"The European Union has drawn up plans to classify some nuclear power and natural gas plants as green investments that can help Europe cut planet-warming emissions, a landmark proposal that, if approved, could set off a resurgence of nuclear energy on the continent in the coming decades."

"Finally, the European Union has admitted the obvious: if decarbonization is the goal, natural gas and nuclear must be a big part of the continent’s energy mix. On Saturday, the European Commission released a statement which said “there is a role for natural gas and nuclear as a means to facilitate the transition towards a predominantly renewable-based future.” The move means that gas and nuclear could be classified as “sustainable investments” under certain conditions.

This is good news and a tacit acknowledgement by European policymakers of the energy disaster that is now shaking the region. But it’s also far too late in coming. Indeed, my immediate response was to ask: what the heck took them so long? If decarbonization is the goal, then natural gas and nuclear are the obvious ways forward. I have been making that point for more than a decade. More on that in a moment.

To be sure, the EU’s move didn’t please the catastrophists. Robert Habeck, a co-leader of Germany’s Green party called the move “greenwashing.” Leonore Gewessler, the climate action minister in Austria, said gas and nuclear couldn’t be included because they are “harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children.”

That's fair enough for nuclear, but it would be very hard to justify including natural gas plants in that category.

There's an interesting article by Robert Bryce:

http://forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/01/05/eu-finally-admits-natural-gas-and-nuclear-are-key-to-decarbonization/?sh=cba4eec76636

"The New York Times summarized the move by saying gas and
nuclear would be considered "transitional" sources to be
"used to bridge countries' moves away from coal and
carbon-emitting power toward clean energy technologies like
wind and solar."

"It continued saying nuclear would be considered sustainable
if the countries can agree on how to handle nuclear waste
and that gas fired power plants would be deemed okay if
they meet certain emissions criteria and replace more
polluting fossil fuel plants."

The author Robert Bryce is an American author and journalist
based in Austin Texas. He has regularly been cited as an
"expert" on energy issues in the media.

But he's been under increased scrutiny after writing
numerous articles in media outlets that did not disclose his
ties to the fossil fuen industry.

There's more at:

http://desmog.com/robert-bryce/

It is simply terminology. If the same clowns can label cutting down US forests to fire a Pommy powerhouse as green, this is a much less ridiculous bit of rubbish.

What these clowns need to do is make sure their population have power & jobs, before they go off glorifying themselves as world saviors. Quite obviously to any intelligent being, nuclear is a damn sight more green than windmills & solar that require vast amounts of mining & nasty refining processes to even get made, let alone installed, as is gas.

Gas only requires a very small hole to harvest it, so is actually the greenest form of energy available with our current technology. Only a useful idiot would believe windmills & solar are less polluting than gas.

Germany's remaining three nuclear plants — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — will be closed by the end of 2022. ... “Nuclear power plants remain high-risk facilities that produce highly radioactive atomic waste,” she told the Funke media group this week.31 Dec 2021.

Foxy,

In the same article:

"Before going further, let me state the obvious: Europe cannot — will not — move to “a predominantly renewable-based future.” The never-ending claims that Europe, or any other region with a large economy, can run solely on “clean energy technologies like wind and solar,” are not based on history, math, or physics. Indeed, Europe is already in the throes of an energy crisis due to its headlong rush to adopt renewables at the expense of traditional thermal power plants."

Secondly, the practise of trying to delegitimize Robert Bryce because he belongs to an association that gets donations from many sources including a few linked to oil companies is moronic.

"Europe has taken the second adage as its natural gas supply position, and it isn’t going well. European countries bet that natural gas spot prices would be low and that they could pick and choose and contain any commercial bad manners from supplier Russia with their combined market power.

Now Europe, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arctic Circle, is wondering how it could all have gone so wrong so quickly and why European countries are facing the highest prices for gas and electricity in history, leading to economic damage, and possible blackouts and frozen homes and businesses this winter."

"Europe’s energy crisis deepened during December, as various EU member countries, along with Great Britain, resorted to burning more coal and fuel oil due to under-performance by wind power. It is a crisis created almost entirely by efforts by these governments to force a premature energy transition using wind and other renewable energy sources that are not ready to bear the load of retiring coal, nuclear and natural gas-fired power plants."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/llewellynking/2021/11/27/how-europe-triggered-an-energy-crisis-and-now-is-paying-dearly-for-it/?sh=5f76eb851290

Gas fired power had to be made green energy to try and hide the evolving mess of wind and solar, as both renewable energy sources cannot provide reliable power on their own. The greens must have hated having to classify nuclear as green energy, a fact which makes me very pleased. Hopefully the pebble bed gen 4 reactor recently connected to the grid in China will be a successful development.

This is only one of many articles on the web on
the subject of nuclear power for Australia.
It show some of the problems that exist and
the challenges we face. However, it also does
not negate the opportunities that are open to us
in the years ahead. To do nothing should not be
an option:

http://theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/13/explainer-should-australia-build-nuclear-power-plants-to-combat-the-climate-crisis

It's a complex situation.

Foxy,

The trouble with renewables is that the sales pitch is a big lie, just like the "too cheap to meter" sales pitch of nuclear was decades earlier. The fact that prohibitively expensive nuclear is far cheaper and more reliable than renewables has led to some very selective reporting. China may well develop cost effective and rapidly deployable nuclear power before the end of the decade. Yes, I read about the white elephants and copious criticism of nuclear power, but to me quite a few nuclear critics seem willfully ignorant of both the failings of renewable energy and recent developments of nuclear technology.

Foxy,

Given that the guardian's reporters are almost exclusively green, the chances of an unbiased opinion from this rag is non-existent.

The proof is in the pudding, France produces nearly zero GHGs and produces electrical power at about 50% of the cost that Germany, Denmark etc do with nearly 80% of their power generated by nuclear.

Germany, Denmark etc are suffering from huge energy shortages and without power supplied by France would be in serious trouble.

The incompetent Jay Weatherall oversaw two major blackouts in his state after shutting coal generation.

The discussion about nuclear power is a distraction. Nuclear, and/or renewables will not be the solution to the climate crisis. We need to start with an immediate moratorium on further oil, gas and coal exploration. Secondly, we need to ration the existing supply of these vital energy sources by reducing production. If you think this is crazy have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=transition+engineering+building+a+sustainable+future
you may well be convinced that it makes sense.

Baygon,

Every aspect of the economy depends on the energy in one form or another. While efficiency can be improved, cutting out a huge source of energy without a cost-effective and reliable alternative source of energy is economic suicide and a recipe for widespread poverty.

Yes, it is completely nuts.

There was a time when your response was credible but if you follow the link you will see that this time is well and truly past. We can no longer be pushing solutions into the distant future it is time to act now. Since Glasgow global consumption of coal, oil and gas has only increased. These three energy sources remain the most efficient means of sourcing energy but the maths is clear we need to reduce our annual fossil fuel consumption by 10%. That is doable. It will mean phasing out using hydrocarbons for plastic bottles, it will mean transforming our cities so people do not need to commute; in short it means using our imagination so that our quality of life is not compromised.

Hi Baygon,

Yes, renewables are very expensive and unreliable as Europeans are starting to discover. As for nuclear being a diversion, forty years ago the greenies were screaming that we would all die horribly if we didn't eliminate nuclear. Now they say that we should have built nuclear forty years ago. Calling for de-industrialisation is just a throwback to the Marxist claptrap that inspired the likes of Pol Pot, and didn't that end well.

Look at what Russia and especially China have been doing with nuclear. I suspect that they have been funding their green minions for many decades as they realised that they were never going to beat the west in a technology pissing contest: Much better to white ant them.

May the pissing contest restart in earnest.

Baygon,

My background is as an energy systems engineer and have been working for decades to reduce energy consumption and more recently reduce fossil fuel consumption. And have done far more than any placard-waving greeny.

What is clear is that with effort fossil fuels can be replaced, but society cannot do without some form of reliable energy.