4 ms·

To say that the greens are not involved in the environmental decisions, especially the National Hydrogen Strategy, would be very false. the National Hydrogen St

by belorn 2y ago

To say that the greens are not involved in the environmental decisions, especially the National Hydrogen Strategy, would be very false. the National Hydrogen Strategy explicitly calls out natural gas as a central role, for which was the basis when Germany advocated to label natural gas as a sustainable investment. We can run around in circles looking for political disagreements within the coalition, but this is the German environmental policy for which the greens support and helped creating. Invest into (and subsidize) renewables to create cheap clean energy when the weather is optimal, and invest into (and subsidize) natural gas to create cheap grid stability for when the weather is suboptimal. When the technology is there, then shift towards green hydrogen. The strategy has been exceptional consistent and operated for at least 2 decades, with the result being exactly what the strategy planned. Increased use of renewables in both output and subsidizes, increased subsidizes in fossil fuels, and reduced use of nuclear power and coal. The only thing that did not go as plan was Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the natural gas pipeline to Russia that then got blown up.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
The EU support was for the move from coal to gas. The EU had requirements on that in order for it to qualify as "green" that the Germans wanted tweaked to be more lenient. But the underlying goal is fine. Gas is better than coal in many ways. Supply from Russia and knowledge of what has happened since then complicates matters but in general I think support for replacing old coal with new gas is a good thing if you have access to both, it's been a big part of America's progress. Hydrogen is a big topic, a lot of which is BS but at the core there's a place for it as an industrial input which is relevant for Germany. And if you have that in place then also using it as a backup which you ideally don't need to use is a cheap way of hitting those last few percent of reliability. I can find plenty of things to criticise Germany over, but most of the criticism I see is frankly nonsense.
- belorn 2y ago
  If the goal is to go from coal to gas without much additional concerns, then yes, it doesn't matter if fossil fuel subsidize increased or that the country get more dependent on fossil fuel imports. The goal was achieved and so it was a success. The critique they get is that there are other goals and the outcome of the strategy that Germany deployed had terrible outcomes. It costs too much, it has too much pollution, and it had very negative geopolitical consequences. It is also not a cheap way of hitting those last few percent of reliability, as is demonstrated with the increase in subsidizes and taxes to solve the issue of grid stability. A part of the issue is that the strategy assumed that market forces would force consumers to not consume during suboptimal weather conditions, but as has been demonstrated, citizens will vote to have the governments that provide a reliable priced energy grid. That makes the last few percent even more expensive as citizens don't want to pay the market price of a highly variable grid. Criticizing the outcomes of an explicit strategy is very much fair game, and it is still the official strategy in Germany.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    > but as has been demonstrated, citizens will vote to have the governments that provide a reliable priced energy grid. I hope so, because every professional working in the field is delivering that with more renewables and better regulation. It's the paid off politicians that are scrambling to protect their funders in the fossil fuel industry and keep prices high. Sadly, what you really mean is that right wing propaganda works and science and facts are not important and somehow that's considered a victory to you.

by belorn 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

The EU support was for the move from coal to gas. The EU had requirements on that in order for it to qualify as "green" that the Germans wanted tweaked to be more lenient. But the underlying goal is fine. Gas is better than coal in many ways. Supply from Russia and knowledge of what has happened since then complicates matters but in general I think support for replacing old coal with new gas is a good thing if you have access to both, it's been a big part of America's progress. Hydrogen is a big topic, a lot of which is BS but at the core there's a place for it as an industrial input which is relevant for Germany. And if you have that in place then also using it as a backup which you ideally don't need to use is a cheap way of hitting those last few percent of reliability. I can find plenty of things to criticise Germany over, but most of the criticism I see is frankly nonsense.

belorn 2y ago
If the goal is to go from coal to gas without much additional concerns, then yes, it doesn't matter if fossil fuel subsidize increased or that the country get more dependent on fossil fuel imports. The goal was achieved and so it was a success. The critique they get is that there are other goals and the outcome of the strategy that Germany deployed had terrible outcomes. It costs too much, it has too much pollution, and it had very negative geopolitical consequences. It is also not a cheap way of hitting those last few percent of reliability, as is demonstrated with the increase in subsidizes and taxes to solve the issue of grid stability. A part of the issue is that the strategy assumed that market forces would force consumers to not consume during suboptimal weather conditions, but as has been demonstrated, citizens will vote to have the governments that provide a reliable priced energy grid. That makes the last few percent even more expensive as citizens don't want to pay the market price of a highly variable grid. Criticizing the outcomes of an explicit strategy is very much fair game, and it is still the official strategy in Germany.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  > but as has been demonstrated, citizens will vote to have the governments that provide a reliable priced energy grid. I hope so, because every professional working in the field is delivering that with more renewables and better regulation. It's the paid off politicians that are scrambling to protect their funders in the fossil fuel industry and keep prices high. Sadly, what you really mean is that right wing propaganda works and science and facts are not important and somehow that's considered a victory to you.