21–30 of 71 posts
Green Planet Energy, have been greenwashing fossil gas, especially russian gas, for years.
My first thought was "Greenpeace, the fossil fuel mouthpiece that killed the nuclear industry?" I'm not sure why I'd care about news related to them that wasn't their dismantling.
I don't think it's entirely appropriate to ignore the risks of nuclear in the country that contains Chernobyl, and another different nuclear plant which is quite close to the front lines and was shut down by capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? Germany would be more energy independent if it had adopted solar and wind power when Greenpeace was advocating it fourty years ago, like China is showcasing today!
They would depend on china instead of Russia. huge improvement! /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to what? Gas, nuclear and hydro seem even more vulnerable.
Off grid people ~dont heat off solar. They use hydrocarbons for heat sources. Or wood. Heat vastly increases solar generation and battery demand.
These guys... after decades of destroying nuclear, German energy independence and thus pegging German energy sourcing to Russian pipelines, resulting in the geopolitical mess we and Ukraine are in – to have the gall to even pretend they're doing any good here...
What are you talking about? Germany would be more energy independent if it had adopted solar and wind power when Greenpeace was advocating it fourty years ago, like China is showcasing today!
> The project, underway since the end of 2023, is focused on the renovation and energy upgrade of a five-storey, 60-apartment block. [..] Heat pumps and solar energy now supply a large residential building in full, a first for Ukraine. Böhling urges: “Solutions like this should be prioritised over gas heating in EU-funded reconstruction.”
Not the first. I don't think some people realise this, but Ukraine is a country with highly-modernised, strong, and well spread-out industrial base. This is why it took the invaders three whole years to seriously damage our CHP infrastructure to the point it cannot be repaired in a timely manner. And most new apartment blocks are built with heat pumps, geothermal anyway. Some smaller ones (such as the 5-story one they're taking about) were being retrofitted by housing cooperatives due to favourable economics of it. We are not third-world; most existing apartment blocks in all major cities are largely reliant on vast, redundant CHP infrastructure for power distribution and centralised heating. THAT is a solved problem.
What we need is more air defense platforms and replacement parts that we cannot easily manufacture, in numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first thought was "Greenpeace, the fossil fuel mouthpiece that killed the nuclear industry?" I'm not sure why I'd care about news related to them that wasn't their dismantling.
Greenpeace got their start against nuclear weapons and nuclear waste dumping at sea. I don't think it's entirely appropriate to ignore the risks of nuclear in the country that contains Chernobyl, and another different nuclear plant which is quite close to the front lines and was shut down by capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
I get it, nuclear accidents are scary, but we have to be able to take a step back and look at the entire picture and not get blinded by some detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have solar on your roof and a bomb hits it, you have no power. And no roof. Power is the least of your problems. If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power.
> If you have a central power nuclear/gas/coal station and a bomb hits it, nobody has power. if that happens it can be repaired more economically and faster – as has been repeatedly shown in Ukraine.
Chances are my roof won't be gone though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greenpeace got their start against nuclear weapons and nuclear waste dumping at sea. I don't think it's entirely appropriate to ignore the risks of nuclear in the country that contains Chernobyl, and another different nuclear plant which is quite close to the front lines and was shut down by capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
It is though. Climate change due to fossil fuel use is not a risk, it's a guaranteed disaster. If you have to choose between a risk and certain disaster, you never choose the guaranteed disaster, yet that is what the anti-nuclear movement has done. I get it, nuclear accidents are scary, but we have to be able to take a step back and look at the entire picture and not get blinded by some detail.
We could have done a lot more nuclear but it's not clear that it would have done more than a few percent of CO2 savings in the overall scheme of things. You can see this most clearly in China which is still burning tons of coal in 2026 and have had no compunction with nuclear ever.
How solar can help Ukraine now? When there weather is foggy, cloudy? How heap pump can help if there are electricity outages?