Natural Gas and the European Green Deal 

Meanwhile in Germany, green party prefers coal over nuclear energy smh

Let's give this man money on patreon. It's first time i see an european making vidéos about EU politics (outside TLDR but sadly they're not in the EU anymore)

I'm so glad I found this channel

Thanks for the video! And it's so refreshing to hear someone with a European accent talking about Europe on youtube 😌 Grüße aus Österreich 🇦🇹🇪🇺

7:58 , damn these oil companies are spending big on lobbying - 250euros

I really like the style of your last couple of videos, especially this one Keep it up man 🇪🇺

the point on nuclear waste, the US has only produced about an olympic swimming pools worth of nuclear waste since commercial power plants were set up, Norway is building a giant underground bunker where you can store the waste, and waste can be recycled partially which would reduce waste even more.

Very informative and puts into perspective all the challenges we still have to face. Hopefully we can by surpass these challenges. Personally, I think nuclear is the only acceptable-ish transition as it has been proven to cause less issues for climate and health. It must remain transitional, but fossil fuels and natural gas are far worse even long term than radioactive waste despite how bad they are. I completely agree the technology is not here, but I think given current trends, we need to invest into the end goal rather than the temporary solution. It remains to be seen if the transition is still needed in the 2030s as innovation in batteries and electricity as been growing exponentially. Only time will tell I’m afraid!

First of all thank you for having this channel! I think one of the biggest problems in the EU is its distance from each member state. People feel very disconnected from this so called "union". We need to feel as part of a group for this to work and sometimes it doesn't feel like it.

Always a pleasure to see a new video on this channel. =)

Could you please do a video, why is Nuclear not a green energy source for electricity (and even better, heat directly)? A good portion of the EU has this mindset, yet I cannot find any well-stated reasons.

This is very good content. Good job!

Nice explanation. So EVs-while-the-grid-is-not-decarbonized is a transition with good PR, nuclear to replace coal is a transition with bad PR. Perhaps Germany's decision to accelerate nuclear shutdowns has something to do with it. They don't want EU policy to tilt towards countries that decided to stick with nuclear, and make them look more grey.

Just found your channel and subscribed as a patreon. great work keep up the good work!

Dit is echt heel snel mijn favoriete kanaal aan het worden, klasse werk!👏👏

A great video, would later deep dive the other streams of the green deal? It's so instrumental and your explanation is great !

I love this channel

Excellent video once again, thank you!

So well researched, written and delivered! I subscribe

No, nuclear energy is not transitional fuel. It's the end game fuel. Also the time for transitional fuels was 20 years ago

Love your Channel, keep up the good work 👌

Could you do y video on the idea of a common eurpean defence ?

Great content.

You make good vids! I wanted to ask from where do you come?

Also the only renewables that are economically justified are nuclear and geotermal which are exactly the ones that are being neglected.

loved this channel. . .his approach was neutral and facts based. Love from India, hope to see EU united like a country.

great video! One thing missing, could be in a future one, is the newer approach of, as solar and wind costs continue to decline, to plan on more curtailment. Before, people would build for a specified peak amount of generation capacity. These days, people are putting in more capacity than would have been the estimated need a few years ago, with the realization that they may just throw out the energy at peak generation times (curtailment), but in the offpeak times, they will be able to sell more energy. Over time, this has two results: it reduces the need for non-renewable peaker plants, and assuming power at peak generation times is cheaper, it provides a business case for many to implement storage. Also not mentioned is increasing emphasis on interconnects. On a windy day, renewable energy might be plentiful on the Atlantic coast, but the power might be needed in Austria. Robust networks for exchange of electrical power across the continent are a current focus as well.

Keep up the good work!

:-) How about megacorps ships which polluting sea and oceans? Same with other sphere of utilization- cars, airplanes, ships. When profitable it's Green, when non profit- is RED.

Serious comment: is there anything in there about fuel liquefaction? Europe has a lot of coal, but it is possible to produce (relatively clean) natural gas from it, but it is somewhat to expensive to be economically viable. Is there any mention of specific subsidies? Also, are there any mentions of continent wide pumped storage? I heard the Irish are serious about it.

im incredibly worried about lobbying in Brussels, how do we make the EU more democratic and transparent? Transitional technologies just locks us into further fossil fuel emissions by investing in that infrastructure. So ofc oil and gas companies are lobbying hard for it

Great video, keep it up!

I have a topic suggestion: A few days ago, an electricity cable between Germany and Norway came online, called "NordLink". Maybe you can make a video about this and other plans to link the Europeanelecricity grid closer together? :)

Looking at the Industrial and Petroleum revolutions, we might take the entire century just to shift to renewables.

Can we change the EU anthem to Dream of Flight by Christopher Tin? I don’t really like the current one.

Plain language; great video

As a Canadian I have to say I enjoy seeing a EU perspective on the world and their politics. We really don't get much of a perspective on the NEWS or and where else other than the American insanity below us and it's nice to see some very, very small progress on climate change. If you read the rest of my post you'll find out my thoughts on this Deal but it's still the best plan I've heard. I don't think it will help most of us but read to see. With the plans we have now around the world there is no way civil society will make it to 2050. We are less than 15 years away from mass famines, mass migration, and mass protests. And if that isn't enough to collapse the world countries will start conflicts with each other with the coming populous leaders which are waiting in the wings to take advantage of the Black Swan Evens like Corona Virus and one's we haven't thought of yet. It will be an exiting time to be alive and also very difficult for most of us. The most developed counties, contrary to what the governments of the world and the UN says, will be the worst off simply because their populations haven't had to rely on themselves for so long a lot of them will crack under the strain from the constant abuse the Corporations and governments of the world force on them.

👍🏻👍🏻

From what i know Voest moves over now to H2O a quiet interesting move. It would be great to have that stuff produced in Europe instead of buying it in too. Is this the reason why they want us to move into EV’s as it’s easier to press money out in that way so later the public/state benefits?

It is possible to have electricity as approximately 90% from solar/wind/Hydro and 10% from biomass with little to no storage necessary The 10% from biomass the waste can be piped back into used gas fields. This would mean electricity generation is negative carbon

subscribed. also STERLING ENGINES w/ *liquid aluminium batteries* ö0ö YEET trucks & planes < rails all the way ö0ö

i don’t get why nobody is going nuclear.

How do you generate "green" baseload power without hydro or geothermal? Solar and wind + batteries cannot work and if we go 100% that route many people will die due to lack of access to energy when our power grid collapses. The only option that produces no CO2 is nuclear.

Nuclear Power. It has so much potential and its if you handle it is correctly safer than Coal and it can produce a lot of Energy very clean. Of course only temporary but if nuclear power and renewable energy work together it can actually work but renewable energy against everything doesn't work because there are days with no sun and wind

Algorithmus 💪

New video pogggggg

I don't understand the fear of the nuclear power, and find it a bit annoying that everyone's taking it for granted that the nuclear should be phased out. Coal power plants are slowly but steadily killing us via air pollution, and it's a certainty. And the solar and wind are still posing ecological challenges when it comes to manufacturing and recycling of solar panels, wind turbines and lithium batteries. And since it's much less power-dense than the nuclear, we'l need much more of those and it would also consume a lot of space and natural habitats. For me, it's not entirely clear, how much greener the renewables are in comparison to the nuclear.

As always I think you deserve even more attention, I hope the algorithm is going to provide you with it. Gutes Video, ich bin erstaunt wie wenige Videos über die Themen in Europa und besonders der EU produziert werden, sehr erfrischend.

You have to make a video about The Three Seas Initiative

Hmm.. energy storage??

Great video but laggy animations make it kind of uncomfortable to watch

It is not a question of affordability. With a reform of the Euro-Zone you can finance the transition. MMT explains how financing really work.

Why is Nuclear transition technology?

The EU shouldn't rely that much on Corporations imo

Nuclear power today, renewables tomorrow

Why not have several finance categories? GREEN for renewable/sustainable energy and RED for nonrenewable/unsustainable energy. YELLOW and ORANGE for transitional energy depending on whether they're closer to GREEN or RED. Natural Gas would be ORANGE, while Nuclear Power would be YELLOW. Consequently, transitional energy sources would be allocated their own time limited financing, which would need to be justified separately from GREEN renewable energy, with stricter environmental conditions to meet and more monitoring requirements.

So let's get real, Europe will get there shit together, but the rest of the world isn't going to give a shit. So, even if we are the best, we will still suffer. Typical.

The stock footage throughout the video has a grid made up of round white points

If you are looking for a way to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

Voici un commentaire de réferencement.

🍏

Nuclear power is not helpful for flattening the duck curve. The problem is that you cannot turn down a nuclear power plant with short warning when the wind isn't blowing or the sky is cloudy. So nuclear power is a viable "end goal", but it is not a good "transitional technology".

🇩🇪🇪🇺🇩🇪🇪🇺🇩🇪🇪🇺

looourd ton accent, on entend presque pas le côté français :)

Agriculture

Now we know, it was a big mistake.

Ah our economic system to the rescue 🤭

De carbonization is not equal to electrification! Multi energy needs bundled together to be met only with electricity is clear cut wrong! “Cyclic energy systems with zero loss!” is what we need! Simplification for masses is the reason why we can not cope with our current situation! Lets make it complicated but truly working! Electricity alone is the worst answer for heating homes for instance!

But the coercion against Bulgaria was shameful

Nuclear is among the most efficient, safest and cheapest ways to produce electricity, but for it to be cheap it has to be in use, all the time.. No company in the world will invest 5bn usd into a nuclear plant that is only allowed to run for a third of the day, or only every other week when it's not windy. That will never happen. You can have clean energy with nuclear, or you can have half clean energy with renewables and natural gas, those are the only future options.

Carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas of comparatively little concentration in the earth's troposphere compared to tropospheric water vapor a strong greenhouse gas CO2e=18 and on average 25 times of greater concentration in the troposphere than CO2. Tropospheric water vapor is responsible for the greenhouse gas temperature forcing effect in earth's at atmosphere by hundreds of times over all other greenhouse gasses combined and on average water vapor is 450 times more powerful than the CO2 as a greenhouse gas in earth's troposphere with all the other greenhouse gasses adding up to less than CO2's effect, but for rough inclusion can be given 1 for a total of 452 for average tropospheric greenhouse gas temperature forcing more than CO2's effect at a CO2 concentration of 0.04%. (1% average tropospheric water vapor divided by 0.04% CO2 = 25; the molecule to molecule ratio will be a bit different from the concentration ratio, but this is OK for rough estimate) Reading the International Panel on Climate Change reports they do not account for tropospheric water vapor, but do make mention of taking atmospheric readings at 20,000 meters altitude, which is well into the the stratosphere. Water vapor in the stratosphere is near zero and is consistent with the water vapor concentrations show in IPCC reports' charts and graphs. In 1992 a report was published that the press reported had the conclusion that greenhouse gas temperature warming was from naturally occurring gasses. This may have been an over simplification. Theoretically the proportion of temperature forcing greenhouse gas effect from CO2 attributed to human activity is a few hundreds of a degree Celsius. 33*C is the number given for total greenhouse gas temperature forcing from a Google searches. This number seems high because water vapor varies greatly across the earth, and this temperature gradient should be highly observable and it is not. Using 33°C the proportion of additional warming from human caused CO2 is roughly 1/3 of current CO2 levels. These calculation to be fully accurate would also be based on logarithmic calculation, but are indistinguishable from straight linear calculation being used here for rough estimates. 1/452 X 1/3 X 33°C = 0.024336283185841°C or a little less than 3/100°C of temperature forcing is theoretically the proportion due to human activity caused CO2. IPCC over the last few decades has continued to state human caused CO2 is the main cause for global warming, but has not discovered a mechanism that would allow this to be the case. This doesn't mean CO2 is not in someway causing significant global warming, but it does make that discovery seem highly unlikely given the huge amount of research that has gone into CO2's relationship to global warming. Instead IPCC has filled page after page of reports showing that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas that is not in dispute. Global warming due to human activity is almost certainly related to how nearly eight billion people have changed the surface of the earth and changing ocean currents. CO2 lacks the leverage to steer climate in earth's atmosphere. The major players supporting IPCC reports are typically from people that come from urban areas that suffer from irritating levels of traditional air pollution i.e. incompletely burned hydrocarbons. So called renewable energy is from relatively short lived solar electric panels (20 - 25 years for high quality commercial photo electric panels) even shorter lived wind turbines (stated 20 year life span, but real world is about 10 years on average before major refurbishment of replacement). Coal electric plants have lives of 50 -70 years. A rule of thumb for photo electric panels for the lower United States is over a year about 1/5 their rated electricity capacity may be recovered. For well situation wind turbines about 1/3 their rated capacity maybe recored. They should produce at least this amount of electricity unless they are in an area not recommended for their use. Experience in the UK in the winter is only 5 -10% of photo electric panels is recoverable. This is still useful for maintaining some detached distant devices batteries, but not really that useful for running an electric heater. By themselves these sources of electricity can only substitute intermittently for other sources of electricity and add nothing to the electric grid capacity. All new wind turbine grid generation replacing or adding to grid capacity in the United States is typically backed up with new combined cycle natural gas plants. Cheap natural gas prices at around $3 per million BTUs natural gas made the combination of wind turbine and natural gas plants an economical combination starting about 2005 and especially after 2008. That is likely no longer the case any more with natural gas in the United States now about $7 per million BTUs and may stay higher. Coal gasification was suppose to make sense at $7 per million BTU natural gas for commercial energy use. It is NOT chemically similar to methane the chief comment of natural gas. The disadvantage of nuclear power for electric power companies is the huge federal government involvement in day to day plant operations and non traditional sources for capital expanse needed. A high efficiency coal plant has lots of supply and disposal issues, but they can be highly managed by the plants personal and they don't require area evacuation planning. Next generation nuclear plants possibly based on melted salt reactors that have walk away safe shutdown characteristics because as the fuel over heats it expands shutting down the nuclear reaction may reduce this encumbrance of traditional nuclear plants. Green, is suppose to be mean the environment is not harmful to most plants and hens the animals that depend on them. CO2 is what plants use to build their structures. Plants are where hydrocarbons come from. CO2 is absolutely needed for plants to survive and many plants benefit from much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than current levels. In geologic time of million of years in the past CO2 levels have been much higher than today. Levels of 2,600 ppm CO2 instead about 400 ppm CO2 today have been calculated from analyzing plant fossils. Elon Musk has stated he doesn't think its wise to run a large experiment to run CO2 levels over 1,000 ppm in earth's atmosphere. There is nothing to indicate the world as we know it would change much at 1,000 ppm. There would be expected a little more than 0.1°C additional temperature forcing a this level of CO2. That level of CO2 would also greatly increase the growth rate of many plants. CO2 levels are frequently used as a measure of air circulation quality. Levels of over 1% CO2 are allowed in submarines with no detrimental effects.

🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑 this is the only green they are interested in

Meanwhile Australia: *Sweats in gas fracking*

Che ipocrisia sarebbe...

But nuclear IS green and the safest type of energy production. Less people have died per tWh of nuclear than have died due to wind energy.

Only extinction of the human race is truly green. Or at least back to the levels of human population before agricultural revolution, around 6-10 million people worldwide.

Nuclear is good.

so basically we're fu*ked

Belarus video when?

European parliament and European union commission in the hunder general scientist globally peace related there's subject general scientist full understanding

The funny thing is that nuclear is "Greener" than both wind and solar.

essentially . the EU green Deal will be whatever the German business economy needs to continue to dominate the EU . . rest of EU will be told what energy / policy they can produce / have

For now, there is no choice but to opt for Nuclear Energy. Maybe the waist can be send to space soon..

Should we stop talking about green energy? This is non sens, nothing is green, there only more or less harmful technology for the environment in specific categories. On this extend nuclear is greener than solar or wind in a lot category, and is sustainable on the long run.

ahh, yes, the "green deal", buying Russian gas and enforcing closure of nuclear power plants, then selling the Russian gas to the rest of the Union, thank you Germany, amazing idea, I feel so green and safe 🤣🤣 #endNordStream2

Sir, I salute you for reading the 200 pages of this report ! By the way, very interesting video :)

Bump