Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
If you want to see how renewables have done in the long run, here is the story from 1800-2100 Same conclusion — we've spent the past 200 years getting rid of renewables We'll see slightly more, but nowhere near taking over the world, even by 2100 https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/1112019059577622530 …pic.twitter.com/RIZLmQ5zDv
Obviously, a lot of renewable enthusiasts and people who live off of renewables are annoyed about this They'll claim (they do every year) that the preeminent energy organization, the International Energy Agency, don't actually say this and don't use TPES
![🌞G2Vstargrazzer❄️[CO2appreciating🌳Enviro'list]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1475575612626644998/P_dVaAFu_normal.jpg)
But IEA does: here is their summary page for their "Renewables Information 2018" (but only data for 2016): Solar 3.3% Wind 4.4% total 7.7% of 13.7% 7.7%*13.7%=1.05% (slightly higher bc rounding, solar not just PV etc.) And they only summarize in TPES https://webstore.iea.org/renewables-information-2018 …pic.twitter.com/GBKhIUOUWl
the video looks terrible — see it here:https://twitter.com/bjornlomborg/status/1112019059577622530 …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
