Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?
non sequitur.
(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

MarketWatch.com
"... Peter McNally, global lead for industrials, materials and energy at research firm Third Bridge, says aggressive investment by utilities in renewable energy has lowered the cost of clean tech and showed it was viable at scale. Just as utilities invested in natural gas 20 years ago at the expense of coal, they are now doing the same with alternative energy.

“Clean-tech businesses are starting to stand on their own, and I think they got a big boost from the utilities,” he says.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows as of 2019, 18% of the U.S.’s electricity generation came from alternative energy, versus 10% in 2009...."
- - -
Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.

(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

Exxon Mobil has a market cap of over $140 billion.
How many "green" energy stocks are that large?

Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.

That is awesome!!!
Your welcome.

neither you nor 99% of the country knows that, and knows how far Exxon/Oil has fallen.

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.
`
 
What does "outshining" mean? Is it a poor attempt at a pun? I guess "outshining" in this context means outspending. Since fossil energy is already in place it's a no brainer that more money would be spent trying to get new wind and sun energy sources on line when they produce barely 18% of energy on a good day.
 
How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?
non sequitur.
(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

MarketWatch.com
"... Peter McNally, global lead for industrials, materials and energy at research firm Third Bridge, says aggressive investment by utilities in renewable energy has lowered the cost of clean tech and showed it was viable at scale. Just as utilities invested in natural gas 20 years ago at the expense of coal, they are now doing the same with alternative energy.

“Clean-tech businesses are starting to stand on their own, and I think they got a big boost from the utilities,” he says.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows as of 2019, 18% of the U.S.’s electricity generation came from alternative energy, versus 10% in 2009...."
- - -
Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.

(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

Exxon Mobil has a market cap of over $140 billion.
How many "green" energy stocks are that large?

Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.

That is awesome!!!
Your welcome.

neither you nor 99% of the country knows that, and knows how far Exxon/Oil has fallen.

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.
`

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.

Yeah, refuting your ignorant claim with the real numbers.....non sequitur. Hilarious!!!

It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.

And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"? Moron.
 
How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?
non sequitur.
(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

MarketWatch.com
"... Peter McNally, global lead for industrials, materials and energy at research firm Third Bridge, says aggressive investment by utilities in renewable energy has lowered the cost of clean tech and showed it was viable at scale. Just as utilities invested in natural gas 20 years ago at the expense of coal, they are now doing the same with alternative energy.

“Clean-tech businesses are starting to stand on their own, and I think they got a big boost from the utilities,” he says.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows as of 2019, 18% of the U.S.’s electricity generation came from alternative energy, versus 10% in 2009...."
- - -
Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.

(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

Exxon Mobil has a market cap of over $140 billion.
How many "green" energy stocks are that large?

Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.

That is awesome!!!
Your welcome.

neither you nor 99% of the country knows that, and knows how far Exxon/Oil has fallen.

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.
`

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.

Yeah, refuting your ignorant claim with the real numbers.....non sequitur. Hilarious!!!

It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.

And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"? Moron.
One ONE Point, by about 15% is ALL you have.
The rest of this thread..
and Everything from overall pwer Generation Spending to sinking Exxon.
has becoming TRUER Every day.
Only exacerbated by COVID.

Not to mention the OTHER TWO Threads I bumped up.
You couldn't do SHIT.

You suck and you LOSE BIG OVERALL.

You are and always were a cheap 2c little heel-nipping Shit who can't do anything.
The opening non sequitur 100% Typical.

`

`
`

`
 
How many "green" energy stocks in the Dow?
non sequitur.
(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

MarketWatch.com
"... Peter McNally, global lead for industrials, materials and energy at research firm Third Bridge, says aggressive investment by utilities in renewable energy has lowered the cost of clean tech and showed it was viable at scale. Just as utilities invested in natural gas 20 years ago at the expense of coal, they are now doing the same with alternative energy.

“Clean-tech businesses are starting to stand on their own, and I think they got a big boost from the utilities,” he says.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows as of 2019, 18% of the U.S.’s electricity generation came from alternative energy, versus 10% in 2009...."
- - -
Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.

(and you didn't answer the collapse of Fossil Fuel cos.)

Exxon Mobil has a market cap of over $140 billion.
How many "green" energy stocks are that large?

Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.

That is awesome!!!
Your welcome.

neither you nor 99% of the country knows that, and knows how far Exxon/Oil has fallen.

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.
`

Your question remains the usual baiting, harassing non sequitur.

Yeah, refuting your ignorant claim with the real numbers.....non sequitur. Hilarious!!!

It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.

And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"? Moron.
One ONE Point, by about 15% is ALL you have.
The rest of this thread..
and Everything from overall pwer Generation Spending to sinking Exxon.
has becoming TRUER Every day.
Only exacerbated by COVID.

Not to mention the OTHER TWO Threads I bumped up.
You couldn't do SHIT.

You suck and you LOSE BIG OVERALL.

You are and always were a cheap 2c little heel-nipping Shit who can't do anything.
The opening non sequitur 100% Typical.

`

`
`

`

One ONE Point, by about 15% is ALL you have.

So, by most you meant 50%? LOL!

Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?
 
Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?
Again, that's irrelevant to the much younger Growing Renewable industry (and power gen share) and the Sinking Oil industry which it hasn't passed yet of course.

You're so Stupid and/or more likely DISHONEST with this false challenges.
I don't have to show a larger cap SINGLE Renewable co, and indeed renewables are just parts of many large companies.


Your not nearly smart enough to make me bite on that FALLACIOUS BS As it does not dent my point

Now it's back to Mensa for me, and back to the 24-pack for you junior.

If/WHEN you 'reply' it's just Bump meat for me.
Probably when this drifts further down I'll just USE you again to Bump this headline up.
You're my Bitch.
See you in a few days or week.
Now pull your pants back up Boy, I'm done with you for now.

`
`
 
Any other "green" companies with Exxon's market cap?
Again, that's irrelevant to the much younger Growing Renewable industry (and power gen share) and the Sinking Oil industry which it hasn't passed yet of course.

You're so Stupid and/or more likely DISHONEST with this false challenges.
I don't have to show a larger cap SINGLE Renewable co, and indeed renewables are just parts of many large companies.


Your not nearly smart enough to make me bite on that FALLACIOUS BS As it does not dent my point

Now it's back to Mensa for me, and back to the 24-pack for you junior.

If/WHEN you 'reply' it's just Bump meat for me.
Probably when this drifts further down I'll just USE you again to Bump this headline up.
You're my Bitch.
See you in a few days or week.
Now pull your pants back up Boy, I'm done with you for now.

`
`

Again, that's irrelevant to the much younger Growing Renewable industry

Yeah, electricity generation.....young.

I don't have to show a larger cap SINGLE Renewable co, and indeed renewables are just parts of many large companies.

Yeah, 35%. LOL!

Now it's back to Mensa for me

Aww....aren't you cute?

If/WHEN you 'reply' it's just Bump meat for me.

I love bumping your idiocy.
 
renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies
Only top the extent Fossil Fuels dereasing shower of power generation contribute to the overall grip.
And of course, "building," is mainly an upfront NON-recurring cost. Unlike Fossil Fuel.

`
 
renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies
Only top the extent Fossil Fuels dereasing shower of power generation contribute to the overall grip.
And of course, "building," is mainly an upfront NON-recurring cost. Unlike Fossil Fuel.

`
sorry, you fail, I stated you must increase the use of coal and oil to build wind mills and solar panels. You replied citing costs, two very different things.

If you can not understand my simple comment you certainly can not understand the complicated manufacturing process which increases the use of coal and oil.

you need to focus on what is stated, we understand you memorized talking points you heard from others and that you think tjey are wild cards that wins your argument. They do not.

Cost, is so extreme it requires billions of dollars of free tax payer money given to the investors.
 
renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies
Only top the extent Fossil Fuels dereasing shower of power generation contribute to the overall grip.
And of course, "building," is mainly an upfront NON-recurring cost. Unlike Fossil Fuel.

`
sorry, you fail, I stated you must increase the use of coal and oil to build wind mills and solar panels. You replied citing costs, two very different things.

If you can not understand my simple comment you certainly can not understand the complicated manufacturing process which increases the use of coal and oil.

you need to focus on what is stated, we understand you memorized talking points you heard from others and that you think tjey are wild cards that wins your argument. They do not.

Cost, is so extreme it requires billions of dollars of free tax payer money given to the investors.

Renewables are so cheap, Germans pay triple what we do for electricity.
 
renewables are only built burning fossil fuel and using coal. Run out of either and renewables clean green dies
Only top the extent Fossil Fuels dereasing shower of power generation contribute to the overall grip.
And of course, "building," is mainly an upfront NON-recurring cost. Unlike Fossil Fuel.

`
sorry, you fail, I stated you must increase the use of coal and oil to build wind mills and solar panels. You replied citing costs, two very different things.

If you can not understand my simple comment you certainly can not understand the complicated manufacturing process which increases the use of coal and oil.

you need to focus on what is stated, we understand you memorized talking points you heard from others and that you think tjey are wild cards that wins your argument. They do not.

Cost, is so extreme it requires billions of dollars of free tax payer money given to the investors.
No they're not different things.
The COST of Renewables AND building them has come down for several reasons.

1. The fact there is a ONE TIME (mostly fossil) cost (at this time) for a Windmill (or Solar Panel) that will operate for 10 or 20 Years producing energy is academic and Irrelevant.
AND
2. Increasingly, the energy spent TO build them will come FROM those very renewables.
IOW, eventually a majority of energy used to build them will come from them too.
3. Building a Fossil Fuel Power Plant instead would use INFINITELY more.. fossil fuel! over it's DIRTY lifetime.

So your 'argument' is beyond idiotic.

`
 
Last edited:
- - -
...Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.
Someone is reading my posts or had the same good idea!
How about that.

Renewable energy giant surpasses ExxonMobil in value
Oct 8, 2020.
 
Last edited:
- - -
...Next Era Energy has about the same Market Cap as Exxon.
It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.
and the current crisis will boost clean energy yet more.
Someone is reading my posts or had the same good idea!
How about that.

Renewable energy giant surpasses ExxonMobil in value
Oct 8, 2020.

It is a mostly non Fossil fuel Renewable energy Utility co.

Ummm....at the end of 2019, their coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas units had nearly three
times the capacity as their wind and solar did.
And the non-renewables generated about 65% of total electricity.

NextEra Energy, Inc. | By the Numbers

Is that your idea of "mostly"?

Of course it is, because you're an idiot.
 
Another!

NextEra Now More Valuable Than Exxon as Clean Power Eclipses Oil
By Will Wade and Brian Eckhouse
October 7, 2020, 4:06 PM EDT
  • Exxon shares slumped more than 50% in 2020 as oil demand wanes
  • ‘People believe that renewable energy is a growth story’

NextEra Energy Inc., the world’s biggest provider of wind and solar energy, is now more valuable than oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp., once the largest public company on Earth.

NextEra ended Wednesday with market value of $145 billion, topping Exxon’s $142 billion. The oil major’s U.S. rival, Chevron Corp., also surpassed it in value for the first time.">>>"
 
NextEra ended Wednesday with market value of $145 billion, topping Exxon’s $142 billion. The oil major’s U.S. rival, Chevron Corp., also surpassed it in value for the first time.">>>"

Darn it!!!

1608150348891.png


1608150371608.png


Exxon is worth $40 billion more.........
 
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.
Not where I am living. Not one hundred percent. The lions share comes from coal or petroleum but is changing over time. Fusion is just around the corner and there is an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy. Things will change.
 
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.
Not where I am living. Not one hundred percent. The lions share comes from coal or petroleum but is changing over time. Fusion is just around the corner and there is an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy. Things will change.

Fusion is just around the corner


That's funny!!

an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy

Link?
 
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.
Not where I am living. Not one hundred percent. The lions share comes from coal or petroleum but is changing over time. Fusion is just around the corner and there is an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy. Things will change.

Fusion is just around the corner

That's funny!!

an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy

Link?
I will look for it. Can't re8where I saw but I will figure it out. Here is one on Italian fusion projects.
 
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.
Not where I am living. Not one hundred percent. The lions share comes from coal or petroleum but is changing over time. Fusion is just around the corner and there is an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy. Things will change.

Fusion is just around the corner

That's funny!!

an Italian doctor making large strides in zero point energy

Link?
There is also this going on!
 

Forum List

Back
Top