5 ms·

Great but I want the same deal for the coal and gas companies that produce electricity, make them responsible for every ton of CO2 they emitted and make them re

Great but I want the same deal for the coal and gas companies that produce electricity, make them responsible for every ton of CO2 they emitted and make them responsible for removing it from the atmosphere.

number6 4y ago
This is in place via EU-ETS: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...
- hgomersall 4y ago
  The price of co2 in the ETS is an order of magnitude too low to deal with it's removal, so no, this is not in place with the ETS.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    I believe the idea is to adjust the price over time. The hard part is getting such a system in place, not ramping it up.
    - number6 4y ago
      There is a finite number of certificates - like bitcoin. Price adjusts as certificates are uses up. New certificates can be created by capturing carbon... similar to bitcoin mining.
      - xorcist 4y ago
        Yes, but the supply of certificates has been set as to ensure a soft transition to this system. When the supply tightens, prices will go up. At least that's the theory. In the current political climate where politicians all over the world compete on subsidizing electricity and fossil fuels to combat the recent price hikes for all poorly insulated home owners and car drivers, who knows what will happen.
Gwypaas 4y ago
Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of fossil energy brings.
- cloverich 4y ago
  Can renewables realistically cover (near) 100% of our day and night energy needs in the next 20 years? Gates book suggested no and if so thats why the comparison is apt.
- zemvpferreira 4y ago
  It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. That said, no reason why the original deal can't be extended to renewables, seems perfectly fair. It's to everyone's benefit that all methods of power generation be held accountable for all their costs.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    > It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. Why? Built geographically decoupled production, look at past weather data and pick how many 9's up-time you want. Then use storage and smart consumers to lower the requirements. For national emergencies keep a fossil reserve or whatever, with that kind of usage power 2 gas should not even matter.
    - zemvpferreira 4y ago
      You can dream every solution you'd care to dream, but right now gas-backed solar is how it's done in europe.
      - xorcist 4y ago
        Nuclear is also "gas-backed" in way. A stable energy grid is not something one can hand wave together.
BenoitP 4y ago
And also deal with the harm done by coal mining; rehabilitate the Hambach mine landscape for example

number6 4y ago

This is in place via EU-ETS: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...

hgomersall 4y ago
The price of co2 in the ETS is an order of magnitude too low to deal with it's removal, so no, this is not in place with the ETS.
- xorcist 4y ago
  I believe the idea is to adjust the price over time. The hard part is getting such a system in place, not ramping it up.
  - number6 4y ago
    There is a finite number of certificates - like bitcoin. Price adjusts as certificates are uses up. New certificates can be created by capturing carbon... similar to bitcoin mining.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      Yes, but the supply of certificates has been set as to ensure a soft transition to this system. When the supply tightens, prices will go up. At least that's the theory. In the current political climate where politicians all over the world compete on subsidizing electricity and fossil fuels to combat the recent price hikes for all poorly insulated home owners and car drivers, who knows what will happen.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of fossil energy brings.

cloverich 4y ago
Can renewables realistically cover (near) 100% of our day and night energy needs in the next 20 years? Gates book suggested no and if so thats why the comparison is apt.
zemvpferreira 4y ago
It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. That said, no reason why the original deal can't be extended to renewables, seems perfectly fair. It's to everyone's benefit that all methods of power generation be held accountable for all their costs.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  > It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. Why? Built geographically decoupled production, look at past weather data and pick how many 9's up-time you want. Then use storage and smart consumers to lower the requirements. For national emergencies keep a fossil reserve or whatever, with that kind of usage power 2 gas should not even matter.
  - zemvpferreira 4y ago
    You can dream every solution you'd care to dream, but right now gas-backed solar is how it's done in europe.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      Nuclear is also "gas-backed" in way. A stable energy grid is not something one can hand wave together.

BenoitP 4y ago

And also deal with the harm done by coal mining; rehabilitate the Hambach mine landscape for example