I mean gas still emits CO^2 so it doesn’t make that much sense but nuclear is carbon neutral
Suck it, Greens 😛
Greens mad
Gas???
German posturing again.
gas being sustainable is greenwashing of the highest order
That’s cringe
Gas is not labeled as suistainable in general, but only if it replaces more dirty sources and only until 2030 I believe.
> Gas-powered plants under the taxonomy must replace facilities using coal, oil and other heavy fossil fuel, and ensure their emissions fall below a limit of 270g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. They will also be required to switch to low-carbon gasses by 2035 and submit themselves to regular inspections.
Low carbon gasses meaning hydrogen or biogas.
I think thats a reasonable compromise for the transition process and will definitly reduce carbon emissions. People here are beeing pretty dramatic.
What simping for Russia does to a mf
Natural gas is the only reason CO2 emissions have been falling in the US since 2005. It’s a good bridge fuel on the way to full green energy.
Nuclear is green, gas is a lot better than coal. So good move overall.
>”This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claims to global leadership on climate and the environment,” said Ariadna Rodrigo, a campaigner from Greenpeace. The EU office of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was similarly scathing, calling the proposal a “fiasco” and “political stitch-up” that will create a “huge mess” in the financial markets. WWF also accused the Commission of bowing down to pressure from France and its pro-nuclear allies.
Who are these dense idiots? How the hell do they think nuclear harms the wildlife while solar/wind and their petrol backup do not? Are they seriously calling this agreement anti-science when they can’t do basic maths?
Typical EU decisions: Take two shit ideas and make one
Gas?
What a joke that is.
Both of these shouldn’t be labeled green.
Nuclear is the way to go imho
Germany WTF?
How to meet self imposed goals for green energy 101.
And the poor big energy companies can finally get something of that sweet green energy subsidy money without investing in actual sustainable energy sources.
And european citizens will finally have winters without freezing to death.
It’s a win-win-win.
Good.
Nuclear yes, gas no.
Fossil fuel is now green.
How is gas sustainable when its a fossil fuel, it can run out that is the very opposite of sustainable. We learn this in primary school.
Next: coal deemed co² neutral! It will cause a next mass extinction and by doing so creating new coal for the next species to use! So, if you think about this it’s a circle and our duty to think of next generations…
Backlash from where lol “environmental NGOs” like Greenpeace?
did you guys get infiltrated by american politicians or something?
Good compromise
Coal is even more sustainable than gazputin.
A surprisingly good decision. Gas maybe arguable, but nuclear power is the best possible power source right now. Huge amount of power, while the carbon footprint is really low.
Gas is not sustainable
This is insanity. Why the hell should we go against scientific knowledge and label gas sustainable? Why should our environmental goals suffer because some countries are so incapable to transform without the need for natural gas?
A subject that brings up too many passions and too much ideology. For me things are pretty simple. What is our goal? To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save this planet of ours.
– Does nuclear help with that? Yes, it does, a nuclear power plant produces humongous amounts of electricity with very limited emissions. So let’s invest in that.
– Does gas produce less emissions than coal? Yes, about half of coal’s emissions. So let’s replace part of the coal electricity production with gas electricity production, until we manage to have fully green generation. That necessitates investments too, for example in converting coal plans into gas plants.
Too many think that overnight we can have all renewables electricity production. That is just not possible, no European country can make that transition quickly.What annoys me is to see countries such as Germany closing nuclear plants and thus burning more coal and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, several countries being totally against nuclear power but then buying for decades huge amounts of nuclear-generated energy from their neighbors, or countries such as Belgium planning to close its nuclear plants and to replace them with gas plants, the Belgian Greens being the main promoters of this stupidity. In short, let’s be practical and solve this huge problem and not ideological about it.
Apparently their considerations and mechanisms aren’t based on science (such as scientific data and a definition of sustainability that looks beyond the next 5 years).
People fail to understand that they’re sustainable until we get to something better, like nuclear fusion .
Green energy – Hydro, Geo, Wind and Solar are prone to cyclical and variable output.
You don’t have full power you need, when you need it if it’s not sunny, not windy, hasn’t been enough rain,etc.
Battery storage is expensive abd costly to maintain so that’s why there’s gas and nuclear to supplement these when you’re facing a shortage in production.
Sure it’s not ideal but is sure is better than burning coal or oil derivates.
We’ll get there, eventually… Hopefully soon when we’ll have cheap clean energy.
Why is Germany the only country in this thread again that’s getting bashed for being anti-nuclear? I hate that my country is anti-nuclear too, but you guys do know that Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal are against nuclear too, right?
36 comments
Finally, for fuck sake
Yes, and it’s only a question of time before the ECJ will kill it again.
Not only because they make up their own reality, by declaring things as something they are clearly not, but also because the Commission may not even have the proper authority in this case ([at least according to some German experts](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/guetesiegel-fuer-atomkraft-und-gas-rechtsexperte-erwartet-eugh-aus-fuer-die-taxonomie/28000234.html)).
I mean gas still emits CO^2 so it doesn’t make that much sense but nuclear is carbon neutral
Suck it, Greens 😛
Greens mad
Gas???
German posturing again.
gas being sustainable is greenwashing of the highest order
That’s cringe
Gas is not labeled as suistainable in general, but only if it replaces more dirty sources and only until 2030 I believe.
> Gas-powered plants under the taxonomy must replace facilities using coal, oil and other heavy fossil fuel, and ensure their emissions fall below a limit of 270g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. They will also be required to switch to low-carbon gasses by 2035 and submit themselves to regular inspections.
Low carbon gasses meaning hydrogen or biogas.
I think thats a reasonable compromise for the transition process and will definitly reduce carbon emissions. People here are beeing pretty dramatic.
What simping for Russia does to a mf
Natural gas is the only reason CO2 emissions have been falling in the US since 2005. It’s a good bridge fuel on the way to full green energy.
Nuclear is green, gas is a lot better than coal. So good move overall.
>”This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claims to global leadership on climate and the environment,” said Ariadna Rodrigo, a campaigner from Greenpeace. The EU office of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was similarly scathing, calling the proposal a “fiasco” and “political stitch-up” that will create a “huge mess” in the financial markets. WWF also accused the Commission of bowing down to pressure from France and its pro-nuclear allies.
Who are these dense idiots? How the hell do they think nuclear harms the wildlife while solar/wind and their petrol backup do not? Are they seriously calling this agreement anti-science when they can’t do basic maths?
Typical EU decisions: Take two shit ideas and make one
Gas?
What a joke that is.
Both of these shouldn’t be labeled green.
Nuclear is the way to go imho
Germany WTF?
How to meet self imposed goals for green energy 101.
And the poor big energy companies can finally get something of that sweet green energy subsidy money without investing in actual sustainable energy sources.
And european citizens will finally have winters without freezing to death.
It’s a win-win-win.
Good.
Nuclear yes, gas no.
Fossil fuel is now green.
How is gas sustainable when its a fossil fuel, it can run out that is the very opposite of sustainable. We learn this in primary school.
Next: coal deemed co² neutral! It will cause a next mass extinction and by doing so creating new coal for the next species to use! So, if you think about this it’s a circle and our duty to think of next generations…
Backlash from where lol “environmental NGOs” like Greenpeace?
did you guys get infiltrated by american politicians or something?
Good compromise
Coal is even more sustainable than gazputin.
A surprisingly good decision. Gas maybe arguable, but nuclear power is the best possible power source right now. Huge amount of power, while the carbon footprint is really low.
Gas is not sustainable
This is insanity. Why the hell should we go against scientific knowledge and label gas sustainable? Why should our environmental goals suffer because some countries are so incapable to transform without the need for natural gas?
A subject that brings up too many passions and too much ideology. For me things are pretty simple. What is our goal? To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save this planet of ours.
– Does nuclear help with that? Yes, it does, a nuclear power plant produces humongous amounts of electricity with very limited emissions. So let’s invest in that.
– Does gas produce less emissions than coal? Yes, about half of coal’s emissions. So let’s replace part of the coal electricity production with gas electricity production, until we manage to have fully green generation. That necessitates investments too, for example in converting coal plans into gas plants.
Too many think that overnight we can have all renewables electricity production. That is just not possible, no European country can make that transition quickly.What annoys me is to see countries such as Germany closing nuclear plants and thus burning more coal and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, several countries being totally against nuclear power but then buying for decades huge amounts of nuclear-generated energy from their neighbors, or countries such as Belgium planning to close its nuclear plants and to replace them with gas plants, the Belgian Greens being the main promoters of this stupidity. In short, let’s be practical and solve this huge problem and not ideological about it.
Apparently their considerations and mechanisms aren’t based on science (such as scientific data and a definition of sustainability that looks beyond the next 5 years).
People fail to understand that they’re sustainable until we get to something better, like nuclear fusion .
Green energy – Hydro, Geo, Wind and Solar are prone to cyclical and variable output.
You don’t have full power you need, when you need it if it’s not sunny, not windy, hasn’t been enough rain,etc.
Battery storage is expensive abd costly to maintain so that’s why there’s gas and nuclear to supplement these when you’re facing a shortage in production.
Sure it’s not ideal but is sure is better than burning coal or oil derivates.
We’ll get there, eventually… Hopefully soon when we’ll have cheap clean energy.
Why is Germany the only country in this thread again that’s getting bashed for being anti-nuclear? I hate that my country is anti-nuclear too, but you guys do know that Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal are against nuclear too, right?