4 ms·

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

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?
    - tcfhgj 5y ago
      well all our energy infrastructure and politics will have to be adapted to it which makes this not unlikely
- mulmen 5y ago
  > it's eligible to receive funding/tax status [...] That's literally the entire problem.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Why is it a problem to give funding or tax advantages to projects that actively reduce emissions?
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      The argument would be that if you didn’t provide that out market forces would force us into renewables more quickly.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Surely any support available to projects that replace higher-emissions facilities with lower-emissions facilities would still be available if the lower-emissions facility is a zero-emissions facility, right?
        mulmen 5y ago
        The gas plants aren’t zero emission. They’re better than coal. That’s a low bar.
        vlovich123 5y ago
        You have a finite pool of resources. Market forces means that people will try to optimize for the best ROI (not really the full story, but generally true for a vast majority of the funds). Since natural gas is cheaper, you’re subsidizing a comparatively dirty source of energy which penalizes something like nuclear which is truly zero carbon. So sure, net you might achieve a reduction. However, that could mean that after 30 years you aren’t as decarbonized if the investments in natural gas prevented nuclear and renewable build out. I don’t know if that’s the actual case, but my prior based on how the FF industry operates leads me to believe that to be a reason natural gas is being framed in this way. Sure, it only covers construction before 2030. However these plants easily last 50+ years and inflation means that a nuclear plant starting in 2031 will have a much harder time competing with a natural gas plant making its economics worse. I’m always open to having my mind changed with data and a compelling counterargument, but I’m more sympathetic to the position that’s extremely concerned with natural gas being included. The emissions limit should probably be 10x lower than what was set to allow natural gas. If this is a jobs thing to provide an off ramp for the industry, I’m more sympathetic to that as long as we’re honest and transparent that that’s why we’re doing it (the political and economic ramifications are just as important as the goal of decarbonization). Just don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.
- throwaway472927 5y ago
  Isn't it kind of worse that it's not just a branding question? After all the idea is to incentivise truly carbon neutral energy. Obviously there's pragmatism and gas is better than coal but I think an independent body would say "burn gas if you must, but don't expect to get off freely with closing the nuclear plants".
labster 5y ago
Natural gas can be green and reduce global warming… in the specific case where you burn methane that would have otherwise escaped to the atmosphere. Garbage dumps are a very good case to burn natural gas, get energy, and slow help the climate. But these sources are limited.
- adrianN 5y ago
  I believe that "natural gas" only refers to fossil gas, and other sources of Methane already have (different) marketing terms.
  - otherme123 5y ago
    They are called "biogas" and considered renewable.
scotty79 5y ago
It's politics. France has nuclear and Germany has a huge pipe to buy natural gas from Putin.
crucialfelix 5y ago
It's labelled as Transitional, not green. That's what the EU Taxonomy does: it labels activities and specifies precise criteria.

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?
  - tcfhgj 5y ago
    well all our energy infrastructure and politics will have to be adapted to it which makes this not unlikely
mulmen 5y ago
> it's eligible to receive funding/tax status [...] That's literally the entire problem.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Why is it a problem to give funding or tax advantages to projects that actively reduce emissions?
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    The argument would be that if you didn’t provide that out market forces would force us into renewables more quickly.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Surely any support available to projects that replace higher-emissions facilities with lower-emissions facilities would still be available if the lower-emissions facility is a zero-emissions facility, right?
      - mulmen 5y ago
        The gas plants aren’t zero emission. They’re better than coal. That’s a low bar.
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        You have a finite pool of resources. Market forces means that people will try to optimize for the best ROI (not really the full story, but generally true for a vast majority of the funds). Since natural gas is cheaper, you’re subsidizing a comparatively dirty source of energy which penalizes something like nuclear which is truly zero carbon. So sure, net you might achieve a reduction. However, that could mean that after 30 years you aren’t as decarbonized if the investments in natural gas prevented nuclear and renewable build out. I don’t know if that’s the actual case, but my prior based on how the FF industry operates leads me to believe that to be a reason natural gas is being framed in this way. Sure, it only covers construction before 2030. However these plants easily last 50+ years and inflation means that a nuclear plant starting in 2031 will have a much harder time competing with a natural gas plant making its economics worse. I’m always open to having my mind changed with data and a compelling counterargument, but I’m more sympathetic to the position that’s extremely concerned with natural gas being included. The emissions limit should probably be 10x lower than what was set to allow natural gas. If this is a jobs thing to provide an off ramp for the industry, I’m more sympathetic to that as long as we’re honest and transparent that that’s why we’re doing it (the political and economic ramifications are just as important as the goal of decarbonization). Just don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.
throwaway472927 5y ago
Isn't it kind of worse that it's not just a branding question? After all the idea is to incentivise truly carbon neutral energy. Obviously there's pragmatism and gas is better than coal but I think an independent body would say "burn gas if you must, but don't expect to get off freely with closing the nuclear plants".

labster 5y ago

Natural gas can be green and reduce global warming… in the specific case where you burn methane that would have otherwise escaped to the atmosphere. Garbage dumps are a very good case to burn natural gas, get energy, and slow help the climate. But these sources are limited.

adrianN 5y ago
I believe that "natural gas" only refers to fossil gas, and other sources of Methane already have (different) marketing terms.
- otherme123 5y ago
  They are called "biogas" and considered renewable.

scotty79 5y ago

It's politics. France has nuclear and Germany has a huge pipe to buy natural gas from Putin.

crucialfelix 5y ago

It's labelled as Transitional, not green. That's what the EU Taxonomy does: it labels activities and specifies precise criteria.