This is why studies show that in California when solar penetration reaches 30%, a solar kWh will lose two-thirds of its value https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201636 …pic.twitter.com/0tgFOKTtcH
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This is why studies show that in California when solar penetration reaches 30%, a solar kWh will lose two-thirds of its value https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201636 …pic.twitter.com/0tgFOKTtcH
We have to ask people claiming "solar/wind is cheaper" why we then have to pay $129bn in subsidies? https://www.iea.org/weo2018/ Such claims are why ordinary citizens have paid a trillion dollars too much since 2007, and are on the hook for $4 trillion more till 2040pic.twitter.com/g76FPaPh3w
“USD 0.10” ???
For what ?
How can you have a price without a thing, then say it is cheap ?




Solar Mwh is not cheaper when subsidies are being paid by non-solar panel owners.
A PVR for power will radically change this equation. It’s why industry is funding battery development and other technological advances.
Are the any promising battery technologies which do not entail raping the earth for the requisite heavy metals and rare earth minerals?
This ignores the basic concept of supply and demand, or the concept of storage, but go on ...
Well, we don’t have cost-effective energy storage for PV and wind power. That’s why he’s correct.
Yep. Using a different perspective, not all energy efficiency savings are created equal. Spatial and temporal (time of day and season) characteristics matter when considering the marginal value of energy efficiency or renewables. http://www.buildingdecarb.org/resources/a-roadmap-to-decarbonize-californias-buildings … (page 9)pic.twitter.com/IyRglZZucJ
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.