Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

[Billy_Bob]

and how much power does each "investment" produce?

All these stupid/fallacious Strawmen.
How many Pits in a watermelon?
You ******* Moron troll.
`

I take it that facCanadat is inconvenient

With the US, EU, Britain, Germany, Australia, and many others ending subsidies, those 'profitability' margins are about to go into the toilet..

 

[skookerasbil]

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 %?

Progressives are master's of the art of conveying fakery with statistics as your post astutely points out.

"Growth" statistics....always the fake play by progressives and accepted only by suckers and the uninformed. When the progressive argument has to answer the question, "As compared to what?"....it free falls like a stone in water.

Boob job analogy is necessary here and highly instructive....

So a woman goes for a boob job to get bigger boobs. Increases her boob size 100%. Impressive as hell huh? Who ca nt wait to see those boobs . Except s0ns if she was flat chested to begin with.. Might be highlighted in the profile narrative but not in the photos.. She might be winning a boob contest with progressive men but nobody else!!!!!

Accordingly, with renewable energy once you take a closer look you are thoroughly unimpressed. When put in perspective right next to fossil fuels renewable energy is a total joke. Despite the lofty statistics put forth by progressive frauds, a comparative look at any graph of fossil fuel used for energy versus renewable energy is like standing the A cup boob job woman next to Kim Kardashian.

Don't take my word for it....go take a gander over the the EIA government website and check the Obama administration energy projections from 2016 ( released about a year ago ). See where renewable energy will be in 2040 compared to coal, oil and natural gas!!

I've posted up the graph more times and I can remember. Will post it up by request only I'm too damn tired and getting tired of all the winning in here!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Throw enough mandates and subsidies at something, people will waste lots of money on it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm so confused right now.

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

~S~

Try?

~S~

Those are all nothing but glib "predictions." I could "predict" that unicorns will someday roam the earth and Skittles will spew from their butts, but I'd be wrong too.

Name plate maximum generating capacity....

He has no clue that value is decreased by actually functioning systems. 14-24% of name plate is average, which has been hovering around 17% at any given time for systems total.

All you need to do is ask the Brits how their wind production is going... The last month has seen a 20% drop in wind velocity rendering their whole system inoperative and they don't have a clue why the winds have diminished..(most likely due to cold AMO and decreased solar output). Just be glad it isn't winter time..

 

[Old Rocks]

Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.

Anyone remember the billions of dollars of taxpayer's money Obama "invested" in bogus "green energy" and solar companies, only to see them go tits up?

I do.

Obama Legacy: List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies: Losses in the Billions for Taxpayers. None Succeeded.

And you are a liar.

The U.S. Government Has Invested $34 Billion in Renewable Energy—and It’s Making a Profit

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?

It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.







As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.

The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.

 

[Old Rocks]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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.

Well, stupid people are easily confused.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

The U.S. set a new renewable energy milestone in March, in data released Wednesday. For the first time, wind and solar accounted for 10 percent of all electricity generation, with wind comprising 8 percent and solar coming in at 2 percent.

The report was published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration(EIA), which collects and disseminates environmental data that is used to inform policymakers.

Wind and solar generation typically peaks in the spring and fall when there is less energy demand, and the EIA expects April to continue the record-setting 10 percent trend. That 10 percent mark is expected to slip in summer months, but 2016 saw an overall growth in renewables.

 

[Old Rocks]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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 should be.

More than 94% of net new electricity capacity in the USA from renewables in 2017 – emissions down 1%

In 2017, the United States built about 28.5GW of electricity generating infrastructure – 25GW of it utility-scale and about 3.5GW of distributed (<1MW) solar power. Wind and solar were 55.4% of the 28.5GW overall total, and about 49.2% of the utility-scale total (>1MW).

When subtracting the 11.8GW of utility-scale fossil retirements tracked by the EIA, the net new volume of US generation was 16.7GW of generating capacity, with 94.7% of that coming from renewables.

Along with this positive news, are projections that in 2017 the USA lowered its total CO2 emissions by approximately 1% versus 2016’s total. This number is lesser than the years from 2005-2016 when we saw emissions fall an average of 1.6%.

The EIA measures all solar power generation capacity in AC values.

 

[Old Rocks]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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.

Here is some more confusion for your poor little room tempreture IQ;

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.

 

[Old Rocks]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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.

18% of electrical generation by renewables in 2017, more this year, and even more next year. And then there are those that put adequate solar on their roof, with battery storage, and power their vehicle and home themselves.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Deleting 7 posts. All 100% personal noise and flaming. This has to be done ON the TOPIC. Warnings/bans for those that continue to get personal.. If you got a deletion alert -- consider yourself warned. This thread will be monitored..

 

[flacaltenn]

Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.

Anyone remember the billions of dollars of taxpayer's money Obama "invested" in bogus "green energy" and solar companies, only to see them go tits up?

I do.

Obama Legacy: List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies: Losses in the Billions for Taxpayers. None Succeeded.

And you are a liar.

The U.S. Government Has Invested $34 Billion in Renewable Energy—and It’s Making a Profit

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?

It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.







As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.

The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.

$30Mill on $30Bill? OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses? Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL The Dept. of Energy goal is not a profit, but the development of new sources of energy, so they did, indeed, achieve their goal. 18% of the electrical energy produced in the US coming from renewables in 2017 is proof of that success.

 

[flacaltenn]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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.

Here is some more confusion for your poor little room tempreture IQ;

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.

Not hard to do when you're counting the legacy giant contribution of ancient hydro. Which always was about 12% of the grid supply.. Whooptie.... Then you have the issue of surveys like this quoting PLACARD capacities. Which are NEVER reached in operation and amount to a 1/3 of the exaggerated numbers.

Problem is --- you're not obsoleting ANYTHING from the mix. Since it goes dark at night and dim in the mornings/evenings and wet occasionally -- you STILL NEED EVERYTHING YOU HAD BEFORE. In fact, a lot of fossil plants idle or run at low output even WHEN solar is supplying it's 8 hours a day or less. You CAN NOT JUNK them. And they become pyhririas as you drain their profit. So people would eventually literally DIE if you went further than an HONEST 12% or 15% from solar.

Won't even DISCUSS wind. It's the Dutch Tulip bubble of the 21st century all over again..

 

[abu afak]

$30Mill on $30Bill? OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses? Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..

BS.
There was a famous Bankruptcy of a Govt subsidized co because the Smart Chinese were targeting that industry. They also put the largest German Solar co out.

Does this look like "death" to you?
looks more like an Obama EXPLOSION to me.

Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia

GAME OVER.
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Investment is just spending money, and doesn't necessarily mean you'll see a profit from investing.

Anyone remember the billions of dollars of taxpayer's money Obama "invested" in bogus "green energy" and solar companies, only to see them go tits up?

I do.

Obama Legacy: List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies: Losses in the Billions for Taxpayers. None Succeeded.

And you are a liar.

The U.S. Government Has Invested $34 Billion in Renewable Energy—and It’s Making a Profit

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?

It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.







As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.

The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.

Making a profit my ass...

Let me know when they start paying for the spin up reserve that must operate 24/7/365..

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..

 

[flacaltenn]

$30Mill on $30Bill? OK --- not bragging material. How'd they hide all the losses? Because AMERICAN solar died a pretty horrible death under the OBama Admin..

BS.
There was a famous Bankruptcy of a Govt subsidized co because the Smart Chinese were targeting that industry. They also put the largest German Solar co out.

Does this look like "death" to you?
looks more like an Obama EXPLOSION to me.

GAME OVER.
`

Nope.. Chart over. Data ends in 2012 or so. You're missing 6 years.. For starters.

A lot of subsidies have come off since then.. The old internet never purges it's shit..

Check the stock quote above.. That's the REAL investment marker... Not how much chinese junk gets subsidized by stupid ass bureaucrats...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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:

anecdote fallacy - Google Search
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 should be.

More than 94% of net new electricity capacity in the USA from renewables in 2017 – emissions down 1%

In 2017, the United States built about 28.5GW of electricity generating infrastructure – 25GW of it utility-scale and about 3.5GW of distributed (<1MW) solar power. Wind and solar were 55.4% of the 28.5GW overall total, and about 49.2% of the utility-scale total (>1MW).

When subtracting the 11.8GW of utility-scale fossil retirements tracked by the EIA, the net new volume of US generation was 16.7GW of generating capacity, with 94.7% of that coming from renewables.

Along with this positive news, are projections that in 2017 the USA lowered its total CO2 emissions by approximately 1% versus 2016’s total. This number is lesser than the years from 2005-2016 when we saw emissions fall an average of 1.6%.

The EIA measures all solar power generation capacity in AC values.

Emissions are down because of retrofitted plants to CNG... not due to wind and solar.... Read your own damn link!

 

[abu afak]

Gee.. Time for a stock market update on Solar ETFunds boys and girls..

1. I made an ASS out of you and your claim showing EXLOSION of Solar from 2008-2012.

2. "Solar ETF Funds" (LOFL) ONLY SHOWS THE CHINESE TARGETING I NOTED.. and Increased Competition/PRODUCTION

DISHONEST GRAPH
RESIGN YOUR POST

3. Here is thru 2016
WIND AND SOLAR as per the OP

Game Over 2

And you are a DISHONEST MFer.
Who didn't post output but a deflecting graph.

You are NOT smart enuf to debate me.

 

[Jroc]

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.
`

its called government mandates and regulations... that gap will narrow with the Trump presidency for 8 years