Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The long predicted collapse of the EU renewable energy push has finally arrived. The EU has effectively just admitted renewable energy does not work, by moving to extend their definition of green energy to include reliable power sources like natural gas and nuclear energy.
Fury as EU moves ahead with plans to label gas and nuclear as ‘green’
Brussels faces backlash and charges of greenwashing after publishing draft proposals on New Year’s Eve
Jennifer Rankin in Brussels
Mon 3 Jan 2022 23.18 AEDTThe European Commission is facing a furious backlash over plans to allow gas and nuclear to be labelled as “green” investments, as Germany’s economy minister led the charge against “greenwashing”.
The EU executive was accused of trying to bury the proposals by releasing long-delayed technical rules on its green investment guidebook to diplomats on New Year’s Eve, hours before a deadline expired.
The draft proposals seen by the Guardian would allow gas and nuclear to be included in the EU “taxonomy of environmentally sustainable economic activities”, subject to certain conditions.
The taxonomy is a classification system intended to direct billions to clean-energy projects to meet the EU goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
…
Austria’s government repeated its threat to sue the commission if the plans go ahead. Leonore Gewessler, the country’s climate action minister, said neither gas nor nuclear belonged in the taxonomy “because they are harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children”.
She added: “We will examine the current draft carefully and have already commissioned a legal opinion on nuclear power in the taxonomy. If these plans are implemented in this way, we will sue.”
She also accused the commission of a “a night and fog operation” in the timing of the publication, a charge echoed by Luxembourg’s energy minister, Claude Turmes, who described the draft as a provocation.
However, opponents are not expected to secure the supermajority needed to block the plans.
…
Germany’s finance minister, Christian Lindner of the FDP, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Sunday that Germany needed gas-fired power plants as a transition technology because it was foregoing coal and nuclear power. “I am grateful that arguments were apparently taken up by the commission,” he said.
…
The plans have already attracted the ire of Greta Thunberg and other young climate activists, who say this “fake climate action” contradicts the EU’s goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/03/fury-eu-moves-ahead-plans-label-gas-nuclear-green
Greta Thunberg is throwing a tantrum – but nobody cares.
In the wake of Europe’s catastrophic September green energy crisis we all knew the EU’s commitment to renewables had to end, but I’m personally surprised the EU bureaucracy moved so quickly. The haste with which they made this decision is evidence of how worried EU leaders are about rocketing energy prices and blackouts.
We can only imagine how green groups are responding to this abrupt defeat, what frantic meetings and phone calls must be occurring. I mean, the EU was the most committed green energy champion on the planet, everything seemed to be moving their way, then suddenly with this one stroke of a pen, it is all over.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“the EU’s commitment to renewables had to end”
Let’s be honest here, it’s not ended any commitment to unreliable energy.
Good point. There are still plans ongoing to blight the landscape even more with windmills and solar.
Germany will soon become the middleman for Russian gas sales in the EU, which bodes ill for EU unity. Raising emission charges in this situation is senseless. Rather, modern technologies for coal-fired power plants should be taken care of. With such a policy, Western European countries are becoming completely dependent on Putin.
The USA in particular needs to wake up to the fact that countries like Germany – and possibly France as well – are moving steadily further away from the US and closer to Russia. The US need to take a good look at themselves and turn back from their current trajectory – their internal surrender of power to woke fascist-evangelists and especially their deeply racist and obnoxiously supremacist foreign policy, where countries like China and Russia are unconditional racial adversaries. And this is somehow OK? The world is getting sick of this, and if the US doesn’t change course it’s in for a very rude awakening.
No kidding, China CCP are @ssholes.
The woke fascist-evangelists are in direct opposition to China and Russia as adversaries.
The adversarial relationship with Russia and China have nothing to do with race, but their policies, especially their recent use of force to expand their territories.
The abandoning of the concept of American exceptionalism has been a clear foreign policy failure. Instead of other countries wanting to adapt the parts of American systems that will work for them, now they just want a slice of of US riches. And if America is just another country, why not drift to Russia.
The toxicity in relations with Russia and China is partly self-fulfilling and self-sustaining. The US and “west” in general missed a big opportunity with Russia at the fall of the Berlin wall. Why did Germany get a Marshall plan and Russia not? With China naive mistakes were made regarding e.g. technology IP but its no good crying over spilt milk. Politics must re-learn friendship with caution – the right kind of duplicity. A Statesman (of either gender) would try to try to snap out of the negative cycle, while mere politicians are happy to stay on the now-popular but dangerous downwardly spiralling waterslide.
(“Dune” should be essential reading for all politicians. Maybe too a training course with the Bene Gesserit.)
The US and ‘west’ in general controlled Germany at the end of WW2, they had no control over Russia at the fall of the Berlin wall, thus the Marshall Plan could be implemented for one and not the other.
“The world is getting sick of this”
You are speaking for the world, are you?
Somebody has to be the world’s policeman, otherwise the criminals/dictators run wild. Who would be your choice for world policeman?
It appears the intellectual prowess of i.p. German politicians has somewhat diminished over the years.
Priceless.
1/. So much money has been poured into Climate Change they cant back out now.
2/. Quick buck renewables simply aren’t working as energy generators.But as profitable virtue signallers they are superb.
3/. The dilemma is fixed by a lexical sleight of hand. After all solar power and wind power are driven by the Great Reactor in the sky, so a reactor on earth has to be just as green, heh?
4., In 20 years nuclear power will be all there is, the planet wont have fried and the Greens will take credit.
This is a good and smart move by the EU.
The one good thing to come out of the climate fiasco is a nuclear renaissance.
Needless to say the antinuclear IQ-same-as-shoe-size Luddite Neanderthals can be expected to be in full howl.
Let them howl. They’re just as much a useless waste of space as the anti-vaxxers.
If a person gets the MMR vaccine but doesn’t get the gene therapy shot are they an anti vaxxer 🤔
I’ve no idea what that means.
MMR does not cause autism.
Autism isn’t even a disease.
Its the next evolutionary development of humans.
Current human sociobiology/bottom-sniffing behaviour was adapted for palaeolithic hunter-gatherers and is not fit for purpose in modern technological society.
Best to just drop it.
Everything will work better with less conflict and more efficiency once most people are autistic within a few millenia.
Autism comes in an extremely wide range of effects, most of which result in significant limitations. At its core is a deficit in social communication. There is certainly no reduction in conflict or increase in efficiency in a class of autistic children.
You may be thinking of the top end of the spectrum formerly known as Asperger’s, where people are seen as socially awkward but are able to function independently. Even for them, it is about discovering a proper slot. Even the world’s most famous person with autism, Temple Grandin, has said “the part of other people that has emotional relationships is not part of me”. A society dominated by autistic people would not function well. Without an extremely powerful government and severe restrictions on civil liberties, it probably wouldn’t function at all.
A sphincter says what?
In the end, Greenies just can’t help themselves. They go full Godwin. It’s really all they have left.
Not sure an Austrian referring to Night and Fog is a good idea.
Nacht und Nebel (meaning Night and Fog), was a directive issued by Adolf Hitler on 7 December 1941 targeting political activists and resistance “helpers” in the territories occupied by Nazi Germany during the World War II, who were to be imprisoned, murdered, or made to disappear, while the family and the population remained uncertain as to the fate or whereabouts of the alleged offender against the Nazi German occupation power. Victims who disappeared in these clandestine actions were never heard from again. (Wikipedia)
EU Draft Proposal for Nuclear and Gas
EU bureaucrats are finally facing reality
With energy costs soaring and citizens complaining, the EU is finally shifting to a more pragmatic energy policy…
They declared, in a draft proposal: “Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU, if certain conditions are met”
The German Government, and a few other EU governments, are upset about EU draft proposal
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/eu-seeks-classify-some-natural-gas-and-nuclear-green
Two Nuclear Green Requirements
– The project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste.
– New nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.
Four Natural Gas Green Requirements
– Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green, if they have emissions below 270 g of CO2e/kWh.
– Replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant
– Receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030
– Plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035
Point number 4 is interesting. To be classified as green, Owners have to “plan”, not to “do” something, i.e., switch to low-carbon gasses.
Low carbon gasses are defined as biogas, bio methane, or hydrogen produced via electrolysis by using renewable-generated electricity.
As methane is methane, a plan to switch to low-bio methane costs nothing (no plant retooling needed).
Doing is another matter. Maybe it will be more economical in 2035.
Previously, the EU proposed a 100 g of CO2e/kWh emissions limit, based on climate fear-mongering, and “steps needed to avoid disastrous climate change”.
That went out the window, after already over-stressed consumers complained about the very high cost of electricity and heating.
French president Macron did not want another “Yellow Vest Movement” protest about energy; he is facing a tough re-election in April, 2022.
France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
It has among the lowest household electricity prices in the EU, primarily due to low-cost nuclear.
France was aiming reduce nuclear to 50% by 2035, but that goal may be revised.
The EU draft proposal would provide a more practical and environmental approach, in contrast to the ridiculous path Angela Merkel took Germany.
Merkel gave in to the Greens. She agreed to phase out nuclear.
As a result, Germany became more dependent on coal; that makes no environmental sense.
Mothballing nuclear plants that have decades more useful life, makes no sense regarding energy cost and the environment.
Weather-dependent wind and solar are unreliable, as Spain found out, and its citizens are complaining the most.
A cold winter and soaring prices knocked some sense into the EU.
High inflation trumped green ideology.
US Energy Policy on Hold, due to the Controversial BBB bill
Biden’s extreme-leftist handlers have not yet learned from European Experience
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, et al., three well-known energy systems analysts, are still setting US energy policy.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/build-back-better-would-cost-3-95-trillion-overt-the-next-decade
From the article: “The long predicted collapse of the EU renewable energy push has finally arrived. The EU has effectively just admitted renewable energy does not work, by moving to extend their definition of green energy to include reliable power sources like natural gas and nuclear energy.”
You can’t fool Mother Nature!
Actually, this is a good sign. Some of our leaders are bowing to the inevitable.
I’m trying to understand how this will make any practical difference in the near term. It does not appear this will reverse Germany’s closure of three nuclear plants last December or plans to close the final three this December.
Austria has no operational nuclear plants and none under construction or planned.
Ditto Italy.
Spain has seven operational reactors. Work stopped on four uncompleted reactors in 1984. No others are under construction or planned.
Greece has one old reactor that will reach 60-year end of life in 2033 and none planned or under construction.
Belgium has 7 operational reactors — all slated for decommission by 2025. Total output is about 6GW at two sites, but both have capacity factors in the 65% range — quite low by nuclear standards.
France has a bunch of reactors, but only one under construction. Quite a few entered service in the 1980s. Some are slated for closure after less than 60 years operation but some others have been upgraded and scheduled for operation beyond 60 years. There will certainly be no significant increase in French nuclear generation in the next 10 years and there will likely be some reduction.
Poland has none operational but 7 planned. Earliest commission date is 2033, but this is dubious given that no construction has started.
Hungary has four operational and two more planned (all Russian designs).
Czech Republic has 6 operational and 3 planned. The oldest four entered service between 1985 and 1987, so they will likely all have to be decommissioned within 15 years.
Recent experience suggests that it will take at least 10 years to complete any nuclear plant starting construction this year.
As for natural gas unless domestic production increases all this will do is increase dependence on Russia. All of the EU produces slightly less natural gas than just Norway.
As I understand it, the EU proposal allows nuclear and natural gas to be counted towards “green” energy goals, but does not otherwise encourage their use. Unless Germany and Belgium reverse their nuclear closures (about 14.4 GW total), this lost capacity will have to be made up by either increasing dependence on Russia or increasing dependence on unreliable renewable sources. Even a crash nuclear program started today won’t produce any relief this decade.
Natural gas plants can be built much faster and cheaper, but the EU does not have the domestic gas production to support them.
This could represent an initial tentative step back towards embracing reality, but by itself I don’t see it as having much effect.
It is a step, everything is a series of steps back from the brink of stupidity. It only happened a few days ago, its not as though a bunch of plants would start to be built, but in 2021 we have seen many announcements of a shift to nuclear that will come, this announcement is just the EU showing they grasp reality even if a few members don’t.
Its the first thing i have seen that is based in reality for a long time, that has to count for something.
Natural gas is very clean-burning and nuclear is emissions-free. They should also include hydro-electric power generation as green as well.
Pushing the green agenda to get rid of coal and head for wind and solar is now over.I am happy with nuclear and gas. They don’t have to convince me of this so they can stop with the CO2 is bad now.
If PV solar panels, with their 10% toxic metal content and limited lifespan, can be called “green”, natural gas and nuclear should be called ultra-green.
The EU is so slow to catch on. Here in the good ole’ US of A, our brightest and finest minds have even told us that natural gas is not even a fossil fuel!
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”
Nancy Pelosi, 2008
Maybe there is a middle way. Why not promote a system where the believers can individually choose to forgo the benefits of reliable inexpensive electricity and do whatever they wish while the sane people keep a system that works and buy their energy and energy-derived products from industries that work. Democracies are supposed to be about free choice – lets have that.
Ok, so now how to we get this in Britain?
First time I’ve seen something valuable come from the EU
The only renewable sources of energy are coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear. Wind and solar are crap that cannot even sustain their own operation, much less provide electricity for anyone, anywhere at any time. Total failure. And leftards are happy they are failing.
We still have no working def of renewable, and we won’t, it’s undefinable. Either all are or none are.
Too bad that the Netherlands got only half of the EU-memo. After years of no mention nuclear energy within the government, plans of the newly formed government now include building two nuclear power plants as “addition to solar, wind and geothermal energy”.
However, the Dutch are phasing out natural gas. New homes cannot be connected to the gas grid. All has to be electric. There is subsidy for households to get off the gas grid.
I always figured it would take several decades for nuclear power to be recognized for what it is — the only carbon-free, large-scale source of energy in existence. Remember that the alarmist movement has people who have spent their entire lives fighting AGAINST nuclear power. That’s a hard about-face to make mentally. And where would they find credibility, even with themselves? (“Listen to us because we’re all about The Science!”)
Recognition would have to wait for a new generation who doesn’t have that baggage.
“because they are harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children”. The manufacturing and the eventual disposal of Solar, Wind equipment and Batteries is as bad if not worse than the effects of NG and Nuclear. Pull your head out of the sand. Do the research,