Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Lomborg is wrong, as so often. Solar + wind represents an estimated 7% of global power supply, and increasing fast. The subsidy is small compared to all the subsidies received by fossil fuels. Moreover, no new energy source made it into the market without subsidies @BjornLomborghttps://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1107746025010278406 …
Hey Anders — maybe first get a handle on the difference between percent of *energy* — all the stuff we use, and what I talk about and *power* or electricity, just one-quarter of all emissions Solar & wind energy: 0.935% Solar & wind power: 5.9% (IEA 2018)
How much are the fossil fuel subsidies?
About the same as the subsidies you get to enjoy modern civilisation.
Better even to just watch what happens when solar/wind start to penetrate: Germany, Denmark, Ontario, California all show very little lowering of CO2 emissions (or rising) as prices double or triple their peers. CO2 rises as people stop using electricity and switch to gas.
He's not pro solar or pro wind, he's anti nuclear.
Don't worry, confounding kW (power) with kWh is just a typo
Boom. I don’t know why people even try
You mean: Power * production inefficiencies (solar at night, wind turbines in still air) over time (say a year) = energy?
Hi Björn. Energy and electricity is different. But transformation has to start somewhere. And incresingly things will be electrified. Also, difference is huge if you compare with primary energy or energy used. And your point about subsidies is nonsense.
Moreover, on subsidies. You continue to criticize subsidies while at the same time pushing for more energy research. You should know that all new energy technologies - nuclear included - need subsidies for market entry.
Absolute rubbish Anders. Bjorn calls it as it is = we need to prioritise R&D over deployment of pathetic low density intermittent renewables. We need to deploy existing and advanced #nuclearpower. Also you’ve got your facts wrong on energy which is not equal to electricity.
Nobody said we should not give prio to R&D. That is happening. But we need deployment as well - to bring down costs through learning curves and improve the technologies. The notion that we should wait for the perfect until we invest is rubbish.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
