Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Mar 3, 2006
7,170
2,544
315
Contrary to what you'll here from most here, incl half skookerAssbil's posts, people DO care.
It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
**** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
Wall Street Journal:

Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels
In 2016, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants,
By Russell Gold - Wall Street Journal
June 11, 2018
Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, driven by Falling costs of producing wind/solar power.

More than Half of the power-generating capacity added around the world in recent years has been in renewable sources such as wind/solar, according to the Int'l Energy Agency.

In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—more than twice the $143 billion spent on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel oil power plants, according to the IEA. The Paris-based organization projects renewables will make up 56% of net generating capacity added through 2025.
Once supported overwhelmingly by cash-back incentives, tax credits and other government incentives, wind/solar-generation costs have fallen consistently for a decade, making renewable-power investment more competitive.

Renewable costs have fallen so far in the past few years that “Wind and Solar now represent the Lowest-cost option for generating electricity,” said Francis O’Sullivan, research director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative.

This is beginning to disrupt the business of making electricity and manufacturing generating equipment. Both General Electric Co. and Siemens AG are grappling with diminished demand for large gas-burning turbines and have announced layoffs. Meanwhile, mostly Asian-based manufacturers of solar panels are flourishing....

WSJ is by subscription, and I can't post the rest due to OP Space constraints.
However, if anyone requests I could post the balance at some point.
`
 
Last edited:
LOL...
How many will die from this stupidity...
Its amazing the facts the left will leave out to promote the agenda..
How many die due to the Current stupidity: polluted air, water, and food chain?

BACKFIRE time

Money Talks, Billy Bob Walks.
Blo me.
`
 
Contrary to what you'll here from most here, especially skookerAssbil, people DO care.
It's cost-effective, creating jobs, AND a better planet.
**** the Throwback and Trumpov... Coal IS Dead
THIS is why China put Solar on Priority and put alot of Western mfg out of Biz.
Wall Street Journal:

Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels
In 2016, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants,
By Russell Gold - Wall Street Journal
June 11, 2018
Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, driven by Falling costs of producing wind/solar power.

More than Half of the power-generating capacity added around the world in recent years has been in renewable sources such as wind/solar, according to the Int'l Energy Agency.

In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—more than twice the $143 billion spent on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel oil power plants, according to the IEA. The Paris-based organization projects renewables will make up 56% of net generating capacity added through 2025.
Once supported overwhelmingly by cash-back incentives, tax credits and other government incentives, wind/solar-generation costs have fallen consistently for a decade, making renewable-power investment more competitive.

Renewable costs have fallen so far in the past few years that “Wind and Solar now represent the Lowest-cost option for generating electricity,” said Francis O’Sullivan, research director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative.

This is beginning to disrupt the business of making electricity and manufacturing generating equipment. Both General Electric Co. and Siemens AG are grappling with diminished demand for large gas-burning turbines and have announced layoffs. Meanwhile, mostly Asian-based manufacturers of solar panels are flourishing....

WSJ is by subscription, and I can't post the rest due to OP Space constraints.
However, if anyone requests I could post the balance at some point.
`


How many solar panels do you have fruit loop?
 
Last edited:
How many solar panel do you have?
How many Oil Wells do you own?
(strawman moron)


You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.


I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.

Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.

I also own oil stock pansy.
 
You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.
I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.
Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.
WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.

You're Stupid.
Understand?
You argue by Stupid.
And NO one even claimed it was even near a majoritry of CURRENT use YET.
Whether I have solar panels on my roof, or you have gas leases, means NOTHING to the overall debate, and numbers I posted.
It's called:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=IA.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.7x-Ker5ASb8
ie
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`
 
Last edited:
You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.
I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.
Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.
WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.

You're Stupid.
Understand?
Whether I have solar panels on my roof, or you have gas leases means NOTHING to the overall debate, and numbers I posted.
It's called:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=IA.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.7x-Ker5ASb8
ie
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`


So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?

Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?

I'm so confused right now.
 
You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.
I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.
Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.
WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.

You're Stupid.
Understand?
Whether I have solar panels on my roof, or you have gas leases means NOTHING to the overall debate, and numbers I posted.
It's called:

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

See many more explanations you 12 IQ Moron:
anecdot fallacy - Google Search

`


Here cupcake:

When solar is less than in single digit percentages of course there is room for growth.

In the US it is 1.4 % of the total.

And you are jerking off to it.

Where does the other 98.6 % come from darling?

Solar power by country - Wikipedia
 
Alt energy is the fastest growing niche in the electrical industry , if i were a younger man i would be looking for a NABCEP cert & a shingle to make good on it

Being a smart entrepenure has little to do with all the political hubris , it's right time/place/commodity/service

~S~
 
You answer a question withe a question.

A sure sign of public schooling.
I have a gas lease on my land cupcake.
Thanks for supporting fossil and nuclear with every milliWatt of electricity you use tinkerbell.
WTF do those [mini] ANECDOTES have to do with the Macro-Stats/Movement I posted in the OP.

You're Stupid.
Understand?
Whether I have solar panels on my roof, or you have gas leases means NOTHING to the overall debate, and numbers I posted.
It's called:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=IA.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.7x-Ker5ASb8
ie
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`


So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?

Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?

I'm so confused right now.


But that 1.4 % is growing at a fast rate.

Wait until he figures out electric vehicles are powered by fossil and nuclear.
 
So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?

Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?
I'm so confused right now.
You're confused because you are also STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still produce a majority of our Power, but it's share of NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

So you are indeed confused, or STUPID, because the OP's claim is Only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.

Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.
`
 
Alt energy is the fastest growing niche in the electrical industry , if i were a younger man i would be looking for a NABCEP cert & a shingle to make good on it

Being a smart entrepenure has little to do with all the political hubris , it's right time/place/commodity/service

~S~


1.4 % of the US power source.

Of course it can grow fast.

2.8 % is 100 % growth.

How can the other 98.6 % grow 100 %?
 
So people DO care, It's cost-effective, creating jobs, a better planet, and coal is dead, yet you're still relying on coal-fired electrical generating plants and/or petroleum products for 100% of your energy?

Should I do as you say or should I do as you do?
I'm so confused right now.
You're confuysed becausde ytou are alos STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still poroduce a majority of out Power, but it's share ofr NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

You are indeed confused, or STUPID because the OP's claoim is only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.

So you are really Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.
`


1.4 % is dramatic in your mind.

Again public schooling.


98.6 % >> 1.4 % darling.
 
I'm so confused right now.

I'll wager you'll be just as confused if it were explained to you

~S~


Try?
370px-PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg.png

global-concentrating-solar-power-market-report.png

3a2427b9-160b-d8a7-5407-b24b559fdf0b

~S~
 
1.4 % of the US power source.
Of course it can grow fast.
2.8 % is 100 % growth.

How can the other 98.6 % grow 100 %?
I repeat:

You're confused because you are also STUPID
The older Fossil Fules still produce a majority of our Power, but it's share of NEW generation is dropping dramatically.

So you are indeed confused, or STUPID, because the OP's claim is Only for NEW power Gen, not old or Existing.

Stupid and unable to grasp anything you read.
Such are the Trumpov Morons who dominate this ****hole.... USMB.​

And it's NOT just because of Low starting percentages, it is a MAJORITY - TWO THIRDS - of NEW Money.

IOW, You're a high frequency low logic ahole.


EDIT: Note the Clown Chitwood high-frequency/SAME multi-posts to each of mine
He knows how INADEQUATE his debate is.

`
 
Last edited:
I'm so confused right now.

I'll wager you'll be just as confused if it were explained to you

~S~

Give it a try, you'd be surprised at how well I understand that "sustainable energy" is a fool's errand. Take Germany, for example: Their "green" energy policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty.

Residential German electricity prices are nearly three times higher than electricity prices in the U.S. As many as 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because of an inability to pay for rising energy costs. Germany’s feed-in tariff scheme provides lavish subsidies to renewable energy producers. On-shore wind has required feed-in tariffs that are in excess of 300 percent higher than market prices. Germany’s Renewable Energy Levy, which subsidizes renewable energy production, cost German households €7.2 billion ($9.6 billion) in 2013 and has gone up ever since. The cost to expand transmission networks to integrate renewables stands at $33.6 billion, which grid operators say accounts “for only a fraction of the cost of the energy transition.”

Of course, you leftists love the idea of this country being just like Germany. Thanks, but no thanks.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top