Live data from Hacker News

German digital signage ban prompts confusion

avinteractive.com

101–110 of 457 posts

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#101
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot power a country with wind power alone. Even if you want to build wind turbines, you need nuclear, gas, or coal to back them up.

If you build enough renewables, then there comes a point when at times you're generating more than is needed immediately. That surplus electricity can be used to make hydrogen gas by electrolysing water. The gas can be stored indefinitely and burned to generate electricity when needed. So with enough renewables, no fossil fuels are needed.

In theory, yes, it's possible to store renewable energy for later consumption, but this is not the case right now and rollout of any storage technology might take years without certainty that it will work well. In the current situation, it's either blackouts, or gas/coal, or nuclear when there's no sun and wind.

On the other hand, I can understand why the current situation is like this: Germany boldly betted big time on renewables getting cheap enough, they made it work with backfill options available at the time. I just wish energy storage was tackled sooner as well.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#102

Here in Germany, there was recently a leak in the news. It said that a single LED sign consumes as much energy as 10 single households[0]. Of course, the companies don't want to give any official information. That is pretty high for no real value for society in my opinion... [0] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/led-reklame...

> That is pretty high for no real value for society in my opinion...

There is a widespread belief that Advertising serves no purpose to humanity.

Advertising is like anything in life: In high doses it is harmful. In lower doses it is useful. If there are regulators in your country that prevent advertisers from making false claims, even better.

Advertising has helped me hone onto products and services in my whole life that I've found useful. Many times I would have not been able to find the product or service if it were not for that advertisement. [You could claim that I was "brainwashed" into buying that product but that could be applied to any interaction in life. For example, if my spouse convinced me to do something, it usually means the logic was sound and it is highly unlikely that I was brainwashed to do her bidding].

No one likes being aggressively marketed to. No one likes being duped. But there is a space for advertising that is gentler, honest and educational.

Think of advertising as a way of companies to say "Hey! here's something we're proud of -- please have a look. By selling to you, the customer, we can make a profit and you can get the benefit from our product". Advertising can be a win-win.

Advertising can allow manufacturing at scale. It has helped bring about many the marvels of technology that would have cost millions of dollars a few decades ago to be just a few hundred (e.g. our laptops that are more powerful than supercomputers of of the 1990s). Without advertising many companies may not have reached the sales volume to keep bringing down costs year after year.

I could go on. Adverting is useful. Bad actors must be weeded out. However, Advertising in itself is useful.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#103
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average power usage for a 1 person household in Germany is 1300 kwh/year (roughly, numbers vary, but not to a degree that it matters). That's about 150W sustained. So 1500W for a large sign, that's like 150 high power LED light bulbs, I guess that checks out. Anything that reduces ads in the public sphere is fine by me.

Everyone lauds LEDs for being super energy efficient, but the reality is that they really aren't. It's just that they are being compared to even worse light sources that were so bad at efficiency it's hard to really grasp how much they sucked.

No post body was provided.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#104
post #69

Here in Germany, there was recently a leak in the news. It said that a single LED sign consumes as much energy as 10 single households[0]. Of course, the companies don't want to give any official information. That is pretty high for no real value for society in my opinion... [0] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/led-reklame...

Average power usage for a 1 person household in Germany is 1300 kwh/year (roughly, numbers vary, but not to a degree that it matters). That's about 150W sustained. So 1500W for a large sign, that's like 150 high power LED light bulbs, I guess that checks out. Anything that reduces ads in the public sphere is fine by me.

I wonder what's the impact of online advertising as well.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#106

> This means out-of-home advertising displays at bus stops, train stations and in underpasses could still be operated according to invidis managing director Florian Rotberg. “Most contracts explicitly require outdoor advertising companies to operate backlit city light posters and screens well into the night to provide passengers with more security in the waiting area. Autumn will show whether and how the exemptions w…

Well, I'd be selling any stock you had in Ströer, they dominate German OOH advertising.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Germany: repoens , I believe approx. 8 GW, coal plants. https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliecoleman/2022/07/08/germany... I'm sorry, but this is hearfelt: the German greens are climate criminals . And they were fully warned of exactly this situation decades ago, so no, they have zero "circumstances forced our hand" defence. You knew , and you chose to burn coal anyway .

> I'm sorry, but this is hearfelt: the German greens are climate criminals. And they were fully warned of exactly this situation decades ago, so no, they have zero "circumstances forced our hand" defence. The Greens have not been in government for the last sixteen years . It was the conservative governments under Merkel and particularly the environment and later economy minister Altmaier who openly celebrated reducin…

Can you elaborate on the problems with France? If I were in government in France I'd be thrilled with nuclear power as an investment right about now

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#108
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average power usage for a 1 person household in Germany is 1300 kwh/year (roughly, numbers vary, but not to a degree that it matters). That's about 150W sustained. So 1500W for a large sign, that's like 150 high power LED light bulbs, I guess that checks out. Anything that reduces ads in the public sphere is fine by me.

Everyone lauds LEDs for being super energy efficient, but the reality is that they really aren't. It's just that they are being compared to even worse light sources that were so bad at efficiency it's hard to really grasp how much they sucked.

Is there a more efficient way of producing light? Because I don't know of any.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#109
post #75
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research and tech actually exists for large scale nuclear power. It's essentially a solved problem, unlike large-scale energy storage.

We can always create methane or ammonia from hydrogen. That's a solved problem. The only research left to do is to bring down the price.

I.e. the "only" remaining problem is to do it at large scale at a reasonable cost.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#110
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, without nuclear power, they will have to resort to generating power from natural gas instead of using that gas for heating, which will in turn have problems compound.

Right now gas plants are running to stabilize the grid in France...

That may be true, but that's orthogonal to the entirely home-made problems Germany is facing right now. While not a complete solution, using the remaining nuclear plants is an obvious stopgap measure to at least alleviate those problems in the short term.
Post reply on HN