Posted on 02/02/2022 6:08:16 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union on Wednesday proposed including nuclear energy and natural gas in its plans for building a climate-friendly future, dividing member countries and drawing outcry from environmentalists as “greenwashing.”
The plan will please the EU’s two most powerful nations: France is reliant on nuclear power, which raises concerns about its long-term impact on the environment, and Germany depends on gas, a fossil fuel many consider a bridge to renewables.
Critics call it a big blow to climate goals.
“This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claims to global leadership on climate and the environment,” Greenpeace EU sustainable finance campaigner Ariadna Rodrigo said.
Protesters from the Avaaz network wore masks of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz as they posed in front of a tombstone reading, “RIP EU Green Deal. Killed by Gas and Nuclear.”
“What is happening today is the commission are labeling gas and nuclear as green energy, and in doing so, they are going to be channeling billions of euros away from renewables and towards dirty climate projects,” activist Sam Ryan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
We got the natural gas-can we sell it?
Not with a Dim in the White House.
A nod to reality by the EU. The joke is redefining gas as “green”. 😅 Nuclear of course has always been green but the leftwingers don’t want it for other reasons.
We are exporting all the LNG we can, but it isn’t all going to Europe.
So we may be technically still selling some LNG, but for all practical purposes our LNG exports are way down. At least, that's what I've heard.
This comes after Germany permanently closed their nuclear power plants.
“A low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear energy represented around 26% of the electricity produced in the bloc in 2019.”
More lies from the media.
The last time I checked, nuclear power plants, when in operation produce EXACTLY the same amount of carbon dioxide when in operation as solar/wind - which is ZERO.
As to whether any source is zero carbon, sorry, nope. Everything needs to be built from raw materials, and I suspect that nuclear uses far less carbon to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity (after including up front costs) than solar/wind - not even close.
Yep.
AP = Always Propaganda
“What is happening today is the commission are labeling gas and nuclear as green energy, and in doing so, they are going to be channeling billions of euros away from renewables and towards dirty climate projects,” activist Sam Ryan said.
With opposition like this from the Environmental Wackos it must be a good idea.
Come on, say it with me: “HOW DARE YOU!”
“A nod to reality by the EU”
Well this new definition of “clean” energy only really helps Germany and France.
The other 25 states are not so happy.
The EU, much like NATO, is split on so many matters just when they need one voice.
EU has always had fault lines based on national interests, subordinated when times are good but always there under the surface. The green craziness has caused some real disarray because the economic stakes are far higher than “carbon footprints.”
US is the third largest LNG exporter. New facilities are being built in Louisiana which by the end of of this year are scheduled to make us the world’s leading LNG exporter. Yes Biden is causing trouble with stupid actions to limit exploration and drilling, holding up pipelines etc, but then his whole energy agenda is incoherent so…make of it what one will.
Ask any ye shall receive
“On a life-cycle basis, nuclear power emits just a few grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh of electricity produced. A median value of 12g CO2 equivalent/kWh has been estimated for nuclear, similar to wind, and lower than all types of solar. The majority of CO2 emissions from the life-cycle of nuclear power stem from cement and steel production, and component manufacturing during construction.”
“Ask any ye shall receive”
Thanks. I’ve toured nuke plants before and when you see 2” rebar and 5 foot concrete (at least) wall sections, it obviously takes a lot to build them and there will be a carbon footprint from doing it.
Having said that, the amount of power (energy) they produce in their lifetime is HUGE and there is virtually no footprint involved with fuel acquisition.
So, in the end I’m not surprised by your numbers!
Nuclear power is the safest form of bulk energy in the world and is absolutely necessary to have 8+ billion humans have anything close to a middle class energy consumption rate.
https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
There is plenty of uranium and even without going to gen 4 fast spectrum reactors the fuel costs of uranium vs tne amounts of energy produced is less than 5% of the LCOE in gen 2 & 3 reactors even if fuel costs quadrupled which would put seawater uranium in economic use the total cost of power would only go up under 20% less if you reprocess spent fuel and recycle the fissile materials in that fuel which is still 96% fuel when you take it out of the reactors as spent fuel.
Already happened USA is number ome LNG exporter last month.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/05/energy/us-lng-exports/index.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.