3 ms·

> What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewab

by mk89 2y ago

> What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewables means that you have an entire society ready for it - from infra to consumers. So, no, that's for me in no way an implementation detail like "I am just swapping A with B" otherwise I am pretty damn sure we could stop everything we're doing and mount solar panels everywhere to reach 100% renewables. In principle I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't agree on the premise that they are just an implementation detail.

panick21_ 2y ago
The property 'renewable' has nothing really to do with it. And its strictly speaking not even true as the sun isn't 'renewable'. The better term would be 'sustainable'. What you want is to have 'sustainable' near zero emission, near zero Co2, safe energy production. Renewables also misleading because by definition hunting wales for oil is 'renewable' but nobody would consider that 'sustainable'. So to write legislation with a narrow viewpoint of 'renewable' as the goal, rather then the goal being reducing on emission and CO2, you are shooting yourself in the foot from the jump.
- mk89 2y ago
  This is what EU as a whole does (reduce CO2 by X% within Y years), e.g., the 2030 climate targets. However, there is a very strong correlation between reaching those targets and the broad/accepted definition of renewables. Again, I understand you're trying to be more precise and all that, but in the broader language the connection is "renewables = reduction of CO2 in a sustainable way with solar panels, wind, etc etc". EDIT: ok, I forgot, there would be the nuclear energy as well to reduce CO2, which is not really renewable (although most of it can be recycled it seems). You were right. I would still prefer 100% renewable (and have no burning fuels at all) but I would be happy to have a mix of renewable and nuclear to reduce emissions and still keep companies up and running (=cheap electricity).

by mk89 2y ago

panick21_ 2y ago

The property 'renewable' has nothing really to do with it. And its strictly speaking not even true as the sun isn't 'renewable'. The better term would be 'sustainable'. What you want is to have 'sustainable' near zero emission, near zero Co2, safe energy production. Renewables also misleading because by definition hunting wales for oil is 'renewable' but nobody would consider that 'sustainable'. So to write legislation with a narrow viewpoint of 'renewable' as the goal, rather then the goal being reducing on emission and CO2, you are shooting yourself in the foot from the jump.

mk89 2y ago
This is what EU as a whole does (reduce CO2 by X% within Y years), e.g., the 2030 climate targets. However, there is a very strong correlation between reaching those targets and the broad/accepted definition of renewables. Again, I understand you're trying to be more precise and all that, but in the broader language the connection is "renewables = reduction of CO2 in a sustainable way with solar panels, wind, etc etc". EDIT: ok, I forgot, there would be the nuclear energy as well to reduce CO2, which is not really renewable (although most of it can be recycled it seems). You were right. I would still prefer 100% renewable (and have no burning fuels at all) but I would be happy to have a mix of renewable and nuclear to reduce emissions and still keep companies up and running (=cheap electricity).