Germany hails EU deal on renewable energy raising target for 2030 to 45%
apnews.com
Germany welcomed a deal Friday among European Union countries to increase by more than a third the bloc’s renewable energy target for 2030. Representatives of the 27 member states approved a compromise 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. Germany Economy Minister Robert Habeck predicted a boom in investments for renewables. Under the new rules countries that fail to add enough solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy each year could be fined by the EU. Countries separately agreed to introduce binding quotas for the use of e-fuels in the aviation sector.

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.

  • modulus@lemmy.ml
    21·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • MHcharLEE@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      The e-fuels will ensure the “survival” of internal combustion engines, and obviously somebody is lobbying like crazy for that to happen.

      • modulus@lemmy.ml
        3·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • cykablyatbot@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          01·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • modulus@lemmy.ml
            1·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • cykablyatbot@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              11·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MHcharLEE@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • LordR@kbin.social
      21·
      1 year ago

      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.