European Commission Declares Nuclear and Gas to be Green

From Deutsche Welle

The European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step “greenwashing” and say it could threaten the bloc’s bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.

One good way to know someone is trustworthy is that they tell you how trustworthy (credible) they are.

In a proposal presented this Wednesday, the EU Commission stated that certain strings remained attached. For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy, by 2035.

Nuclear power plants would be deemed green if the sites can manage to safely dispose of radioactive waste. So far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site, has gone into operation though.

At a news conference in Brussels, Mairead McGuinness, the EU commissioner responsible for financial services, said her institution was not guilty of “greenwashing,” as gas and nuclear were labeled as “transitional” energy sources in the taxonomy. “Our credibility is still strong,” McGuinness added.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.

Not everyone was happy.

Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically, saying the proposal could jeopardize the EU’s aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050. The Climate Action Network Europe wrote that the EU Commission “sacrifices the scientific integrity of the taxonomy on the altar of fossil gas and nuclear lobbies” and failed to “reorient financial flows towards genuinely climate-positive investments.”

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.

It’s a comprehensive article and well worth a read.

What happens next?

The European Commission’s taxonomy proposal will now be reviewed by the 27 EU member states and by the European Parliament. 

As the EU’s executive opted for a delegated act, a type of fast-track legislative procedure, only a total of 20 EU countries, or a majority of EU lawmakers at the European Parliament, would be able to reject it.

While EU states are not likely to turn down the taxonomy, a win in the European Parliament is not yet certain. Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have expressed anger over the inclusion of fossil gas and nuclear power in the EU taxonomy.

Green lawmaker Rasmus Andresen said he was “disappointed” by the proposal, adding that the Green parliamentary fraction would fight hard to gather a majority against the taxonomy.

German Social Democrat Joachim Schuster told DW he thought it possible that the European Parliament could vote against the act. 

And even if lawmakers were to support it, there is another threat looming: Austria and Luxembourg have already threatened to sue  the European Commission over the taxonomy rules.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.
5 12 votes
Article Rating
114 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dennis
July 7, 2022 6:04 am

China will be pleased, as they continue to build new coal fired power stations with no emissions reduction commitment to the IPCC Paris Agreement.

And nuclear and gas generators as they continue to grow their economy and military to rival the US.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dennis
Editor
Reply to  Dennis
July 7, 2022 7:08 am

presumably, as you can make gas from coal then coal must also now be ‘green?

Richard Page
Reply to  tonyb
July 7, 2022 8:53 am

Not all gas is created equal – ‘green’ gas will only be considered green if it is made with 100% renewables like green hydrogen. Or maybe if a sufficiently massive bribe is deposited with the right bureaucratic idiot!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 1:15 pm

Yes but sine renewables are 100% dependent on fossil fuels for their existence…

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Richard Page
July 8, 2022 11:36 am

Coal gasification/liquefaction is the only justifiable use for hydrogen generated using renewables. It would, in fact, allow renewables to actually be renewable, since almost all of the equipment needed to mine, process, and shape the materials for renewables is powered by liquid hydrocarbons (manufacturing concrete uses natural gas to calcine the limestone). Germany fought most of WW-II with fuels made from their native lignite coal via the Bergius process for gasoline, or Fischer-Tropsch for kerosene and other alkanes. Hydrogen was manufactured by the same method as they had used for filling zeppelins, that of passing steam over beds of red-hot iron granules. Making methane with coal (or any form of carbon) and hydrogen is a snap, and doing so with hydrogen made with renewables – including nuclear – would certainly be as green as one could ever realistically get.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dennis
July 7, 2022 8:50 am

I wonder if that taxonomy of green nuclear includes sending their spent fuel to nuclear reprocessing centre’s? Could be a nice little earner for the UK if we can keep it open for business.

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  Dennis
July 7, 2022 8:39 pm

No problem for them to ‘rival’ the U.S…. the U.S. is devolving so China can catch up with little effort.

Reply to  Dennis
July 8, 2022 11:34 pm

Some coal power stations made by China have the potential built-in to be switchable to nuclear generation. This is a good example of forward-looking pragmatism – although you won’t heat anyone in the west saying this. If

Tom Halla
July 7, 2022 6:06 am

As this designation was about virtue signaling, not results, it does not matter. The hard core greens will oppose everything that works.

DaveinCalgary
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 7, 2022 8:18 am

From my reading of this, gas power is only considered “green” if it comes from biomass. Meaning for all the caterwauling, nothing much has really changed from a net zero perspective as nuclear energy was already net zero regardless of whether people were pro or anti nuke. Traditional natural gas, as we know it, still isn’t green if this passes.

The linked article is one giant facepalm after another. Ignorant fools giving terrible arguments in opposition to different ignorant fools proposing moronic solutions to non-problems, I literally got dumber by the second reading it.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
July 7, 2022 1:20 pm

You haven’t got it quite right. The green hypocrites are happy to call natural gas “green” if they will convert the generators later:
“For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy, by 2035”

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 8, 2022 3:09 pm

Likewise some coal power stations made by China have the potential built in to be switchable to nuclear generation.

Reply to  DaveinCalgary
July 7, 2022 2:23 pm

Dave I C,
Thank you for reading the link – so I didn’t need to.
Cheers!

Auto

Editor
July 7, 2022 6:19 am

This will be a fun thread to read when it fills. Be back later.

Regards,
Bob

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 7, 2022 6:55 am

How about painting those wood pellets green?

John Hultquist
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 7, 2022 8:16 am

DRAX, in the UK, is not in the EU and presumable not subject to the Commission’s ramblings.
Are there other facilities in the EU that burn pellets? I’d prefer blue.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 7, 2022 9:00 am

There are several wood pellet biomass plants in the EU, including at least one in the Netherlands, but none as big as Drax. There are several already in the US and a lot more proposed – despite objections, it’s poised to grab a major share of power generation in the next few years.

mal
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 9:49 pm

So we are going to massively cut down forest to burn them! Well I guess that better than letting them burn without using the trees for anything like what is going on now. The anti loggers would rather have a forest burn to a crisp than log.

Richard Page
Reply to  mal
July 8, 2022 9:12 am

Apparently a US forest owner has remarked that it was a good alternative as the only idea he had come up with was to build a shopping mall on the land. Not 100% sure if it was intended as a joke or whether he was deadly serious.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 7, 2022 8:42 am

Does that also apply to refined oil, dying it green makes it green?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 7, 2022 9:41 am

Hey, if fish can be birds, (or the other way around) then oil can be declared gas, or wind, or sunlight, what ever – nicht wahr?

Redge
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 7, 2022 11:39 am

If people can self-identify as the opposite gender, green heads would explode of Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas all self-identified as carbon neutral

Richard Page
Reply to  Redge
July 7, 2022 12:14 pm

Shell appears to be making an attempt in that direction and they’re not alone – more than a few are trying to hedge their bets by going into ruinables as well.

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 8:44 pm

“ruinables”… love it!

Anon
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 7, 2022 2:43 pm

Actually coal might also qualify as “Green”: if was extracted and transported by electrically powered mining equipment and railroads, thus reducing its overall carbon footprint.

Then, that “Green Coal” could be used to generate the electricity needed to power the mining equipment and trains, further reducing the carbon footprint of the mining operation, which then could be classified as green extraction.

Reply to  Anon
July 8, 2022 7:58 am

The latest “Advanced Ultra-Supercritical” Steam coal fired power plants are 47.5% efficient vs 33% for the retiring coal fired plants in the US. That efficiency makes them competitive with NG CCTG NG plants in terms of CO2 emission per kWh. China. as usual has taken our research/technology and building their own version of this less expensive power while we, the US Greenies, outlaw it’s use through non-constitutional EPA mandates.
Meanwhile no one does anything about the coal mine fires in the US that have been burning for decades releasing CO2.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 7, 2022 1:17 pm

Yeah but the paint is made from…D’oh!

Frank from NoVA
July 7, 2022 6:24 am

‘Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically, saying the proposal could jeopardize the EU’s aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050.’

Baloney. Basic physics and economics are the real ‘threats’ to the EU’s goal of reaching climate neutrality, whatever that is, by 2050, or any other year for that matter

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 7, 2022 11:46 pm

True …

Field of Dreams sticky.png
Jeroen B.
July 7, 2022 6:27 am

An utterly pointless decision that serves only to prolong the life of current power plants without offering any incentive to build new ones.

For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy, by 2035.

This is nuts. This means anyone planning a new gas power station has to invest in the cockamamie notion that biomass/ “green” hydrogen (a meme in itself) will be available or even possible by 2035. That’s 13 years from now.
It would mean any investor would have to fund the station AND all the non-existent tech for the non-existent fuel and hope it passses muster, OR be forced to write off the plant in those 13 years minus however long it takes to get built/permitted. For a piece of reliable infrastructure with a lifespan of ~40-ish years (corrections if I’m wrong)

Nuclear power plants would be deemed green if the sites can manage to safely dispose of radioactive waste. So far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site, has gone into operation though.

This is also nuts. Fuel reprocessing exists, yes there’ll be some waste but then again – how many square miles of (toxic) landfills will it take to dispose of all the windmill blades and worn out solar panels instead ? And those are GREEN ??

This really looks like a desperate PR stunt to make wind/solar look cheap and easy to deploy while landing all the challenges in the lap of anyone trying to build out reliable energy infrastructure in Europe.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jeroen B.
PMHinSC
Reply to  Jeroen B.
July 7, 2022 9:48 am

As Jeroen B writes “An utterly pointless decision…”
Except in France, little money or political will for nuclear, and high cost and environmentally unfriendly hydrogen and biomass have no foreseeable future. This “European Commission Declaration” is a European version of an American “nothin burger.”

Jeroen B.
Reply to  PMHinSC
July 7, 2022 1:13 pm

Now that I read it again I am really questioning these people’s grip on reality, for instance:

if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy

(my bold btw) … BUT WHY ????
Why would you first generate a a pittance of occasional electricity to run an electrolysis plant to produce hydrogen (with all its transport, storage and combustion problems/needs) to burn it in a gas plant ?? WHY ???
Do these people honestly believe they GAIN energy at every transformation step ??

I have no words anymore, I am just dumbstruck that me, just an ordinary civilian with an interest this can see clearer than the so-called experts and our wise leaders.

[Edit: fixed spelling]

Last edited 1 month ago by Jeroen B.
yirgach
Reply to  Jeroen B.
July 7, 2022 2:41 pm

“I have no words anymore”

Here’s a word for you:
Gobsmacked

Jeroen B.
Reply to  yirgach
July 7, 2022 11:36 pm

No I’m literally speechless, beyond gobsmacked. I always suspected the European Commission (and Parliament too) was (were) unhinged and brainless, but I never thought I’d see such clear evidence of it.

Yikes.

John_C
Reply to  Jeroen B.
July 7, 2022 5:50 pm

There’s a couple permanent storage options. First, make your waste into casks or pellets and deposit them in a deep oceanic trench to be subducted. Choose a site deeper than 9 kilometers and no one will be able to find it before it’s sucked into the mantle. Second, launch the casks or pellets into the Sun.

A better choice would be to reprocess, the high emission stuff has uses, the still fissile or fertile stuff can go back into a reactor.

Richard Page
Reply to  John_C
July 8, 2022 9:16 am

You’d need an awful lot of energy to launch it into the sun quickly – using less energy means a decades long spiral which could get disturbed or interrupted by any passing rock with unintended consequences.

2hotel9
July 7, 2022 6:28 am

So, these clowns have come to the realization that if they keep pushing the destruction energy production people are going to rise, drag them from their offices and attach them to lampposts. CYA, much?

mkelly
July 7, 2022 6:34 am

This the first step to a 180 on both.

Richard Page
Reply to  mkelly
July 7, 2022 9:02 am

Maybe, maybe not. I see it as just kicking the can down the road a bit. More pressure needs to be brought to bear before the light of understanding dawns on these dimbulbs!

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 8:48 pm

 before the light of understanding dawns on these dimbulbs!” Don’t you need electricity to accomplish that?

Richard Page
Reply to  Sturmudgeon
July 8, 2022 9:19 am

Oh if you insist although I was opting for the age old method of thumbscrews!

LdB
July 7, 2022 6:40 am

ROFL they pulled a large Stokesy if you don’t like something just redefine it.

All you need now is a feed in tarrif for building green gas generation and full greentard status will be achieved.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
Ron Long
July 7, 2022 7:07 am

Progress, sort of. The best Reality check is when Reality bites you in the ass.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Ron Long
July 7, 2022 11:26 am

Per the EC Pigs:

‘Four legs good, two legs better.’ – George Orwell

janice baker
July 7, 2022 7:37 am

what on earth does it mean to be “climate neutral”????

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  janice baker
July 7, 2022 8:10 am

Simple. According to John Kerry, in order to restore the balance you must now absorb more climate than you emit. Or something.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 7, 2022 1:26 pm

Just don’t mention the private jet.

John Hultquist
Reply to  janice baker
July 7, 2022 8:19 am

See: The Lower Paleolithic

Richard Page
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 7, 2022 9:03 am

That’s net zero.

Doonman
Reply to  janice baker
July 7, 2022 9:12 am

It means you heat with animal fur, you cool by living in caves and you eat bugs along with the fruit that you picked up off the ground.

ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 7:40 am

Green begat energy insecurity and economic decline. Agenda group pushing has succeeded in turning the real economy down instead of just podium chatter and policy pronouncements. When will they ever learn?

ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 7:42 am

Ukraine is paying the price for liberal policies on defense and energy in blood and tears. It’s now time for some blaming and finger pointing.

griff
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 7:58 am

How is it?

The situation in Ukraine is entirely down to Putin wanting to reclaim former Soviet territory and enlarge Russia.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
July 7, 2022 8:20 am

A major part of that strategy is energy leverage in western Europe and Putin’s view of potential adversaries who underinvest in defense and energy security.

It’s no coincidence that American defense spending was at its historic low point in percentage terms just before WW2 and was seen by the aggressors as good at making kitchen appliances and other consumer goods and not much else.

Dan Yergin-IHS in WSJ
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine turned a burgeoning energy and economic crisis into a geopolitical one, further driving up prices. For half a century Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, had trumpeted itself as a “reliable supplier” of oil and natural gas, especially to Europe. That idea was widely accepted in Europe on the premise that interdependence would benefit both sides through what the Germans called “change through trade.” So confident in this relationship was Germany, for example, that it decided in 2011 to shut down its nuclear power industry—which produced a quarter of its electricity at the time—and let coal and Russian natural gas account for the shortfall.
In launching its war, Moscow assumed that Europe would eventually have no choice but to acquiesce to its conquest of Ukraine. Europe has instead opposed Vladimir Putin’s ambitions. Russia is responding by launching an energy war in Europe—disrupting flows of gas to fuel economic disruption and generate as much hardship as possible.
And so nations that previously paid little attention to energy security have been forced to search urgently for reliable alternative supplies.”

CoRev
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 8:49 am

Do you have a link for this? Never mind I found it.

Last edited 1 month ago by CoRev
Mac
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 3:30 pm

I agree with Griff to some extent on his comment. Putin has basically stated he mourns the losses that the Soviet Union had. I have been to Russia and Ukraine several times each for two+ weeks at a time and spoke to many people in each country. Both are corrupt politically although I think Ukraine under Zelensky was trying to do something about it. I spoke to one young man in Zaporizhzhia and he said it’s not the government that’s corrupt it’s the people! He said many of the young men his age wanted to join the mafia because that’s where the money is. I visited all the major cities along the Deneper river. Much of Kiev was beautiful. Parts of Russia are beautiful as well particularly St Petersburg with the incredible museums; the Hermitage and the Pushkin. As you enter the arrival hall at Sheremetyevo You notice the Uniforms every where. Outside on the streets are the money changers (Mafia I was told) they will accept only crisp new money to exchange.
Anyway, Putin has also hurt the Russian people. I speak to my ex; she is living in Tula and she has told me many times about the inflation they are suffering as well as the young soldiers coming back in body bags.
However, there is no doubt that the Russian coffers have benefited tremendously by EU stupidity with their green energy programs (Didn’t Trump warn them?).
Of course here in the US there is also rampant stupidity!

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
July 7, 2022 8:26 am
Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
July 7, 2022 8:54 am

“Short-sighted” is an understatement. You need to think a bit more deeply about issues that matter.

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  griff
July 7, 2022 8:51 pm

Yaaay! Grif is back.

ResourceGuy
July 7, 2022 7:53 am

If it’s Thursday drilling is okay, but not on other days of the week with Joe at the podium.

WSJ
Shell Has Big Plans to Drill in the Gulf of Mexico Despite Climate and Political DebateEuropean oil giant is investing billions in Gulf even as Biden administration sends mixed signals on drilling there
“It’s vital that we have the opportunity to restock, replenish the portfolio as we continue to invest a huge amount of money exploring and then developing projects [in the Gulf],” Mr. Goodfellow said in an interview.

David Dibbell
July 7, 2022 8:04 am

“The Climate Action Network Europe wrote that the EU Commission “sacrifices the scientific integrity of the taxonomy on the altar of fossil gas and nuclear lobbies”…”

Never mind that the scientific integrity of climate investigation was sacrificed a long time ago on the altar of “climate action.”

J. R.
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 7, 2022 11:49 pm

I laughed when I saw the words “scientific integrity.”

markl
July 7, 2022 8:09 am

Reality strikes but it won’t save them in the near term. Weather related deaths, economic downturn, and lifestyle changes are on their horizon and will remain so until they can build out the gas and nuclear plants. This will be the wake up call they’ve been warned about but ignored for political reasons. “Save the planet” will become “save the people”.

Elliot W
Reply to  markl
July 7, 2022 12:44 pm

I don’t think they care about saving the people. Look at the baby formula shortage in North America. One would have thought keeping cute little babies fed would be a priority, but apparently not. Instead of declaring an emergency, US and Cdn govts lectured parents on not feeding hungry infants goat or cow milk instead of the non-existent formula. Upshot is, if babies are collateral damage, the rest of us are expendable.

Vuk
July 7, 2022 8:23 am

Now BoJo and Crrie are goners, the UK’s ‘net zero’ might come to zero.
Strangest thing about BoJo’s demise is that some east European press speculates that he was most likely brought down by the FSB.
Although they might have a better reason to do it than anyone in the UK, one could speculate but for the time being I can’t see much in it, but time might tell.
A bit reminiscent of that sudden Italian glacier fall the other day.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
July 7, 2022 9:13 am

Not goners just yet, but very close. Bojo has resigned but wants to stay on as ‘caretaker PM’ until October when a replacement will be elected and installed. Keir Starmer and Nicola Sturgeon have both thrown a tantrum saying he must go now, now, now! Starmer has even gone so far as to threaten a no confidence vote and to bring down the entire government, which has in turn triggered a mad Tory scramble to find an interim PM to replace BoJo and then bugger off in October (which is the kind of job that has Nadhim Zahawi’s name all over it) – it’s political pantomime at it’s most farcical right now.

Vuk
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 9:27 am

Javid, Sunak, Zahawi, Patel …
a lesson for the next PM how to choose the key ministers.
There is nothing to stop BoJo putting himself forward for leadership, and could even be one of top two after the PPs round of votes.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
July 7, 2022 1:59 pm

I just hope we’re not left thinking that BoJo was better than whoever replaces him.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
July 7, 2022 12:05 pm

Maria Zakharova, the top spokeswoman in Russia’s foreign ministry on the BoJo’s downfall:
“The moral of the story is: do not seek to destroy Russia. Russia cannot be destroyed. You can break your teeth on it – and then choke on them.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-boris-johnson-we-dont-like-him-either-2022-07-07/
… odd comment ..

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
July 7, 2022 12:18 pm

I really liked the Russian spokesman who said, about Boris: “he doesn’t like us very much but that’s ok as we don’t like him either!” Plain speaking at long last.

Zane
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 9:53 pm

Ha!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Vuk
July 7, 2022 2:19 pm

I don’t care much about what happens to BoJo, but am ecstatic that Carrie has gone. Hope anyone selected as next P.M. is checked for “snake-in-the-grass” family members!

Richard Page
Reply to  Mike Lowe
July 8, 2022 9:25 am

Hm. Did you not hear about BoJo’s dad? Comes across as a smiling old duffer now but allegedly a nasty piece of work when BoJo was growing up. That relationship explains quite a lot about how he got ensnared by an unstable manipulative Carrie.

Smart Rock
July 7, 2022 8:28 am

So far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site, has gone into operation though

That’s a good thing because a majority of the energy available from the original fuel is still there, if they ever allow reprocessing.The “once through” rule is a serious impediment to a future nuclear industry, as is the refusal of most countries to permit breeder reactors.

The anti-nuclear lobby is so powerful, and they’ve essentially co-opted most politicians with their scaremongering. The chances of a nuclear renaissance seem rather dim. I suspect that if any group succeeds in building a practical fusion reactor, the greens will find a way to make people scared of it, and get it banned too.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 7, 2022 8:41 am

I have never understood the opposition to reprocessing of nuclear fuels.

Richard Page
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 8, 2022 9:27 am

Several countries do it – it’s not really been done in the US as it’s an expensive way of dealing with the byproduct as opposed to storing it somewhere. The idea is set to change though as the first of several reprocessing plants are due to be built in the USA.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Page
Mike Lowe
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 7, 2022 2:21 pm

It’s surely one of those very few situations where we can thank the French, for their nuclear devotion?

Andy Pattullo
July 7, 2022 8:38 am

And so it begins. Politicians who have belatedly realized their future political careers and a net zero strategy cannot coexist in a universe governed by natural laws, are going to redefine “green, clean, sustainable, renewable” etc. as anything that allows them to keep the lights on, the cars rolling and food on the table. They will soon be naming the villains who “lied” to them and sold a bill of goods about wind and solar that the politicos innocently promoted on bad advice.

For the greenies to castigated the EU for redefining what is green and renewable is a ridiculous bit of theatre. Those same greenies told us chopping down US forests, chipping the wood, processing it into fuel, shipping it across the ocean and burning it in high CO2 emitting electrical plants to make electricity was both “renewable” and a critical component of reaching net zero.

They also pretended that flying about the planet every year to resort locations to dine and drink at the expense of idiotic donors is a heroic mission to “save the planet”.
Hypocrasy is a hobby these days for an unproductive elite of narcissistic idiots who will be the first to cry into there selfie stick when all the comforts of modern life become unattainable.

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy Pattullo
n.n
July 7, 2022 8:39 am

Critics call Green technology, renewables/intermittents/unreliables/unsustainables, ecological hazards, environmental blights from recovery to processing to operation to reclamation, “greenwashing”.

That said, let each product and service compete in the market on equal terms, free from prophecies, myths, subsidies, steering, em-pathetic appeals, and class action lawsuits based on plausible but not probable cause.

Restore nuclear fuel reprocessing with durable, robust legislative support. Restore clean, organic, efficient, reliable petroleum recovery, processing, distribution, and recycling for fuel and diverse products. Release CO2 to green the planet for plant, animal, and human habitation.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Sturmudgeon
Reply to  n.n
July 7, 2022 8:59 pm

You have incredibly nice dreams.

MarkW
July 7, 2022 8:49 am

Short of killing half the population, which Europeans are good at, there was no chance of going carbon neutral by 2050 anyway.

mark from the midwest
July 7, 2022 8:52 am

The upside is that EU member governments now have the general “cover” to move ahead with nuclear. The majority of the people I’ve talked to in Europe think that “Greens” and “environmental groups” are just cranky ole hippies that want to make life as miserable for the rest of us as they are.

MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:01 am

Never trust a salesman with “honest” in his name.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 12:19 pm

CMOT Dibbler!

Duane
July 7, 2022 9:06 am

The “world” has been safely storing nuclear fuel waste and other radioactive wastes for decades. The term “disposal” infers that you just toss something away and forget about it, no harm no foul. That’s not true of any waste material, nuclear or otherwise – disposed waste is only safe and non-harmful to the environment when well managed.

With nuclear fuel waste, it is that the extremely long lived radionuclides in non-reprocessed nuclear fuel are such that nobody can even guarantee that there will be any humans around to manage it, thousands of years into the future.

Of course, reprocessing spent fuels greatly reduces the volume of waste, and is actually more sustainable. Much of the fissionable U-235 in the original reactor fuel does not undergo fission, because what limits fuel life and complete fission is the buildup of “poisons” that over time make the fuel unusable. Reprocessing extracts and reuses the fuel, and also provides an opportunity to put the rest of the spent fuel in a more stable state, such as being mixed into a ceramic material.

Also, it is possible to insert U-238 or Th-232, which are not fissionable radionuclides, inside a standard fission reactor, exposing them to dense neutron fields, and then they’re converted to Pu-239 that is a fissionable material. These are called “breeder reactors” and they actually produce more fissionable fuel than they consume..

John_C
Reply to  Duane
July 7, 2022 6:07 pm

U238 to Pu239 Th232 to U233 (via proactinium)

Terry Harvey
July 7, 2022 9:29 am

Reality has a nasty way of biting you on the bum, but if you can pretend it’s a green bite then you can live with it and preserve your fantasies. And they elect these people!

Scott
July 7, 2022 9:31 am

I know a guy who has been in the oil and gas drilling industry for over 40 years. He told me that last week he was considered the devil incarnate, today he is Green, you know…. you grow.

Nefty Ivan
July 7, 2022 9:48 am

The CLIMATE ALARMISTS — which, obviously, include the European Commission and their ANTI-LIBERTY globalist Rat Minions — are making this up as they go along; where, IOW, they are not acting on any principle, but, rather, on SELF-SERVING political expediency; that is, whatever, biding their time, ultimately provides to them as much personal power as possible.

They have absolutely NO INTEREST in protecting the rights of their citizens; rather, they are interested in accumulating more — much more — of such centralized top-down power and control.

The “science” — which, to them, is nothing more than a tool for disseminating their megalomaniacal propaganda — is whatever they say it is. They know — they’ve conducted the pols regarding opinions and/or ignorance of many of their “subjects”.

Such people in positions of govt power — especially those who are afforded MASSIVE govt power, about which the average citizen has minimal defense — MUST be held to a higher standard; however, based on the decades-long actions of these alarmists, it is apparent that THEY KNOW there will be little if any, personal accountability.

These authoritarians KNOW that very little, if anything, will upset their growing criminal fiefdoms — they KNOW that few of the masses understand the Social Contract that needs to exist between the elected leaders and the masses — unless a majority of the people rise up and hold accountable these anti-liberty monsters.

ThinkingScientist
July 7, 2022 9:54 am

If only amongst the natural resources of the planet we could find a naturally occurring, organic and biodegradable source of energy with a really high energy density…ideally one that was made from sunlight and plants and is therefore also vegetarian and vegan compatible.

Surely all the environmentally concerned people would love it?

CoRev
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
July 7, 2022 10:20 am

/sarc tag?

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  CoRev
July 7, 2022 9:06 pm

Seemed pretty darned sarcastic to me. Pretty certain from the manner in which it was worded… sarcasm is obvious to those who recognize it from long ago education.

GeologyJim
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
July 7, 2022 10:23 am

I have to presume your tongue is firmly planted in cheek, Thinking Scientist.

What you describe as the “perfect source of energy” is petroleum – and all its derivatives.

Richard Page
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 7, 2022 12:20 pm

I just assumed a sarc tag. I’m sorry you didn’t.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Richard Page
July 8, 2022 7:33 am

Richard – with your insight, you should have seen my “wink and a nod” responding to ThinkingScientist 😉

Richard Page
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 8, 2022 9:33 am

Yeah. My comment wasn’t as straightforward as it seems at first glance either.

TBeholder
July 7, 2022 10:11 am

«We want something that actually works, so we need to create another unprincipled exception. But we are virtuous, honestly, so not too much. But yes, but no, but yes.»
And nebulous lobbies of the dark forces threaten all that’s pure and crazy, as usual.
How many EU bureaucrats does it take to change a lightbulb?

Last edited 1 month ago by TBeholder
Elliot W
July 7, 2022 12:30 pm

Gee, I’m so old that I remember we were “saving trees” when we chose plastics. Now burning trees is “green” and “sustainable”, as long as we don’t burn that biomass(wood, peat, coal) in our homes to keep from freezing. How stupid can Western govts get?

Sturmudgeon
Reply to  Elliot W
July 7, 2022 9:08 pm

Is that a legitimate question? Like the weather, it’s uncertain.

Bob
July 7, 2022 12:44 pm

“Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically, saying the proposal could jeopardize the EU’s aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050”

These green devils are disgusting. “climate neutrality”, what on earth is that? Nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan made out of whole cloth and completely meaningless. These are truly bad people.

July 7, 2022 2:04 pm

Critics are calling the step “greenwashing”  Only way they can reduce CO2 and/or climate change in the next 30 years is by allowing the use of Nuclear and NG. To not allow the use of Nuclear and NG proves climate Change, Global Warming, etc., is Bovine Excrement (BS). PERIOD. If they do not allow Nuclear and NG also proves that GND is being done only for Economic upheaval.

Mike Lowe
July 7, 2022 2:07 pm

If it upsets the “environmental organisations”, I’m happy!

July 7, 2022 4:32 pm

Next Stop will be at Green-Coal.

Steve Oregon
July 7, 2022 5:38 pm

This was inevitable. They had no choice. Their green insanity was approaching dire and suicidal levels.
I suspect others will follow.
Here in loony Oregon hydro is not considered green(renewable). Let alone nuke or gas. If it were the state would already meet their renewables goal.
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/Pages/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard.aspx

Oregon’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requires that 50 percent of the electricity Oregonians use come from renewable resources by 2040.

The US Energy Information admin. disagrees with the state
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OR

In 2020, hydroelectric power accounted for 50% of Oregon’s electricity generation, and all renewable sources combined produced 68% of total utility-scale generation.

The EU greenies need gas and nuke to bail them out of their own madness.
But they have always considered hydro to be renewable.
I wonder how US greenies will adapt.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Oregon
July 8, 2022 9:35 am

“I wonder how US greenies will adapt.” What? After they stop screaming? Could be a while to wait.

Sturmudgeon
July 7, 2022 8:38 pm

to become climate-neutral by 2050.” I am likely a little slow, but, what the hell is “climate neutral”?????

Richard Page
Reply to  Sturmudgeon
July 8, 2022 9:38 am

It’s political double-speak for sleight of hand and spin where they appear to appease the green woke crowd whilst only killing off the absolute minimum.

Coeur de Lion
July 7, 2022 9:39 pm

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not matter

Zane
July 7, 2022 9:50 pm

Spray green paint on the coal. Burn coal. Problem solved.

James F. Evans
July 7, 2022 10:00 pm

Leftist collective types twist their own words or prior meanings to get some relief from their own policies.

I guess that’s the best we’ll get.

But if coal becomes “green” in the lexicon of the left, I’ll be happy and we can get on with things.

Richard Saumarez
July 8, 2022 2:37 am

I have always said that green aspirations will eventually collide with engineering reality

jeff corbin
July 8, 2022 6:29 am

France continues to produce the majority of it’s electricity via nuclear plants and it has 4 of the 6 LNG ports in Europe. Two are very high capacity LNG ports. So what happened to the EU’s 2009-2010 push to phase out nuclear power? The French liked the NG powered 2 their turbine generation systems. They also are expanding CNG for vehicles with 27 CNG stations.
Greenwashing is a utilitarian energy policy approach to positioning green political correctness. A couple of months ago we witnessnessed Canada’s Trudeau greenwash the exportation of Alberta oil sands. Climate has become a system of political correctness, political leveraging, taxation and political smoke and mirrors. The EU countries that took their greenness seriously, like Germany are in trouble. Gazprom was never a reliable business partner. We must remember that the climate propaganda is meant for the masses…. to inoculate and mobilize them with fear so the system has political support. If it were possible, it would be fun to poll the WEF elite to find out if they actually believe in all the climate change threats…. I serious doubt it.

Richard Page
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 8, 2022 9:40 am

They would lie to keep the scam going. But it’s damned obvious they don’t believe it one little bit.

July 8, 2022 3:06 pm
%d bloggers like this: