The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

I didn't stutter. The wall socket looks exactly the same to the plug on your frig cord. The refrigerator is indifferent to any albedo effects on the generation side.

The refrigerator is indifferent to any albedo effects on the generation side.

But the planet isn't.
 
Like I said, "The satellites didn't measure the heat transported away by air currents or powerlines"
That's a cowardly way of saying the reason for the incremental cooling is because photons were converted into electricity.
 
What part of there is no incremental change in waste heat from switching to solar don't you understand?

1662840916016.png



DURR
 
Of course. Or at least become uneconomical to recover.

There ya go! So you'll appreciate the recent many years of the rise of "fracking" used to recover more and more uneconomical oil. It's a sign that we are already heading down the path.

Also: oil is HEAVILY subsidized so it's not really "economical" by itself apparently.
 
How is oil subsidized?

I love that debate. It's so funny to watch you guys debate the world's ECONOMISTS who tell you the oil companies are subsidized.

I know most of you lot don't own businesses and you don't actually understand $$$ so you make special pleading about what is or isn't a subsidy based on your imagination.

I'm not engaging with another moron on the same ol' topic. You are too stupid to care about.
 
I love that debate. It's so funny to watch you guys debate the world's ECONOMISTS who tell you the oil companies are subsidized.

I know most of you lot don't own businesses and you don't actually understand $$$ so you make special pleading about what is or isn't a subsidy based on your imagination.

I'm not engaging with another moron on the same ol' topic. You are too stupid to care about.

I understand you're afraid to discuss the "subsidies".

Run away now.
 

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:


Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

Solar is not dependable California and Texas is proof of this.
 
Just like I accept the cooling effect of my fridge.

How many fridges running at the same time before we usher in the next glacial cycle?
That's awesome that your fridge can convert photons into electricity like solar panels do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top