Combating climate change and energy security

[Suff]

Re categorising Nuclear and gas as sustainable (they are not), investments, allows the EU to spend money on both of them without incurring anti competitive challenges.

It is a con, pure and simple.

I know Nuclear and gas will be part of the landscape for some time, but their investment category is not sustainable and they should not be classified as such.

[Workingman]

Ah, a bit different to the "green", "renewable" and German claims of support of both of them you made earlier. None of which were true.

And the EU spends nothing on them. It is the licensing authority for the EUGBS, also an extra EU international framework. The anti competitive claim is nonsense.

I'll let you have the last word, though, as I know it is what you always want.

Out.

[Suff]

Sustainable energy is energy that we will never use up or deplete. It is inexhaustible.

Several forms of energy can be considered sustainable. In addition to the most commonly considered sources—wind, solar, and water—there’s also bioenergy and geothermal energy

[Workingman]

Factually true in the real sense, but irrelevant to your previous false and unsubstantiated claims made throughout this thread.

Do carry on.

[Suff]

Sometimes I forget that I read this stuff every day and that I have been reading about these moves for many months.

Here is one about France trying to get Nuclear onto the "green" /sustainable investment list.

For clarification the person who posts most of this is a Dutch EU supporter. He is outraged at the attempts of other EU countries trying to derail EU moves to go renewable.

[Suff]

This is where the part about Germany comes from and the comment about financing.

Just over a year ago, under pressure from gas-hungry Germany, Poland and other eastern EU countries, EU heads of states recognised gas as a “transitional technology” on the way towards a zero-emission economy. In December, the Commission even proposed including fossil gas under its green finance taxonomy and carved out special exceptions for gas in its usually strict state aid rules, allowing governments to funnel money into new installations replacing coal power plants.

If that isn't clear, then forget it.

Although I must admit Russia pot a Big hole in these plans.

[cromwell]

I read about Germany trying to get gas reclassified as green or renewable some months ago.

I don't know why they are splitting hairs and tying themselves in knots tbh.
In the short run they are going to need gas to keep the lights on and people warm; it's needed at the very least as a bridging technology.
Just acknowledge the fact and move on.

[Suff]

It is a complicated mix.

Germany wants to transition at their own speed, but the EU needs some big changes faster. Because Germany was forced back to coal when they shut down the Nuclear, they needed some way to meet the EU commitments.

This then becomes a tangled web. If gas can be designated a renewable energy source, then Poland, who uses very high % coal, can be leaned on to move to gas. That can then be funded out of the 15bn euro funds already being channelled to Poland. This takes pressure off Germany to reduce Now and gives them more time to get their wind and solar in place for net zero 2050.

It is a twisted and tangled web. Germany doesn't really want to use gas as the transition method as their ministers standing up against this show, what they really want is to take a single step to renewable energy and ramp down coal and gas to very low levels.

Designating gas as sustainable gives Germany the time to do this. Plus, when Germany reaches 2050, they are ahead of the others because they didn't use gas as a transition space, they go direct to the final solution. But they can't do that for 2030, because their industry requires too much power. Hence the "rebalancing" plan which enables the EU to hit their targets whilst gaining Germany the breathing space to hit their own targets.

Nothing is as it looks on the surface. Also Poland has resolutely refused to transition from coal to Russian gas and refused to participate in either Nordstream effort, claiming that Germany was putting a Russian gun to their head. Poland was roundly condemned for that and for burning coal (of which they have a lot but have been burning Russian coal), for their own energy security.

To date Poland's energy mix has only included around 15% gas with coal and oil being the really heavy lifters. This will change when the connector pipeline to Norway is completed and Poland replaces the entirety of their gas supplies with Norwegian gas. Due Jan 2023. At this point Poland can start that transition away from coal and onto gas, thus taking advantage of the new designation of gas as a sustainable energy investment.

Chess anyone?