Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

[Old Rocks]

Prove it.

M&A and Strategic Advisory

Lazard is one of the world's leading advisors on mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and related strategic matters and encompass all types of M&A transactions.

www.lazard.com

Our Clients
They include corporations, partnerships, institutions, governments, sovereign entities and individuals. Our Asset Management business serves a diverse global client base that includes pensions, sovereign wealth funds, governments, corporations, financial institutions and high-net-worth individuals

Lazard Inc - Company Profile and News

Company profile page for Lazard Inc including stock price, company news, executives, board members, and contact information

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Viacheslav]

Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.

If we really want to achieve zero emissions, we have no choice. You cannot create a stable energy system based only on renewable sources (except for hydropower), even if we have found a way to store energy, say hydrogen there is still a huge obstacle this is the power factor. Just look, the largest solar farm in the world, Bhadla Solar Park, has a capacity of 2.7 GW and an area of 160 km2, but the real generation is about 20%, and from this we need energy for current consumers, we need energy for generation, storage and transportation of hydrogen, the hydrogen fuel cell itself also has an efficiency of 60%. And in this way we will simply "fill" our entire territory with solar panels, wind generators, and still we will continue to burn coal.

Have you watched the movie Don't look up? As for me, you can find a hint of the current situation there. A dangerous comet is approaching Earth, scientists and engineers suggest a simple and working solution to prevent a catastrophe (like nuclear power in the context of decarbonization), but business wants more money, politicians want more hype and they end up rejecting a working solution.

 

[Viacheslav]

You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity;

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

This is a "cunning" comparison, a nuclear power plant generates power 24/7/360 when the solar farm doesn't work at night, and also doesn't' have smooth generation even on a clear day. And now we see reality, the world burns more coal.

 

[elektra]

LOL
You 'answered' HALF of Your numbers 1-4 that I answered with those numbers.
Miami Sea Level Of course, that's hardly the only place that it's a problem.
(see Old Rocks below on this well know and not singular problem. Many Citiies onj the East Coast are dealing wit it for it)

Second part of #1 I showed Our Military who acknowledges something that is already a problem and growing!

Then you WHIFFED on #2. How we know it's AGW and no the sun.
HUGE ISSUE
WHIFF-ARONI!

and you WHIFFED on my answer to your #3 and 4.

WHOA

Another ******* Wipe out.


You're TOTAL FRAUD, who just parrots RW talking points but knows and understands NOTHING.

`

Whiffed, you just lost your first example, son. I have much more on sea level rise being, normal.

You can't win your first point you make and you believe simply because you did a Google search your opinion is validated.

I also have something called a life. I don't waste my entire day rubbing your comments in your punk face.

And as you have seen before, your premature assumptions is just that, I more than answer your silly Google searches.

You already lost, Miami built at sea level and sinking, and your reply is, "but, but there are other better..."

Blah, blah, blah, so you reply is you only took the 1st Google link you thought confirmed your opinion?

Google is a proven partisan hack site.

 

[elektra]

• Sea Level Rise projections​

  
  For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.
  Miami-Dade County's 3-D sea level rise viewer allows planners and residents to view buildings that could be affected by one foot to six feet of sea level rise.
• Sea Level Rise and Flooding

Projections. As stated your last projection failed now your answer is tomorrow, we promise.

 

[elektra]

LOL And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.

Account Suspended

Thank you again old crock. Once again you prove yourself wrong with your own source.

Your home solar that feeds into the grid does not power your house. Not even during an outage.

 

[elektra]

You are such a dumb fuck liar. I have posted this many times, and it is the unsubsidized price of electricity.

Old Crock, how many times must I tell you, your links prove you wrong.

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 15.0) shows the continued cost-competitiveness of certain renewable energy technologies on a subsidized basis

The 1st paragraph states it is the subsidized cost.

Old Crock, you are stupid.

 

[Crick]

Old Crock, how many times must I tell you, your links prove you wrong.


The 1st paragraph states it is the subsidized cost.

Old Crock, you are stupid.

Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.

 

[abu afak]

Whiffed, you just lost your first example, son. I have much more on sea level rise being, normal.

You can't win your first point you make and you believe simply because you did a Google search your opinion is validated.

I also have something called a life. I don't waste my entire day rubbing your comments in your punk face.

And as you have seen before, your premature assumptions is just that, I more than answer your silly Google searches.

You already lost, Miami built at sea level and sinking, and your reply is, "but, but there are other better..."

Blah, blah, blah, so you reply is you only took the 1st Google link you thought confirmed your opinion?

Google is a proven partisan hack site.

LOL.
You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.

On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.

So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"

And you didn't touch my rebuttal of YOUR #2, or #3/#4.
In # 2, I actually explained in my own words (not "google") why we know it IS AGW this time
That was beyond anything you could ever do and it shut up/down forever.

All the rest is empty Mouthing
You were absolutely CRUSHED on all 4 of YOUR numbers.

What at a complete @ss kicking.
You were totally GUTTED on YOUR numbered points "1, 2, 3, 4" never to be seen again.


`

 

[elektra]

LOL.
You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.

On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.

So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"

And you didn't touch my rebuttal of YOUR #2, or #3/#4.
In # 2, I actually explained in my own words (not "google") why we know it IS AGW this time
That was beyond anything you could ever do and it shut up/down forever.

All the rest is empty Mouthing
You were absolutely CRUSHED on all 4 of YOUR numbers.

What at a complete @ss kicking.
You were totally GUTTED on YOUR numbered points "1, 2, 3, 4" never to be seen again.

1. Miami and the military
Miami is a lost for you, Miami
is not flooded nor under
water.

The military, you posted an
Article about heat stress?
Nothing that we discussed

Further the article is not
Science, it is a woman
using her family as
credentials.

"My family is no stranger to the Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, more than 20 family members have served in the military, including my four brothers"

You fail Abu dabba do

 

[bripat9643]

Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.

You mean the hacks who are all on the government payroll?

 

[abu afak]

1. Miami and the military
Miami is a lost for you, Miami
is not flooded nor under
water.

The military, you posted an
Article about heat stress?
Nothing that we discussed

Further the article is not
Science, it is a woman
using her family as
credentials.

"My family is no stranger to the Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, more than 20 family members have served in the military, including my four brothers"

You fail Abu dabba do

Because Miami is not "under water" doesn't mean "I lost" you ldlot.
All I had to and did show was that they (and other East Coast Cities).. AND the Military ARE dealing with Rising Sea Levels.

You LOST COMPLETELY. ( Your #1)

Which is ''better' than you did on the other 3 YOU numbered and were Refuted on, which were totally ignored and dropped. (YOUR #2, #3, #4)

You got Slaughtered you DISHONEST POS and can't own up
Now/again you're just last wording due to your 12 yr old ego.
You lost.

`

 

[elektra]

LOL.

On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.

So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"

On the Military?

You posted an Article about heat stress? Nothing to do with sea level rising.

You can't win the first argument you make, which is thee most important.

Rant and rave, abu dabba do

 

[elektra]

Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

Hahaha, you lost with your navy heat stress bullshit. You lost not understanding Miami is sinking and always flooded. You also lose when you claim the sea level will rise 6 feet 100 years from now.

Now you think you can claim to know what all the scientist think?

All the scientists were never asked about if they believe in AGW. The idea that most scientists believe is the opinion of 3 or 4 researches who dictated the scientists believe without asking. The researches based their opinion of what others thought based on papers published according to their guidelines and criteria.

No scientist were asked, and only a small percentage of the overall papers were reviewed.

Opinion of a few, stating what the majority thinks, based on what questions applied to some papers is not a consensus.

Abu dabba do, you lose again

 

[elektra]

Because Miami is not "under water" doesn't mean "I lost" you ldlot.
All I had to and did show was that they (and other East Coast Cities).. AND the Military ARE dealing with Rising Sea Levels.

You LOST COMPLETELY. ( Your #1)

Which is ''better' than you did on the other 3 YOU numbered and were Refuted on, which were totally ignored and dropped. (YOUR #2, #3, #4)

You got Slaughtered you DISHONEST POS and can't own up
Now/again you're just last wording due to your 12 yr old ego.
You lost.

Nothing is ignored. You lost on Miami and the military, you are arguing the are dealing with sea level rise when Miami is dealing with a costal city, built below the high tide mark.

The navy, according to your link was dealing with heat stress, unrelated to the sea.

Your second link says the navy is worried about the future, based on worst case scenarios. The navy is not addressing sea level that risen. The navy has taken no physical action, reparing damage or preparing for the future.

A navy report you have not read, about the future, does not prove yesterday's predictions of today are true, when we can see those predictions did not come true.

You want to play a guessing game about the future?

You are a joke.

 

[elektra]

Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.

Proven is that 99% of scientist were never asked. It was always the opinion of researches as to what these people think.

If you like, prove your opinion, we will all laugh as you fail.

Go ahead, you will have to post a study done by researchers, because that is all that exists. These scientists were never asked.

 

[abu afak]

Proven is that 99% of scientist were never asked. It was always the opinion of researches as to what these people think.

If you like, prove your opinion, we will all laugh as you fail.

Go ahead, you will have to post a study done by researchers, because that is all that exists. These scientists were never asked.

Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
He Lost ALL OF THEM.

Let's add a few more he's moved on to.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[.......]

Opposing (the AGW consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]


In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[138] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[139][140][141][142]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[143] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[144]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[145]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[146]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[147] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[148] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[149]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[151] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[154]
[...........]
[...........]

SQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

 

[elektra]

Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
He Lost ALL OF THEM.

Let's add a few more he's moved on to.

] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers

reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers

54,195 articles In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers

I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address point 2, and Abu dabba do, dies not recognize or remember what his/her second point was?

2. The scientific consensus. You made the claim, you posted an opinion piece that only shows the scientists were never asked what their opinion is. Researches looked at abstracts of papers, papers we are not able to read. Based on what criteria did the researchers come to their opinion of what others think?

Post the studies, opinions of what studies say is much different and obscures the truth.

A study, not the abstract.

Nobody asked all, half, or a tenth of the scientists if the believe.

I want to see the questions the researchers applied to the abstracts.

You made the claim, prove it. Your link to an OP means you have zero facts.

 

[jc456]

• Sea Level Rise projections​

  
  For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.
  Miami-Dade County's 3-D sea level rise viewer allows planners and residents to view buildings that could be affected by one foot to six feet of sea level rise.
• Sea Level Rise and Flooding

and that means what to the post you responded to?

 

[jc456]

LOL And you continue to post silly lies. Here are the facts concerning utilities and VPP's. Very encouraging, one can be both a consumer and producer.

Account Suspended

it's just not true. Just isn't. you continue to post bullshit as fact. shame on you!