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.
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.
presumably, as you can make gas from coal then coal must also now be ‘green?
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!
Yes but sine renewables are 100% dependent on fossil fuels for their existence…
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.
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.
No problem for them to ‘rival’ the U.S…. the U.S. is devolving so China can catch up with little effort.
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
As this designation was about virtue signaling, not results, it does not matter. The hard core greens will oppose everything that works.
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.
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”
Likewise some coal power stations made by China have the potential built in to be switchable to nuclear generation.
Dave I C,
Thank you for reading the link – so I didn’t need to.
Cheers!
Auto
This will be a fun thread to read when it fills. Be back later.
Regards,
Bob
How about painting those wood pellets green?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does that also apply to refined oil, dying it green makes it green?
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?
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
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.
“ruinables”… love it!
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.
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.
Yeah but the paint is made from…D’oh!
‘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
True …
An utterly pointless decision that serves only to prolong the life of current power plants without offering any incentive to build new ones.
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)
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.
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.”
Now that I read it again I am really questioning these people’s grip on reality, for instance:
(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]
“I have no words anymore”
Here’s a word for you:
Gobsmacked
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.
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.
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.
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?
This the first step to a 180 on both.
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!
“ before the light of understanding dawns on these dimbulbs!” Don’t you need electricity to accomplish that?
Oh if you insist although I was opting for the age old method of thumbscrews!
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.
Progress, sort of. The best Reality check is when Reality bites you in the ass.
Per the
ECPigs:‘Four legs good, two legs better.’ – George Orwell
what on earth does it mean to be “climate neutral”????
Simple. According to John Kerry, in order to restore the balance you must now absorb more climate than you emit. Or something.
Just don’t mention the private jet.
See: The Lower Paleolithic
That’s net zero.
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.
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?
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.
How is it?
The situation in Ukraine is entirely down to Putin wanting to reclaim former Soviet territory and enlarge Russia.
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.”
Do you have a link for this? Never mind I found it.
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!
Just don’t look east while gathering firewood and other scraps of wood.
October 10, 1938 – Prelude to World War II: Czechoslovakia withdraws from the Sudetenland – WARS OF THE 20TH CENTURY (20thcenturywars.com)
“Short-sighted” is an understatement. You need to think a bit more deeply about issues that matter.
Yaaay! Grif is back.
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.
“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.”
I laughed when I saw the words “scientific integrity.”
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just hope we’re not left thinking that BoJo was better than whoever replaces him.
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 ..
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.
Ha!
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!
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.
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.
I have never understood the opposition to reprocessing of nuclear fuels.
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.
It’s surely one of those very few situations where we can thank the French, for their nuclear devotion?
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.
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.
You have incredibly nice dreams.
Short of killing half the population, which Europeans are good at, there was no chance of going carbon neutral by 2050 anyway.
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.
Never trust a salesman with “honest” in his name.
CMOT Dibbler!
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..
U238 to Pu239 Th232 to U233 (via proactinium)
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!
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.