess gas is green if it comes from Putin. I mean those retiring German officials need some new jobs in gas trading companies. Meanwhile we still have a huge "green diesel" problem with Germans dumping their polluting, smelly, carcinogenic used up engines into newer EU countries. I am so fed up with the whole green politics thing in EU. It's just for show so it benefits the biggest players.

squarefoot 5y ago

It's absolutely crazy, but in line with what's going on with energy demand out of control due to cryptocurrencies sprouting everywhere: some countries banned non green energy sources, so we redefine the word green. Bravo! That's exactly what one can expect from corrupt politicians. I would accept to go back to nuclear only in one case: whoever is pushing for it will build their house within 10 Km of either a nuclear plant, or where nuclear waste is stored.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
I'd do it in principle, but the Nevada climate near Yucca Mountain's a bit dry for my liking. Also, that whole state has a gambling problem and that kind of culture is much more of a turn-off than a little nuclear waste.
xigoi 5y ago
Living near a nuclear plant is safer than near a coal plant.
Joeri 5y ago
I’m in favor of the eventual phase out of nuclear fission power but we have to be pragmatic about the situation we are in. Reaching 1.5 degrees of warming is all but impossible by now because we’ve waited too long. We no longer have the luxury of making choices between approaches. By now we have to do everything we can, and doing so we will still fall short. There’s a nuclear industry ready and willing to be a part of the (temporary) solution, and that’s why the IPCC’s evaluation a few years ago of 85 plans to reach 1.5 degrees of warming noted that nearly all involve nuclear energy and on average a doubling of the nuclear energy share to around 5%. Since that report we are even further from where we need to be. So we need to put the nuclear industry to work and I think everyone looking at the climate crisis pragmatically can see that this is necessary. Other pragmatic choices are replacing coal with gas in the short term (because it can be built rapidly and produces far less emissions) and globally outlawing proof of work crypto.
sideshowb 5y ago
checks map. I live within 10k of a nuke. Never really think about it tbh. Happy to take more nukes over global warming, though more wind/solar plus storage would beat either, so whatever works really. Calling gas green though? Screw that, unless it's got 100 percent carbon capture or something.

acd 5y ago

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor Nuclear reaction is naturally occurring in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...

littlestymaar 5y ago
> BioGas which is methane gas extracted from waste is also very green. Until people start valuing the waste more than the original products, and waste production become the goal: https://farmersjournal.ie/will-milk-be-the-byproduct-of-manure-635731 https://farmersjournal.ie/will-milk-be-the-byproduct-of-manu...
gefhfffh 5y ago
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.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  > 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
  - gefhfffh 5y ago
    It does? The article says "low carbon"
- DennisP 5y ago
  Fast reactors have been providing power to electrical grids for years.

londons_explore 5y ago

More carbon will be released in 2022 than any past year in human history, according to the IEA. So all the talk of green tech is still just that - talk. Any reductions in emissions have been eclipsed by other people's emissions expansions.

situationista 5y ago

Part of the rationale for labeling certain gas power plants as "green" is that they solve the problem of uneven supply from wind and solar. As far as I understand it, these plants are intended to supplement renewables and make them a more viable primary source.

locallost 5y ago

Whoever builds nuclear plants because of this, I hope they get more bang for their buck than South Carolina. Years and years of planning and building, $9B spent, only to cancel the project with nothing to show for it. Also as a German resident and tax payer, I'm pretty pissed off that I'm on the hook for about $150B for the disposal of old nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. If this is now a green solution, I hope at least the disposal has to be a part of the business plan, instead of pretending it doesn't exist and dumping it on the public first chance they get.

joelbluminator 5y ago
> I'm pretty pissed off that I'm on the hook for about $150B for the disposal of old nuclear waste Jeez that's a lot! what's your salary?
- disiplus 5y ago
  ~$150B less
rob_c 5y ago
Yes that should have been part of the commissioning plan. But then Germany also killed the plants early meaning any lifetime plans for the material to be slowly removed had to be massively accelerated due to political posturing... But then I forgot Germany built all it's reactors on fault lines and in the path of tornadoes or other natural disaster paths rather than places closer the the rheinland...
abc789654567 5y ago
Bangladesh is building a power plant now and seems to be getting more bang for their buck than South Carolina. Construction began: 30 November 2017 Commission date: 2023 Construction cost: $12.65 billion What today is considered nuclear waste will be fuel for generation IV reactors. The main aspect of Gen IV is using closed fuel cycle for the reactor. This year Russia started building first test Gen IV reactor BREST-300. It is planned to be operational by 2029. I believe that most effective business plan of dumping today's nuclear waste is using it as fuel for Gen IV reactors. Bangladesh Nuclear Power Plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant Generation IV reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor BREST reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

iso1210 5y ago

Nuclear sure, although I don't think they are practical any more given the cost and time to build vs renewables But Gas? Europe should be setting a plan to have no gas imports by the end of the decade, not shutting down nuclear power plants and increasing reliance on Russia

rob_c 5y ago

And now we likely hear from the "nuclear bad, buy into silicon and rate earth hell with solar and short lifetime battery" crowd... Gas obviously isn't green but this looks like political maneauvering from the bloc to get backing. Not that I'd ever accuse the EU of being slow or overly bureaucratic...

jokoon 5y ago

I wish there were more jobs available in nuclear energy.

berlbear 5y ago