Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Dear @BjornLomborg, @MLiebreich and even I have pointed this out before. Apparently you don't care but be aware that many of your followers are highly intelligent and this clearly signals your disingeniousness. So ffs, at least get your basic facts right.
Yes, you and Liebreich have said it before. I keep answering this is how the world's leading energy institution measures it (here from IEA Renewables Information 2017) Insisting on knowing I act in bad faith when I just present these best numbers does come across a bit imperiouspic.twitter.com/qMqiA4Zpde
The IEA numbers are perfectly valid if you want to compare how much energy we PRODUCED with different sources. But they are not if you want to know how much each source contributed to what we USED. So I'm not saying the IEA is wrong I'm saying you are using their numbers wrong.
Auke, are you arguing that we can easily eliminate the delta between energy produced and energy used?
Michael and Auke have a point, but by making that point they showcase their awareness that 100% global renewables is a gargantuan task where it pays to look hard at anything that can make the task seem less tough than it is.
If nuclear is part of the mix, the task of going zero-carbon would be so much easier that taking the difference between primary/final energy into account is little more than an afterthought.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
