|
Fun fact: During the cold war, west Berlin used to have the biggest lead-acid battery plant for energy storage in the world. It was something like 10k car batteries wired together ghetto style and designed to stabilize their tiny electric grid from communists electron agitators. Ultra fun fact: that copper solar cell in the picture can probably provide enough power to run an entire alarm clock at full display brightness from 11am to 3pm.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Do you have a link with more information? I found something about it on the German wikipedia and it provides this UNESCO report as a source (look for the section about the BEWAG system) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000916/091670eo.pdf They used 7080 batteries, which (when fully charged) could provide 17MW of power to the Berlin grid. Back then it was apparently enough power and had enough capacity to keep all of west Berlin going for ~20 min. After the reunification the plant was dismantled and is now used as an energy museum.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How did solar roads actually happen? The whole idea is like something I'd come up with to explain the concept of "green washing" to someone, as in an idea anyone would instantly identify as extremely stupid and wasteful. I think it was a viral video on Kickstarter or something. It sounded cool and futuristic and that's all it takes. Then more companies jumped on the gravy scam train (The guys who promised to develop a handheld laser shaver that is the same size as a Gillette wet razor and won't burn your face off got a even more money IRC. That's just how people who donate on Kickstarter roll)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The elephant in the room about solar roads is that road and rail construction is the last remaining arena of public works that is permitted in the United States. You can't get the political will to build publicly-owned solar plants because that's seen as infringing on the profit margins of the capitalists, but you can get bonds passed to build and upgrade roads. If they had found a way to routinely incorporate solar panels into road construction on a cost savings basis, that would have lead to a quiet energy transformation. And there's all sorts of neat things you could do with roads if they had powerlines running through them. But the technology just isn't there - it's prohibitively expensive to make the system work. Nah. Solar roadways are total nonsense and one of the most impractical ways to generate electricity from solar energy. This is not something you can do with public or private funds and any first year engineering major can name you 10 reasons why it's completely impractical.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:I think it's an economy of scale thing... it's easier to build a uniform, 20-mile stretch like they did in Korea than it is to put down 20 miles worth of panels across 2000 different buildings, with different people paying for each project and purchasing in smaller quantities, etc. If I were a local business I'd chip into a pool to do the highway thing once if it meant no electric bill forevermore. Plus, roof space is generally fine for powering houses; it is easy to get enough panels on just about any 1-3 family house's roof to power the home, but when you're talking about apartment buildings or office buildings that have 20 floors to power, the highway thing would give a lot more surface area for less overall money. If you need space for a solar power installation you can rent or buy cheap land on the edge or outside the city. There is absolutely no reason to build a solar power installation over highways, cursed Indian burial grounds or active volcanos. What is it with these dumb highways? Putting solar panels over highways is like the human version of catnip.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Killing all billionaires& burrying their carcasses in the ocean floor is the only type of carbon sequestration we have around here, comrade 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Pander posted:When you underestimate the scope of the engineering challenges with renewables to fulfill a political promise, you'll end up burning lignite like Germany. Germany actually overestimated the engineer challenges and is ahead of its targets for renewables. The target for 2020 is 35% which was reached a couple of years ago (I think 2017?). Especially solar PV costs have dropped faster than studies had expected. You might still end up right in the future though because there was a massive slow down in wind expansion this year due to NIMBYism and political inaction. It's important to remember that Merkel is leading a conservative pro-business government. She inherited the Energiewende from previous Red-Green governments going back to the 90s and she never really was that much committed to the whole project.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:A reminder that Germany is the country that shut down their entire nuclear grid as a reaction to Fukushima, and as you can see they still haven't recovered. Germany still gets around 10% of its electricity from domestic nuclear power. The nuclear phase out was decided upon long before Fukushima. All Fukushima did was change the time tables. I gotta say, I really hate the anglo-saxon navel gazing about the "the failed German renewable dream". Germany has been ruled by conservative pro-business coalitions for the last 14 years and Merkel campaigned on a pro-nuclear, anti-green platform. Green parties don't hold any power in Germany on the federal level. Also, Germany is way ahead of its set goals for renewable power generation. It's not exactly a failure if you didn't set out to achieve much. The conservative governments have pretty much refused to lay the political ground for further renewable expansion and to fight lovely NIMBYsm. Once a year some gray haired Bavarian crypt keeper crawls out of his crypt to announce some dumb project to move transmission lines underground. NIMBYs cheer for a while and then it's back to business as usual till next year. It's all a huge joke. Nothing gets done. There is no political will.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Red/green decided that maybe at some point in the future another government would get to watch the nukes turn off. Then Merkel decided to kick the can down the road so far that the reactors effectively would be running till they wear out. Then Fukushima happened and Merkel decided that, actually, they should shut down ASAP. I just looked it up and under the original Schröder phase-out the last reactor was expected to go offline some time around 2021 (there was no exact date because the companies were free to chose how they want to use the remaining allowed Wh/operation time). With Merkel's backpedaling we are pretty much back at the same point. The last reactors are expected to go offline some time 2021/22 IRC Also, holy poo poo, after Fukushima polls were 80% in favour of the nuclear phase out. 8% opposed. I don't even remember it being so extreme
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
I don't know what came of it but there was a study in Science that planting forests even only in the unused areas of the planet could wipe out all emissions of the 20th century. Propably has a lot of side effects and take decades, but it's kinda cool to think that you can do planet scale geoengineering with only some shovels and hands e: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Hello my fellow marxists. Who of us wouldn't want to try a baby if it weren't illegal, am I right? Hoooo boy, I sure would *clumsily adjusts hidden microphone*
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wasn’t there something in the past where we couldn’t clean up or store nuclear waste properly? Maybe you are thinking of the Asse II scandal? A nuclear end storage site started leaking and had to be cleaned out. It was one of the largest scandals of the 21th century in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:It’s more the lack of proponents than opponents holding back nuclear. Even small minorities can ban stuff if everybody else remain indifferent and over time that small minority will control the narrative because their voice is the only one heard. At least in Germany, there had been a lot of pro-nuclear advocacy. At one point I remember that our entire school was assembled and had to listen to a long presentation on the safety and bright future of nuclear energy by charismatic engineers, scientists and PR people. Everyone got handed an expensive professionally created information folder to take home(supposedly to reach the parents). This is the only time I remember an assembly like this happening at our school( except for graduations etc.) Truth is that the pro-nuclear lobby fought a hard war but lost. And it lost so completely and thoroughly that you can't bring up the subject up again for at least a generation. Public opinion against the nuclear phaseout was at 8% after Fukushima. Pro nuclear expansion opinion was probably much lower. You would have better luck advocating for the rights of rapists and pedophiles at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
You know how Germany's wind power expansion has basically come to a total stop last year? Now the Merkel government is trying to pass a ban on wind turbine construction in a radius of 1km around anything bigger than 4 residential houses. According to studies this would permanently stop any further wind power expansion on German soil and lead to a substantial reduction of capacity over time. Germany would start to reduce its renewable power generation and, presumably, switch to natural gas. There are massive protests against that law right now and Merkel's junior coalition partner has announced that they will not support the law in parliament, but it's doubtful if they gonna break up the coalition over this cause elections would be disastrous for them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I linked to an article earlier in the thread, you can search for my posts if you want it, but the cost of installing wind is actually cheaper now than the cost of obtaining fuel for an existing gas turbine. Never mind the cost of building the gas turbine in the first place. This is not a future solution it's the solution right now. Wind power has a NIMBYsm problem. Germany's wind power expansion has come to an almost complete stop and companies have started going out of business. No amount of money can get you a wind turbine build. I suspect a lot of other countries in Europe are going to start having the same problems soon too. Maybe Japan too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Definitely France. It's a bigger, more centralized country with less installed capacity so it hasn't been too much of a problem yet. But just like Germany, it has that weird political fetishisation of rural life that is at the root of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Germany had a decrease in coal power production of 20%+ last year. The resulting reduction in emissions has put the 2020 Paris goal into theoretical reach again(lol, it's not gonna happen) https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/germany-renewables-up-to-43-coal-emissions-down-in-2019-report/ Interestingly, the main reason for this is the EU carbon emission certificate scheme. It made coal power uncompetitive with basically everything less.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
It's total generated energy. Here is a cool chart in English https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019 It's "net generation"(whatever that means) so the numbers are slightly different.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:A 5% YoY change is significant, but its not so drastic as to make assuming the numbers are faked the more reasonable assumption. Solar and wind power have huge fluctuations due to weather. When they make up almost half your power generation you get pretty wild fluctuations on a year to year basis. A better metric would be to look at yearly added capacity and these figures look very bad. 2018 was pathetic, 2019 and absolute disaster. Expansion has pretty much stopped due to NIMBYsm. There is zero interest from the Merkel government to change anything about it. Lots of early subsidized installation are going offline this year so we might start to see shrinking capacity soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
What's even the joke here? Germany is way ahead of it's goals on renewables. Yeah, further wind expansion is currently bogged down in NIMBY hell, but that's not a problem that the US has due to its size.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Germany is still off track for their 2020 emissions. Nah, that's wrong. Barring some major changes, Germany is almost guaranteed to reach its 2020 emission target(especially with the corona slump that wasn't even accounted for in forecasts) https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/steep-emissions-plunge-puts-germanys-original-2020-climte-target-back-cards quote:And they are still expanding their lignite coal mining and use of Russian natural gas. It still makes up a third of their energy profile, and during the winter months renewables make up far less. Renewables are not cutting as much as they had hoped, especially during winter and off-peak hours. Nah, that's wrong. Lignite mining in Germany is still on the decline, as it has been for last ~10 years. So is electricity generation from coal. Renewable generation has been growing rapidly over the last years, accounting for 46% of all generated Wh in 2019. Phanatic posted:Germany is “way ahead of its goals on renewables” because chopping down forests and shoveling them into coal plants is considered a renewable. Nah, that's wrong. Germany is ahead of its set policy goals, even if you do the mental gymnastics of just not counting biomass as renewable. I swear, once a nerd makes up an their condescending dunning-kruger opinion about anything, it's stuck for life. Like a childhood trauma. Might as well try to move a mountain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Charging transit: you can setup buffer batteries to take care of peaks - also time charging so that you do the bulk of charging at night, and top up batteries when there's excess renewable production. Yeah, transit isn't much of a problem. IRC current consensus is that we would need around 10-20% more electricity generation per year for complete electrification of all cars in Germany. That's roughly in the same ballpark as what we are already exporting to other countries each year due to lack of demand.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Can you link a source for that? Last time I read about the issue 10-20% would have seemed, uh, optimistic. https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Verkehr/emob_strom_ressourcen_bf.pdf quote:Eine vollständig elektrifizierte deutsche Pkw-Flotte von 45 Millionen Fahrzeugen hätte einen Strombe-darf von rund 90 Terawattstunden (TWh). Dies entspricht weniger als einem Sechstel der aktuellen Bruttostromerzeugung in Deutschland. Der Anteil der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien be-trägt aktuell bereits rund ein Drittel. Die 2015 erzeugte EE-Strommenge von 196 TWh ist also doppelt so hoch wie der Bedarf einer komplett elektrischen Fahrzeugflotte. Some quick sanity check/napkin math make the claim seem plausible: There are ~47 mio cars in Germany. Average driven distance is ~15000km p.a., average energy use of an electric car is 15kWh/100km. That makes a total energy demand of ~106 TWh p.a. or roughly ~17% of total generated Wh in 2019. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:possibly silly question, but if battery storage is the biggest problem renewables face right now, how come wind and solar farms and the like keep growing every year? It's not the biggest problem in most of the world. With good transmission infrastructure you only need storage at very high renewables adaption(>60%). Aside from some edge case, most of the world is nowhere close to that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:So there are people with the capably of remotely hacking an oil pipeline and shutting it down, but the only ones who do so are just looking to make a quick buck, not trying to disrupt fossil fuel infrastructure to force action on climate change? According to media, operational infrastructure was not affected. Only IT/office stuff. And the environmental effects of this seem pretty bad cause they now have fallen back to using trucks to transport the fuel till the pipeline is operational again. The fuel must flow. Always.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Didn't the plants Germany shut down get replaced mostly with fossil fuel? No, they didn't. Electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased since 2011 both in total Wh and as a share of total generation. Here is the development since 1990. Red is nuclear power, everything below are fossil fuels, everything above are renewables  There is a surprising amount of misinformation and outright lies about Germany's nuclear phaseout online. The ultimate reason for why it happened in 2011 was that 80% of the population supported it and any attempt to slow down the phase out was just not tenable from a political standpoint.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 10:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's a little hard to tell with stacked charts like this one, especially when it presents percentages rather than gross production, but if you investigate the numbers behind it (come on, you need to cite things like this; I had to reverse image search your graph) it's clear that the drop in nuclear from 2010-2012 (about 40 TWh) matches a sharp increase in electricity from coal (about 15 TWh). The remaining difference was made up by PV and wind, but 15 TWh of additional coal-based electricity is not a good thing. I agree with you in general. The accelerated phaseout was a mistake and I opposed it back then and still do. The problem is when people try to portrait it as some major ecological disaster (the short uptick in fossil fuel usage from nuclear plant shutdowns in 2011 was within the range of the usual year to year fluctuations). Fact is, nuclear energy in Germany is absolutely dead and it's never coming back. Renewables adoption has been a huge success and, at least for Germany, the only viable option moving forward. So I really don't get the obsessive need to try to discredit and badmouth the whole industry by spreading misinformation or spouting extremely outdated information (like overstating the need for storage, citing outdated carbon footprint data for PV or make false claims about grid stability). I see a lot of these stupid talking points trickle down into everyday political discourse and causing damage by driving scepticism of renewables expansion. It's bad enough when it was coming just from the right but now the left/greens are also joining the choir and it's just sad. I wish people would keep an open mind, fact check claims and try to keep up with development in the industry more.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm going to again point out that the accelerated phaseout was pushed by the German Energy Ministry who, after leaving, then left and joined the Gazprom Board of Directors. The amount of misinformation is absolutely staggering. Everything is just plain wrong. Electricity generation from natural gas was 59.76 TWh in 2011, but 57.10 TWh in 2020. German electricity imports in 2020 were 33.7 TWh, exports were 52.3 TWh. Germany has met its emission goals for 2020 (the target was -40% below 1990 emission level, actual reduction was -42.3%). And your article is talking about former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who hasn't been active in German politics since 2006, 5 years before Fukushima. You have no idea what you are talking about with Nordstream 2 or its significance for the domestic gas market. Jfc
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:They were only 2.5 percent away from their goal in your own article. That doesn't seem like well on their way to me. No, he is right about that one. Germany is now entering its 16th year of Conservative government and its climate protection policies are highly insufficient. This pisspoor climate performance is the primary reason for why the Greens are poised to take over the government this fall. The thing is, development of the renewables industry in the last decade has been absolutely fantastic and has exceeded even optimistic predictions and this is picking up the political slack. Germany succeeds not because of its government, but despite of it. With the Greens in power(or at least in government) there is a decent chance to meet the 2030 goals. The major obstacle right now is not the power sector anyway but transport. Phanatic posted:Where “renewables” includes “chopping down forests and burning them, turning carbon sinks into a carbon source.” Yeah, the whole scheme is highly questionable. But AFAIK wood is currently not burned in any coal plants. IRC the overwhelming majority of biomass used is either domestic or imported from within Europe. When it's imported from outside Europe it needs be to from a certified, sustainable operation. There is definitely some abuse and shady poo poo going on, but in the greater scheme of things it's a pretty negligible fraction of used biomass.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://www.dw.com/en/burning-wood-under-fire-are-forests-going-up-our-chimneys/a-41586050 You claimed specifically that Germany is currently burning wood in coal plants, which is not something that I've heard of nor found in any of your links. Generally, total forest area has been constantly increasing in Europe for the last hundred years or something. There are certainly some places with local decrease, but the overall trend is upwards. I don't know about other countries, but at least in Germany only one or two percent of the forest areas are actually natural forests(and they are protected from exploitation). The rest are commercial forest, i.e. high performance monoculture tree plantations. It's not like someone is going around here and destroying rainforest to burns for power
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Hi thread! I'm not an energy expert by any means, so I hope people won't jump down my throat for fault of mere ignorance - but as energy storage goes, I was wondering if anyone had ever proposed generating methane from atmospheric CO2 and reacting it with water, using excess capacity generated from renewables. So, for example, if it's a series of really sunny days in the Southwest, you could use that excess unneeded solar capacity to spin up a methane generating plant, create liquid methane by drawing down CO2 from the air, then storing it as a stockpile for natural gas plants to fire up at night or in peak demand times. It's being explored in the context of academic and industrial research. As far as practical application is concerned, there is really no point to it currently. If renewables overcapacity is your concern, then it's cheaper, more efficient and environmentally more friendly to just improve transmission infrastructure and use the overcapacity where it's needed. And as far as emission reduction is concerned, there is a billion ways how to get more bang for your buck than green methane production. It should be very far on the list of investments. We will need some large scale energy storage solution at some point once we get to a really high rate of renewables usage but that's still many years away. Right now there is just no demand for it or at least only at a non-viable price point. I don't think anyone knows fire sure which storage technology will win out the ~storage wars~ of 2030. There is so much poo poo flying around nowadays. Apparently green methanol and methanol fuel cells are the latest hot poo poo sweeping the hype tracks and startup investment meeting
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://scitechdaily.com/nuclear-batteries-offer-a-new-approach-to-carbon-free-energy/amp/ Getting these set up close to an urban center is gonna be a nightmare in western countries. So much problems ranging from insurance to security to nimbyism. It's hard to even set up wind turbines anymore due to people freaking out over infrasound giving them morgellons and making their hamsters depressed
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
karthun posted:As a reminder Greepeace sells is own brand of natural gas that they have promised would be 100% renewable in 10 years for the last 10 years. Nah. It's a co-op that uses the Greenpeace brand(and in which Greenpeace is a regular co-op member holding symbolic shares worth a couple hundred bucks). One of the products of the co-op is aimed at promoting electrolytic gas from renewables by creating market demand and investment opportunities for the technology. If you are in Germany and use gas at home for water heating or cooking and want to support the development of this technology, go ahead and use it. It's a good thing, despite obsessive internet contrarianism and media smears. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Electrolysis produces hydrogen, not natural gas. While you can upgrade hydrogen to synthetic methane that requires a non-fossil carbon source to ensure you're genuinely delivering emissions reduction, as well as a very expensive and energy intensive conversion process. Is that what they're doing? Because I would be very surprised if so. They are mixing hydrogen gas directly into the gas supply infrastructure. Up to 10-20% hydrogen is generally considered acceptable and safe IRC
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:so it turns out they're still pretty invested in renewable energy. one of their initiatives is an electrolytically derived hydrogen gas powered by renewable energy. fossil NG comprises about 15% of their energy portfolio. i think where they really took heat, and deservedly so despite what GABA ghoul insists is a media smear, is that they market their gas product as ecologically friendly. up until last year it was 99% fossil gas and 1% hydrogen. last year they added 10% biogas to the mix, so it's now 89% fossil gas, 10% biogas, and 1% hydrogen. supposedly they plan to transition entirely away from fossil gas by 2027. make of this what you will. Can you actually provide any evidence of anyone ever being misled by this tiny rear end glorified Patreon for electrolyzer operators? Or maybe show some misleading claims or information material? I know some random English speaking blogs with an axe to grind shitposted about it and now it is common knowledge on the internet that "Greenpeace is selling gas", but is there any factual basis for calling it misleading?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:According to Greenpeace Energy, their "green" gas mixture is 89% natural gas right now. It's not their "green" gas. It's not named that way, it's not advertised that way. It's a product explicitly designed to do one thing and it does it. poo poo you read on blogs on the internet isn't always correct
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:proWindgas is the name of their product that started off as 100% natural gas, and that currently contains 1% H2 from wind energy. That name seems pretty misleading to me! You keep touting this poo poo as if you have uncovered the Watergate scandal when this information is literally in the third sentence on their product description page and the whole freaking point of the scheme. Nobody is confused about it, nobody was ever confused about it except people who got paid to be confused about it. You can't just pipe pure knallgas into people's kitchens without facing charges for mass murder. The stuff being majority non-hydrogen is VERY essential and non-optional. Let me summarize how the scheme works, because I don't think many people actually spent any time to try to understand it. You switch you gas provider to Greenpeace Energy and pick the prowindgas tariff. Now for every kWh of gas you use Greenpeace Energy collects a fixed surcharge that they invest fully into acquiring as much electrolytic hydrogen on the market as they can or rent or invest into their own electrolyzer plants. They then pipe whatever they can get into the grid up to the legal limit of 10%. That's all. That's what they state in their product description, that's what you sign up for and that's exactly what you get. Nobody is confused by what they are getting, especially not the technology nerds this is primarily aimed at.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, that's exactly how greenwashing works.  Have you considered actually reading up on what green washing is?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What Greenpeace is doing counts, and is inline with the fossil industries attempts to do with natural gas what they did with their Clean Coal campaign. How the gently caress does it count when the most important element of green washing(deceptive behavior and intent) is just simply not present? If you redefine the deceptive intent away almost everything becomes green washing making the term completely useless. A free range egg? Green washing, because the farmer could also just not keep chicken. Not rolling coal with your F150? Green washing, because you could just go and kill yourself instead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Greenpeace is protesting actual low/zero carbon energy, and selling 90%+ Fossil fuel as "Green Energy". It is absolutely Greenwashing. Germany is doing the exact same thing, openly arguing in the EU that things like Nuclear should not be counted as green energy, but Natural Gas should be. Its incredibly deceptive, and outright disgusting. Also, none of your comparisons are even valid, are you just throwing these out to muddy the waters? We already went over this. Greenpeace does not sell gas nor do they profit from the sale of gas. And the co-op that actually sells gas with the licensed Greenpeace name does not sell it as "green energy". It's literally not true. It's just something someone made up on the internet. When you try to buy this product on their page it literally tells you as one of the very first things that this is natural gas. You are buying natural gas. If you subscribe to this product, we will buy natural gas on the exchange for you. You are buying NATURAL GAS. This is not ~green gas~. There are some small mirco gas providers in rural regions that offer 100% biogas from local farmers or something. This is not it. It's natural gas. It's not green gas. Moving people to green gas is not the goal of the product. That would be a totally different product designed in a very different way. quote:Are you serious here? It's a joke? e: yeah, I loving done with this argument. This is going absolutely nowhere and there is no point in continuing this. All I'm gonna say is that when someone makes an extraordinary and seemingly absurd claim on the internet, research it yourself or reserve judgment. Don't eat up everything you read online, even if it's supposedly coming from ~your side~ GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Sep 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2021 15:19
|
|