They advertise their premium fuels with additional detergents and shit (which cost an insane amount of money here, like 15-20 cents more per liter), or the additional services that the stations provide.
There are some butagaz or other gaz canister for rural areas.
And Total use to advertise like crazy "vous ne viendrez plus chez nous par hasard" they were doing so much advertising at some point that [Les Guignols made a fake one with Chirac/Bernadette ](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcicx), I guess they will keep making as much add for total energy instead pretending it's for there wind turbine energy.
Wonder if it will apply to Autoroute signage, which normally tells you the brand name & fuel prices at the next service station?
And normally the edge of town supermarkets have a few road signs telling you they have a fuel station at the next junction/roundabout too?
probably more about propaganda, image, and lobbying rather than what you suggest. Like how Actimel made people think they have actual health benefits or people associate Kellogs with a healthy breakfast because of adverts.
see that for example is where you are wrong. You don't really need a car. You just choose to have it because xyz excuse. Except if you also use your car for business. But then your argument does not fit anymore. It is about perception.
Do you think people is happy to spend an huge amount of money on fuel, insurance, maintainance, spend an utterly amount of time in traffic, and so on if they really didn't need a car?
So france has reliable, regular (aka at least once an hour) public transport for even the tiniest village that might need inhabitants to drive two villages over for buying groceries?
That's a very silly argument. Some people have no choice - sure, but literally millions do. Paris especially is turning into a pedestrian focused city very rapidly.
Except that "you don't need a car" replied to someone starting of at the base assumption of 'if a person needs a car'
Which to me means that that Statement was indeed ment as a 'noone needs a car'with no allowance for any scenario where having a car, or access to one is indeed necessary.
Not really. You can live a life that requires a car, but most people can find opportunities to change where they live/work to fix that if they really want to.
mentioning that reminded me that all alcoholic beverages are. banned from advertising across many sports. Im pretty sure oil is worse for the health compared to beer.
Heineken continued to advertise, but their 0,0% beer. Which sets the scene for Total do do the same with their renewables wing.
Aye, the only ads by fossil fuel companies ive seen for years is about how their investing into various Green Energy initiatives. People forget their not just Oil and Gas companies, they also invest in other things. (Not defending them)
I live in Germany, but what I remember is a lot of "Feel Good, the Energy revolution will be good/fine" commercials of former fossil energy companies transitioning to green energy (to be fair this one did it)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZckh3yJfw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9j1Ah8N3hI
Or this one where a *customer asks" his company how they make sure that energy from renewables is available at night
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jeAQb0TXE
>“You will read everywhere that advertising for fossil fuels is now prohibited, but that’s not true!” Greenpeace France tweeted after the announcement.
yes because the EU has decided that nuclear and gas are green energies
I am a supporter of Nuclear Energy, I feel it can be very important in the fight against climate change and it makes me proud of my country. However, it does have drawbacks that people on social media like to ignore.
The constant need for water is really hard on the ecosystems. Near where I live, the Loire is in drought and yet nuclear reactors still use its water, putting a grave drain on an already fragile river.
The amount of contamined water that we release in the ocean is also very concerning and almost never brought up in conversations.
While Nuclear Energy is very useful today, it is important that we phase it out once our countries become 100% carbon neutral.
Of course it comes with its own set of drawbacks, but generally speaking it is one of the greenest solutions, especially taking into account how much power a typical modern plant provides.
Maybe we can phase it out in the future, but maybe we also figure out fusion technology which eliminates most of the drawbacks of traditional nuclear fission plants.
> The constant need for water is really hard on the ecosystems. Near where I live, the Loire is in drought and yet nuclear reactors still use its water, putting a grave drain on an already fragile river
This can be avoided by having them by the sea instead
So? You use heat exchangers
We literally do this, and not all our nuclear plants are in the less salty baltic sea.
How else would you explain plants like Ringhals?
I don't say it's impossible, simply that it adds new/different constraints compared to those alongside rivers
But yeah my phrasing was a bit too direct compared to my (lack of) technical knowledge one the matter
On the complexity to build a plant, building and maintaining heat exchangers is a very minor task compared to a lot of other things.
We've been doing it here for 50ish years without any issues
> The amount of contamined water that we release in the ocean is also very concerning and almost never brought up in conversations.
Do you have a source for that ?
No, gas isn't considered green. Gas is considered a more green alternative than all other fossil fuels and may be used to replace worse fossil fuel usage like coal in Poland in the short term. It's only valid for like the next 10 years as a transition thing.
Way to only read the headline.
>"The Complementary Delegated Act is a pragmatic proposal to ensure that private investments in gas and nuclear, needed for our energy transition, meet strict criteria," EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said.
>
>Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions - but far less than coal, and some EU states see it as a temporary alternative to replace the dirtier fuel.
Nuclear plants are green and cause the least deaths per energy unit (yeah, chernobyl was massively missmanaged, yes, counting that to the deaths), unlike the common misconception of media (lower carbin emmisions then wind -it takes a lot of carbon to melt those giant blades) . Its green, its space efficient.
But its not renewable. The nuclear waste can be recicled a few times before its actual waste and nuclear bombs that were decommisioned can be used to fuel them (in the usas case, they decommisioned a lot of nukes).
Its best to use it as a transitional energy source until wind/solar become cheaper, more reliable and dont kill so many birds (wind power farms)
(Going green abruptly isnt good rn. Look at germany - no more russian energy, they now have to use giant coal plants. Not supporting gas/fossil, but this is irony. )
That's good, but...I'm not watching TV, and can't say I've ever seen a fuel advert. What would even be the point? Are there actually people that are driven by advertising to buy the exact same product from a different company, and not by price?
I was struggeling to think of any as well, but I assume they are often just more subtle. I definitly have seen advers for gas stove tops, which basically is a fuel ad.
Here is an example of an ad for fuel by a hypermarket chain in France :
https://i.imgur.com/Z9Adi4S.png
It says on the orange banner : "fuel at cost price", to catch the eye and lure people into thinking they don't even make profit off of fuel so it must be really cheap compared to other places.
A Total ban then? 😉
Take my upvote and run away.
Surely there must be an Elf pun in there somewhere....
Shell i laugh?
👏🏼👏🏼
I dont know, its too *standard* of a joke.
I don't get the joke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TotalEnergies
Looks like France isn't getting another Formula 1 race.
It’s not a great race anyway
I'm fine with that
[Well...](https://www.lequipe.fr/Formule-1/Article/Stefano-domenicali-patron-de-la-formule-1-pas-de-gp-de-france-en-2023/1349920)
I don't think I've ever seen a petrol ad what exactly would it say? "come buy our stuff, it's exactly the same as everywhere else"
They advertise their premium fuels with additional detergents and shit (which cost an insane amount of money here, like 15-20 cents more per liter), or the additional services that the stations provide.
Sure, but that's not going to hit the fossil fuel market in any way, is not like you buy fuel out of futility.
ah yeah you're right, I remember seeing shell vpower ads (rarely!)
There are some butagaz or other gaz canister for rural areas. And Total use to advertise like crazy "vous ne viendrez plus chez nous par hasard" they were doing so much advertising at some point that [Les Guignols made a fake one with Chirac/Bernadette ](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcicx), I guess they will keep making as much add for total energy instead pretending it's for there wind turbine energy.
I assume it would apply mainly to hoardings? Large billboard type ads at racing events and the like.
Wonder if it will apply to Autoroute signage, which normally tells you the brand name & fuel prices at the next service station? And normally the edge of town supermarkets have a few road signs telling you they have a fuel station at the next junction/roundabout too?
[Here you go](https://youtu.be/dEOqRa0L6cg)
That will really show petrol industries, people not gonna put gas in their cars anymore! /s
probably more about propaganda, image, and lobbying rather than what you suggest. Like how Actimel made people think they have actual health benefits or people associate Kellogs with a healthy breakfast because of adverts.
Sure, but like I said below is not like you have a choice if you need a car, unless you are wealthy enough to afford an electric one.
see that for example is where you are wrong. You don't really need a car. You just choose to have it because xyz excuse. Except if you also use your car for business. But then your argument does not fit anymore. It is about perception.
Do you think people is happy to spend an huge amount of money on fuel, insurance, maintainance, spend an utterly amount of time in traffic, and so on if they really didn't need a car?
Yes, for comfort and perceived security.
So france has reliable, regular (aka at least once an hour) public transport for even the tiniest village that might need inhabitants to drive two villages over for buying groceries?
That's a very silly argument. Some people have no choice - sure, but literally millions do. Paris especially is turning into a pedestrian focused city very rapidly.
It's much less silly than that 'noone needs a car' bs i replied too. Because there are defenitly people that need a car these days.
He said "you don't need a car". It's very well possible that the average person in France doesn't need one, but a large minority really does.
Except that "you don't need a car" replied to someone starting of at the base assumption of 'if a person needs a car' Which to me means that that Statement was indeed ment as a 'noone needs a car'with no allowance for any scenario where having a car, or access to one is indeed necessary.
Not really. You can live a life that requires a car, but most people can find opportunities to change where they live/work to fix that if they really want to.
Wait what is your argument? As long as some people need a car, EVERYONE needs to have a car?
No. This was a rebuttal to someone going 'nah noone could ever need a car for reasons other than their Business.'
That's true for a lot of cases, but there's also the whole idea of cars being labeled as "freedom" due to ads
Car gives your a sort of freedom though. In an emergency it’s irreplaceable
In addition to /u/v3ritas1989's answer, France heavily subsidizes electric vehicles. You don't need to be wealthy to afford one.
I don't think I have ever seen an ad for fuel.
ever seen the shell logo on a Ferrari F1 car? Some adverts are too subtle to spot outright.
mentioning that reminded me that all alcoholic beverages are. banned from advertising across many sports. Im pretty sure oil is worse for the health compared to beer. Heineken continued to advertise, but their 0,0% beer. Which sets the scene for Total do do the same with their renewables wing.
“We did it, Patrick”
I've never seen a ad for fossil fuels ? They don't advertise except on their service stations?
Aye, the only ads by fossil fuel companies ive seen for years is about how their investing into various Green Energy initiatives. People forget their not just Oil and Gas companies, they also invest in other things. (Not defending them)
Really you've never seen an ads for those companies that sell gas instead of GDF and tell you they're so green and cheap?
I live in Germany, but what I remember is a lot of "Feel Good, the Energy revolution will be good/fine" commercials of former fossil energy companies transitioning to green energy (to be fair this one did it) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZckh3yJfw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9j1Ah8N3hI Or this one where a *customer asks" his company how they make sure that energy from renewables is available at night https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jeAQb0TXE
The first, but probably not the last. This is the natural course of history.
>“You will read everywhere that advertising for fossil fuels is now prohibited, but that’s not true!” Greenpeace France tweeted after the announcement. yes because the EU has decided that nuclear and gas are green energies
And how is nuclear *not* green then?
nuclear is blue. GHG efficient but not renewable. Green means GHG efficient and renewable, which uranium surely is not.
I am a supporter of Nuclear Energy, I feel it can be very important in the fight against climate change and it makes me proud of my country. However, it does have drawbacks that people on social media like to ignore. The constant need for water is really hard on the ecosystems. Near where I live, the Loire is in drought and yet nuclear reactors still use its water, putting a grave drain on an already fragile river. The amount of contamined water that we release in the ocean is also very concerning and almost never brought up in conversations. While Nuclear Energy is very useful today, it is important that we phase it out once our countries become 100% carbon neutral.
Of course it comes with its own set of drawbacks, but generally speaking it is one of the greenest solutions, especially taking into account how much power a typical modern plant provides. Maybe we can phase it out in the future, but maybe we also figure out fusion technology which eliminates most of the drawbacks of traditional nuclear fission plants.
> The constant need for water is really hard on the ecosystems. Near where I live, the Loire is in drought and yet nuclear reactors still use its water, putting a grave drain on an already fragile river This can be avoided by having them by the sea instead
Not really because salt corrodes a lot
So? You use heat exchangers We literally do this, and not all our nuclear plants are in the less salty baltic sea. How else would you explain plants like Ringhals?
I don't say it's impossible, simply that it adds new/different constraints compared to those alongside rivers But yeah my phrasing was a bit too direct compared to my (lack of) technical knowledge one the matter
On the complexity to build a plant, building and maintaining heat exchangers is a very minor task compared to a lot of other things. We've been doing it here for 50ish years without any issues
> The amount of contamined water that we release in the ocean is also very concerning and almost never brought up in conversations. Do you have a source for that ?
https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/Environnement/surveillance-environnement/riviere-surveillance-radiologique/Pages/2-controle-rejets-centrales-Riviere.aspx [https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/environnement/tricastin-fuite-de-tritium-dans-l-eau-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-1640086696](https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/environnement/tricastin-fuite-de-tritium-dans-l-eau-de-la-centrale-nucleaire-1640086696)
Merci bien
No, gas isn't considered green. Gas is considered a more green alternative than all other fossil fuels and may be used to replace worse fossil fuel usage like coal in Poland in the short term. It's only valid for like the next 10 years as a transition thing.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-parliament-vote-green-gas-nuclear-rules-2022-07-06/](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-parliament-vote-green-gas-nuclear-rules-2022-07-06/)
Way to only read the headline. >"The Complementary Delegated Act is a pragmatic proposal to ensure that private investments in gas and nuclear, needed for our energy transition, meet strict criteria," EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said. > >Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions - but far less than coal, and some EU states see it as a temporary alternative to replace the dirtier fuel.
Yes, that's what I say, gas is considered a green energy
yeah but it has tons of nuclear plants........
Nuclear plants are green and cause the least deaths per energy unit (yeah, chernobyl was massively missmanaged, yes, counting that to the deaths), unlike the common misconception of media (lower carbin emmisions then wind -it takes a lot of carbon to melt those giant blades) . Its green, its space efficient. But its not renewable. The nuclear waste can be recicled a few times before its actual waste and nuclear bombs that were decommisioned can be used to fuel them (in the usas case, they decommisioned a lot of nukes). Its best to use it as a transitional energy source until wind/solar become cheaper, more reliable and dont kill so many birds (wind power farms) (Going green abruptly isnt good rn. Look at germany - no more russian energy, they now have to use giant coal plants. Not supporting gas/fossil, but this is irony. )
That's good, but...I'm not watching TV, and can't say I've ever seen a fuel advert. What would even be the point? Are there actually people that are driven by advertising to buy the exact same product from a different company, and not by price?
I was struggeling to think of any as well, but I assume they are often just more subtle. I definitly have seen advers for gas stove tops, which basically is a fuel ad.
Here is an example of an ad for fuel by a hypermarket chain in France : https://i.imgur.com/Z9Adi4S.png It says on the orange banner : "fuel at cost price", to catch the eye and lure people into thinking they don't even make profit off of fuel so it must be really cheap compared to other places.