Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

[Old Rocks]

@ abu afk

Old Crock, your link had nothing to do with what you stated, in which I replied to.

You really are that fucking stupid. Yes, that article has everything to do with VPP's.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Nuclear is the least affordable option to decarburization.

Isn't solar nuclear?

What about the UNECE report that Nuclear is the lowest carbon electricity source

UN finds nuclear is the lowest carbon electricity source - Nuclear Industry Association

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has found that nuclear has the: Lowest lifecycle carbon of all technologies Lowest land use of all low-carbon technologies Lowest mining and … Continued

www.niauk.org

 

[jc456]

Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.

you really didn't write that with a straight face did you?

boats in the Northwest Passage has always occurred. YOu're really confused. Name an actual prediction.

 

[Old Rocks]

Post the facts, just because you or someone else says so, it is true?

You won't be able to post the study, if you come close missing from the study will be the questions and or parameters the "researchers" applied to an article or abstract of a paper.

What you post may be called a study but it will be missing all the crucial data that was used.

Hell, you can not even begin to tell us how many scientists there are in the world.

99%, your claim, prove it, and a Google linked article dictating it so is not proof.

Post the study with all the data and papers used.

Damn, but you are one stupid asshole even to make that challenge. Your depth of ignorance is truly abysmal. So, here we go;

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True​

James Lawrence Powell
First Published March 28, 2016 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616634958

Article information

Abstract​

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

Abstract​

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[Old Rocks]

you really didn't write that with a straight face did you?

boats in the Northwest Passage has always occurred. YOu're really confused. Name an actual prediction.

Not at all. When replying to such a stupid little troll as you, you cannot help but laugh at the depths of stupidity displayed. Wind and solar are at present, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, over 90% of new generation installed in the US. No, dumb ass, the first historical transit of the Northwest Passage was in 1903, in a beefed up herring fishing boat, and it took three years. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise liner transitied the passage in less than 30 days.

 

[jc456]

Not at all. When replying to such a stupid little troll as you, you cannot help but laugh at the depths of stupidity displayed. Wind and solar are at present, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, over 90% of new generation installed in the US. No, dumb ass, the first historical transit of the Northwest Passage was in 1903, in a beefed up herring fishing boat, and it took three years. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise liner transitied the passage in less than 30 days.

you think boats never traversed the Northwest Passage in the past. too fking funny. Again, you have to be smiling when you write.

You know there were vikings on Greenland with trees, right?

A Brief History of Greenland - Local Histories

By Tim Lambert The Inuit in Greenland The first inhabitants of Greenland were the Inuit. They lived in Greenland for long periods but there were also times when Greenland was uninhabited. The first people to live in Greenland were the Saqqaq people from about 2,500 BC to 900 BC. Greenland was...

localhistories.org

 

[BlackSand]

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.
`

.

"We spent twice as much to bring you energy that's going to cost you a whole lot more."

.​

 

[abu afak]

.

"We spent twice as much to bring you energy that's going to cost you a whole lot more."

.​

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

 

[elektra]

Damn, but you are one stupid asshole even to make that challenge. Your depth of ignorance is truly abysmal. So, here we go;

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True​

James Lawrence Powell
First Published March 28, 2016 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616634958

Article information

Abstract​

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

Abstract​

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

As I stated, you will not produce the complete study

An abstract tells us nothing.

The first thing to note is the abstract does not state that any scientist was consulted.

It is the author's opinion according to a set of parameters applied to articles.

Partisan opinion of an author is not a consensus of scientist

 

[elektra]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

This is already shown to be not what you think it is.

You have not read the document.

 

[BlackSand]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
www.carbonbrief.org

""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

.

I didn't say it cost a lot to produce.
I said it costs a lot to install and maintain and the end user's energy cost will go up forever.

You needn't try to argue because they already did it here.
I know what my bill was before, versus what it is now.

I am not even going to talk about the fact that the majority energy is produced two states away, which makes it unreliable.
But no worries ... I installed a whole house generator that runs off natural gas, for when the power company cannot hold up their end of our agreement.

.​

 

[bripat9643]

Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.

What predictions are those? I'm not aware of any that turned out to be accurate. The so-called "Northwest Passage" is icebound 90% of the time. No one is using it to ship freight. The claim that weather events are supposedly more extreme has been shown to be false time after time after time. Please demonstrate they are any more common or more extreme than in years past.

 

[abu afak]

.

I didn't say it cost a lot to produce.
I said it costs a lot to install and maintain and the end user's energy cost will go up forever.

You needn't try to argue because they already did it here.
I know what my bill was before, versus what it is now.

I am not even going to talk about the fact that the majority energy is produced two states away, which makes it unreliable.
But no worries ... I installed a whole house generator that runs off natural gas, for when the power company cannot hold up their end of our agreement.

.​

No.
First we are talking about Solar Plants in this case..
But even with home owners start to save the first day after installation and forever thereafter.
Monthly utility bills (Burning O&G forever) will obviously cost more than solar panels which only occasionally need a tweak.
Many people have posted their yearly savings, and can sell back days of excess to utilities.
`

 

[BlackSand]

No.
First we are talking about Solar Plants in this case..
But even with home owners start to save the first day after installation and forever thereafter.
Monthly utility bills (Burning O&G forever) will obviously cost more than solar panels which only occasionally need a tweak.
Many people have posted their yearly savings, and can sell back days of excess to utilities.
`

.

You are lying ... It costs more now than it did before.

You are also trying to compare individuals investing in their own solar panels, versus power companies.
If you make the topic about 297 billion invested in Green Energy ... You are no longer talking about someone putting solar panels on their roof.

Your inability to grasp how flawed your approach is, only expresses more reason to ignore whatever you have to offer ...

.​

 

[abu afak]

.

You are lying ... It costs more now than it did before.

You are also trying to compare individuals investing in their own solar panels, versus power companies.
If you make the topic about 297 billion invested in Green Energy ... You are no longer talking about someone putting Solar panels on their roof ...

.​

"I am lying"?
I have posted many links backing my position
You have posted NONE.

Put up or shut up you empty RW bag of shlt.

`

 

[BlackSand]

"I am lying"?
I have posted many links backing my position
You have posted NONE.

Put up or shut up you empty RW bag of shlt.

`

.

That's certainly not a compelling argument when I have clearly expressed how you don't even understand what you have posted.

.​

 

[abu afak]

.

That's certainly not a compelling argument when I have clearly expressed how you don't even understand what you have posted.

.​

Maybe you should learn how debate works
It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
When that happens one has to go to the links.
I did.
While you just sit on your empty opinion. "No."
Put up or shut up 12 IQ guy.
`

 

[jc456]

Maybe you should learn how debate works
It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
When that happens one has to go to the links.
I did.
While you just sit on your empty opinion. "No."
Put up or shut up 12 IQ guy.
`

Post something factual then

 

[elektra]

"I am lying"?
I have posted many links backing my position
You have posted NONE.

Put up or shut up you empty RW bag of shlt.

`

a link does not prove you are right, you have not read those links, they state the opposite of what you believe

 

[BlackSand]

Maybe you should learn how debate works
It can't just be "Yes-No-Yes"
When that happens one has to go to the links.
I did.
While you just sit on your empty opinion. "No."
Put up or shut up 12 IQ guy.
`

.

It's obvious you don't know how.

Here's a link to where they re-define Green Energy to include Nuclear and Natural Gas,
because their bullshit kept coming home to roost.

.​