Representatives of the 27 member states approved a package raising the current goal of 32% to 45% by 2030. About 22% of the EU’s total energy consumption came from renewables in 2021, meaning the new target will double the amount in less than a decade.
Agreement had been held up by France and several eastern European countries demanding that hydrogen produced with nuclear power should be counted toward renewable energy targets. The German government, which opposed this, said that will now not be the case, though there will “a bit more flexibility” on hydrogen targets for countries that meet their renewable energy goals.
I hate the German Greens. I hate the German Greens. I hate the German Greens.
This is especially ridiculous because nuclear reactors also produce heat that doesn’t become electricity, so it’s a good opportunity to do high-temperature electrolysis.
Nuclear cogeneration and hydrogen would be ideal for, for example, decarbonising steel-making or fertilisers, but no. sigh
The renewable mandate is not a bad idea per se, but the German opposition to nuclear power is incredibly harmful, and compounded by their inexplicable support for so-called e-fuels.
They shouldn’t have shut down their old nuclear reactors before having an alternative to coal and gas. But nuclear is not the future. It is not economically feasinle to build new reactors and renewable energy is cheaper.
Meanwhile nuclear is not profitable without subsidies or government garanties.
Solar wind and batteries are the best way to generate electricity riggt now.
Batteries are no more developed than affordable nuclear power at this point and are probably a bit behind. There is more of a supply chain for new nuclear power plants than for battery systems that are in the prototype stage at best.
I agree than the long term future is not nuclear but for this century, anything that can replace fossil fuels is welcome. In 20 years when the next new generation of nuclear plants is coming online if the large scale battery production for electrical generation is developed then we don’t need to build any more.
If that doesn’t happen, we’ll be glad new nuclear plants are coming online.
Cheap, large batteries for large scale energy storage will likely happen, and relatively soon. But depending on that is counting on chickens that have not hatched.Not so. Nuclear power is much more cost effective, but more importantly, more effective in terms of material use and grid stability. The only factor which is an issue are financing costs, which is a problem of capitalism, not the energy technology. This is how it can be massively built in other places on time and on budget.
The e-fuels will ensure the “survival” of internal combustion engines, and obviously somebody is lobbying like crazy for that to happen.
And since this is Germany pushing them, we can more or less know who. Same people that tried to cover up and avoid liability for dieselgate.
The VW Group is all in on EVs. The big push is from niche sports car builders, which are an utterly insignificant amount of daily traffic and airlines.
Sports car builders are trying to keep a hobby alive, not part of the transportation industry.It’s true luxury cars are involved too, and secured themselves the so-called Lamborghini exception, and of course airlines are the major player here.
But EVs are a bit speculative still, and the existence of efuls is likely to delay them, and give these companies bad ideas about continuing to produce the same engines. I don’t know for sure if they’re involved in the push, but even if EVs are their plan A, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out efuels are their plan B.
EVs aren’t remotely speculative any longer. Fuel efficiency targets are locked in and anyone who wants to sell cars in 10 years is spending billions to get the infrastructure and development in place to make EVs.
Efuels are what are speculative and it is highly doubtful they will be anything but expensive. Which is fine for luxuries like sports cars. And even unnecessary international flights are a luxury. We just feel entitled to them.
Methane is always a possibility but I imagine that will be expensive while the infrastructure for that is put in place. And it is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in the hydrogen sphere.
Is that really a problem? if I run a generator off hydrogen that was produced as a biproduct of a nuclear reactor thats still green energy. It only produces water when burnt after all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofuel
This is the e-fuel that I was referring to. When burnt it releases carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. It’s better than nothing, but it doesn’t decrease the carbon footprint. We should really be focusing on capturing CO2 and not releasing it back into the atmosphere.
Hydrogen cells like you described are a promising alternative.
What’s the deal with e-fuels? Did companies bastardize their legislation and make it so they can still pollute or something?
They’re synthetically produced hydrocarbons, so they can more or less be replaced easily. The energy sources for producing them are, in theory, carbon neutral (renewables or nuclear) but for it to work they need captured CO or CO2 as well as the H2 from non-carbon sources.
There are at least 3 major problems with them in my opinion:
- Keeping them around makes it possible, easier and cheaper to keep those engines running, instead of changing the technological base.
- There’s likely to be difficulties in assuring that the H2 is completely carbon-neutral. Once H2 is mixed in pipes and so on, distinguishing which or how much of it was generated without carbon is a problem. Not to mention the many possibilities for fraud.
- It also requires carbon capture to work, and it sets up the perfect conditions for carbon-capture projects which would otherwise not be feasible to become so. Capturing carbon is good, but not when it’s going to be released all over again. And it may easily lead to making it easier to run coal or natural gas on the grounds it will produce captured carbon for efuels.
