171–180 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a more efficient way of producing light? Because I don't know of any.
The one that's the most neglected is natural lighting. Light pipes, solar collectors, and microprism window treatments are all available. The second thing is white paint. You need less outdoor lighting if the built environment absorbs less light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heating is a separate cost, rarely electric. Cooling - did you know that Germans aren’t big fans of A/C? Hot water - same as heating. Besides, in Germany we don’t say “Car charging”, we say “eat healthy and ride your bike”.
>Heating is a separate cost, rarely electric. Of course, geothermal pumps are still a better option than most.
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…
While this is true, they have always been in favour of shutting down nuclear power plants and now they would have the opportunity to reverse this course, but they don't.
The Greens have been founded as an anti-nuclear party. In the 80s, they even demanded to replace nuclear power with coal (https://twitter.com/MoormannRainer/status/143529774448733801...). Shutting down nuclear power plants is obviously more important to them than the climate.
> and just look at France just how catastrophic nuclear power actually is.
What's so catastrophic about France? Despite all the troubles they currently have, their CO2 emissions per kW are still a fraction of Germany's.
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.
Not sure where this number comes from. Statistisches Bundesamt says it's 1,958 kwh. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Enviro... Interestingly, for 2 person households they state 3,196 kwh and for 3+ person households 4,919 kwh. Energy consumption scales worse than I expected. I assumed there would be more synergy in shared households.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically the authorities outsourced a part of public safety to the ad companies?
Often the entire bus stops are financed by those advertising there. At least that has always been the argument against finally disallowing tobacco/smoking ads in Germany because then smaller communities would (allegedly) not be able to finance these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say it's the fault of neoliberalism (which certainly has a foothold in parts of the CDU/CSU and all major parties really, not just the FDP) that most infrastructure projects of the past decades have been limited to a few failed prestige projects (powerlines just aren't as sexy as a massive airport nobody can use) but it's the fault of the Greens (not specifically the party but the general political movement it st…
We don't need nuclear. Even with decades of conservative sabotage, we generate ~41% of our electricity needs [1] on a renewable basis. Imagine we had used the last sixteen years to go all-in on renewables - we wouldn't need to kowtow in front of any dictatorship. No Qatari gas, no Russian or other dictatorship uranium, nothing. [1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb...
We need to generate 100% of our energy needs every single hour. Renewables are practically incapable of doing this on their own. They can reduce the use of fossil fuelds (or nuclear power), but not replace them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically the authorities outsourced a part of public safety to the ad companies?
It goes further than that. They outsourced public transportation to private companies and those private companies outsourced the busstops to ad companies. At least here the bus shelters are owned by ad companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building enough nuclear power plants to power a country also takes decades and is very non-trivial. The quicker we reach 90% carbon-free, the more carbon budget we have left to figure out the remaining 10%. Renewables are the quickest, cheapest way to do that.
Large scale nuclear power with current tech isn't feasible, because of the lack of good uranium sources
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. Same with tobacco and oil companies working against transparency for smoke health risks and climate change.
A large portion of the advertising is to get people to switch brands. A smaller portion is to get new customers. Banning advertisement increases the profits for the already established brands (for at least the short term).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to save energy to soften the blow of the climate catastrophe. The Russian imperialist aggression is just an additional selling point.
Saving energy means stopping growth. The West stopping growth while China, India, etc. grow uncontrollably because they don't give a crap about the stupid climate plight will be our downfall.
This is hypocracy, ignorance, and whataboutism
China is on track to meet it's climate goals, 90% of electric busses in the world operate there, they have been top investor in renewables for many years. And they are still growing.
Why do you never mention gulf states that emit 10 times more than an average french person does.
Meanwhile UK has refused planning permissin for 24 privately funded and paid for solar farms because they look ugly, banned onshore wind because it looks ugly and getting applorval for simplest construction project takes 4 years.