4 ms·

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 ‘

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.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  I can see how it’s offensive to call it green but honestly I think the politicians really did do their job here. Nuclear is a great option and should have been chosen 40 years ago but since it wasn’t we must take what we can get today. If I decide today I’m going to replace coal plants with nuclear, that means I’ll be burning coal for at least 20 years until the nuclear project is complete. Much better then to, sure start building the nuclear plant, but also switch over to gas today, then complete the switch 10-30 years later. And if the gas plants remain in operation until 2080 I’m optimistic enough to believe they’ll have been made to install CCS sometime in the early 2040s.

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.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
I can see how it’s offensive to call it green but honestly I think the politicians really did do their job here. Nuclear is a great option and should have been chosen 40 years ago but since it wasn’t we must take what we can get today. If I decide today I’m going to replace coal plants with nuclear, that means I’ll be burning coal for at least 20 years until the nuclear project is complete. Much better then to, sure start building the nuclear plant, but also switch over to gas today, then complete the switch 10-30 years later. And if the gas plants remain in operation until 2080 I’m optimistic enough to believe they’ll have been made to install CCS sometime in the early 2040s.