Huh. This is not what I was expecting:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...warming-worse/
I read that the instability of renewable energy required European power companies to burn more coal instead of (I think!) natural gas because those plants were able to keep up with rapid changes.
Burning more coal had the expected result.
I tried again and still did not find anything, but that above article states that wood is considered a renewable resource.
Okay...
That article states that many claim that it is carbon-neutral because the carbon is stored in the trees, you burn it, and then trees regrow and absorb the carbon back! It is the circle, the circle of carbon!
I like trees! Let them absorb carbon and pick on someone else!
But wait!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#2dddf0242800
and there was much rejoicing!
Yay.
All hands! Brace for impact!
Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker - AEI
Quote:
|
It’s a common mistake of politicians and the media to treat jobs as an economic benefit, when in fact, jobs are an economic cost or price of production. As Milton Friedman explained nearly 40 years ago, the appropriate economic objective is to have the fewest number of workers producing the greatest amount of output.
|