$36 Trillion for Clean Energy, IEA reports.

[Billy_Bob]

According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years. Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts. In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.

Yet it cost so much, will cost trillions more. Solar destroys the Earth, 10 fold increase in 5 years, and its in it's infancy.

Never have we spent so much, destroyed so much, and had so little in return.

how so does solar destr0ys the earth? its utter n0n-sense. its a faulty claim.

by saying trillions, in the value of what?

It kills the land it covers, no plants, no rabbits, or turtles, miles of mirrors even attract birds, disrupting their migration. The earth also absorbs heat, not anymore, that is reflected back into the atmosphere further raising the temperature. Solar needs millions of gallons of water, which in this Mega - Drought er are suffering through is another extreme burden on the environment.

Yes 36 trillion is a lot, I have seen estimates as high as 67 trillion, and more if we include the infrastructure for millions and millions of charging stations.

Trillions of dollars will be spent on increasing oil production so that we can manufacture miles upon miles of solar, we will increase oil production to produce the toxic chemicals to build 40 story tall wind mills. Millions of them.

Every small town in America must build skyscrapers, 40 stories tall, in the form of a wind mill.

Build, build, build, the biggest heavy industry in the world spending the most money in the shortest time the world has ever seen.

Solar and wind are failing in europe, across the usa, so the government is doubling down.

Trillions of dollars is at risk.

Greed and power, the clean energy?

Another long and b0ring rhetoric. How so can the solar kills the land it c0vers? Is there a conclusive study about this? Or you are just making this statement out of your own opinion in 0rder t0 say s0mething against s0lar energy.

I could not see why reflecting the heat into the atmosphere would further raise the temperature. Its suppose to cool down since the heat is not abs0rbed rather reflected back int0 the upper atmosphere towards space.

I also do not see milli0ns 0f gall0ns 0f water needed in 0rder f0r the s0lar plant facility to functi0n.

Producti0n, producti0n and producti0n...cann0t be attributed al0ne t0 the pr0ducti0n 0f s0lar panels al0ne. F0r n0w 0f course we are reliant on oil. It must n0t c0ntinue at all indefinitely. We must at s0me point st0p 0ur reliance on such source 0f energy because its finite.

SO tell me, How are these Liquid Salt Reactors (which all the mirrors are aimed at) going to generate steam for power generation?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, since the majority of the solar plants going in are PV, doesn't look to me to be a problem.

 

[elektra]

According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years. Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts. In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.

Yet it cost so much, will cost trillions more. Solar destroys the Earth, 10 fold increase in 5 years, and its in it's infancy.

Never have we spent so much, destroyed so much, and had so little in return.

how so does solar destr0ys the earth? its utter n0n-sense. its a faulty claim.

by saying trillions, in the value of what?

It kills the land it covers, no plants, no rabbits, or turtles, miles of mirrors even attract birds, disrupting their migration. The earth also absorbs heat, not anymore, that is reflected back into the atmosphere further raising the temperature. Solar needs millions of gallons of water, which in this Mega - Drought er are suffering through is another extreme burden on the environment.

Yes 36 trillion is a lot, I have seen estimates as high as 67 trillion, and more if we include the infrastructure for millions and millions of charging stations.

Trillions of dollars will be spent on increasing oil production so that we can manufacture miles upon miles of solar, we will increase oil production to produce the toxic chemicals to build 40 story tall wind mills. Millions of them.

Every small town in America must build skyscrapers, 40 stories tall, in the form of a wind mill.

Build, build, build, the biggest heavy industry in the world spending the most money in the shortest time the world has ever seen.

Solar and wind are failing in europe, across the usa, so the government is doubling down.

Trillions of dollars is at risk.

Greed and power, the clean energy?

Another long and b0ring rhetoric. How so can the solar kills the land it c0vers? Is there a conclusive study about this? Or you are just making this statement out of your own opinion in 0rder t0 say s0mething against s0lar energy.

I could not see why reflecting the heat into the atmosphere would further raise the temperature. Its suppose to cool down since the heat is not abs0rbed rather reflected back int0 the upper atmosphere towards space.

I also do not see milli0ns 0f gall0ns 0f water needed in 0rder f0r the s0lar plant facility to functi0n.

Producti0n, producti0n and producti0n...cann0t be attributed al0ne t0 the pr0ducti0n 0f s0lar panels al0ne. F0r n0w 0f course we are reliant on oil. It must n0t c0ntinue at all indefinitely. We must at s0me point st0p 0ur reliance on such source 0f energy because its finite.

According to your AGW theory, that reflected heat would get trapped by the CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

Get the science right, silly girl. The heat that is trapped is not reflected sunlight, it is energy obsorbed by the earth and re-emitted as longwave infrared.

 

[elektra]

Get the science right, silly girl. The heat that is trapped is not reflected sunlight, it is energy obsorbed by the earth and re-emitted as longwave infrared.

What is "obsorbed"?

Sunlight consists of "longwave infrared". Idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to your link the total electricity supply by solar power sources increased 10 fold in 5 years. Solar power generation is in it's infancy. 10 years ago Solar Photovoltaic generation was producing only 6 thousand megawatts. In 2014 it had increased to over 15 million.

Yet it cost so much, will cost trillions more. Solar destroys the Earth, 10 fold increase in 5 years, and its in it's infancy.

Never have we spent so much, destroyed so much, and had so little in return.

how so does solar destr0ys the earth? its utter n0n-sense. its a faulty claim.

by saying trillions, in the value of what?

It kills the land it covers, no plants, no rabbits, or turtles, miles of mirrors even attract birds, disrupting their migration. The earth also absorbs heat, not anymore, that is reflected back into the atmosphere further raising the temperature. Solar needs millions of gallons of water, which in this Mega - Drought er are suffering through is another extreme burden on the environment.

Yes 36 trillion is a lot, I have seen estimates as high as 67 trillion, and more if we include the infrastructure for millions and millions of charging stations.

Trillions of dollars will be spent on increasing oil production so that we can manufacture miles upon miles of solar, we will increase oil production to produce the toxic chemicals to build 40 story tall wind mills. Millions of them.

Every small town in America must build skyscrapers, 40 stories tall, in the form of a wind mill.

Build, build, build, the biggest heavy industry in the world spending the most money in the shortest time the world has ever seen.

Solar and wind are failing in europe, across the usa, so the government is doubling down.

Trillions of dollars is at risk.

Greed and power, the clean energy?

Another long and b0ring rhetoric. How so can the solar kills the land it c0vers? Is there a conclusive study about this? Or you are just making this statement out of your own opinion in 0rder t0 say s0mething against s0lar energy.

I could not see why reflecting the heat into the atmosphere would further raise the temperature. Its suppose to cool down since the heat is not abs0rbed rather reflected back int0 the upper atmosphere towards space.

I also do not see milli0ns 0f gall0ns 0f water needed in 0rder f0r the s0lar plant facility to functi0n.

Producti0n, producti0n and producti0n...cann0t be attributed al0ne t0 the pr0ducti0n 0f s0lar panels al0ne. F0r n0w 0f course we are reliant on oil. It must n0t c0ntinue at all indefinitely. We must at s0me point st0p 0ur reliance on such source 0f energy because its finite.

According to your AGW theory, that reflected heat would get trapped by the CO2?

He doesn't even understand his own religious dogma. He has no ability to understand simply black-body radiation or how it is absorbed and then re-emitted or reflected by CO2.

 

[bripat9643]

The World GDP is 67 Trillion. The IEA just wants to bankrupt everyone.

It's not a ONE YEAR investment.

These right wingers. Are they pretending to be stupid? Or is it for real?

Pissing money down the toilet is not an "investment."

 

[bripat9643]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.

Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!

 

[ScienceRocks]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.

Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!

And 90% of it will be done by the home owner or private utilities. Either way they will have a choice to either go solar or coal. I bet solar wins!

 

[bripat9643]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.

Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!

And 90% of it will be done by the home owner or private utilities. Either way they will have a choice to either go solar or coal. I bet solar wins!

Only if the government subsidizes it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Great deal for the taxpayers.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.

 

[elektra]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.

Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!

And 90% of it will be done by the home owner or private utilities. Either way they will have a choice to either go solar or coal. I bet solar wins!

Solar increases the use if coal, you need coal to make solar panels. Coal consumption goes up, cial wins.

The public loses, a $36 trillion dollar loss.

 

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.

The investment banks make the loans, $36 trillion worth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

Read the link. That's $36 trillion over the next 35 years (an average of 1 trillion a year) spread over all developed nations.

Oh, well, in that case it's a bargain!

NOT!

And 90% of it will be done by the home owner or private utilities. Either way they will have a choice to either go solar or coal. I bet solar wins!

Right up until it snows and they are without heat, lights. water, etc...... and they realize they have been scammed..

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Pattycake, solar, before President Obama's second term is ended, will be cheaper than dirty coal. And the utilities will be installing solar and wind on the basis of economics. With or without subsidies. Cut out the depletion allowance of coal, a subsidy, and solar is already cheaper than coal.

The NY Slimes lies again... love the propaganda they are spewing..

Even the IEA admits that solar is above 22.3 cents per kilowatt hour..

 

[Old Rocks]

LInk, asshole, link!

 

[elektra]

LInk, asshole, link!

Quote the post, asshole, Quote the post!

Hypocrite.

 

[elektra]

36 trillion dollars, just saying the price has gone up, this an old thread.

 

[elektra]

Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.

 

[Old Rocks]

IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012

IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The International Energy Agency said the world's clean energyinvestments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.

In a sharply-worded introduction to a 700-page report, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said governments and private industry need to do far more if the world is to hold global warming to what most scientists say is an acceptable level.


"Our ongoing failure to realize the full potential of clean energy technology is alarming," said van der Hoeven. "Under current policies, both energy demand and emissions are likely to double by 2050."

The IEA consists of mostly industrialized nations and was set up in the early 1970s to counterbalance OPEC. It conducts energy market research and helps coordinate releases from strategic oil stockpiles.

Thought most scientists were saying we already passed the tipping point where we coulda prevented our own demise from climate change?

No, that is not what is being said by the climate scientists at all. What they are saying is that we have passed the point where we will have to deal with the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. How severe will those effects be? We don't know, but we are already seeing effects in the fires in our forests and many other effects, also.