Kind of interesting that an issue as significant as this is handled as a delegated act. Afaik the European Council can stop a delegated act by some majority, but this extremely rarely happens.
Annoying how most people who have an issue with this is due to nuclear, when gas is actually the one with major issues.
What does green mean though, if it means not contributing to climate change then nuclear is fine, but gas is not
There was two possible outcomes : this one or a plan so watered down it would have been completely useless.
Countries who refuse nuclear need gas because full renewable is not currently possible.
Countries who favour nuclear would never accept to have a fossil fuel among the clean energies and not nuclear.
Neither of the two should be labelled as green, but especially gas.
Well, Germans got rid of their nuclear plants so they have to get creative.
I really don’t understand why would someone oppose nuclear right now.
Why shouldn’t nuclear be labelled as green?
– No CO2 emission
– High energy produced by m2 (less used land, less impact in the local flora and fauna).
– Reserves for up to 80 years, +150 years if we decided to search uranium and mine it.
I firmly believe that many people that oppose it don’t even know what a nuclear plant implies and how nuclear power is generated. They have been totally brainwashed.
I mean I’m sure I’d look a sickly share of green if someone poorly stored nuclear waste near my water supply so it’s green in that sense. Look at the amount of nuclear waste there is, especially when it comes to clothes and equipment, they can’t be refined and added to the fuel, they have to be dealt with and currently that means burying them and hoping they don’t get accidentally dug up for a few thousand years.
Just imagine if Egyptian Pharaoh’s tombs had been a nuclear waste dump? Before the Rosetta stone was translated there would’ve been all sorts of radiated material spread all over the world and exposed a lot of people to it and I’m sure if there were warnings of danger and to keep our they’d have treated it as superstitious nonsense, especially if they only find old fork lift trucks and clothing inside. We may have, and hopefully should have, moved being nuclear at that point so they may not even consider it an option, especially if they are amateur archaeologists digging about.
Nobody can predict the future, nobody can be sure what the world is like in 3022, a massive earthquake might break open old nuclear waste dumps. Chernobyl has been buried and it might be the epicentre of an asteroid landing which would send nuclear waste into the atmosphere, Mir nuclear facilities means a higher possibility that there will be similar disasters waiting to happen and if it happens it’s another possible target.
Finally there’s the problem of fuel, gas and uranium are finite, they will run out, we would be looking very long term at technology line solar and wind because if they ever run out the big problem isn’t a question of what resource to move onto it’s about winding down and preparing for the end of everything.
We can’t go on hopping from finite resource to finite resource.
You could guess it’s Guardian by the headline alone.
Ah, that famous green energy source… **checks notes** fossil fuels.
Let me guess: German-Russian team is the one who is furious?
so their solution is to make everyone unhappy lol
so their solution is to make everyone unhappy lol
> Habeck, a co-leader of the Greens, also told the German press agency dpa it was “questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market”.
> The Dogwood Alliance has extensive photographic evidence of whole trees in North Carolina and Virginia being piled up on trucks that are headed for Enviva’s pellet mills, which require some fifty-seven thousand acres of timber per year to operate. Conservation North, a community group in British Columbia working to protect primary forests, has taken aerial photographs of thousands of hectares of forests in British Columbia that the provincial government has licensed to the Drax subsidiary Pinnacle Renewable Energy. These forests were recently shorn clean of their spruce, birch, and pine trees. “Those forests went to Pinnacle and then went to the Drax power plant to be burned,” Michelle Connolly, the director of Conservation North, told me.
> This evidence conflicts with Drax’s official promotional materials. According to a Drax-produced virtual tour, the wood it burns for biomass is “made from tiny pieces of sawdust” that are “made when the trunk of the tree is cut into the big pieces needed for construction and furniture.” Minutes later in the same video, you see whole trees being loaded into a debarking machine, as a narrator speaks about “sustainably sourced forest thinning and low-grade wood.”
> When I first asked a Drax spokesperson, Selina Williams, about this evidence of clear-cutting, she challenged me for using the word “logging.” “Pinnacle isn’t a logging company,” Williams said repeatedly. When I restated “logging” as “tree-cutting-down,” she repeated the phrase in a derisive tone: “Tree-cutting-down? What do you mean by tree-cutting-down?” Eventually, she said, “Canada has one of the most regulated forest industries in the world and has laws requiring a specified annual cut to minimize the risk of pest, disease, and fire.”
Pikachu Face. Germany wants to marks gas as green.
The energy equivalent of the anti vax movement.
Why can’t more environmentalists support nuclear energy?
Gas is relatively clean compared to coal, so I’d call it grey compared to black…
Nuclear would be grey-green imo.
If the current energy crisis continues, coal will also be declared a green energy source.
Why are you all against gas being lable as transitional green? Do you guys want to continue the dependency on oil while burning majority of the gas? When you could reduce oil and start use more of that gas that would have been burnt on site anyway! We literally waste energy, and when EU takes first steps to fight for climate change you all turn stupid and think it’s because they are corrupt? When there is literally experts in the field, which btw, you guys are not.
EU use only 32% gas to power the entire eu region. That’s nothing compared to what oil rigs burns for safty reasons. The reason they burn the gas is because you cannot extract oil without getting gas into the system, the same way you cannot drink soda without releasing the gas from the bottle. And when you have too much gas, the pipelines on the platform can leak which will put everyone working there at risk of death. Therefor, they burn away the gas. Instead of let it just fly out in thin air. A rough guess, humans on earth use less then 5% of the gas captured on oil rights, and burn the rest.
Next step will be ban burning gas, and have state invest into lay pipeline from mainland to offshore.
100% agree with Nuclear. Gas, I’m not so sure.
One of those things is not like the other
Reddit has a nuclear boner but gas does have its uses in the interim while energy storage improves.
You can’t turn nuclear up or down quickly or easily so it doesn’t do a good job of filling in for variances in renewable availability.
What we really need is a sensible mix until renewable and energy storage is at a point where it can take over.
24 comments
Nuclear should be considered imo. Gas, though…
Kind of interesting that an issue as significant as this is handled as a delegated act. Afaik the European Council can stop a delegated act by some majority, but this extremely rarely happens.
Annoying how most people who have an issue with this is due to nuclear, when gas is actually the one with major issues.
What does green mean though, if it means not contributing to climate change then nuclear is fine, but gas is not
There was two possible outcomes : this one or a plan so watered down it would have been completely useless.
Countries who refuse nuclear need gas because full renewable is not currently possible.
Countries who favour nuclear would never accept to have a fossil fuel among the clean energies and not nuclear.
Neither of the two should be labelled as green, but especially gas.
Well, Germans got rid of their nuclear plants so they have to get creative.
I really don’t understand why would someone oppose nuclear right now.
Why shouldn’t nuclear be labelled as green?
– No CO2 emission
– High energy produced by m2 (less used land, less impact in the local flora and fauna).
– Reserves for up to 80 years, +150 years if we decided to search uranium and mine it.
I firmly believe that many people that oppose it don’t even know what a nuclear plant implies and how nuclear power is generated. They have been totally brainwashed.
I mean I’m sure I’d look a sickly share of green if someone poorly stored nuclear waste near my water supply so it’s green in that sense. Look at the amount of nuclear waste there is, especially when it comes to clothes and equipment, they can’t be refined and added to the fuel, they have to be dealt with and currently that means burying them and hoping they don’t get accidentally dug up for a few thousand years.
Just imagine if Egyptian Pharaoh’s tombs had been a nuclear waste dump? Before the Rosetta stone was translated there would’ve been all sorts of radiated material spread all over the world and exposed a lot of people to it and I’m sure if there were warnings of danger and to keep our they’d have treated it as superstitious nonsense, especially if they only find old fork lift trucks and clothing inside. We may have, and hopefully should have, moved being nuclear at that point so they may not even consider it an option, especially if they are amateur archaeologists digging about.
Nobody can predict the future, nobody can be sure what the world is like in 3022, a massive earthquake might break open old nuclear waste dumps. Chernobyl has been buried and it might be the epicentre of an asteroid landing which would send nuclear waste into the atmosphere, Mir nuclear facilities means a higher possibility that there will be similar disasters waiting to happen and if it happens it’s another possible target.
Finally there’s the problem of fuel, gas and uranium are finite, they will run out, we would be looking very long term at technology line solar and wind because if they ever run out the big problem isn’t a question of what resource to move onto it’s about winding down and preparing for the end of everything.
We can’t go on hopping from finite resource to finite resource.
You could guess it’s Guardian by the headline alone.
Ah, that famous green energy source… **checks notes** fossil fuels.
Let me guess: German-Russian team is the one who is furious?
so their solution is to make everyone unhappy lol
so their solution is to make everyone unhappy lol
> Habeck, a co-leader of the Greens, also told the German press agency dpa it was “questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market”.
Greenwashing they cry?! How about this for greenwashing: more than half of the „renewable energy” in Europe is burning biomass – https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-eyes-tighter-rules-renewable-biomass-energy-draft-2021-06-16/
Here’s a more detailed article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-millions-of-tons-of-carbon-emissions-that-dont-officially-exist
> The Dogwood Alliance has extensive photographic evidence of whole trees in North Carolina and Virginia being piled up on trucks that are headed for Enviva’s pellet mills, which require some fifty-seven thousand acres of timber per year to operate. Conservation North, a community group in British Columbia working to protect primary forests, has taken aerial photographs of thousands of hectares of forests in British Columbia that the provincial government has licensed to the Drax subsidiary Pinnacle Renewable Energy. These forests were recently shorn clean of their spruce, birch, and pine trees. “Those forests went to Pinnacle and then went to the Drax power plant to be burned,” Michelle Connolly, the director of Conservation North, told me.
> This evidence conflicts with Drax’s official promotional materials. According to a Drax-produced virtual tour, the wood it burns for biomass is “made from tiny pieces of sawdust” that are “made when the trunk of the tree is cut into the big pieces needed for construction and furniture.” Minutes later in the same video, you see whole trees being loaded into a debarking machine, as a narrator speaks about “sustainably sourced forest thinning and low-grade wood.”
> When I first asked a Drax spokesperson, Selina Williams, about this evidence of clear-cutting, she challenged me for using the word “logging.” “Pinnacle isn’t a logging company,” Williams said repeatedly. When I restated “logging” as “tree-cutting-down,” she repeated the phrase in a derisive tone: “Tree-cutting-down? What do you mean by tree-cutting-down?” Eventually, she said, “Canada has one of the most regulated forest industries in the world and has laws requiring a specified annual cut to minimize the risk of pest, disease, and fire.”
Pikachu Face. Germany wants to marks gas as green.
The energy equivalent of the anti vax movement.
Why can’t more environmentalists support nuclear energy?
Gas is relatively clean compared to coal, so I’d call it grey compared to black…
Nuclear would be grey-green imo.
If the current energy crisis continues, coal will also be declared a green energy source.
Why are you all against gas being lable as transitional green? Do you guys want to continue the dependency on oil while burning majority of the gas? When you could reduce oil and start use more of that gas that would have been burnt on site anyway! We literally waste energy, and when EU takes first steps to fight for climate change you all turn stupid and think it’s because they are corrupt? When there is literally experts in the field, which btw, you guys are not.
EU use only 32% gas to power the entire eu region. That’s nothing compared to what oil rigs burns for safty reasons. The reason they burn the gas is because you cannot extract oil without getting gas into the system, the same way you cannot drink soda without releasing the gas from the bottle. And when you have too much gas, the pipelines on the platform can leak which will put everyone working there at risk of death. Therefor, they burn away the gas. Instead of let it just fly out in thin air. A rough guess, humans on earth use less then 5% of the gas captured on oil rights, and burn the rest.
Next step will be ban burning gas, and have state invest into lay pipeline from mainland to offshore.
100% agree with Nuclear. Gas, I’m not so sure.
One of those things is not like the other
Reddit has a nuclear boner but gas does have its uses in the interim while energy storage improves.
You can’t turn nuclear up or down quickly or easily so it doesn’t do a good job of filling in for variances in renewable availability.
What we really need is a sensible mix until renewable and energy storage is at a point where it can take over.
(Spoiler: we’re a long way from that)