Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The future is clean energy. Right-wingers can try, but they will find that they can't beat the market.
Quote:
modern technology – particularly in the large-scale open-pit mining centers of the west, far from the Rust Belt – means that “even if demand for coal returned, the jobs wouldn’t. It’s pretty devastating,” Muro told MarketWatch.
Solar employment expanded last year 17 times faster than the total US economy, according to an International Renewable Energy Agency report published on Wednesday that cited data from the Solar Foundation.
Overall, more than 260,000 people work in the solar industry, up by 24% from 2015.
Solar employment expanded last year 17 times faster than the total US economy, according to an International Renewable Energy Agency report published on Wednesday that cited data from the Solar Foundation.
Overall, more than 260,000 people work in the solar industry, up by 24% from 2015.
Coal is the new social issue of the day. Coal is not going to make some huge resurgence. It's all cultural populism, because Republicans can't get elected by being super honest, which is they want their poor rural voters to fend for themselves.
leftists shrieked and wailed over and over in this thread that trump pulling out of the paris agreement spelled the end of 'clean' energy in the US, and absolute doom for the entire planet
Dear god, that graph is bad. As mentioned above, current technology didn't exist in most of the time of that graph. Does it account for population? What are considered "renewables" to make it? What assumptions are being made, and why couldn't such assumptions be wrong (another administration could make alternative energy investments a larger priority, for example)? Why does the factual rate of growth during the recent decade not continue upward in the same trajectory rather than making a hard right after 2020? If we followed the same rate we're seeing now, it would easily be closer to double that % by 2050.
In 1839, Alexandre Edmond Becquerel (pictured on the right) discovered that certain materials produced small amounts of electric current when exposed to light.
Dear god, that graph is bad. As mentioned above, current technology didn't exist in most of the time of that graph. Does it account for population? What are considered "renewables" to make it? What assumptions are being made, and why couldn't such assumptions be wrong (another administration could make alternative energy investments a larger priority, for example)? Why does the factual rate of growth during the recent decade not continue upward in the same trajectory rather than making a hard right after 2020? If we followed the same rate we're seeing now, it would easily be closer to double that % by 2050.
More jobs in solar because its not nearly as efficient i.e. It takes more people per KWH than other competing technologies.
End all subsidies and let consumers decide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
