Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of electricity but it is not typically labeled as green energy, like solar, wind and other renewables. Generating power this way requires mining and processing uranium to create nuclear fuel, an energy-intensive process that produces emissions.

Unlike wind turbines and solar panels, which are made from butterfly shine and faery sighs.

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 days ago

Classifying gas as a sustainable investment is defensible, albeit wrong.

Gas is good in the short-term for stabilizing a power supply that doesn't yet have enough storage. Coal is too slow to respond, hydro is limited by geography, and batteries are on the cusp of major advancements that may render them obsolete in the near future (especially at grid scale). Furthermore, as I understand it gas equipment can be used to burn stored hydrogen as a kind of battery storage. In the future perhaps that could be a use case for the decades this gas infrastructure will need to be used for to be profitable.

If it were up to me I DEFINITELY would not classify it as green though.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Those two things are very different in sustainability.

Including gas as a renewable makes that classification worthless.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

Including gas as a renewable makes that classification worthless.

i wonder if that's the point