Industry requires stable energy in very large amounts,so if the sun does not come out for 2 days then you have to stop production. Also at some point you’re gonna run out of space to put solar panels and the maintenance cost might make it prohibitive.
Here’s the bottom line: if at the current level of technology and price renewables were cheaper than fossil fuels, every Corp in the world would be running purely on renewables. This the one nice thing about capitalism, that it only needs one argument to be convinced: lower costs. But that is not the case,” and renewables, or rather the infrastructure needed to harness it, is not yet cheaper than fossil fuel.
The solution is to invest money in r&d that makes renewable infrastructure more efficient and cheaper.
Many of the largest corps are buying and adding renewables in ever increasing amounts. There are some cases where fossil fuel is still a little bit cheaper than renewables plus batteries, if you completely ignore externalities like harmful emissions. Running out of space and maintenance costs? You’re grasping at straws. Nearly every industrial facility is on the grid, not requiring any nearby space. And you know what’s always more expensive than solar maintenance costs? Fossil plant maintenance costs, not even mentioning a little on-going cost and cost-risk thing called fuel.
More new solar capacity is being installed than any other generation type. I guess heavy industry is gonna collapse due to it being weak girly power! We’re doomed!
Since when has capitalism cared about externalities? Harmful emissions are only a problem for a corp if they come with a price tag attached. Otherwise it’s worth it even if it only saves them a cent.
And I’m not disagreeing with you nor arguing against renewables my guy. Im stating what is often cited as the reason for the slow adoption of renewables in industry. Again, if it was clear that it is superior and cheaper than fossil fuel, every corporation in the world would be running on it, there would be no reason not to! But there’s also the reality that renewable energy is dependent on weather conditions that may or may not be right for maximum production. You could install batteries but these batteries are terrible for the environment too. New battery tech is cleaner but not scalable/cost effective. So why shouldn’t we have energy intensive manufacturing on nuclear power while everything else runs on renewable? There’s risks but less risks than the current status. Also nuclear fission promises amazing things, so more money should go into the industry to accelerate the development of that tech.
Many environmentalists and experts agree that the key to solving the climate issue lies in increasing nuclear power, this is not something I’m making up. I’m not an expert on this at all. I don’t understand why you think you’d know better than them.
Right, I bet no one thought of that.
Industry requires stable energy in very large amounts,so if the sun does not come out for 2 days then you have to stop production. Also at some point you’re gonna run out of space to put solar panels and the maintenance cost might make it prohibitive.
Here’s the bottom line: if at the current level of technology and price renewables were cheaper than fossil fuels, every Corp in the world would be running purely on renewables. This the one nice thing about capitalism, that it only needs one argument to be convinced: lower costs. But that is not the case,” and renewables, or rather the infrastructure needed to harness it, is not yet cheaper than fossil fuel.
The solution is to invest money in r&d that makes renewable infrastructure more efficient and cheaper.
Many of the largest corps are buying and adding renewables in ever increasing amounts. There are some cases where fossil fuel is still a little bit cheaper than renewables plus batteries, if you completely ignore externalities like harmful emissions. Running out of space and maintenance costs? You’re grasping at straws. Nearly every industrial facility is on the grid, not requiring any nearby space. And you know what’s always more expensive than solar maintenance costs? Fossil plant maintenance costs, not even mentioning a little on-going cost and cost-risk thing called fuel.
More new solar capacity is being installed than any other generation type. I guess heavy industry is gonna collapse due to it being weak girly power! We’re doomed!
Since when has capitalism cared about externalities? Harmful emissions are only a problem for a corp if they come with a price tag attached. Otherwise it’s worth it even if it only saves them a cent.
And I’m not disagreeing with you nor arguing against renewables my guy. Im stating what is often cited as the reason for the slow adoption of renewables in industry. Again, if it was clear that it is superior and cheaper than fossil fuel, every corporation in the world would be running on it, there would be no reason not to! But there’s also the reality that renewable energy is dependent on weather conditions that may or may not be right for maximum production. You could install batteries but these batteries are terrible for the environment too. New battery tech is cleaner but not scalable/cost effective. So why shouldn’t we have energy intensive manufacturing on nuclear power while everything else runs on renewable? There’s risks but less risks than the current status. Also nuclear fission promises amazing things, so more money should go into the industry to accelerate the development of that tech.
Many environmentalists and experts agree that the key to solving the climate issue lies in increasing nuclear power, this is not something I’m making up. I’m not an expert on this at all. I don’t understand why you think you’d know better than them.