Hacker News Reader

Comment by emptyfile | Hacker News Reader

I can understand the logic that both natural gas and nuclear aren't green. I think its flawed but I understand it.

However, if the new German government decides that nuclear is not green, but natural gas is green, then we have to seriously consider that vested natural gas interests are buried deep in German politics and have been for decades. The idea is completely perverse.

View on HN

there is no such thing as green energy anyway. solar panels need dirty solar cells manufacturing to work. wind power need turbines which means metallurgy which means fossil fuels to make them.

meh. green != free lunch

What the point in being this pedantic? Green energy is energy that has a significantly lower negative impact on the environment. In 50-100 years maybe wind and solar won't be considered green anymore, but at this moment they are. There's no activity without an impact on the environment.

I agree, that is why I think the logic is flawed.

Either green just means no CO2 or nothing is green.

Go ask the citizens of Serbia what they think of the new Rio Tinto lithium mine opening in their country, which is touted as helping the European green revolution and all these giga factories that are being built.

Easy to have green energy in the EU when the pollution of building batteries is in Serbia or China.

"Green" doesn't mean completely pollution free. It means that the net product is positive: we get more energy out of it than we would just by burning the fuels used to make them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com