5 ms·

Right now nuclear is the only green energy that is suitable for base load generation apart from hydro, and it takes a long time to build new nuclear plants, so

Right now nuclear is the only green energy that is suitable for base load generation apart from hydro, and it takes a long time to build new nuclear plants, so I’m okay with a bridge solution that dramatically reduces emissions even if it doesn’t bring them to zero. The alternative is a dependency on much less green fossil fuel plants when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Intelligent people shouldn’t quibble over an imaginary “green” line, but we should focus on minimizing emissions per unit power.

NegativeLatency 5y ago
When you consider the other environmental impacts of hydro it’s not as green as people like to think.
mulmen 5y ago
It’s not ok to call gas “green”. Period. If gas is necessary then build it, but don’t claim it is green.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > If gas is necessary then build it, but don’t claim it is green Green is a spectrum, and a subjective one at that. Even if we limit ourselves to CO2 emissions, an absolutist stance eliminates solar and wind for the emissions in their erection.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    I’m not sure why this keeps getting regurgitated. Are you honestly arguing that the CO2 emissions in the production and operation of a solar plant are even remotely comparable to the emissions of a gas plant? If I have to explicitly spell all that out every time then we can’t have a conversation. It’s an absurd standard.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Are you honestly arguing that the CO2 emissions in the production and operation of a solar plant are even remotely comparable to the emissions of a gas plant? No, just that pretending one or the other is universally accepted as “green” while the other is not is absurd. Gas isn’t emission free. But “green” has no requirement to be zero emissions. It is in the process of being defined; this is that process and discussion. (Hybrids were once green.) “Green” should move us towards a zero-emissions future. If that happens with gas, that’s better than sitting around getting hysterical about definitions while baseload runs on dirty power.
    - paul_f 5y ago
      It is absurd to be 100% dogmatic about solving this problem. Otherwise you look like a zealot, who refuses to talk to anyone who disagrees with you in.
    - bitcoinlogin 5y ago
      [flagged]
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  The point is that gas is not green, but it’s a whole lot greener than many alternatives. Replacing a large coal plant with gas is much better for our future than opening a same size solar plant (and not closing the coal plant). Of course greener still would have been to build a solar plant instead of the gas plant. But solar is intermittent and coal isn’t so that wouldn’t be sufficient. All of this is true so long as the gas plants are treated as temporary solutions and this does that. I guess technically it could have been labelled ‘purple’ and a new rule made that all allowances made for ‘green’ also apply to ‘purple’ but honestly that sounds to me more likely to be abused in the future.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > I guess technically it could have been labelled ‘purple’ and a new rule made that all allowances made for ‘green’ also apply to ‘purple’ but honestly that sounds to me more likely to be abused in the future. How would this be abused? The problem is that the EU talks a big game but can’t actually deliver. Calling gas green is moving the goalposts. If gas is necessary that’s fine, just don’t pretend we are on track to be carbon neutral (or negative) in time for it to matter. These gas plants are taking funds that could be used on actual green energy. If people don’t peek behind the curtain the numbers will say “all our energy is green”. That makes the problem look smaller than it is.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      Because it’s already a stretch to call gas green I don’t think it will be as easy to add worse things to the green label as it would be to add new labels to a ‘Colors similar to green’ pool. What is the purely green alternative to gas that these gas plants will steal funds from? Intermittent energy doesn’t qualify. The numbers to care about aren’t the ratio of green to non green plants, but actual CO2/MWh and those won’t be hiding the problem.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        > What is the purely green alternative to gas that these gas plants will steal funds from? Nukes are greener than gas, at least in terms of our continued existence on this planet. If we don’t curb greenhouse gas emissions yesterday nobody will be around to die of radiation poisoning. Energy storage can be solved, it just has to become necessary. Building gas plants today means we will be burning fossil fuels until 2080. We need to have these problems solved decades before that. My objection is not necessarily to building the gas plants, it is to calling it green so some politicians can claim they did their jobs.
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  > It’s not ok to call gas “green”. Period. And as helpfully explained by the top post you are replying to nobody does that. It is labeled as a useful transitional tool towards green energy (when obeying lots of additional restrictions) and thus deemed eligible for subsidies/investment. The headline shortens "eligible for subsidies/investment aimed at promoting green energy, but only if meeting lots of other requirements and ..." to "green".
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > nobody does that Except the title of the article :)
- paul_f 5y ago
  This doesn't have to be binary. There are shades of green.

NegativeLatency 5y ago

When you consider the other environmental impacts of hydro it’s not as green as people like to think.

mulmen 5y ago

It’s not ok to call gas “green”. Period. If gas is necessary then build it, but don’t claim it is green.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> If gas is necessary then build it, but don’t claim it is green Green is a spectrum, and a subjective one at that. Even if we limit ourselves to CO2 emissions, an absolutist stance eliminates solar and wind for the emissions in their erection.
- mulmen 5y ago
  I’m not sure why this keeps getting regurgitated. Are you honestly arguing that the CO2 emissions in the production and operation of a solar plant are even remotely comparable to the emissions of a gas plant? If I have to explicitly spell all that out every time then we can’t have a conversation. It’s an absurd standard.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Are you honestly arguing that the CO2 emissions in the production and operation of a solar plant are even remotely comparable to the emissions of a gas plant? No, just that pretending one or the other is universally accepted as “green” while the other is not is absurd. Gas isn’t emission free. But “green” has no requirement to be zero emissions. It is in the process of being defined; this is that process and discussion. (Hybrids were once green.) “Green” should move us towards a zero-emissions future. If that happens with gas, that’s better than sitting around getting hysterical about definitions while baseload runs on dirty power.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    It is absurd to be 100% dogmatic about solving this problem. Otherwise you look like a zealot, who refuses to talk to anyone who disagrees with you in.
  - bitcoinlogin 5y ago
    [flagged]
Swenrekcah 5y ago
The point is that gas is not green, but it’s a whole lot greener than many alternatives. Replacing a large coal plant with gas is much better for our future than opening a same size solar plant (and not closing the coal plant). Of course greener still would have been to build a solar plant instead of the gas plant. But solar is intermittent and coal isn’t so that wouldn’t be sufficient. All of this is true so long as the gas plants are treated as temporary solutions and this does that. I guess technically it could have been labelled ‘purple’ and a new rule made that all allowances made for ‘green’ also apply to ‘purple’ but honestly that sounds to me more likely to be abused in the future.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > I guess technically it could have been labelled ‘purple’ and a new rule made that all allowances made for ‘green’ also apply to ‘purple’ but honestly that sounds to me more likely to be abused in the future. How would this be abused? The problem is that the EU talks a big game but can’t actually deliver. Calling gas green is moving the goalposts. If gas is necessary that’s fine, just don’t pretend we are on track to be carbon neutral (or negative) in time for it to matter. These gas plants are taking funds that could be used on actual green energy. If people don’t peek behind the curtain the numbers will say “all our energy is green”. That makes the problem look smaller than it is.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Because it’s already a stretch to call gas green I don’t think it will be as easy to add worse things to the green label as it would be to add new labels to a ‘Colors similar to green’ pool. What is the purely green alternative to gas that these gas plants will steal funds from? Intermittent energy doesn’t qualify. The numbers to care about aren’t the ratio of green to non green plants, but actual CO2/MWh and those won’t be hiding the problem.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      > What is the purely green alternative to gas that these gas plants will steal funds from? Nukes are greener than gas, at least in terms of our continued existence on this planet. If we don’t curb greenhouse gas emissions yesterday nobody will be around to die of radiation poisoning. Energy storage can be solved, it just has to become necessary. Building gas plants today means we will be burning fossil fuels until 2080. We need to have these problems solved decades before that. My objection is not necessarily to building the gas plants, it is to calling it green so some politicians can claim they did their jobs.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
> It’s not ok to call gas “green”. Period. And as helpfully explained by the top post you are replying to nobody does that. It is labeled as a useful transitional tool towards green energy (when obeying lots of additional restrictions) and thus deemed eligible for subsidies/investment. The headline shortens "eligible for subsidies/investment aimed at promoting green energy, but only if meeting lots of other requirements and ..." to "green".
- michaelt 5y ago
  > nobody does that Except the title of the article :)
paul_f 5y ago
This doesn't have to be binary. There are shades of green.