/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10635517
>control + F 'trend', no results found
>extrapolating from a BBC article that contradicts him

But what the hell do I know! But yes friend, yes! You're right.
You're right.
After doing some research, BP© agree with your outlook on their strategic website. Please visit BP.com and have a look:

>Renewable energy is the fastest growing source of energy, contributing half of the growth in global energy supplies and becoming the largest source of power by 2040.

Wow. Epic. Renewables are the future, look at this heckin cute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE
Look what the honorable Diverse Sanyal, chief executive, alternative energy and executive vice president, regions, BP and diversity initiative leader of 2018 has to say:


>“Renewable energy is growing partly because technology and innovation are making it more efficient and affordable. We see this in solar energy where costs have reduced by over 80% in the past decade and in wind energy where turbine technology has dramatically improved capacity. This is underpinned by robust operating performance, leveraging digital and human capabilities. We are also developing digital platforms which identify ways to generate power more efficiently and how that power can be monitored, stored and traded. And we see opportunities to create innovative lower carbon energy offers by partnering gas with renewables, using gas to complement the intermittency of renewables.”

I. Love. Renewables. I fuckin love science.
Why would anyone be against renewables or homosexuality for that matter? I can't think of a single reason. Thankfully, the scientists at BP© agree with us.

>>10568730
Renewables = Controlled opposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

>>10564068
>p-hacked
Do you even know what that means?
You don't. You're some moron. There's nothing to p-hack when it comes to price averages. You on the other hand, are guilty of exactly this with biased subsidy metric, "levelized costs" analysis. You're such a fucking moron that you can't even see that it excludes intermittency, which means they assume 24/7 operation of Wind/Solar power under perfect conditions which is impossible. Every fucking thread, you keep getting blown the fuck out, and you never concede your point. It's literally as though you're a paid shill. I never insulted beyond perhaps a brainlet here and there but you, you're the worst fucking poster on /sci/. Fuck you and fuck your controlled opposition renewables.

>>10536990
>doesn't read the subtext or methodology
Keep seething, BP funded "renewables are the future" retard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

Wind and solar will ALWAYS be a meme and are going to be plagued by intermittency even when widely adopted, meaning a gas/oil/coal backup plant will always be required. They require 100s of square miles of land and need to be build close to urban centers. The lifespan is extremely short for both wind turbines and photovotaic panels relative to nuclear

Nuclear is the only force that could today, be fully implemented and make fossil fuel power generation entirely obsolete. That's why oil and coal just does not care about renewables and sometimes even shills for them.

>We don't need nuclear guys, it's REALLY BAD AND SCARY, let's use some nice pleasant windmills, look at this nice picture!
The ABSOLUTE state of BP shills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE