Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
OK, so you agree new renewables can be cheaper than new fossil fuel generation. Surely that's the key metric though - ie determines new investment decisions? Indeed, for this reason, renewables already make up majority of generation Capex and capacity additions globally.
oh, absolutely, if renewables are cheaper, we should build them. But mostly they aren't, which is why they need subsidies ($120bn for solar PV and wind last year). So, no, subsidies the reason most new generation is renewable (along with regulations and poor pricing of baseload)
This is changing rapidly as recent falls in renewable costs mean that subsidies can be withdrawn (or at least scaled back/allocated competitively). Agree there's a significant subsidy cost legacy - partly due to poor decisions in the past.
At the same time, to truly level the playing field we need to remove fossil fuel subsidies, price carbon appropriately, and ensure regulations are technology neutral. This would bring forward subsidy free deployment of low carbon options.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
