Actually everyone I knew who was watching F1 in Germany, stopped so once it went to pay TV.
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
110 points (94.4% liked)
Formula 1
9054 readers
111 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but donโt want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| ๐บ๐ธ United States | 21-23 Nov |
| ๐ถ๐ฆ Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| ๐ฆ๐ช Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Australian who stopped watching once it went to paytv
Actually everyone I knew who was watching F1 in Germany, stopped so once it went to pay TV.
It's not like football became unpopular when the matches were divided between three or so paid services (Dazn, Sky, and I believe some are even on Amazon) and only a fraction ending up on free TV.
Btw: Some free VPN option like UrbanVPN and the races are free to watch on the Swiss TV's streaming platform and I'm not aware of any spike in F1 popularity when Sky Germany had to stream two races on YouTube.
I will never understand F1 fans reluctance to accept that F1 simply fell out of flavour. There's always some excuse.
Thereโs always some excuse.
Looking for reasons is not the same as making up excuses.
The green washing has also put me off the sport after 26 years. That and the Americanisation/enshitification of the show.
Donโt blame America for this one. We usually get the Sky broadcast from the UK. Itโs Englishitification if anything.
Donโt blame America for this one.
Liberty Media is US American, so....
It's an English sport, or at least it was. It's not anymore.
What do you consider the Americanisation of F1? I don't watch F1 but I do watch other American sports.
It's becoming more artificial, and having DHL fastest pistop bullshit, Pirelli fastest lap etc. Everything is just an opportunity to increase cashflow. I know it has always been a business first, but I saw this stuff 20+ years ago on indycar/NASCAR and made me gag then. I'm just old school now, and prefer lower tech cars and a straightforward show without artificial drama.
It's becoming more and more a dramatized event where entertainment is the focus and not a sports competition.
Meanwhile in F1: Cling to combustion engines at all costs and shout lies about "sustainable" fuels.
The cars are not the sustainability issue. If every modern car was as efficient as F1 cars then we would be in a much better spot regarding climate change. The issue is with the massive transportation effort involving planes, trucks, and ships required to transport materials between the races.
It's about the perception, not facts. The general public does not know about transportation in F1. They know that F1 cars still make wroom when they sit in the growing number of VW id.3 cars that are making silent SciFi sounds.
They are very efficient yes. But at the same time they aren't very reliable. If everyone was running an F1 style engine and would have to replace loads of parts constantly we would be in a much worse spot.
If it was such a good system don't you think we would already have such engines in regular cars ? There's a reason why we don't. Because these systems only work when that engine has to only run for little time in very confined scenarios.
They aren't very reliable because they run at the ragged limits. It is a competition, after all. Motorsport has always been like that, nothing to do with current PU tech.
The reason we don't use them in regular cars is because it's expensive to make, and combustion engines are being phased out anyway.
And the only reason they are so efficient is because they run them at the limits.
No, running engines at the limits makes things less efficient, which is why on fuel-limited tracks you see a lot of lift and coast and turning down engine modes when that was a thing.
The efficiency comes from having two different complex energy recovery systems, which is what makes them expensive to transfer to the road.
Still, you'd see more real world applications if countries' carbon regulations were tighter.
Combustion engines are "fun" so they belong in motorsports and hobbies.
Ironic for a country that closed their nuclear power plants to open coal ones instead
You act like anyone in Germany thinks that coal is greener than nuclear. Believe it or not, but no on does that
They are also lying by claiming nuclear is being replaced by coal. How can nuclear be replaced by coal when share of coal is also declining at the same time as nuclear is declining.
People don't care about facts. They just want to spread their uninformed hysteria about Germany.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You mean the country that had to ramp up burning fossil fuels because France can't use their reactors in the summer because of cooling water from rivers getting too hot? https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threaten-frances-already-tight-power-supply-2022-07-15/
Yeah, great argument for nuclear you're making there...
I mean the only argument you need is comparing the emissions per capita of Germany to France or Sweden.
I mean the only argument you need is comparing the emissions per capita of Germany to France or Sweden.
Why not Poland, Netherlands, or Belgium?
Obviously, if you compare countries without heavy industry to countries with heavy industry and ignore all context such as Germany also providing electricity to France when their reactors need to shut down again, claims are easy to make. Those claims don't hold any water but people like the French can pat themselves on the back for successfully chasing away much heavy industry to China and Poland and let other countries count towards rising emissions because French reactors can't run in hot summers.
I did compare countries with heavy industry. And with a lot of nuclear + renewables in their energy mix specifically, that's the argument. Could have included Spain too.
Why not Poland, Netherlands, or Belgium?
Go right ahead and compare them too. What do they have in common? Still burning a lot of fossils maybe?
I did compare countries with heavy industry.
Sure, buddy:
Germany has 49% renewable energy, France 20%. Nuclear is not renewable and even worse for the environment than CO2. Germany still needs to burn fossil fuels when it needs to fill in all the time for France's shut-down reactors.
Failing to keep production domestic and then relying on imports via cargo from other countries is not good for the environment: https://www.worldstopexports.com/report-card-for-trade-surpluses-and-deficits-by-country/
Sure, buddy:
I specified per capita. You don't like it, you can look at carbon intensity instead. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany is still doing much worse at decarbonisation than its neighbours using nuclear power.
Nuclear is even worse for the environment than CO2
Wow. Demonstrably false. You're either mad or you've fallen for the decades of fearmongering from the oil megacorps.
Nuclear plants emit only water vapor, waste is contained and isolated. Unlike fossil fuel waste which goes directly into the atmosphere and kills millions of people a year. While being directly responsible for bringing us to the brink of climate catastrophe, putting billions more at risk. You need to get some perspective.
Wow. Demonstrably false.
Amazing. "Demonstrably", huh? So where is it? Considering that you refused all the time to actually back up your claims with citations, unlike me, I refuse to continuing engaging with you. Edit all your posts to include evidence and you can be taken seriously. Until then: Ba-bye.
Where did I refuse? The whole argument is comparing Germany's emissions to countries with nuclear- and renewable-based grids and you completely sidestepped it with some handwaving about industry. You provided no claim for nuclear being worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Coal literally emits more radioactive waste than nuclear, straight into the environment. Regardless, I'll indulge you:
Carbon intensity of European countries:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921012149#s0085
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?time=latestยฎion=Europe
Safety of energy sources (and nuclear specifically in second source):
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://web.archive.org/web/20130404145453/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html
The whole argument is comparing Germanyโs emissions to countries with nuclear- and renewable-based grids and you completely sidestepped it
OK, continue to not acknowledge the fact that Germany needed to increase fossil fuel burning because your safe darling French nuclear reactors have to be shut down all the time in hot summers. You're so full of lies. Handpicking data points, usually without even backing them up, and then spin up a tale of how there is one singular evil in Europe now nuclear is so eco friendly.
Nuclear waste is safe, got it. No problems at all storing it for the next 100,000,000 years. Just pour it onto a football field and be done. Perhaps volunteer your backyard for that (bet you won't!). Soil didn't need to get removed from sites Chernobyl because it's so insanely dangerous. No, just fake news. Nuclear is safe. The entire ecosystem in Chernobyl and Fukushima wasn't harmed for generations, because when we look at the data and see that Chernobyl workers wore nuclear hazard suits and therefore relatively few died proves how "demonstrably false" reports like https://theconversation.com/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlife-57030 and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/ are.
What cherry picking? Carbon intensity takes that into account, it's normalised data. And the environmental impact includes Fukushima and Chernobyl. It is the most generalised data possible, unlike yours.
But if you do want to cherry pick Fukushima and Chernobyl, which of course are the only things you can cherry pick, since they are very literally the only disasters in 80 years of nuclear power with environmental impact, you should compare them to disasters caused by fossil fuel. If you don't want to be accused of being biased, that is. The Exxon Valdez alone devastated sea life and ecosystems in an area of 2000 km of coastline (20x times larger than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined!). But then there's also the Deepwater Horizon spill, and dozens of others more. And that's just oil spills. Oil, coal and natural gas have their fair share of disasters too. And that's without counting climate change exacerbated wildfires, hurricanes, and other "natural" disasters. Fossil fuels are in a whole nother level of environmental destruction compared to the other energy sources.
And I would have absolutely zero qualms about storing HLW casks in my backyard, so long as I was paid for having less space to grow my peppers and tomatoes. Kyle Hill has an easily digestible video about this, if you're interested.
Oh what a sursprise that a country who has no final storage for nuclear waste decided not to produce more nuclear waste instead of just putting it somewhere and hoping the barrels will not leak again.
The mistake was not closint down uneconomical and toxic nuclear power plants. The mistake happened years before. It was selling out our solar tech to China
Nuclear waste is not the reason they're closing, it's purely political. You could fit all of the high-level waste Germany's ever generated on a football field, and be able to walk around without any protection, getting less radiation dose than in an airplane. Let's not spread disinformation.
@Claidheamh @Draedron wrong.
Currently in storage is 130k cubic meters of radioactive waste. Stop with the fake news propaganda.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why do people like you constantly spread lies lmao. Coal usage is dropping despite not using a tiny amount of nuclear anymore.
Funny how people are down voting my comment regardless that it is the truth.
Here for the uneducated people:
Coal-fired power generation also fell: Lignite-fired power plants generated about 41.2 TWh, a sharp decline of 21 percent from 2022 (52.1 TWh). Net production from coal-fired power plants also decreased by 23 percent, from 26.2 TWh in 2022 down to 20.1 TWh in 2023. Electricity generation from natural gas decreased only slightly from 24.3 TWh to 23.4 TWh. In addition to gas-fired power plants for the public power supply, gas-fired plants in the mining and manufacturing sectors also supply the industrial own consumption. These approximately produced an additional 24 TWh for industrial captive use.
Stats say coal share is dropping after nuclear shut down yet people online claim nuclear is being replaced by coal.
Energy from coal production fed to the grid got to 33% in 2022 from 30% in 2021 according to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (+8.6% YoY)
It's not very representative to compare just two data points. If you look at a larger time window you can see that black coal is declining and brown coal is more or less constant https://www.energie.de/et/news-detailansicht/nsctrl/detail/News/stromerzeugung-rueckblick-auf-den-energiemix-seit-1990-zeigt-die-risiken-uebergrosser-dynamik
And most of that was to compensate the lack of french export to the European grid and not because Germany shut down nuclear.
Look at 2023 data for example.
Coal-fired power generation also fell: Lignite-fired power plants generated about 41.2 TWh, a sharp decline of 21 percent from 2022 (52.1 TWh). Net production from coal-fired power plants also decreased by 23 percent, from 26.2 TWh in 2022 down to 20.1 TWh in 2023.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Simracing 4eva
view more: next โบ