Sad to see @BjornLomborg still clueless about energy economics. In many cases clean energy and transport is *already cheaper* than incumbent technologies; and they got there by a combination of technology, scale and cost of capital, never R&D alone. From hero of mine to zero.
Another @BjornLomborg canard - ‘we need to invest in new technologies’. R&D is never a bad idea but humanity already has all the technologies necessary to reach global #netzero. Lesson of history is that deployment brings down cost - rapidly
-
-
-
Seems like everyone needs to update their priors about how quickly the energy transition could proceed. Friends in India and elsewhere go on and on about enthusiasm for solar, storage, and the like.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Yes we have most of the tech we need to achieve
#netzero but the UK has still to learn we need to build our own manufacturing supply chains around those techs if only to ensure the capacity is there to achieve Net Zero as rapidly as possible. However, new tech will always appearKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
He's been saying that for 15 years.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Better start building those nuclear power plants.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
IEA today saying that the technology required for 33-50% of the task ahead is "not commercially available today". That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that innovation needed to bring the costs down, eg for green H2 or CCS.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Yes and one of the ones being currently under used and demonised is nuclear. Also wind and solar intermittent so need back up. With current technolgies best mix is nuclear gas with small prop of renewables.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
If deployment brings down costs, why does Denmark (with the greatest portion of renewable generation in their electical grid) have the most expensive electicity in Europe?
-
The last is much cheaper than the first. Denmark decided to spent the $$ because they wanted that tech, and probably wanted leadership in that tech. The rates are a consequence of that decision and weaknesses of intermittent sources, which means you often buy high and sell low.
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.