EU Seeks to Classify Some Natural Gas and Nuclear as Green

EU’s New Green Definition 

The EU Drafts a New Definition of Green that includes nuclear and natural gas.

The European Union has drawn up plans to label some natural gas and nuclear energy projects as “green” investments after a year-long battle between governments over which investments are truly climate-friendly.

The European Commission is expected to propose rules in January deciding whether gas and nuclear projects will be included in the EU “sustainable finance taxonomy”.

Gas and nuclear power generation would be labelled green on the grounds that they are “transitional” activities – defined as those that are not fully sustainable, but which have emissions below industry average and do not lock in polluting assets.

Two Nuclear Green Requirements

  1. The project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste.
  2.  New nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.

Natural Gas Green Requirements

  1. Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green if they emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh)
  2. Replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant
  3. Receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030 
  4. Plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035 

Point number 4 is interesting. To be classified as green, they only have to “plan” not “do” switch to low-carbon gasses. 

Low carbon gasses are defined as biogas, bio methane, or hydrogen produced via electrolysis by using renewable-generated electricity. 

Since methane is methane, a plan to switch to low-bio methane costs nothing (no plant retooling needed). Doing is another matter. But maybe it’s a lot easier in 2035. 

Do Something!

Previously, the EU proposed a 100g CO2e/kWh emissions limit, based on climate fearmongering and steps needed to avoid disastrous climate change.

That went out the window when citizens stated moaning about the cost of electricity and heating.

French president Macron did not want another “Yellow Vest Movement” energy protest on his hands ahead of French elections in April. 

France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. France aims reduce this to 50% by 2035.

Any bets on that?

Practical and Environmental Sense

The new policy makes for both practical and environmental sense in contrast to the ridiculous path Angela Merkel took Germany.

Merkel gave into the Greens and agreed to phase out nuclear. As a result, Germany became more dependent on coal. That makes no environmental sense whatsoever. 

Solar and wind are not exactly reliable as Spain found out, and its citizens are bitching the loudest. 

Mothballing plants that have decades more useful life also makes no practical sense. 

A cold winter and soaring prices knocked some sense into the EU. Inflation trumped green ideology.

In the US, Biden hasn’t learned his lesson yet. Elizabeth Warren and AOC still set green policy.

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cocoa
Cocoa
2 years ago
Europe nixxing Atomic Energy and allowing the US to provide leadership on Russian Gas, AND not having any resources= fantasy
Solar and wind other renewables are not high performance energy  creators. Germany is being idiotic about nuclear. You can have Small Nuke plants that can generate high amounts of energy for very very very low risk. Just turn it off. So stupid
vboring
vboring
2 years ago
The West has forgotten how to build nuclear power plants.
When the UAE wanted reactors, they went to Korea. China has fully domestic reactors now that are designed for export.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
The majority of nuclear plants were built in the 60s. Technology has advanced since then. We can build plants that require primary loop fluid to work. Not melt down in the absence of it. No chance of a Chernobyl like event. Breeder reactors produce a lot less nuclear waste.
I have a lot of issues with renewable energy. Not just unreliability. They may limit CO2 production, but they’re bad for the environment. Windmills on mountain tops are ugly. Fields of solar arrays are ugly. How are we going to handle worn out electric car batteries? You can’t just take them out of the car and turn them in for a $20 credit at pep boys. Car batteries are an environmental disaster waiting to happen. If a car is left to rot and the battery leaks, it will Chernobyl much of the land around the car.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
When one is sufficiently unintelligent to be unable to do anything valuable whatsoever, of any sort, in any field, on any occasion, ever in one’s entire pathetic little braindead life; I suppose mindlessly and arbitrarily “classifying” stuff is all one is left to do.. I can’t even imagine what waking up every morning and being that all-encompassingly vapid would be like.
Be that as it may. We do, after all, live in the DumbAge. Where central banking and totalitarian government have largely succeeded at transferring all wealth and power to the dumbest, least competent and most vapid and unintelligent dimbulbs in society; by way of debasement and “asset appreciation” (of non-assets like decaying shacks, unpayable debt, uncompetitive companies and genuine trivialities which even a middle-of-the-road canine could figure out, like one-click patents..)
What’s more disturbing, is that those still doing bits and pieces of real work; which creates the value that central banks and totalitarian Juntas then gets to steal and hand to the monkeys whose intellect limits them solely to acts of true brainlessness, incompetence and vapidity; keep falling for such trivially obvious nonsense. Instead of simply throwing the bums out and replacing them with literally anything else, or for that matter nothing. After all, absolutely anything is an improvement on retards dumb enough to believe in “sustainable finance taxonomy.” I mean, the Iranian Mullahs are such an obvious and enormous improvement. As is any Kim ever born. As well as complete, everyone-shoots-everyone chaos. Even Idi Amin wasn’t hopeless enough to believe in anything quite this braindead; although eating people may have come close.
Dutoit
Dutoit
2 years ago
There is also another problem:  shortage in uranium, as in many other minerals.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Dutoit
Breeder reactors end up with more fuel than they started with.
Dutoit
Dutoit
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
unfortunately these reactors are not allowed in Europe. They are developed in Russia (BN-800). This is why maybe in the future we will not only need gas and oil from Russia, but also electricity.
Webej
Webej
2 years ago
The anti-nuclear sentiment is rapidly tilting the other way in numerous jurisdictions…
There are already governments putting out ‘weather balloons’ about new nuclear plants.
RunnerDan
RunnerDan
2 years ago
Why would private capital invest in green energy technology when it’s a lot easier to make money being a landlord?
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Well, well, well. How about that.  
ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant
2 years ago
Our sun is a nuclear fusion machine.  Currently it is 30 percent hotter now, than when the dinosaurs ruled, and they had an ice free planet.  A star has to fuse heavier and heavier elements as it ages to keep the lights on.  The plants have reduced CO2 so much since the dinosaurs that we are no longer ice free.  What if the plants have reached their limit in negating the effects of an ever hotter sun?
Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
The new Khaki policy.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Technically they could call it organic, and I bet enough people don’t know the difference that they could get away with it.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“Point number 4 is interesting. To be classified as green, they only have to “plan” not “do” switch to low-carbon gasses.”
Virtue signalling. It’s safe and effective.
Tex
Tex
2 years ago
😂

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.