This ratio is probably due to maturity of technology. Shouldn't we use some of your recommended billions USD and invest in solar to mature?
Remember, goal is most power per worker Not most jobs – then we could all just dig holes and fill'em up http://www.aei.org/publication/inconvenient-energy-fact-it-takes-79-solar-workers-to-produce-same-amount-of-electric-power-as-one-coal-worker/ …pic.twitter.com/E8N2LIl6RF
-
-
-
Haha nice try, more money that will come from the taxpayer for perceived gains(we're told), I don't think so sunshine (pun intended) :)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Wrong. Goal is most power per dollar. Those stats you show are apples and oranges, absolutely disingenuous.
-
Hydro,Coal,Nat Gas nuclear. The others are MONEY PITS.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
What logic? The logic that you are willing to pay more money for your energy so long as you're maximising unemployment? That logic?
- Näytä vastaukset
-
-
-
Most of these people are employed in construction of new plants. Lots of new solar plants, essentially no new coal. Give it 20yrs.
-
Coal will come back when solar fails. The future, until nuclear is advanced, is coal and Nat gas or visa versa
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
If that's true why don't we remove subsidies?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Solar is expanding, most jobs are construction and installation. But the panels will produce energy for a long time. Misleading by design.
-
Relative short life span for solar and bad for the environment in many ways
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.