Hacker News Reader

Comment by frafra | Hacker News Reader

From the article: "gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal."

"The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e. using Carbon Capture and Storage technologies) or meets a number of stringent conditions and obtains a construction permit by 2030." -- Questions and Answers on the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act covering certain nuclear and gas activities

View on HN

I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)

I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now.

But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.

"Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed]

It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.

I hope you are right and this is not just a big step in the wrong direction, just because it sounds so stupid (Neuspreching burning Gas to Green energy is nothing but that)

> It is green energy as long as the criteria are met.

That's what the EU Parliament are saying; but the truth is that the criteria are met if the criteria are met. Energy doesn't become "green" just because some bunch of lobbied and whipped politicians say it's green.

It is a definition, which is needed when you need to make plans and decisions, as in any other case. It does not mean that reality changes because of an agreement, of course, even if mixing the two might be tempting when trying to discredit politicians as a whole. That is an evergreen :)

Thing is, the plans and decisions have already been made, under a more stringent definition. By changing the definition, they have effectively undermined those earlier plans and decisions. That's dishonesty.

There were no plans and decisions on the taxonomy regarding gas or nuclear before, which is part of the Commission action plan on financing sustainable growth. The taxonomy still needs a final vote to pass, actually, and it does not replace any previous taxonomy or regulation. Check your sources before moving accusations.

The previous "taxonomy" was the default understanding, that "green" doesn't include burning methane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com