• 1 Post
  • 74 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle







  • I am still not convinced. I am a big fan of heat pumps (especially the large one they have in Denmark), however not everyone has the luxury to choose their heating solution. Greenpeace doesn‘t make the laws which make landlords not transition away from fossil fuels.

    So Greenpeace is offering the best in-class “green” natural gas product. You didn‘t name another provider, which is better. May be there is one. You can‘t really critize the best for not being even better, because there are obviously reasons for it or someone else would have already done better.

    Secondly even though we we will not need that green gas infrastructure for personal heating in the longterm, because there is much better option available (the heatpump), there are certain industries which need it badly. These are the steel, chemical and aviation (in that order). Therefore it is important to bootstrap green hydrogen generation additionally to what is already being done.

    At last let me emphasize that what Greenpeace is doing is not ideal. Ideally the government would follow a plan where personal natural gas heating would not be needed, because heat pumps would be installed everywhere.


  • Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of that. However I do think that there is a nuance between a selling natural gas product (for heating) vs. electricity produced with natural gas. Greenpeace did the former, because there was/is no way to get enough green gas at the moment. I think this is legitimate, because at the moment that’s the case for every natural gas provider. Then in the future they can transition with their already client base. To be clear Greenpeace never sold non-renewable electricity.

    Nonetheless is extremely disappointing that it takes so long and I also understand if current customers feel betrayed.

    Does anyone know if there is a better natural gas provider with a higher percentage of green gas in the mix?










  • It is exactly what I am describing. In any test you will have false positives. Then the broader you test the more false positives you get. This was also a thing during Corona in Germany. At the start of the pandemic only people with symptoms should get tested, because with low case number and even a very good test and test procedure you can easily get more false positives than true positives. This is true for every test where true positives are rare. The math is pretty simple here.


  • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.detoScience Memes@mander.xyz*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Isn‘t autism and many other psychological conditions under and over diagnosed at the same time? A friend of mine got her diagnosis at the age of 31 (under diagnosed) and her doctor talked with her about social media bringing more people to her, which think they have autism, but don‘t (over diagnosing).

    I don‘t want to talk anyone out of their diagnosis or give them doubts. As long as there are tests there will always be false negatives and positives and so if you test more it will influence the outcome.

    PS: The article is probably bullshit.